Excerpt from a 2017 talk with Werner Herzog. Herzog talks about not shooting coverage and being selective when shooting a film. He also mentions being appealed by young filmmakers who shoot too much footage. #wernerherzog
He's right about valuing people's time too. 14 hour days are insane, especially to produce something mediocre. Your crew will love you and give better work even with a 10 hour day.
In the UK the longest standard day is 11hrs, 10hrs shooting + 1hr lunch. We do not customarily do any overtime on top of this standard day. If it is required in exceptional circumstances, the line producer will normally go around the set and ask each department if they consent to working the OT, and if you are not able/do not want to for whatever reason, there is absolutely no obligation to stay and work. I did a tv drama last year where 85% or more of the schedule was composed of 9hr 'continuous' days. 9hrs shooting with a running 20min lunch break. So we did 8am-5pm. Unbelievable what it did for the work-life balance and morale of the crew, especially those with children etc. Confident directors who don't overshoot, and proper planning from all above and below the line makes it possible.
i mean if you end up with 550h of rush for a feature length film, he's not wrong, you'll have to choose and you'll never be sure if you make the right choice, rather than planning out your shots in advance and sticking to it
Well that is what film editors are paid for. Although in general it’s a question of sifting through alternative takes to identify the one that works best in context, rather than sifting through coverage footage.
@@losttango I believe no good director trusts a hired film editor. A good director has the film already edited in their head. They only needs an editor to do the manual work.
@@rainerwernerfassbinder3659 Well Coppola had "The Godfather" edited down to around 90 minutes before Robert Evans made him put about as much footage again back in and most people would regard Coppola as a good director. My guess is that you have very little first-hand knowledge of film production. In general film is a collaborative process and many if not most films are 'written' in the editing room almost as much as at the scriptwriting stage. (Obviously in collaboration with the director but many editors are given a free hand and work alone much of the time). There are a few exceptions like the Coen brothers and apparently Herzog, but it's rare.
@@losttango It's not a question of one or the other, it's a question of one or both. Directors who shoot coverage still shoot just as many takes. It's why many scenes that should only take a quarter of a shoot day end up going on for the whole day. And it does all come down to either a lack of vision or insecurity. Either the director doesn't know what they want so they just shotgun it and hope they'll hit something, or they don't trust their own instincts and so will shoot the thing they actually want and then will shoot a bunch of worthless stuff "just in case." Ridiculously long hours and films going over budget are huge problems in the industry, and both could be helped immensely if these kinds of directors learned how understand their own vision and then trusted themselves enough to commit to it. Of course, studios definitely share the blame here too. Reshoots due to executive influence are another reason why films keep going over budget. And in the TV world, with how fast turn around needs to be, there really isn't a lot of time for a director plan properly, so shooting coverage is really the only option for the majority of scenes.
The essence of his point has value. Shoot with intentionality. Make sure you know what you are trying to do and then do it. His point is that young filmmakers that don’t know what they’re doing are waiting for the film to reveal itself in all that film they’re shooting but it won’t. However Herzog is an absolutist with his filmmaking philosophy and a lot of it is terrible advice unless you’re making movies just like he does. I watched his masterclass and it was similar. He said he never does rewrites, he just writes the script and it’s done. Well that works for him but not for everyone. Most writers will agree that writing is rewriting until you polish something to perfection. Coppola shot 1.5 million feet of film for apocalypse now, one of the greatest films ever made. Herzog couldn’t make that movie. Maybe he’d make something totally different and also interesting though. THere’s many styles of filmmaking and it’s important to listen to every great filmmaker’s opinion with a grain of salt because another genius auteur will say the opposite.
Coppola has also spent an entire career since trying to edit out the magic of Apocalypse Now with varying degrees of success so I don’t feel like that example has the weight you would like it to have
@@AighthandleBut the original film wouldn't've been made without that coverage. That's more a problem with constantly going back to a finished project than with shooting a lot. Also Coppola isn't the only example, David Fincher also shoots tons of coverage for his films, as he likes to have more freedom in the edit.
@@Aighthandle Irrelevant to the quality of the original film. It's just an example of extreme excess in shooting, but sure, take your pick of hundreds of other masterpieces that have been morphed later in the edit. I love herzog, he's always interesting, but he's far from the be all end all of technique, especially visually. Film students really going to go, 'oh i don't need coverage because herzog doesn't.' Like no, you're not herzog, go shoot coverage. Better advice is young directors should edit their own movies, that's the quickest way for you to learn what you forgot to shoot.
I’ve been on set where we shot coverage of 4 people talking (in a single scene that was on the screen for around 2 minutes) for ten hours with two cameras. It’s crazy how much is shot. If the director had known what they were doing we could have wrapped around noon, not 7pm.
That’s what you get for not taking the gig on a date rate otherwise what would you care if you spent 5 extra days on a shoot that you were getting paid for?
Do you have a link to Kitano talking about this? I recall Omar Epps, I believe, talking about how shocked he was at the speed that Kitano moved through a day's shooting schedule on Brother.
I don't do film, but I fancy myself a "competent" (not gifted, not an auteur, not pro-grade) amateur still photographer. One of my earliest instructors told me, "every time you aim your camera at something, have a plan for that image - think for a moment about what you INTEND to capture, don't juist capture something just because it happens to pass before your lens."
For me, as a DOP, it depends on how prepared the cast are. I've been on low budget movies where the cast aren't rehearsed, blocked or even know their lines. Coverage is a must then so it can be fixed in the edit as I don't think there was a single take where the actors got through the entire scene without a mistake or forgotten line. If the actors are really good and know it then it's easier to just set the camera up and let the performances take over. You can hold on a simple shot for longer, if the performance is terrific. If the audience is noticing the cuts (or lack-of) then you are doing something wrong. For me, for speed, coverage is simply 1. Shoot a master wide of the scene to capture any big movement (gives the actors some leeway for rehearsing and blocking) 2. Move in to some simple "two-shots". 3. Move in more for some single "Medium Close-ups" (by that time, the actors should be well warmed up and rehearsed so the close-ups should have the best performances.) 4. Then get whatever cutaways or B-roll you need if necessary . For a lot of it, it may not win any cinematography awards but the story gets told and you have a watchable movie. Sometimes you have to be brutal with it, especially if you are shooting a feature film in 8 days......
I hope he realises the laughter comes from a place of amused recognition of the truth. He speaks wise words. High shooting ratios are directly proportionate to lack of confidence and lack of planning. Thank you for saying this 🙏
It's true. Young filmmakers don't know what they are doing. Neither did Werner Herzog when he was young, but he learned through his craft and here we are. About not doing one single hour overtime during all his career, I call bs.
Werner Herzog has a photographic memory, which helps. Also If you are an editor, and know editing very well, then it is the most helpful aspect to know when actually directing.
@@Chillllllbruh So are you watching this video of Werner Herzog because you believe he is a liar and you want to let other people know that? Because there's actually plenty of evidence that's google-able for what I've said, unless you prefer to believe nothing but your own thoughts?
Yes he is making stuff up, this is what immature people do to their idols because they see themselves in them. There is no public evidence or credible sources confirming that Werner Herzog has a photographic memory. I actually used a couple of tools to scout the internet for this answer and no sources have been found. We really need to het rid of unregulated and unlicensed comment sections and social media, bad idea to give every lunatic a broadcast channel in the first place.
Problem is that it makes it very difficult and often times impossible to then edit for pacing, you're pretty much stuck with those performances and timing and pace, especially on longer takes. Directors will often go and shoot an insert shot while in post simply as something to cut to in order to swap the takes or edit a piece of a scene that didn't have coverage, but you can only use that trick so many times in a film and it's not ideal.
Perhaps those insert shots are pre-visualized too, I don’t know, maybe I need to watch a few of his films and try to notice how he deals with editing. But I think he might just come at filmmaking the way animators and commercial directors do, where they’ve planned it all beforehand (all action, blocking, pacing, editing) and just need the actors to hit the right beats in camera. I imagine the Coens probably don’t shoot a lot of coverage too.
if it's needed for the film and already pre-planned, then it will be a part of the shot list on set. not being sure and then arriving on set only to diverge from your shotlist is more of what he is talking about. go in with a plan that works, and you'll have an easier time on set. a director who shoots ahead of time a rough mock of the scene will know if it is good or bad before they hit the edit room.
The point is going in with intention, because without it you're just opening yourself up to too many possibilities which can result in an unfocused mess.
The entire time I was out in LA, I was saying exactly this. I would tell people they didn't know what they wanted if they were wasting time with coverage. You know you're never going to use that wide shot, why waste the time? Know what you want before walking on set. Granted, I learned how to shoot on film, and we were only allotted X amount of rolls for our films in school, so I learned very early on that every extra shot might mean you don't get a vital part of your film, so that was a wonderful lesson. But all the people after me shooting digital just waste everybody's time. It's such a breath of fresh air to hear someone of his stature talk about it. I wish I had recorded the Q&A with Herzog at the Aero Theater in 2014 after Bad Lieutenant where he talked about not allowing his DP, or anyone, to look through the camera viewfinder or a monitor. He said if you have a 50mm lens, you should know where the camera is positioned, what exactly will be in the frame. It blew my mind hearing that.
Though not a film maker, I have always follwed it somewhat closely. I can relate as a photographer though. I learned photography in the mid-80's and did it professionally at vasrious times. I loaded my own film carts from 100 foot film stock cans to save money. In those days we had to learn to be frugal AND thoughful about each frame. Now in the digital age I shoot WAY more frames and the result is a little bit of benefit but a lot of post work. I'm not saying is better than the other, I'm saying economy and thought are valuable, and sometimes boost creativity.
I don't know anything about film making, but it's the same in audio. The trend is to capture ALL the audio and then let the mix/edit engineer figure it out. Nobody really commits to a sound during the recording process anymore.
In the world of synthesizer and electronic music there is a similar problem. People us Digital Audio Workstations and simply never finish anything, tweaking away all of the magic if they even *do* finally release a track/album/tape whatever the case. The response to this by some in the scene is to use modules and devices without patch memory and to work "DAWless" (Digital Audio Workstation-LESS) as a way of preserving the exploratory and experimental nature of finding sounds and songs without the backup recorded versions and endless content pumping out. The work and quality of the work is preserved by not having a parachute of endless versions on Virtually Endless Storage. As Werner said so much more economically. I just wanted to share a real life situation that I think is closely related.
I studied fashion and I see similarities there also. People who don't know how to make choices often get recognized for doing a ton of work, be it embroidery or pleating or whatever, but the thing ends up looking like a mess(to me).
Shooting a scene 20 different ways and "finding it in the edit" tells me someone never had a VISION for their movie. All he's basically stating is that he already knows what he WANTS to SEE, and that's all he shoots. Not only is it more economical, it doesn't waste everyone's time and goes by faster.
the advice from editors to get coverage for short filmmakers is usually from experience of working with beginner directors who think they know what they’re doing but dont, so when they come back with mostly one shots and realise that the performances are off, the pov is wrong, the tempo is wrong and theres no way to fix it, it leaves an unpleasant situation for everyone.
This is the least of the problem now. Those 550 hours also don't have sets or costumes or effects, they think it can all be done in post. They filmed the Star Wars sequels without a script. No intentionality anywhere in the process.
On the flip side, we don't all enjoy the *luxury* of full creative control, Werner. Sometimes there are clients and agencies and studios and labels involved. And trust me, a good percentage of the time they are going to want to change _everything_ in post production. There will be big pivots. So in those situations it's extremely helpful to have a diversity of coverage and b-roll because it gives you more options to work with when the client wants to completely transform the project. OR have unique material to use in trailers / social assets. Or to spin the project off into multiple deliverables, extend things out. Must be nice though lol 😂
Let’s acknowledge that there is more than one way to do something, and when it comes to filmmaking at least, more than one way to do something well. Herzog seems to be unwilling or unable to acknowledge this. Further, when it comes to documentaries, there are certain methods that depend on obtaining large amounts of footage to achieve the desired end result. Judging by the logo on the microphone he’s holding, this was a documentary-focused forum. Comparing Herzog’s “Grizzly Man” with, say, Frederick Wiseman’s “In Jackson Heights“: both are documentaries, both are remarkable and admirable, but they employed vastly different methods to achieve their ends. The large amount of footage shot on the latter wasn’t a result of incompetence or inexperience, but was integral to the process in that case.
I think Werner probably takes his minimalism to an extreme I think the crux of what he says, that a lot of stuff is done unnecessarily out of a mix of tradition and risk aversion, is very valuable.
If that was true, it would be great, but it's NOT true, he does indeed do coverage, like close ups, other angles, reverse shots, inserts etc. Brian De Palma doesn't do much coverage. Coverage just means different angles, like covering both actors from both sides.
To anyone who watches this, don't think that this has to be the way things are done. This works for him. Other directors shoot tons of footage which works for them, and they also know what they're doing (Kubrick, Fincher). Take all the advice you see and apply it to yourself and then forge your own path.
I think he’s taking a pop at how digital film makers just shoot nothing for hours. Kubrick shot lots of footage but he was looking for something special, not spaffing his film stock up the wall hoping to capture something. Back in the day, everything was on film and it was far more disciplined than digital (we rarely had a monitor). Nowadays digital allows people to be sloppy and lazy and shoot without learning about photography. You know you’re working with a master when they place the camera once, know what lens they want and regularly wrap early. It’s only happened once to me!
@@renoir4964 It doesn't really matter who he was taking a pop at, my point still stands. "You know you’re working with a master when they place the camera once, know what lens they want and regularly wrap early." - That's not true, tell it to David Lynch, Justine Triet, or the 1000's of others who don't work like that. There is no one way that is the "best" when it comes to filmmaking and it's a simplification to think so.
lol this is the opposite of David Fincher, it all comes down to the film style of the director, for Herzog movies this works well, which is a very specific kind of film, this approach would not work at all with a David Fincher movie for instance, a lot of times you find a film in the edit and the more you have to work with the better the movie can be.
@@user-pv4ze2gu1b he shoots 100s of takes with multiple cameras which provide multiple parallel coverage, that way they can cut in some closeups to emphasize stuff in a scene (and other techniques), you can see this in behind the scenes of the social network and in the killer, he deliberately gives himself and the editor a ton of material to work with, because he comes from a VFX background, so he adds a lot of polish in post production. So yes he does get both a lot of coverage and a lot takes.
WH „hates“ documentaries (fly on the wall) though his films often look like one. There is a lot staged. When i heard that first i reacted with criticism. But when you hear him explain it, you realize what a true genius he is.
It also explains why modern movies are so bloated and bland. No action movie should be over 100 minutes but most nowadays are over 2 hours, and a lot of times over 150 minutes, all because of shooting on video and so they can get more watch minutes on streaming services. At least horror moviemakers still mostly keep their movies at 90 minutes long.
Learn to edit! Seriously, after spending years editing short films and corporate videos and a bunch of smaller projects, when you start to Direct something yourself, you actually start to edit the film in your mind on set. Suddenly you realise what you need absolutely and what is either unnecessary or "would be nice to have if we have time". The other thing is, once you learn how to edit, THEN learn how to be a DOP. You'll start cutting down on shots because the editor in your mind will be saying "why do we need to cut to this when we can just motivate the camera to move over here?" So honestly, learn to make a movie backwards.
This stuck: "You can not find any gems in an ocean of mediocracy." I think there are two viewpoints. Shoot as much as you can because setting up the scene or location did cost so much money. Or shoot as fast as possible with a goal in mind and save the money and time everybody is wasting. I do understand to be careful and for safety shoot angles and whatnot but the time and energy wasted these days is insane. I have been on set where we were shooting a whole day of 10 or more hours. All kinds of angles, special camera movements through the background actors. Camera through the flames and a shattering window. All cool and what ended up in the actual show was 30 seconds, one small shot. Another scene: Church on Christmas with choir. 300 background actors, giant lighting setup. 10 trucks of stuff. Filling the church with people and filming this scene of maybe 10 lines in 5 angles. What ended up was a small view of the main actors. Everything else was wasted money. The budgets are way too high.
He is right but only for smaller independent films and a visual treatment that calls for master shots. However for films like Mad Max this would not work at all infact its a study in the art of coverage and shot design.
All of these people eager to laugh at what he's saying are missing some really valuable lessons on filmmaking and life in general. "You cannot find a gem in an ocean of mediocrity." "So you better learn very, very quickly the value of time."
Nothing matters but the end product. If someone films hours of coverage of a scene and produces a better film than Herzog, they’re the better filmmaker.
No. Efficiency IS a relevant factor of that job. Not only does it mean you get more out of the same resources, it also means you get better mileage out of the resources that are not "supposedly infinite" as in "time" and "fatigue of people". Measure twice, cut once. Not "create as much waste as possible, it doesn't matter". Not to mention that if you are wasting resources in the multiples, then no matter the outcome, nobody will provide you the resources in the future, and a film maker that doesn't make films isn't a better filmmaker.
Efficiency is relevant to the quality of a production, or the logistical capabilities of the Assistant Director, but it’s not relevant to the quality of the art. And I say this as someone who has worked in film for over a decade. Different filmmakers have different strengths and work in different methods, the end product is the ultimate authority on who is the better filmmaker. @@theholk
Fincher and Kubrick are some of the most overrated directors in the industry. I have my own criticisms, beyond coverage, on directors having that many takes for a scene. People see it as an admission of artistic brilliance, I see it as artistic bludgeoning.
he doesnt have one film thats atleast average, yet he thinks hes a master. a guy who is self thaught, and bad at that, wants to teach others how to do things right. wow.
The way everyone INCLUDING the interviewer is laughing at everything this man is saying is a truly sad, SAD thing to behold. What happened to that whole generation. Look at them. Just empty vessels who's only joy in life is to sit there and consume the crap that is handed to them from on high. Never a question. Never a demand for quality. Just sit there and laugh at the sad state of your world. Then go to Starbucks for a shot of sugar. Literal nightmare fuel if you grew up in the 70s, 80s or 90s... "haha old guy says we are stupid ...duuuuuuuhhh can I get a frappucino" .."My nose ring is itching...." ..."let me get another godawful tattoo and paint my hair purple..."
Why do people always feel the need to laugh when this man says something incredibly important with no hint of humor to it. They don't get it. He's not kidding around, he's worried. Listen to the man. He knows things the rest of us don't.
People are not used to someone speaking so directly and articulately, with confidence and authority.- and feel intimidated. I always find this kind of laughter a nervous defense when presented with a genuine sense of purpose and seriousness like Herzog.
He's a pro. It's not all that unusual, outside of creative work, to have to get it right the first time. I've seen guys fired for bending nails. Why would a film production be set up for failure by allowing things to be done wrong? It's not allowed in any serious context.
@@SallyMankus130 Right. Also, Herzog's point is that he plans to get the shot he knows he wants. Shooting hours of footage without knowing what you want indicates a lack of seriousness of purpose.
