The Sustained Two-Shot

Here's a common situation. You're standing on location about to film a dialogue scene between two actors and you've planned it for standard coverage. A master. An over-the-shoulder. And two singles. But then you’re told: the sun’s going down. Your plan is out the window and you only have time to get one shot. What do you do? You might consider the two shot. That's any shot with two people. Traditionally this was from the waist up so you could see their faces and postures. More specifically, there was the sustained two-shot, as David Bordwell called it. That’s where you held this angle for most of the scene. –Look Hildy, I only acted like any husband who didn’t want to see his home broken up. –What home? –Don’t you remember the home I promised you? –Sure I do. In the 30s and 40s, this was the bread and butter way to shoot dialogue. However, it’s less common today, and for good reasons. First, technology changed. Film was expensive, so it encouraged filmmakers to rehearse more and conserve their takes. When we were shooting film, and it was like the moment was somehow more important. You didn’t have an endless supply of raw stock. So everybody focused on the take. –Walter, and then they’re gonna kill me. –Dude... –That’s... –That’s just the stress talking, man. Digital is cheaper. So now, people don’t really pick one angle and shoot it. They cover a scene from as many angles as possible. And actors know this, so they plan their performances accordingly. –Me gonna save the tears for the close-up –That’s right. –You can cheat the edit –They never use the wide shot The second change was acting styles. Older Hollywood acting has a lot more gesturing and moving around, –blames it on the girlfriend for spilling it all –And that ain’t far from wrong either –Oh dear, it’s enough to make you lose your faith in marriage. –Whose faith in marriage?... which works in a two-shot to keep your eyes interested. These days, actors are much more naturalistic, and these subtle gestures don’t read as well in a wider frame. –Stop running away from me like some fool of a moody schoolchild –But you didn’t say anything to me Which brings us to editorial. A sustained two shot offers us no way to speed up the scene or slow it down. And since we're usually trying to tighten things, these shots can be very risky. –In my rather foolish obsession shooting things in masters & two-shots... I actually painted myself into some pretty ugly corners in the second act of the film. So there’s a lot of essential information, but there’s no way to cut to it any quicker What we’re really talking about is how film grammar evolves over time. And what was once the standard can now feel theatrical and old-fashioned. –Oh it’s all your fault, you’ve ruined everything. –It’s all my fault? Oh I’ve had enough. I quit. –You can’t quit. Call them back. But the sustained two-shot still has its value. So what does it have to offer filmmakers today? The first advantage is efficiency. You’re not grabbing 12 angles, you’re only focused on one. Not only that, you can run through pages of dialogue in a single camera set-up. –... dialogue with that pompous bastard –He’s a big fan of yours –Take his two short planks, Dom. A moron. Can you believe they made him governor though? It’s a bloody insult to humanity. –Mother of Jesus, where do you get your energy from? The second is variation. If you’re shooting lots of scenes with standard coverage, cutting to a two-shot helps break up the flow and create visual interest. –But I did bloody tell you But the biggest advantage is chemistry. –You put a live round in that gun? –Well yeah there was like an eight percent chance... –Eight percent? Eight? –Yeah –Who taught you math? The sustained two-shot is the composition that best allows two performers to play off each other. And try as you might, you cannot replicate this feeling with editing. –There’s a lot of dialogue and there’s two really good actors that could do it all together. Anytime you can do it without having to cut it together… –They can’t get that if they’re up here listening to your gospel and then the well can’t produce and blow gold all over the place. –I wish I had more time with Joe Gunda. –More could have been done. –And then the well can produce and blow gold all over the place. –It’s so much better. Believe it or not, it’s an easier day’s work. In other words, this is an actor’s shot. So if you want to do this, here are some things to keep in mind. The single most important question is –What’s this about George? What is this scene about? Is it about two people working together? Or breaking apart? Do they see eye or eye? Maybe it’s just a joke. (mechanical sound effect) If you can answer that question, that will help you decide– how should we compose these two actors? Some filmmakers prefer naturalistic blocking, where people stand how they do in real life. On the flip side, there’s stylized blocking, which is unrealistic but evocative. (untranslated Swedish) Next, decide the relationship between the camera and the performers. Is the camera a dispassionate observer from a distance? Or is it an active participant in the scene? Should we be looking up at our actors, making them seem larger than life? Or down on them, to make them smaller? After that, we get into the many nuances of movement. We could have one person stand up, perhaps to signify a change in power dynamics. We could keep the performers still and let the background move to maintain visual interest.

Or maybe we just want a good old fashioned walk-and-talk. –Well my work is done here But remember, this is a shot about the performances. So don't get in the way. Keep it simple. –a young director who is beginning to realize he doesn’t have to necessarily shoot standard coverage –that you can just point the camera and let the scene play out –you know, just let the actors do what they do, tell the story So you have a two-person dialogue scene but the sun's going down and you only have time to get one shot. What do you do?