Realism in film

I was thinking about one scene I was shooting in "Strings". The scene was where a group of us were exiting a house after rescuing a girl from a group of armed men holding her hostage. As I was exiting, the character I'd built flew out of the house full pelt to get back to the car and escape. I came barreling out at full speed - as you would in such circumstances - in order to escape possibility of capture or being killed by the gunmen chasing me.

What happened was interesting. The action had been decided to occur at a specific point near the doorstep. This was for the benefit of the framing of the scene - decided in pre production - and the aesthetic quality of the whole piece. One of the other characters had been shot, another was determined to not leave and had to be dragged to the car, and so my character had to go back and assist.

What the director expected was the actors to fit into the pre-designed shot. But it was silly, really. There was no realism to it, and my bet is that it'll show in the shot. There was little of the gritty realism you'd find in such a scene. None of the stumbling and falling, the real adrenalin filled desperation you'd get in such circumstances. There was just a bunch of people pretending. And I can't stand to see a bunch of people pretending.

Now I realise this is generally the way films are made: a scene is built either in story board or otherwise, and the actors then "do their thing" in order to make the imagined scene a real one.

It occurs to me that there are distinct disadvantages to this method. Firstly, it rules out any possibility of "finding a better way" of shooting the scene. Sure, there may be some rather nice stuff going on in the frame, and it may be very well composed and so forth - but on the other hand there's no reality going on. The actors aren't connected in any way, the performances become wooden and contrived, and although it all may look very pretty on screen, I sincerely believe something's lost.

As an actor, I know that there's nothing like really connecting with the reality of what you're doing. When you're running hell for leather, and you realise that something's happened that means you have to do something else in the scene, all the motivation's there to just naturally do whatever's needed in the action within the film.

Personally, this is where I think rehearsal is so important. When the actors can rehearse a scene in character, and find whatever they need to do to make the apparent reality happen, it has to be a better thing, filmically. Then, it's a matter of planning how to shoot the whole thing. The choices are wide shot, hand held, and whatever else might be needed for the shot, just the same as with ordinary, planned "storyboarded" film, but the reality of the scene has to add a quality that can't be found otherwise.

Storyboarding has to be just a loose blueprint for film making - except when it's absolutely critical to a scene. When option are open to the actors to find what they can do, the performances can be that much more exciting and real.

I guess I'm thinking on these lines because I'm an actor. A director - or at least many film directors - see things differently. They will commonly see actors as props, and not living human beings with their own wills and impulses.

This has been a bit of an insight, and one I think I'll explore. I know that as I've been doing live, hand held filming I've learned something of following the action. I think it would be really interesting to shoot a film with well rehearsed actors, and then shooting it as though it were documentary.

It might mean some loss of "pretty scenes". It might mean bad camerawork now and then, less than perfect lighting, and less than perfect sound. But if the quality of the acting shines through, and the drama of the scene, surely that's worthwhile?

I don't know if that's been done before.

But I'm going to do it, G*d willing.