Well, the traditional 'I've no idea how to shoot this dialog scene' method is to shoot a wide shot, shoot a mid-shot on each of the actors and then shoot a closeup on each of the actors. That gives you a lot of footage to cut between when you need to.

But fifteen minutes of dialog shot that way is likely to be a little dull unless it's very good dialog and well acted :).

If you're actors are good you might want to get a steadycam and sort of circle around them and keep the camera moving while they go through the scene. Then if a head blocks out the frame for a second you can use that as a cutting point, or if one says something really dramatic you can cut to the face of the person who said it, or the reaction show the comment created, and continue form there.

Watch the opening of Reservoir Dogs a few times. The camera work is very natural, but also very dramatic.

If you follow this kind of thing I'd recommend you think in detail about the camera moves and don't just try for 'instinct' because you want the camera facing the right person at the right time and cutaways will be even more noticable if not well thought out. This technique also means you've got to be careful of mirrors and shadows that might give away the cameraman but it has the potential to give life to what otherwise might just be a bunch of actors sitting around.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

On the other hand, you might want to read David Mamet's comments on Steadicams :).

A shot like that is doable, but you really need to think it through beforehand to make sure you get something usable.

I generally agree with Mamet, his little book was a big eye-opener in many ways. I agree steadycam is generally overused, usually style over substance.

But the scene is two people sitting, having a conversation. I'm not sure there is anyway to do that and have it interesting with cuts unless it's fifteen minutes of solid, brilliant, captivating, dialogue in which case nobody will care what the camera does.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

i like mamet as a writer, but as a director he seems like a nuts & bolts kinda guy. sometimes filmmakers need a little style over substance.

as for this specific question... i'd do the scene several times, and try and keep the camera as dynamic as possible to keep it from becoming a talking head movie.

www.maketradefair.com
www.thehungersite.com
www.oxfam.ca

quote:

---

I agree steadycam is generally overused

---

But being overused isn't the problem: the real problem is that unless you think it through very carefully before you shoot, you're eliminating options when you're editing. If you try to shoot the scene in long steadicam takes you can't cut into them easily, if at all.

quote:

---

I'm not sure there is anyway to do that and have it interesting with cuts unless it's fifteen minutes of solid, brilliant, captivating, dialogue in which case nobody will care what the camera does.

---

If you're having to resort to fancy camerawork because the story isn't captivating people, then the solution is to fix the story :).

I thank everyone for their imput and advice. I think what we're going to do is a combination of everything that people have recommended.
We're going to start with lots of movement, and then progress into cuts. I figure we'll most likely film it three or four times, hopefully having some sense of continuity... And just worry about putting everything together in the editting process.
Should be a good learning experience though.