Is that really a viable technique?

Say you have two people sitting at a table - each person has 10
lines. You set up the lights and the camera and do a CU on Bob.
He says, ?Nice of you to make it.?

Then you move the lights and the camera and set up the MS of Mary.
She says, ?No need to be sarcastic. I still have the kids.?

Then you move the lights and the camera and set up the CU of Bob.
He says, ?Sorry. I?ve been here for twenty minutes. Please. Sit.?

Then you move the lights and the camera and set up the CU of Mary
as she sits and puts the gun on the table.

Then you move the lights and the.....

Does anyone really do this? It seems to me that shooting that way
not only would take forever, but destroy any possibility for the
actors to do good work, to build any chemistry, to get into the
scene.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

The only way it is doable is if you go with natural lighting or set up the lights so they work for both people, and then you still have the sound guy trying to hide the boom mic (under the table?).

Of course I've heard this done with total amateur actors, you can feed them one short line at a time. The movie DEAD NEXT DOOR was done this way. But I agree with Certified, this is more likely to create more problems than is worthwhile.

There is a reason Hollywood uses the second technique. Because it works best for lighting, sound, acting, planning, etc.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA