In Concert With The Camera
Long before the film was shot, the film was conceived, written and meant to be a
continuous life experience. "Since the first page of the script, I knew I wanted
it to be live and make the audience experience a real point of view from the
main character in a radical way. This represented a completely new approach for
me and all the people involved so the challenge started from the script to the
last frames of post-production," says Inarritu.
The extended, intuitive, unbroken nature of these shots, accomplished via
Steadicam and hand-held cameras meant that the lighting was not done with
traditional film equipment. The blocking and dialogue were precisely timed with
the camera movement. As such, it was less like a movie set and more like the
theater in which much of the film takes place.
"We first blocked, rehearsed and designed the shots in an empty set with
stand-ins. In comedy, rhythm is king. So through this process, I not only found
the internal rhythm of the scenes but the sets and spaces were designed with
enormous precision after we all learned from it," explains Inarritu.
"Chivo (aka Emmanual Lubezki) was the best partner I could have had. Not only
is he a master of light but I think few DPs would have been able to handle the
technical requirements of this film. We were not able to light the actors in the
traditional way - when you do conventional coverage, you light each angle and
have the time to do it. That he was
able to accomplish the lighting in this way without compromising the look of the
film took incredible skill and craft and I think only Chivo could have done it,"
Because the camera work was so specific, Inarritu insisted on comprehensive
rehearsals with all the actors. "They really had to understand what I was doing
- every movement, every step, every turn of the face was pre-decided and
meticulously choreographed. Nothing was improvised, it was a study in timing,
with the precision of a clock," Inarritu explains.
"It was shot every day as one scene. You shot in continuity. Usually you get
five takes here, get 12 takes here, get close-ups, lot of choices to stitch
together a performance. There is none of that here. You have no safety net. You
have one shot at it. And it all had to come together, and every actor had to be
right on it," says Keaton.
"I had a Philippe Petit picture in my office and I sent a copy of it to every
actor. I wanted them to remember that we would all be walking on a high wire -
dependent upon precision, confidence and a trust in each other. We could fall
very easily," says Inarritu.
Although the technical aspects of these run-throughs were obviously important,
equally vital was the time spent delving into the characters. "We went through a
very deep and interesting process to really observe all the scenes, the meaning
and objective of the material, the macro and micro of all the characters, the
objectives and motivations as well as the repercussions of their emotions and
actions," Inarritu explains.
Norton relished the tracking shot approach to filming BIRDMAN and notes that it
not only underscores the sometimes weird, twisted and loving bonds between the
characters, it is the logical next step in Inarritu's film canon. Fittingly, in
a movie about a play, Norton also notes that it lent a theatricality to the
production as well.
"Alejandro was trying to do something incredibly exciting which was to create
literal interconnectedness through the shot. The notion of essentially filming
in one take was to me a variation of on a theme that Alejandro has been pursuing
which is how do create a wild experience of interconnected moments. For
instance, with BABEL you've got different worlds interconnected ultimately by
threads. In this one you've got relationships and events interrelated by this
visually seamless transfer from one moment to the next, to the next, to the
next, to the next and I loved it. It puts the baton in an actor's hand in a way
you really only get to do in theater. And there is something really potent about
that. I think is also does something unconsciously to the energy of the
performance. Alejandro likened it to being on a tightrope without a net. It
sharpens you up in a way that is different from typical movie shoots," Norton
Inarritu's uninterrupted takes were a nerve-wracking experience for Stone as
well. "We did this scene where I had just one or two lines but it was very
important because it was part of a very long scene between Michael and Edward.
My job was to come in and say something like 'Larry's ready for a fitting now'
and then take Edward around a corner. That was all I had to do, but Alejandro
told me I had to slow down by about 30% or he wouldn't be able to make the scene
work. I was like, oh my God. I can't mess up. By take 25, I was just sitting
backstage and couldn't even deliver my line. The pressure was immense. It was
just like theater, every take is on you. It was like going to an acting gym.
extremely technical but you also need to be present and alive because every
moment that you are on camera will be in the film there is no cutting away.
There's no, 'oh, I screwed that up but they can use a different take,'" Stone
Galifianakis calls Inarritu's visual style a "seamless narrative" and also sees
it as a fittingly bracing acting test in a movie about actors. "I think it is
such an interesting way of telling a story, the camera moving in real time.
There is real geography and timing, in terms of hitting your marks, delivering
your lines. I didn't think I was capable of it but Alejandro was so easy-going
and nice. I found the whole thing to be intriguing - a movie about an actor ends
up being a real actor piece for all of us," Galifianakis observes.
Next Production Note Section
Home | Theaters | Video | TV
Your Comments and Suggestions are Always Welcome.
© 2020 23®, All Rights Reserved.