1. A wide shot establishing the actors geography in the scene.
2. a medium shot of both of them facing each other.
3. A “dirty” over the shoulder shot where the foreground actors head fills a third of frame with the focus on the background actor. This is usually as the conversation heats up, and focused on the actor giving the most exposition.
4. Close up single shots of each individual actor as they talk and react to the information
5. Finally a medium or wide as the actors leave the conversation. This would have already been filmed on step 2 or 3, but edits in at the end.
Financially this make sense as you generally light for one direction before “turning around” and moving all your lights to the other side and shooting in the opposite direction. It ensures that you get the most footage without have to spend lots of time moving lights over and over. It also allows you to get your highest paid actors off the clock sooner, as you don’t need them for the dirty or single shots. Everything about making films is trying to catch magic while not spending all your money.
A Notable subversion of this technique is Sorkin’s “walk and talk” shots where 2 or 3 characters have a walking conversation facing camera as it leads them through a path.
It will take more time to light that entire path upfront, but then you are free to let your actors live in the moment without cutting and there’s no need for turn around. You get something feels more real, but you rely on your dialogue and your actors for the pacing instead of editing.
Typically you need “character” actors to pull this off which is a phrase that generally means “good at acting.”
Yeah it’s real & one way where you can get continuity errors. I had a friend who’s job it was to carefully catalog all set objects in FileMaker Pro so he could reconstruct the parts of set that had to be torn down when moving cameras, lights, etc.
Famously, Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster barely did any direct interaction during the filming of The Silence of the Lambs. Hopkins was essentially walled into his prison cell during filming that took place in the "prison", so they did all his shots for as long as his bladder could last before breaking the set down to let him out.
I don't know for sure that this is the one that I watched, but I think so and the time frame is about right: [The Inside Story](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1918873/).
The deep details of the movie are fascinating. Schlock filmmaker gets a recent Oscar winner and an experienced but little-known in Hollywood actor to take on a very confusing story, which then debuts into a slow burn that gradually builds over more than a month to become one of the best movies ever? You would never sell that as a script because nobody would believe it, but it really is true.
In the video, it was suggested that Caine would get in the back of other actors scenes. Of course the extent of it in the video is obviously parody.
But is there anything to it? I imagine an actor could, for example, cheat a bit in the two shots; look right at the camera while they are the speaker, then just shift a little bit while the other actor is speaking, not enough to be obvious, but just enough to catch the camera with a little bit more of their face…
The Director and Director of Photography would immediately reposition them. It would look very awkward.
What does happen often is impactful news will be delivered causing the foreground actor to turn to camera and contemplate as they rack focus from the background actor to the foreground. See also, a door slamming or an event happening just off camera.
It’s an easy way to get a nice little two shot of both actors faces
