I'm not certain that "they like to film dialogue from inside the space of the conversation" was one of the first things I noticed about the Coens.

I love this channel.

I was hoping this was going to answer a question I have asked for a long time but still don't have a clear answer. Is it common to have 2 cameras filming actors simultaneously during a shot/counter-shot scene in a standard Hollywood production, so it's recording their interactions in real time?

Or is it more likely done with one camera, with the actors filmed sequentially and responding to off-camera dialog as they speak their lines. And then the shot/counter-shot are strung together in editing.

Seems to me the one camera would be more logical, as otherwise the lighting resources themselves would have to be doubled and kept out of view. Also I don't ever remember seeing any pictures or footage from a movie set where they have 2 cameras and 2 sets of lights, etc.

The reason I keep asking is that on IMDB in the trivia section you always read some nonsense about somebody's onscreen reaction to some unscripted ad-libbed line being genuine.

Well if they aren't both in the same shot how could it be a genuine reaction if the shot/counter-shot are filmed with one camera at different times? And the dialog may be spoken and recorded hours apart?

Like this scene from the "Die Hard" trivia section:
Hart Bochner's line "Hans... Bubby!" was ad-libbed. Alan Rickman's quizzical reaction was genuine.

They weren't in the same shot, so how can his reaction be genuine when the line may have been ad-libbed several hours earlier or later. If it was ad-libbed at all.

It strikes me as stupid made-up shit that passes for trivia and knowledge on the Internet but wanted to get some opinions on this.

*quality

Invocations (quality) cannot be called by cryptoz because cryptoz is not privileged - sorry.

I've always wondered the same thing. What if they use a single camera, but both actors still run through the scene even though one of them is off camera? When the camera is over-the-shoulder, either the other actor is sitting there with the camera behind them, or it's a body double. I imagine it would be easier for the actors if they are both doing the whole scene even if the camera is not on them. If that's the case, that would explain the unscripted reactions - it might even make more sense since the offscreen actor might instinctively do things a little differently without the camera on them.

You film Alan Rickman's face while Ellis gives his 'guns...pens...what's the difference' speech offscreen. He gives the 'Hans...Bubby' line. It throws Rickman off for a moment and makes his reaction that little more genuine.

Then you film Ellis giving the speech. Probably after it has been tidied up and reworked a little bit.

Then you edit them together.

When someone is interviewing another, like when John Oliver interviewed Edward Snowden, two cameras are used so that factual continuity can be maintained.

In the movie Broadcast News, the character Tom Grunick did an extremely powerful interview where he started crying during it. It was later found that he only had one camera with him, so how could he have cut to him crying as the lady spoke... That's why shot/reverse shot interviews are always filmed with two cameras simultaneously.

In movies, there is usually only one camera, they will set up one side of the conversation, film it all the way through, then set up the shot from the other direction, film IT from that direction, taking however many takes each way, then edit the two together.

In the Die Hard example, Rickman was obviously filmed first, and Bochner's ad-lib made a "happy mistake" they got on film.

If Bochner had been filmed first, you would never have seen Rickman's perfect reaction.

...then again, Rickman was a God. He probably could have made the same reaction a couple dozen times after the initial confusion.

Thanks for all of the replies. That makes sense, that it could be genuine if the "surprised" actor was the first to be filmed, while the offscreen actor throws in an ad-lib when saying his lines. Then the director likes the improvised line, adds it to the script, then films the 2nd actor later.

Sometimes the IMDB trivia section can be a graffiti wall of pretty stupid stuff, take this gem from "Dirty Harry" for example:

The sniper calls himself "Scorpio" which is the Zodiac sign for people born between October 24th and November 22nd. November 22nd 1963 is the date that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a sniper in Dallas, Texas, a killing that the Clint Eastwood character in In the Line of Fire (1993) would be directly involved in.

I'm glad this thread had a Hollywood ending. ;-)