Edgewood Studios founder David Giancola is nothing if not passionate about fostering new talent. IMAGINE recently sat down and talked with Vermont's first-ever indie film icon and talked about the pros and cons of shooting at practical locations and building sets on stages.

IM: When you counsel independent filmmakers, you constantly stress the importance of maintaining control over every aspect of the project. Tell us what you mean by control.

DG: The word 'control' sometimes carries a negative connotation. In a business loaded with control freaks, the concept of control often conjures up images of raving maniacs firing PA's who put too much sugar in their coffee. That kind of control is what I call 'negative control'. Anybody who's survived a significant amount of time in the film business has been the victim of negative control and knows how petty, counter-productive and abusive it can be. Negative control, as ego gratifying as it may be, inevitably eats away at a filmmaker's story and vision.

Positive control, on the other hand, adds immeasurably to the efficient operation of a movie set and to the ultimate outcome of a project. People who have the chops to let their talent, maturity, and preparation rule the day understand that positive control is all about exerting an appropriate amount of influence over every aspect of the making of a movie so that the artists charged with bringing their vision to life can perform to the limits of their capabilities. And I think, many times, that scenes can be covered much more effectively and much less expensively on a built set than at a practical location. That's positive control.

IM: Let's back up a bit. Tell us about your creative philosophy when it comes to locations and sets.

DG: I don't know if I have an actual philosophy, but I do believe that a key creative element to any film is the environment in which the performers act out the story. Well chosen and well dressed locations (and more specifically sets) allow a filmmaker to express a mood, present visual opinion and say a lot about characters even before the actors hear action.

IM: Give us an example.

Sure. Midway through the 1st act of SEABISCUIT, Director Gary Ross presents the family of young Red Pollard (played by Tobey Maguire) sharing a meal together. Ross chose to play the scene out in a very small, dimly lit and rather unexciting dining area. The dining room itself is claustrophobic and tunnel-like. The ceiling is low and looks like it's about to cave in on the actors. The walls are cracked and slightly bowed inward. The table is unsteady and looks like it could fall to the floor any minute. The light is warm but illuminates only small parts of the scene and only one character at a time. It never gives the viewer a full view of the surroundings.

When I watched the scene, these visual metaphors (and many others) showed me a group of loving, yet very naïve people who were wholly oblivious to the fact that their world was about to come crashing in on them. The actors didn't need to say anything to tell me that. The picture was truly worth a thousand words. The setting allowed Ross to avoid the typical (and horribly heavy handed) '…doesn't my job stink and doesn't it suck to be poor, but let's just ignore it and sing a song…' type of dialogue sequence. Instead, Ross gave his characters a scene from a Dickens novel to expound upon. The result was an image rich verbal exchange that textured the characters by showing the audience a seemingly intelligent family pursuing a highbrow mastery of literature. But, sub-texturally, the dialogue showed a tragically flawed group of people more interested in dreaming about a time gone by than preparing for what lay ahead.

In my opinion, the genius of this scene grew directly out of the environment in which Ross chose to play it out. The setting allowed him to skip over pedestrian set-up dialogue and jump right into presenting character flaws in subtle ways, which generated sympathy from his audience. It also allowed him to avoid forcing his actors to slog through an exercise in exposition where they describe their situation and torture the audience with a thinly veiled and ever-so-preachy sermon on poverty and ignorance. The scene was a great building block for the development of Red Pollard. Throughout the rest of the film, as Tobey Maguire's character made more and more poor decisions, I kept thinking back to that dining room scene and what it represented about how he was raised...and I felt bad for the guy. Which is, I'm sure, exactly what Gary Ross wanted me to do.

IM: Gary Ross is a studio Director. Aren't stages expensive?

DG: I use this example exactly because Gary Ross had a lot of money to make that movie. He could have shot that scene anywhere he wanted to. But, he chose a stage because it gave him the control he needed to create the exact environment he wanted. And if you watch the movie, you'll see he didn't break the bank on that set.
Indie filmmakers often prematurely jump to the conclusion that they can't afford to shoot on stages. Stages do cost money. And so does building sets. But, it's important to think about all of the costs of going to a practical location…both creative and financial…before you rule out building. What many indie folks don't know is that they can enjoy all the creative benefits of stages and, if they're smart, save money.

IM: OK. So, what are the creative advantages to the independent filmmaker of shooting on a stage?

DG: As I've already said, the most important creative advantage of a built set is the positive control it gives you. When you're shooting on a stage, you and your designer design a set to work for the scene. It's the opposite on a practical set. At a practical location, you have to fit your scene into the set you're given and that can be very restrictive. Practical locations often restrict the look of an environment because you can't change as much as you would like to. Because the spaces are designed for living and not for shooting, practical locations also, quite often, restrict blocking, camera placement, camera movement and lighting fixture placement. When you build on the other hand, you can paint whatever color you want, put the dressing wherever you think it belongs, set lights anywhere and everywhere, and move the camera until the cows come home. That's very freeing for a filmmaker.

The logistic advantages of shooting on a stage are immense. I can start with the basics. When you're on a stage, you're not worried about the grips bumping into Mrs. Jones's antique vase. You don't have to worry about Mr. Jones wanting to snap a picture with your actress as she's getting ready for her big scene. And, if you're on a set, Mr. & Mrs. Jones can't change their minds about letting you use their house the day before you're scheduled to shoot. Anybody who's had that happen to them can tell you that it's incredibly stressful.

Anybody who's spent any time at all working on a film knows that the most precious commodity on any set is time. Logistically, the biggest advantage to stages is the time they save you. When you shoot on a set you save time in three ways: Getting to and from the set, set-up and breakdown, and moving through your set-ups.

IM: That's an interesting thought. How much of a consideration is transportation when you're picking a location?

DG: For us, it's a big one. A lot of young and inexperienced filmmakers underestimate the impact that transportation has on a shoot. It is almost always the most expensive below the line cost. And the more moving you do, the more expensive it gets. Long drive times to and from locations can only lead to bad things. Most of the time stages are closer to people's homes or hotels than practical locations are. That's one of the reasons I like them. On an independent film, inexperienced transportation people routinely work 18 or 20 hours on a company move day. You might get away with that for a while, but eventually long days like that will lead to mistakes and accidents. Mistakes and accidents lead to shorter shooting days. Shorter shooting days hurt movies. I believe that less time in cars is a good thing. It translates into more time on the set for the crew and the actors. And with gas and oil prices the way they are these days, the cost savings associated with being your people being closer to your set are significant as well.

IM: What about setting up and breaking down?

DG: The advantages to being on a stage when it comes to general set support are almost too many to mention. You have access to offices, phones, fax machines and other equipment. Dressing rooms and green rooms are right next to the set… so there's no time wasted moving people back and forth from the trailers to the set. That makes the actors much happier. Parking is usually a non-issue. Storage of gear isn't a problem. You don't have to worry about traffic control. There are quiet places to rehearse and talk to the actors. Everything you need to shoot the scene is literally at your fingertips. You can send a crew in to pre-rig a stage the night before you arrive so that when you get to work in the morning, you can block and shoot. No waiting four hours for the crew to load in the lighting equipment. Heat and air conditioning systems are designed to manage the environment so you're not sweating or freezing to death. Noise isn't an issue. And, at the end of the day, you leave everything the way it is and walk away. It's great.

IM: And what about the shoot itself?

DG: A stage is designed for shooting. Walls move so you can light and block a scene exactly how you envision it. There's room for everyone and everything. People aren't tripping over one another all of the time trying to get to where they need to go. We usually average 15 to 20% more set-ups a day on a stage than we do on a practical location. And the best part is, stages are run by people who understand the film business. You're not going to get thrown off a stage if you don't finish on time. When Mrs. Jones wants you out of her house, you had better hope the location manager is a good talker.

IM: And what about the cost? Isn't a stage more expensive than a practical location?

DG: We rent our stages to independents all of the time. Before they book the space, we encourage them to do a full cost benefit analysis. And we tell them to take everything into account, including drive time, gas and oil expenses, accidents, the cost of actor overtime, the cost of people getting lost, etc. We have set flats, dressing, and props here in the studio so a lot of times the filmmakers are getting total control over their days for the cost of a couple of carpenters and some paint. Once they take a true look at it, the benefits usually outweigh the costs. And once they actually start shooting on a stage, they feel like they've died and gone to heaven!