On the other hand, limiting takes prevents burning out actors. Here are two quotes from a 1989 Los Angeles Times article about Eastwood shooting Pink Cadillac: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.htmldws1982 wrote:But a filmmaker who prizes efficiency the way Eastwood does will sometimes let less than good work from an actor slide in order to stay on or ahead of schedule, whereas he might be able to salvage something by going for a third or fourth (or tenth) take.
“I [Eastwood] find with a lot of films, if they’re overly set up, or if the director insists on a lot of takes, or if things just move along real slow, the lack of energy shows. They become vacant films. They’re technically nice but their soul is gone"
“[Bernadette Peters] And you do work fast, which Clint has a theory about. It’s so you don’t hang around all day waiting for the set-ups. You don’t get sluggish. You don’t get distracted or lose interest. You don’t forget where you are. It’s a good way to work.”
I once talked with someone who was making a short independent film who said that every shot needed at least three good takes, a close-up, medium, and long shot. Sometimes even more if you wanted to try different camera angles. Then, you would choose what good takes to use when you are editing. I would think it would be better to have annotations for the camera lengths, camera angles, etc., for all the shots in the shooting script. If, while you are shooting, you decide there are better lengths and angles to use, you can change; but, you do not need to waste great amounts of time obtaining multiple good takes for every shot.