Mission Impossible? How to shoot a blockbuster in the age of coronavirus.

This month, in theory, the latest sequel to Jurassic World returns to production on a London soundstage. And Wednesday – July 1st – was the day that Hollywood studios and TV producers planned to resume production in the United States. Indeed, little or no American production has resumed, in part because some of the “tax breaks” claims that attract studio productions are current hotbeds for the virus. Productions remain on hold or in pre-production limbo. Huge agency CAA announced this week that all employees will continue to work from home for at least the remainder of the year.

The crisis, even as it has decimated film and television, has created some new job descriptions – including producer in charge of coronavirus preparedness. A producer friend who has been putting together shooting strategies for three different shows says that no insurance company will provide a policy that covers Covid-19. Perhaps the Jurassic Park crew, which was in production prior to the shutdown, is still covered under the original insurance. New shoots will be less fortunate, and there is a possibility that the cast and crew will be asked to sign waivers, exonerating the production company from liability if they are infected with the virus.

The state of California, before issuing a filming permit, wants to see the producers' Covid-19 plan. In a large production, this could be 500 pages or more. There is a new position on the team: the health and safety supervisor, an on-site epidemiologist and a risk manager. This person oversees a team that includes a health and safety manager who monitors social distancing, the use of off-screen masks and the availability of PPE. They are also responsible for regular cast and crew coronavirus testing.

Imagine a fairly large Hollywood production. The cast and crew can reach 200 people. Then, on the first day, the health and safety supervisor, manager and assistant will test everyone. Tests cost at least US $ 150 each and there is a one hour response for the result. If a test takes 10 minutes, a person can do six of them in an hour. Three people can do 18, maybe 20. Without stopping for lunch, it will take 10 hours to test the entire cast and crew and another hour to receive the last batch of results.

Saturday or Sunday, not Monday – day zero instead of day one. For California, must the growers' plan specify how often they intend to test: daily, biweekly, or weekly? Because testing is invasive, time-consuming, and presumably expensive, most productions want to limit testing.

We have reached the end of day zero. Everyone has been tested. Anyone who has been a carrier of the coronavirus has been sent home. What happens to them? The hope is that production will take care of them and give them a job if they recover. Good luck with that. If they're lucky, cast and crew members who test positive for the virus will be able, as independent contractors, to re-apply for pandemic assistance (assuming there's any left). In the meantime, let's assume that their replacements were quickly found and tested. Now, a problem arises: the cast and crew are only on set for a certain number of hours. Then they leave the set and go about their daily lives. They go home. They go to the market. They pick up the dry cleaning. If restaurants are open, they go out to eat. Even after a day spent consciously testing everyone, at some point, some actors or production crew will encounter coronavirus spreaders and return to work the next day, with no temperature or symptoms, carrying the disease. This is not a problem unique to the film industry. It's a risk for any group work situation. In theory, the unfortunate grip or gaffer (or director!) Can be replaced. But what about the established cast member who, ten days after filming, tests positive?

In response to these concerns, the Screen Actors Guild requests that all cast members be tested at least three times a week, along with "those with whom they are in close contact." A plan created by the SAG, the Directors Guild, IATSE and the Teamsters envisions a “zone” system in which Zone 1 (actors and the staff that come into contact with them) will be tested more often than members farther away. of the Zone 2 team (balance teams, truck drivers, art department). I was told that “social distancing” must be maintained in front of the camera as well as behind it. How this will work for a romantic comedy or an action film remains to be seen.

And even for those tested three times a week, uncertainty remains. The only way around this is to seal the cast and crew in a closed environment where they live, eat, sleep and work. This was suggested, although the proposals were rather flimsy ("Let's have everyone stay in the same motel... and test the maids, kitchen staff, and front desk people").

Ironically, the safest filmmaking environment I can think of is the way John Ford used to film his cavalry films in Monument Valley. Because they filmed hundreds of miles from anywhere, the cast and crew had nowhere to go except to the set, their quarters at Gouldings Trading Post, or the big tent where they all dined (where there were high and low tables, with Pappy Ford holding a court in the middle of the big one). Unfortunately, Navajo Nation is currently suffering from a terrible outbreak of the coronavirus. But the theory may still be sound.

Social distancing on set is a horrible thought, especially for the actors, whose day often starts with hugs and kisses and lots of attention in the makeup chair. If we want to continue to make good movies – and enjoy our lives – we must stay social. So let's look at physical distancing: the same in practice, but different in principle. And what genre of film lends itself best to physical distancing? Why, the Westerner! Put all the actors on a horse and they're naturally several feet apart. Give them Winchester shotguns and they'll spontaneously keep their distance. Send them over a ridge and shoot them from a mile away like we used to before directors figured out the heartbreaking close-up.