Is directing shots this way really necessary?

H

harmonica44

I've noticed in a lot of movies that a director will be very reciprocal in how conversations are put together. If one person is talking from a side shot, they will have a side shot of the opposite talking character. If they cut to a more front shot of one of the characters, they will then cut to another more front shot of the opposite character. Here's an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06rpz6-5s_0

As you can see if the camera gets closer one on of them, it must get closer on the other. A lot of movies do that. Is this really a requirement for audiences perception, or is it just the preference of most directors? I can't think of any movies that have done back and forth, where the shots are at much different distances and angles.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
You're on the right track!

Harmonica,

The fact that you noticed this pattern is a great first step. What you're seeing is traditional film grammar being used. And I think it speaks highly of your skills that you caught this pattern on your own.

The key to filmmaking is to understand that it's analogous to writing poetry. In order to write really expressive poetry and thereby break the rules of English grammar, you at first need to KNOW the rules of English grammar. If you're breaking the rules haphazardly, chances are you're not making anything worthwhile.

However, if you're breaking the rules for a deliberate reason... then... yum... butter it up... you're having fun with the camera!

One of the primary rules of FILM grammar is you generally don't want to JAR the audience. We, the people of earth, have been trained over time to watch movies in a certain way. That's our grammar at work. By gradually cutting from larger shots to tighter shots, you the filmmaker are keeping your camerawork invisible to the audience. You're avoiding any JARRING cuts. That's a good thing...

Well, that's a good thing unless... unless your goal is to jar the audience visually. And you'd really only have that particular goal if one of your characters suddenly has something jarring to do in the story.

There are other ways to bypass the standard reciprocation (as you call it), but I think the phase you're in right now is to first understand HOW reciprocation is achieved. Watch a lot of movies. Shoot some shorts. Edit your shorts. And do all this while strictly observing the rules of reciprocation. Then one day, when you're DYING to break free of this rule, when you know your scene is SCREAMING for a new approach, you will probably come up with an amazing sequence of visuals that no one has ever thought of before, a sequence that perfectly suits your script AND your actors' performance of that script.

Shanked
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There's certainly a beat change at that final line, and it does put a lot more emphasis on that final line, rather than just being another part of the conversation they're having.

I also have not seen the rest of the movie, so that line may be an underlying portraiture of the character.
To start thinking like a Director, you need to start looking at the subtext of each line of each scene. You can't really just take a clip out of context of a movie and try and look at the underlying emotion of it.
For all we know, it could be foreshadowing something in a later scene, but without the context of the rest of the film, it's impossible to tell.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I can see the beat change for sure. I wonder if it would be good to do the opposite. Have a side angle the whole time and then switch to front. And like the previous example, they do the same thing. If the angle changes for one character, they do it for the other.

But it's good to know. For my next project I am going to storyboard angles for beat changes, even it it's a subtle switch.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top