Strange cinematography in "King's Speech"

Cracker Funk

Cracker Funk

It's a good movie. Terrific acting, and some nice humor. But I was weirded out by one thing.

Plain and simple composition. It was really strange. The first couple times I noticed, I assumed it was on purpose, and thought, hmm, that's an interesting decision. But then, there were other times when I felt like there was just no chance in hell the shot composition was supposed to say anything, but instead, they just got really poorly composed shots (in my opinion).

The two things I saw most often were zero (and I mean zero) nose-room, and WAY too much head-room. Again, the first couple times I saw it, I assumed it was an artistic choice, but the more often it happened, I was like, damn, that's some piss-poor cinematography.

Illustrations provided for those who aren't familiar with head-room and nose-room:

headnose.png
 
I would say that I tend to pick up on bad shot composition in films, but I didn't really notice the first (nose room) issue at all. You might be right about it, but I didn't notice.

The second example is, I think, an artistic choice. Particularly in the scenes in Logue's surgery I think there was an attempt to juxtapose the prissy uptight King with the slightly decrepit walls of the consultation room. Plus there was the repeat framing of the sofa shot which was set up like that pre-raphaelite recline. Anyhow I'm pretty confident that this was an artistic choice (not to mention the fantastic royal locations and their very high ceilings) plus another part of me wants to say that Tom Hooper's a very technically profficient filmmaker (have you seen The Damned United?) and I would be amazed if simple composition errors managed to make it through into the final cut...

EDIT: I don't want to seem like the token Brit defending the British film, but it was a damn fine piece of work! :D
 
I haven't seen it yet, but there's no way it wasn't done intentionally - you don't get to that sort of level and accidentally give too much headroom. I guess the problem with getting so involved in the film-making process is that any funny business like this jumps right out at you: I was watching an action film before Christmas (big budget and cheesy, can't remember its name) where I couldn't concentrate on the dialogue because the lighting cheats on the reverses were so obvious. Having said that, I've watched some snippets from a camerawork, blocking and framing series, and it's quite interesting what you can supposedly imply with more/less headroom/noseroom etc.; I'd thought about it before, but not in such detail.
 
AND, they crossed the 180 line a bunch of times.

The British cinematographers are coming, the British cinematographers are coming!

You all make good points, but I think DP Danny Cohen was drunk when they filmed those aforementioned scenes. ;)
 
Just for the record, what Cracker is talking about can be seen in parts of the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aS4hoOSlzo

Another example of how us brits are supposedly, 20 years ahead of the yanks? At least that's what my British lecturer told us, in my British film school :hmm: Yes it's intentional, a great example of pushing the boundaries imo, i love the shot of Colin Firth at 0:52. Brilliant collaboration between set design and cinematography.

I have yet to see the film, it'll either be an example of brilliance or a DOP with boots too big.
 
I thought, in general, European cinematoghraphers composed shots a little differently than their American counter parts? This being a good example, where the composition is more "loose". I don't mean loose/bad I mean loose/you can enjoy the set/scenery more. I haven't seen the film but this has been my understanding. I htink Roman Polanski commented on it in the commentary of the movie The Ninth Gate.
 
I have yet to see the film, but from what I saw in the trailer it looked like a deliberate choice to emphasise (and make us empathise with) the awkwardness & uncomfortableness of the upcoming coming-to-terms of the king's condition.

Looks like an interesting flick, too. Was very disappoined with The Queen movie a few years back.
 
Scott and I saw this last week. I thought he'd be bored out of his brain, but he actually really liked it.

I noticed at times that the shot seemed to be composed in, interesting ways, and to be honest it kind of threw me. But I went into it thinking it would be a simple drama about royalty, and it turned out to be completely different. The script surprised me, in that it was quite funny and touching, and maybe that works with the unusual cinematography, if that makes any sense.
 
King's Speech

Just got home from watching the movie. I had to google "strange cinematography in King's Speech" because I was stunned throughout the film, wondering if the composition was really that bad, or if my seat at the side of the theater had contorted the entire image. Great story, great acting, interestingly not impacted by the craziness of the framing and the unmatching/unusual eyelines. I spent most of my time trying to figure out where we were going to go with it...would everything be solid and "normal" by the end? Was it all an elaborate attempt to make me feel uncomfortable? Or did I need to get to the theater earlier next time to make sure I got a better seat?

Non-film folks watching the film with me noticed absolutely nothing. It made me wonder why in the heck I worried so much about composition - no one cares who is looking where or where how characters are framed. Just tell a great story. I noticed "24" routinely ignores the 180 degree rule - and it still works (maybe even adds to the action).

I'll have to watch it again. If it was on purpose, then the framing/eyelines should change with King George's transformation. And if the goal was to make me feel off-kilter, the director was spot-on.

Anyway, enjoyed your posts.
 
The typical uses of excessive head space and too little nose room are to emphasize the feeling of being overwhelmed and paranoia. As an audience, we read all that space as a volume looming above the character and the space behind, we expect something to appear in it, the same way we expect someone to walk into or stare into the space in front of them, we expect someone to fill the frame behind them - it subconsciously affects the viewer.
 
Tank said:
Just got home from watching the movie. I had to google "strange cinematography in King's Speech" because I was stunned throughout the film, wondering if the composition was really that bad, or if my seat at the side of the theater had contorted the entire image. Great story, great acting, interestingly not impacted by the craziness of the framing and the unmatching/unusual eyelines. I spent most of my time trying to figure out where we were going to go with it...would everything be solid and "normal" by the end? Was it all an elaborate attempt to make me feel uncomfortable? Or did I need to get to the theater earlier next time to make sure I got a better seat?

Non-film folks watching the film with me noticed absolutely nothing. It made me wonder why in the heck I worried so much about composition - no one cares who is looking where or where how characters are framed. Just tell a great story. I noticed "24" routinely ignores the 180 degree rule - and it still works (maybe even adds to the action).

I'll have to watch it again. If it was on purpose, then the framing/eyelines should change with King George's transformation. And if the goal was to make me feel off-kilter, the director was spot-on.

Anyway, enjoyed your posts.
Click to expand...

Aha! I feel so vindicated.

I think perhaps it might have had it's desired effect on non-filmmakers, but to me it was just distracting. It felt like they were trying too hard.

Ah, well. Like I said before, it didn't ruin the movie for me; I really enjoyed it.

Welcome to the forums, Tank!
 
And Tank bought a Premiere membership, all because of Cracker's post! What a beautifully serendipitous story :)

But I still disagree with you both. I actually went to see it for a second time this evening and kept an eye out for what you were talking about. I managed to spot what I assume you are referring to in terms of the nosespace issue (although it still neither bugged me nor looked wrong to me) but I really couldn't find any occasion where I found the headspace a problem...

I think it's probably a matter or preference rather than a filmmaker/non-filmmaker divide. I've heard plenty of film directors and industry bigwigs saying that they think it's the film of the year. Indeed if/when it wins Best Picture at the Academy Awards it will have been voted for exclusively by people whose jobs it is to spot things like this. So I think it's probably a matter or personal preference. Some people think that the 180 rule in unalienable, whereas other filmmakers use it deliberately to disorientate and confuse. All of the standard rules have ways in which they can be used to illicit a different, and positive, reaction.

But I get that it might look uncomfortable if you don't like that method of composition.
 
Actually, I believe everyone in the Academy votes on Best Picture, and it's highly political. The Oscars are bogus. Except for maybe the technical awards, cuz those are voted on by peers.

Anyway, that doesn't negate the validity of your argument.
 
Right, 'everyone' votes but that's a very exclusive 'everyone'. The voters are made up of the 14 different groups- actors, animators/short film makers, art directors/costume designers, cinematographers, composers/songwriters, documentary filmmakers, directors, executives, film editors, producers, public relations specialists, sound technicians, visual effects experts and writers. The biggest voting block is actors, which is half the reason that Avatar lost out last year...

I would also disagree that they're bogus (although this is in danger of becoming off topic) because, on the whole, the right films tend to win. Obviously there are examples where it goes haywire and yes, the whole system is inherently studio political, but I think it's a decent representation of what the best films and performances of the year have been.

The King's Speech is classic awards bait...
 
Ah, who cares if it's off-topic? I started this thread, it's in the lobby, and it was created for discussion, not to ask questions.

That list of voters ain't so exclusive. What does a costume designer know about cinematography? The average actor doesn't know jack about cinematography (our own M1cheal being a noteable exception). Public relations? C'mon. That's a whole lot of people that don't know the filmmaking process at any kind of intimate level.

And I would disagree strongly that the right ones win, whatever that means. How is it possible that "Dark Knight" wasn't even nominated? Ditto for "Wall-E". They make stupid mistakes like that, every single year. And the acting awards are ridiculous.

I have absolutely zero respect for the Oscars (at least all the major awards).
 
Cracker Funk said:
Ah, who cares if it's off-topic? I started this thread, it's in the lobby, and it was created for discussion, not to ask questions.

That list of voters ain't so exclusive. What does a costume designer know about cinematography? The average actor doesn't know jack about cinematography (our own M1cheal being a noteable exception). Public relations? C'mon. That's a whole lot of people that don't know the filmmaking process at any kind of intimate level.

And I would disagree strongly that the right ones win, whatever that means. How is it possible that "Dark Knight" wasn't even nominated? Ditto for "Wall-E". They make stupid mistakes like that, every single year. And the acting awards are ridiculous.

I have absolutely zero respect for the Oscars (at least all the major awards).
Click to expand...

Again it comes down to opinion. In my opinion The Dark Knight wasn't nearly good enough for a Best Picture nomination. So I guess there were other people on the voting committees who agreed with me. On other occasions it will swing a different way.

I actually think the voting system is more complex than I suggest. Those are the groups who can vote- but they can only vote in certain categories depending on where their expertise lies. It's a pretty complicated system that's designed to give the fairest result.

You think the acting awards are ridiculous? I'd be interested to hear examples because I think, on the whole, they tend to be the strongest at rewarding the best performances. Obviously, like all competitions, some people are going to miss out but I don't think there's been a glaring omission in recent years and certainly not for overtly political reasons...

But a lot of people don't care for the Oscars and I can understand why that is when they tend to only reward the top international star-vehicle films...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top