Strange cinematography in "King's Speech"

[chilipie]

*saves Cracker's rant for when Anti-Hero is nominated*

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.

I would tend to agree with this - I think the Dark Knight and WALL-E did not do as well as they perhaps should have done, but equally - if I may use a non-film analogy - I can disapprove of the result of an election without thinking there's something fundamentally wrong with the electoral system. I think there are problems with the voting system (and I haven't got a fucking clue why PR people should be voting on anything), but generally speaking I think the best films do well.

 

[Dreadylocks]

You might find this article interesting.

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/tec...er-Danny-Cohen-on-The-Kings-Speech_12926.html

It's an interview with the cinematographer for The King's Speech. He goes into why he made the choices you brought up in your OP. Plus a bunch of other interesting stuff

 

[David.rhsc]

Is Cracker Paul Revere?

Cracker is many things, but a horse he ain't.

Though we could hang out in the desert with a quart of beer.

Someone might tells us about the dope spot where they got the champagne.

Besides; I'm on the run, the cops got my gun, and right about now it's time to have some fun.

Heh, sorry.

Serious response after I've seen it.


Oh, and IMSHO, the "line" is for newbies. Big movies cross it all the time with reckless abandon. As long as you have established a solid geographical space or you're using the actors looks to cue the movement of the line from one axis to another it's no big deal. The whole "YOU MUST NEVER CROSS THE LINE" (read robotically) is like critiquing everything ones sees by declaring that it does not have Form and that Film Needs Form. Both are of relative importance - but neither are hard and fast rules.

Skipping the Oscar's discussion completely

*skips away singing to himself; "Ah did it like diss! Ah did it like dat! Ah did it with a Whiffle Ball Bat, Sooooooo...."

 

[chilipie]

I would like some of what David's been drinking…

 

[David.rhsc]

I would like some of what David's been drinking…

That's David posting before coffee. Not a Beastie Boys fan?

That last bit is a bit wacky, you'd have to have seen the episode of Home Movies where they go to Art Camp to really get it. I do think folks sometimes get too caught up in the whole line of action thing; it is important to establish spatial relationships, but there is more freedom to move around than "don't cross the line" would imply.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Oh, and IMSHO, the "line" is for newbies. Big movies cross it all the time with reckless abandon. As long as you have established a solid geographical space or you're using the actors looks to cue the movement of the line from one axis to another it's no big deal. The whole "YOU MUST NEVER CROSS THE LINE" (read robotically) is like critiquing everything ones sees by declaring that it does not have Form and that Film Needs Form. Both are of relative importance - but neither are hard and fast rules.

Well, actually I think you and I probably see eye-to-eye on the line of action, but I wouldn't say that following the 180-rule "is for newbies". I'd say that it's for newbies the same way that learning to dribble a basketball is for inexperienced basketball players. By the time Jordan was winning his sixth NBA championship, I doubt he spent very much time worrying about this skill, but that doesn't lessen it's importance.

The 180-rule never disappears. It's just that with more experience, you realize that the line of action is fluid, it moves all over the place, and sometimes doesn't even exist. But you always know that there are some places you probably shouldn't put your camera, and so much of your camera placement is rooted, at least partially, in this simple rule, even if you don't spend much time thinking about it.

As far as The King's Speech is concerned, the occasion I noticed when they broke the rule was during a conversation in which both of our leads were sitting down, directly facing each other. In that instance there is a very clear line of action, and it just doesn't make sense to cross it.

By the way, I was with you all along with the Beastie Boy references. I was in the fourth grade when they blew up, so at that age, I didn't get a lot of what they were rapping about. Just a couple years ago, I finally discovered what Brass Monkey was, and had my first taste of it. Not all that bad, to be honest.

 

[chilipie]

That's David posting before coffee. Not a Beastie Boys fan?

That last bit is a bit wacky, you'd have to have seen the episode of Home Movies where they go to Art Camp to really get it. I do think folks sometimes get too caught up in the whole line of action thing; it is important to establish spatial relationships, but there is more freedom to move around than "don't cross the line" would imply.

I think it's a useful rule, like the rule of thirds, and an understanding of it can improve your work immeasurably - and like the rule of thirds, you need to understand it before you can break it effectively. I've borrowed some of the Hollywood Camerawork DVDs off a friend, and they're fantastic for this sort of thing; it's a bit laborious getting through them, but there're some great ideas in there. I must admit that the more I learn about stuff like this, the less of an effect they have on me in the cinema. Even with films I really enjoy, I end up spotting odd compositions rather than just letting the intended effect wash over me…

 

[NickClapper]

Tossing in my couple of pennies: I think there are very few good 'reasons' to break the rule. Too often, and perhaps TKS is guilty of this, is broken simply so that the filmmaker can declare that they aren't being confined by general 'artistic parameters'. Breaking the 180 rule does not turn your film into an art film. Therefore I would always treat it with caution, both as a filmmaker and a critic, because it is a disconcerting visual experience and when there isn't sufficient justification behind it then I think it can look bad, not just to filmmakers but to the viewing public...

 

[Dreadylocks]

I've borrowed some of the Hollywood Camerawork DVDs off a friend, and they're fantastic for this sort of thing; it's a bit laborious getting through them, but there're some great ideas in there.

Aren't they amazing? Dry as hell, yes. But amazing. All the segments are great but my favorite is when they plan out and diagram a scene with the moving camera. I can't believe how easy it is (or they make it look) to get that Hollywood style for shooting a scene. Know what I mean?

I must admit that the more I learn about stuff like this, the less of an effect they have on me in the cinema. Even with films I really enjoy, I end up spotting odd compositions rather than just letting the intended effect wash over me…

Don't worry. That goes away eventually. Unless you're a neurotic

 

[David.rhsc]

Well, the point of that post was mostly to be humorous; there was some serious business happening in this thread with the whole Oscars thing. Thought I'd skip that.

The 180-rule never disappears. It's just that with more experience, you realize that the line of action is fluid, it moves all over the place, and sometimes doesn't even exist. But you always know that there are some places you probably shouldn't put your camera, and so much of your camera placement is rooted, at least partially, in this simple rule, even if you don't spend much time thinking about it.

Strong/silly wording aside - you're right in your assessment that we basically agree. I've watched (and had a few myself) some rather ludicrous discussions of where the line of action is on set. Most of which could have been shortened, time saved, and that really cool shot that someone thought of actually used - IF, and only IF for folks involved had remembered that the line MOVES, and that at best it is only a guideline in the first place.

The other side of that is that audiences have a better toolset for interpreting visual language than they did 40 to 60 years ago when these 'rules' that we all follow were being established as canonical Hollywood form.

That is to say that a random line cross is not a geographically jarring to a 2011 audience as it would have been to a 1941 audience. That doesn't mean we should toss it out - but that we have some freedom to play with it as a convention.

I haven't seen the movie in question, but based on your description that sounds a tad wacky.

And for whatever reason, once someone mentioned Paul Revere, all I could think was about how the Sheriff's posse was on my tip 'cause I'm in demand!! Can't recall how old I was when their first album came out (not the punk one, the first major release. I didn't hear the actual first album until later) , but IIRC we're fairly close in age so ... yeah.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

Dont really have time right now to get into the discussion abt this but just wanted to say i really liked the cinematography and was surprised it didnt win the oscar for it.