A lil' Pulp Fiction Composition Analysis (get PHOTOGRAPHY books)!

[nycineaste]

I got a great book called "the Photographic Eye", its a photography book but Ive learned so much about composition that I finally feel I understand what goes into photographic/cinemagraphic images. I'm convinced that moviemaking such a vastly multi-disciplinary topic, that most books on the subject can only gloss over the sub-subjects that make it up. Get photography books! (I also think screenwriters should read playwriting books, since most screenwriting books are "get rich quick" affairs, but hey).

Anyways, as I usually do, I was analyzing the composition and coverage/editing of, in this case, Pulp Fiction. Here's some frames:

quick note: its very easy to discount this information as "obvious", since doorways and refrigerators and other such objects naturally occur in almost every apartment, but only a cinematographer trained in creating images with a camera will take advantage of them to create ordered, harmonious images; as obvious and basic as they seem, you'll find these techniques missing in amateur (right now, my own!) work...

(correction: in the last pic, I meant "Jules' arm")

[sonofaresiii]

Yeahhhh I dunno. I think about half of it is dead on and good analysis, and half of it is reading too much into it. It's really, really easy to look at scenes and start finding lines that "point" at "areas of interest" if you want them to. But then, sometimes they are used intentionally and to great effect. The images above seem a little overanalyzed though.

I heard a story once. One young filmmaker admires a famous director. Finally gets the chance to meet him, says "I absolutely loved this one shot you did in the middle of the desert, it was so unique and original and fit the story so well, tell me how did you come up with such great framing?" Director says "Well if I had moved the camera to the left, I'd have caught the factory, and if I moved it to the right, I'd have caught the airport."

[RickyC]

Yeahhhh I dunno. I think about half of it is dead on and good analysis, and half of it is reading too much into it. It's really, really easy to look at scenes and start finding lines that "point" at "areas of interest" if you want them to.

Agreed, that looks like someone spent too much time looking at that still. Im sure the DP is laughing because he maybe just put down the camera and said "Lets shoot this"

[nycineaste]

ah, nevermind.

[RickyC]

But hey, maybe next time people SHOULD look into those types of lines and stuff. Its true that just moving the camera a few inches changes a shot completely, and planning out for something like this could make your cinematography better :)

[CharlesPapert]

Early on in my operating career I worked for a DP who said "hey, I like your compositions. Did you go to art school?" I looked at him blankly and said "no...I'm a camera operator". He looked a bit disappointed. It was a bit glib on my part, but the point I was trying to make is that my sense of composition comes from everything that I've seen and studied in the way I chose to study it, which didn't happen to be via someone else's instruction (I'm a one-year film school dropout). I didn't happen to draw lines and break down frames to the degree that the OP did, but I dissected and internalized and developed a sense of what felt right and applied it to my work. Very early on I fell in love with the moving camera and the opportunity to carve through space and make compositional decisions in multiple axes every split second, which is why I became a Steadicam operator. But I was just as enthralled with the opportunity to line up a static frame and nudge into just the right balance of elements that satisfied my eye. In fact, despite my background in Steadicam, I now hew more towards classically designed static frames that may incorporate more subtle movement if at all.

There are quite a few DP's that prefer to line up shots themselves. I like to let my operators do it themselves, after we have discussed the intention and basic lineup, and will adjust if I see fit. This allows the operators to come up with some nuance that may improve the shot while I am lighting and dealing with other business, and hopefully the shot will improve as a result. Everyone in the department is on walkie, and I will tweak the framing during the shot if necessary. Having to communicate a slight reframe ("open up two millimeters--now pan left a little--perfect!") makes me all the more aware that composition is something that one just feels in one's bones--if it's not right, something needs to be done about it.

What comes with time and practice is how to identify the "issue" and solve it as efficiently as possible. I'm not the hugest fan of storyboards for basic coverage because I think it pushes a company into a choice that may already be outdated once the scene is actually rehearsed aka put on its feet. Obviously specialty, stunt and effects shots are best pre-visualized but for essential storytelling, and I'm all for shot listing a scene ahead of time to establish a game plan, but I like to see the actors in the set and feel out where the camera should be on the day.

I think a discussion of composition is an extremely valuable one. So many subtopics possible...

[morgan_moore]

I think framing is a set of stuff, basic 'rules' are a good starter, practical considerations (not seeing the airport), a small stock of artistic concepts, and last just a natural feel or mojo.. that is either 'god given' or got through hours behind the lens .. im not sure which

Im lucky that my mum stuck this on my wall when I was a kid

57325

One thing is for certain, camera position can critically change composition when the camera is moved an inch, that is partly why I love operating handheld and wish I was any good with a steadicam, I find sticks so disruptive to getting the camera exactly where I want it

Now here is a thing, maybe Charles, with your experience on large shows, you would be kind enough to describe the process of blocking/choosing camera position on a larger show

If I were doing a scene I would block it with a still camera in hand and come up with a series of 'key frames' in the scene before setting the camera

It seems that not only the position of the camera is critical but also of the talent

My minimal experience is that the director blocks and the camera department works the best they can with that blocking unless there are huge practical considerations that make that blocking fail

How is your process Charles?

[morgan_moore]

Two frames from my latest effort

This frame I dont like, the actors are well placed in frame, but id like to have put Mr Shirt in the doorway which would have mean repositioning Mr Jacket

57326

Working with a single actor I could position the camera so that the frame 'worked'

57327

[Egg Born Son]

I heard a story once. One young filmmaker admires a famous director. Finally gets the chance to meet him, says "I absolutely loved this one shot you did in the middle of the desert, it was so unique and original and fit the story so well, tell me how did you come up with such great framing?" Director says "Well if I had moved the camera to the left, I'd have caught the factory, and if I moved it to the right, I'd have caught the airport."

It doesn't really matter whether the framing was intentional or not. If it works it works. Understanding why makes the effect intentionally reusable. It doesn't even matter if the analysis of the framing is right or wrong if the end result is the same. Newtonian physics is now known to be fundamentally wrong but close enough that the maths could put man on the moon. In the arts having an underlining theory will always generate a feel of internal consistency so the theory is perhaps more important than being right. I thought the analysis here presented a reasonable case. I would only take to task the assertion that anyone would film the combination insert any other way. If you are going to highlight something like this with an inserted close up you fill the frame and go square on to highlight the object or side on to highlight the movement of the finger, anything else dilutes the subject.

[CharlesPapert]

How is your process Charles?

Roughly the same as what you described Sam, although I generally have a say in the blocking. If the actors are falling spatially into the environment in such a way that the coverage will put us into a wall, I'll suggest we adjust the position of the actors to avoid this. If there is a way to adjust the relationship of multiple actors that will simplify the coverage, that is often a welcome suggestion also. We may be able to have the actors work the frame in a master. So many possibilities involved in blocking for the camera. It's best to be active and engaged in this process rather than set the camera to existing blocking and let the chips fall where they may. A lot of this depends on the experience of the director--some may already have the essential coverage in mind when they block, others require help from the DP. Making suggestions and being involved in this level requires a specific relationship between director and DP--it requires sensitivity to the subject matter, the tone and the performances to be able to make the right kind of suggestion of how to alter the blocking. An "actor's director" may not quite understand or be able to visualize what the reasoning behind a particular request may be, you just have to show them.

Regarding sticks being disruptive--there's no question that raising the camera two inches takes a certain amount of time and energy and it's easy to become lazy. Try doing it on Mitchell base sticks with a heavy camera where leveling requires all three legs to be extended just so (vs the speed of adjusting a ball head)! Compared to sticks, it's MUCH quicker to work off a good hydraulic dolly like a Chapman or Fisher.

With a particularly specific composition, I'll generally find it with my eye first, think about what focal length and distance from the subject will serve the frame best, then we'll place the camera. Since I tend to work on zooms (for speed), there's a touch of fudge factor in where we land as we can always goose it in or out a few millimeters. When laying track it's important to nail the 1 and the 2 before the first stick touches the ground to avoid wasting time in relaying it again. Again, I tend to rely on my eye more than a finder these days because I'm used to "seeing" what the camera will see--I can mentally extrapolate the size and effect of most focal lengths except for the particular wide ones.

[David G. Smith]

When I started out I picked up two books that helped me out greatly. One was a very thin book on composition that I picked up out of the handy how to book bin at an art store. It was very basic, but really discussed the rule of thirds and the use of the golden mean in artistic composition. I used to keep the book with me and just study it when ever I had a few minutes (All that it took to read it all). I think that really helped me out.

The other book was called "Lighting for Photography" and was published in the 1940s. It also was a thin book covering the basics and I got it second hand. The book went through photographic lighting wit very simple lights (Scoop lights with photoflood type bulbs) and detailed the importance of light placement to the look of the shot.

I lost the books several moves back, but I am glad I studied them.

I think that those two, composition of the frame and the lighting, are the very bread and butter of cinematography. One without the other is not enough, in my opinion. The book "The Five "C"s of Cinematography" covers composition also.

[morgan_moore]

Charles, Thanks for taking the time to comment
I terms of blocking I think I was more refering to 'micro blocking' my 'mr shirt image' (above) does not sing, and could have by placing mr jacket 6 inches to the left

It sounds like your process is a little more basic or brutal in that you are commenting to the director about major coverage issues rather than micro framing
I call that one 'check mate' an actor in a corner and all of a sudden the camera needs to be in the wall to shoot OTS

This is as I guessed

I think it is those inches that make images 'sing' or have mojo
As for using a zoom , Im a cinematic periah in that I think primes offer poointless restriction to camera position (while obviously offering some technical advantage - speed cost etc) Id pick a zoom any time

As for a dolly I could not agree more - Ill pop round to Mssrs Fischer and pick one up (!)

Back to Mr Tarantino I think we can see that he has worked well with the camera department to arrange the blocking for the lens camera position in the three shots .. possibly too well

IMO Mr Deakins in Shawshank (roof scene) sometimes makes it too perfect which can take the viewer out of the illusion..

S

[cpc]

Perfect composition has its own emotional and intellectual impact. It can take you out of the movie, but it can also complement or even carry the movie.
Cinematography books are often very basic when it comes to composition, they preoccupy themselves with practical matters of continuity, cuts and storytelling. IMO, one should study paintings and photography to improve compositional skills. Both in images and some compositional theory.
Good introductions in these fields: Pictorial Composition (http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/book-review-pictorial-composition-in-art-henry-rankin-poore/) and The Photographer's Eye (http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/book-review-photographers-eye-michael-freeman/) (links to short reviews I've written). I believe the OP meant the second book even though the title seems a bit wrong.

Some good classic references in movies: Kurosawa and Kobayashi; Tarkovsky (great deep compositions), Urusevsky (probably the best handheld camera in the history of cinema),