Breaking the 180 Degree Rule

C

CSFilms

Member
Just wanted to double check with everyone. But I'm almost 100% sure I'm breaking the 180 degree rule (twice technically, from 3-4 seconds and 10-11 seconds)

I sped it up just so you can get the point :)


I was just wondering if there would be any way to use these shots though. My thought is that I would either have to:
1) Stick with either shots from behind the actors (behind the bench) OR in front of the actors (in front of the bench) only.
2) Add in 2 shots with the camera showing them "crossing" the line to sit on the bench, and then later circling behind the bench so that you can cross the line again?


Edit: Final video here for those interested:
 
Last edited:
The way you're breaking the 180 rule kind of plays up the passage of time, in my opinion. You break it as the dialogue starts with them sitting on the bench - and then you break it again as the scene closes. Both of those shots seem to insinuate that time has passed.

I'm no expert on these rules, but it doesn't seem like a terrible mistake. Though, the opening breakage of the rule is more visually 'jarring' than the closing. I think it would be helpful to show us the scene in real-time, so we can benefit from knowing the dialogue - which is an important part of the whole package.

I'm looking forward to hearing some thoughts from our more experienced friends here on DVX.
 
It's fine. The viewer understands the geography of the location from the opening shot. DOn't worry about "rules", just ask yourself if you like the cut.
 
I don't know. I think that the shot behind the bench is wide enough to establish the geography so that when you come in from the other side, it's not all that jarring or disorienting.
 
Comes across as arty due to the opening establishing shot, youve basically got away with it :-)
 
Your shot sequence works fine. All of your medium two shots and closeups follow the rule and you have a logical shift in viewpoint at the beginning and end that the audience can follow without getting confused.
 
As others have already said, you're fine. Not crossing the line is mostly about maintaining a sense of the geometry of the scene, and you have no problems there.
 
I don't think the "rule" is crucial in every instance, and here it isn't a make or break thing. But the cuts are a little too busy and jarring. If there's something worth saying, take a little time to say it without jumping all over the park.
 
As the others have said, I don't think there is any issue with breaking the 180 rule in the video that you posted. The orientation of the bench and the talents location on the bench establishes the geography of the scene. You do cross the line when you go from behind the bench to the shots in front of the bench but it does not cause view confusion because the geography is established. However, I do think that the cutting does touch up other issues and do bring attention to itself which is what needs to be avoided if you are following established "Seamless cutting" conventions (Which is also not a hard and fast rule). The issues that I noted are in the first cut you asked about, yes you do cross the line, which is not the big deal, but you also cut from static shot to a shot with unmotivated movement. On the second shot that you asked about you cut from two shot to an very close shot, a drastic change in relative screen size between the talent which tends to call attention to the cut. You then cut from the static CU to another shot with unmotivated movement. None of these cuts are "Wrong", but you do need to be aware of how the shots cut together and use the cuts in a deliberate way to tell the story, set the mood ect that you want. If you really want to follow strict seamless cutting paying attention to motivated camera movement and relative screen sized between the actors in a scene are important to consider. Again, none of this is "Rules", just part of the complex language of cinema.
 
You have not crossed the line at all in your sequence so I think you may have misunderstood the 180 rule.

Your sequence works perfectly and all you have done is cut from rear angle to front angle with well established geography. ie there is no line between front and rear in your instance.

Only thing I would say is the repeat tracking over the same ground seems to be a bit "purposeless" but thats only a personal dislike of mine whenever I see it. ( tracks to nowhere from nowhere for no reason)
 
Thank you all for your replies, I love this forum!
So don't go slider crazy, got it :thumbsup: (I love my slider, what can I say). Lesson learned though.
 
for the sake of thorough exploration this topic, you did indeed break the 180 rule (the characters switch positions right to left and the purpose of the rule is to help you keep characers on the same side of the screen)


but....


the pan into the second shot and the slight "jump cut" you have going on (they go from hugging to sitting without showing them sitting down) sort of "resets" (wipes clean, starts anew) the screen geography, giving the effect of a new scene, so the viewer accepts it readily.


there are ways to break the rule effectively and you did it here. You could argue (semantics here) that it means that you didn't "break the rule"....


one way for example is to "clean the frame" by having the character exit the frame. Then if you have them enter the frame from the opposite side (breaking the rule), it will be accepted-- again it kind of "resets" the screen geography/creates a the sense of a new scene, etc.. I can't think of another way to explain it.


and never forget the 180 rule is just a tool to help you establish a sense of space ("where thing are") in the mind of the viewer


an art teacher once told me:


"there are no rules, only tools"
 
This rule is fine to break because there is no object travelling in the frame. If there was somebody in the picture crossing left to right or vice versa it would jump out, but reverse angles work fine when the two characters are placed like this. The left right swap serves to reinforce the brain understanding the camera has moved, so it's positive. This rule is a context based rule. In a car chase, where people are watching placement it confuses, done like this it's fine.
 
mmmm tough call on the first "breaking the line," since the character actually (almost, but close enough) crosses the line, you can kind of get away with it.

The second time you do break it... but here's the thing-- think about what the line's for. It's for conversations in close-ups. If you have both characters in the shot (and not just OTS, but fully in the shot) you can kind of shoot from wherever you want. The whole point is not to confuse the audience, but if they're both there, no one's confused or disoriented.
 
John McTiernen has long been one of my favorite directors. He's underrated. The Hunt for Red October has my vote to be in the AFI Top 100 (no, I don't have a vote). Here he is showing us all that he was even more of a genius than he seems. He talks about breaking established editing rules, showing the "geography" of a scene, and how he comes up with camerawork based on musical principles.

http://www.mediafire.com/watch/we6bfbpm3bxbivo/john.mctiernan.on.filmmaking.philosophy.mp4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top