FATAL ATTRACTION - Blocking, Cuts and coverage

[J.R. Hudson]

Fatal Attraction is a contemporary thriller I have always loved. It touches on one of the more scary aspects of infidelity. Before looking at the scene breakdown, read the transcript (I could not find the screenplay online) and imagine how you would shoot this.

How many set ups would you do ?

How many cuts in the editing room would you apply?

How would you block this ?

How would you change the axis line, if at all ?

And most surprisingly, look for the LINE CROSS. Most filmmakers at this level just don't understand this rule. Here, you will see not only where the line is crossed, but why it works.

*** Here, we not only see the talent change our line, which is typical, but we see a deliberate camera cross with a CUT. ***

Don't think it is lazy or ignorant filmmaking. You can be positive the filmmaker did it on purpose.

Another fun element is the use of the DUTCH ANGLE. You don't see too much in films these days, but the DUTCH ANGLE is typically used to show a disorientation during the scene. -- De Palma and Scorsese tend to use the DUTCH more than anyone.



READ FIRST !

Alex
So, what can I get you?
I've got scotch, vodka.
- I've got a nice chablis...​

Dan
- Cut the shi*, will you?
Just cut it!
I don't know what you're up to...
but I'm gonna tell you
it's gonna stop right now. ​

Alex
No, it's not gonna stop.
It's gonna go on and on...
until you face up
to your responsibilities. ​

Dan
What responsibilities?

Alex
I'm pregnant.
I'm going to have our child.

Dan
That's your choice, honey.
That has nothing to do with me.

Alex
I just wanna be
a part of your life.

Dan
This is the way you do it, huh?
Showing up at my apartment?

Alex
What am I supposed to do?
You won't answer my calls.
You change your number.
I'm not going to be ignored, Dan!

Dan
You don't get it.
You just... You don't get it.

Alex
Don't you remember our weekend?
I mean, wasn't that wonderful?
Why can't we just
be like that again?
I know you feel it too.
I mean, what are you so afraid of?

Dan
Hey, don't flatter yourself.

Alex
Go ahead, hit me.
If you can't poo poo me, just hit me.

Dan
You're so sad. Do you know that?
You're lonely and very sad.

Alex
Don't you ever pity me,
you smug bastard.

Dan
I'll pity you,
because you're sick.

Alex
Why? Because I won't allow you
to treat me like some slut...
you can just bang a couple times
and throw in the garbage?
I'm gonna be
the mother of your child.
I want a little respect.

Dan
You want respect?

Alex
- Respect.
- What are you doing?
Please don't go.
I didn't mean it. I'm sorry.
I'll tell your wife.

Dan
You tell my wife, I'll kill you.

Alex
It only takes a phone call!

SETUPS: 13
CUTS: 31

 

[Blaine]

Nice, John. I was wondering when you'd do another one of these. I just got in so I haven't had a chance to go over this but you can bet I will tomorrow...:thumbsup:

 

[DeSica]

Haven't seen this film in ages...

Are you sure about 13 set ups? Doesn't seem like it.

Also, when you show the actor as crossing the line, the camera is static, so there is no disorientation for the viewer. We see him moving, and her head follows his move, so we still see the realtionship between the two and there is no weird jump perceived, or change in position relative one another.

12 works fine for me, as does 16, and even 14...there is no cut, right? So no disorientation on our part. In 22 we do jump a bit after the cut, but at least they are in the same relative positions in terms of foreground and background.

Now that I look at 14 again, he seems to be walking/have walked back towards the same area as he was in during window 11. By 16 he would have had to have walked back to the right, since we see him going back to the left across a stationary Glenn Close. Still, I don't perceive any line being crossed, and no disorientation as to the physical positioning of the actors in relation to one another.

Also, if I remember my cinematography class correctly, the line doesn't have to be drawn from the camera(if you are implying this, or if anyone thinks that)...so there is more room for play than some think.

The continuity of camera position, along with his moving in our full view, make most of the shots work easily, just as if you were there, watching them argue and standing where the camera is.

The 180 degree rule should be paid attention to by all levels of filmmakers, since breaking it too extremely, or in the wrong way, can really screw up the viewer's perspective and ruin the scene.

I love dutch angles...they are a real throwback. When I see them used now, they seem poorly motivated. I was actually discussing this with a director friend of mine a few weeks ago. They are supposed to convey some sort of emotional or mental stress, or unbalance, that help underline the character's current psychological state. These days, they just seem like they are done for the hell of it.

It's supposed to mean something in relation to the moment in the film and the person on screen. It meant something in The Third Man, and it meant something when it was done in Citizen Kane.

These days it seems like it gets used just because good film makers used to do it, so lets ape their style...how cool. What is missing is the motivation behind the shot...

It works well in that shot with Glenn Close...she is coming undone emotionally, and ends up being a full blown nut job as the film goes on.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Thanks for taking the time to look DeSica !

Are you sure about 13 set ups? Doesn't seem like it.

Forgive me DeSica. It was like 3:00 am. After further review it is 11 Set Ups by my observation. (Red Wine can cause impairment when breaking down scenes !

Also, when you show the actor as crossing the line, the camera is static, so there is no disorientation for the viewer. We see him moving, and her head follows his move, so we still see the realtionship between the two and there is no weird jump perceived, or change in position relative one another.

Of course not ! I agree with that. It is memrely part of the break down and to show our budding filmmakers line crossing tecniques; in this case, changing the axis with your talent.

12 works fine for me, as does 16, and even 14...there is no cut, right? So no disorientation on our part. In 22 we do jump a bit after the cut, but at least they are in the same relative positions in terms of foreground and background.

Look again. In Cut 12, Douglas moves Stage Right off camera and crossing the established axis. No big deal. It is a legal maneuver. Cut 16 is the same shot and we get the same result, the actor moves back across to the originally established line left, no big deal.

It is Cut 14 where we have crossed the line in a henious fashion. There is not a terrible disorientation because we have already established the setting; the room, the actors positions, but make no mistake, the camera has jumped clear across.

The purpose of this type of shot is not as 'Shocking' as it may appear to be, but visually, the viwer must quickly orientate themself. It works, due to the heightended tension in the scene. It adds visual emotion to the unstability of the characters and the heated argument.

Now that I look at 14 again, he seems to be walking/have walked back towards the same area as he was in during window 11. By 16 he would have had to have walked back to the right, since we see him going back to the left across a stationary Glenn Close. Still, I don't perceive any line being crossed, and no disorientation as to the physical positioning of the actors in relation to one another.

Once again, the line cross in question, is the actor crossing the line. Cut 15 shows Close looking to her LEFT now. A rudiment example of this would be to say she would not be allowed to look left unless Douglas physically (or the camera itself) moved across the line. In this case, Douglas has moved to his right, crossing the established line, allowing her to follow him with her eyes. -- Another way to see this would have been for the camera itself to move across Douglas (Moving Left), this too would allow Close to now look to her Left.

Also, if I remember my cinematography class correctly, the line doesn't have to be drawn from the camera(if you are implying this, or if anyone thinks that)...so there is more room for play than some think.

On the contrary. The camera will dictate the line. But the line can and will change for 2 reasons; the camera physically crosses it, the talent physically crosses it. Or .. Number 3, we violate the line and literally JUMP it without visually moving (Which has taken place in CUT 14 and CUT 22.

The continuity of camera position, along with his moving in our full view, make most of the shots work easily, just as if you were there, watching them argue and standing where the camera is.

Yes, for the most part. But look closer. Except for the blatant violations (Which do work emotionally). If we were the camera, we would NOT suddenly appear in a new spot instantly. We, the camera, would have to physically walk to that spot in the room.

The 180 degree rule should be paid attention to by all levels of filmmakers, since breaking it too extremely, or in the wrong way, can really screw up the viewer's perspective and ruin the scene.

Yes ! Way too many filmmakers at 'this level' have no clear understanding of how this rule works. It is an easy rule to screw up, and much more complicated that most people think.

I love dutch angles...they are a real throwback. When I see them used now, they seem poorly motivated. I was actually discussing this with a director friend of mine a few weeks ago. They are supposed to convey some sort of emotional or mental stress, or unbalance, that help underline the character's current psychological state. These days, they just seem like they are done for the hell of it.

I love them as well. De Palma and Scorsese and Tarantino use them frequently. I love the last shot, the DUtch. It does exactly that. She slams the phone down in a fit, the camera is Dutch, it definately gives us that physcological imbalance of Close's feelings at that time.

These days it seems like it gets used just because good film makers used to do it, so lets ape their style...how cool. What is missing is the motivation behind the shot...

Totally agree. Look! A Dutch shot. -- But why ?

 

[jpeck]

Hey John, thanks for posting this, it kept me 'busy' at work. :dankk2:

It is an easy rule to screw up, and much more complicated that most people think.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I get into arguments with friends and people I know in film school about this all the time, especially when I see their work. While it seems so simple, following the 180 rule is much more complex in practice.


Dutch angles are way out of control and not only in film. Far too many people think they are 'artists' these days.

 

[krestofre]

I love these, John. Just love 'em.

The discussion about the rules of the line of action is facsinating and helpful. I'd like to reiterate how crucial Douglas crossing the line is to the scene. Imagine the above sequence if Douglas stood still, much of his character's inner feelings would be removed from the film, and at this stage in the game what the characters are going through is so important to the story (see earlier note about Glenn Close and Dutch angles).

I think too frequently people try to come up with ways for the camera to tell the story instead of letting the actors tell the story. Even though the camera is involved in some of the line crossing in the above scene, it's motivated first and foremost by the mental state of the two characters and largely carried out by the blocking of the actors.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I think too frequently people try to come up with ways for the camera to tell the story instead of letting the actors tell the story. Even though the camera is involved in some of the line crossing in the above scene, it's motivated first and foremost by the mental state of the two characters and largely carried out by the blocking of the actors.

That is a great insight and one I did not think of !

 

[cinealma]

I think too frequently people try to come up with ways for the camera to tell the story instead of letting the actors tell the story.

Don't tell Godard that. :laugh:

I'm going to have to dig out my Fatal Attraction DVD.

*** POSSIBLE SPOILER ***
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

A quick side note to this film: did anybody see the alternate endings? The one which they said test audiences hated but I absolutely loved was when Glenn Close slowly slices her own throat with the butcher knife in order to frame Michael Douglas with the murder. ****ing awesome!

And here's what's cool. There is a very subjective shot of Michael Douglas setting the knife down on the counter and the camera holds on the knife for a beat or two. With the original release, before I saw the alt. endings, it always bothered me, because I picked up on "look at MD touching the knife and leaving it on the counter", and then nothing, But with the ending I mentioned above, it was like, A-HA! That's why that shot was in there!

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I did see this on my DVD.

I admit, I still enjoyed the theatrical ending better.

 

[Blaine]

These days it seems like it gets used just because good film makers used to do it, so lets ape their style...how cool. What is missing is the motivation behind the shot...

That is the fault I find with so many filmmakers these days. They use "cool" shots but don't bother with motivations so they become more of an irritant that good filmmaking. Certainly dutch falls into this category as well as handheld. Handheld has become the vogue of the day but more often than not, it's completely unmotivated. But I digress...

I did see this on my DVD.

I admit, I still enjoyed the theatrical ending better.

I also liked the theatrical ending better. I've watch many "alternate endings" and there is only one that I really believe was better than the theatrical ending Hide and Seek. (Two if you count Blade Runner :laugh There's usually a good reason for going with the theatrical ending.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

That has been my expereince as well; and that goes for Special Editions that ive us deleted scenes; Aliens is this way, a much better theatrical cut.

COP LAND however as well as IDENTITY have great extras we never saw !

 

[Blaine]

That has been my expereince as well; and that goes for Special Editions that ive us deleted scenes; Aliens is this way, a much better theatrical cut.

COP LAND however as well as IDENTITY have great extras we never saw !

That's an interesting comment on Aliens. After watching the theatrical release (which is my #2 Sci-Fi movie of all time) I was able to read the original script. It included the opening shots of the colonist going out to explore the Alien craft. It is important in that it fills in the hole in the theatrical release. On the other hand it isn't really needed. I agree that the theatrical release is better but I also like the new one. I just don't like anything AFTER Aliens.

Once again, I've take this conversation too far afield...sorry.

 

[jpeck]

Blaine, did you ever watch Alien3 in it's director cut version? Thoughts?

 

[Blaine]

Blaine, did you ever watch Alien3 in it's director cut version? Thoughts?

No, I haven't seen it, yet. Perhaps I'll get my daughter to put it in her Netflix queue.

 

[jpeck]

It is a whole different film, so it is worth checking out.

 

[brianluce]

Maybe I missed it, but what does crossing the line give you? Is it that the relationship has spun out of control, the characters don't know what they're doing any more? and the director is giving the audience the same sense of disorientation and chaos? Is that it?

 

[brianluce]

I just don't like anything AFTER Aliens.

Once again, I've take this conversation too far afield...sorry.

What? didn't you *Love* Alien Resurrection? :shocked:

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Maybe I missed it, but what does crossing the line give you? Is it that the relationship has spun out of control, the characters don't know what they're doing any more? and the director is giving the audience the same sense of disorientation and chaos? Is that it?

Exactly

But unfortunately, many filmmakers don't study it, don't get it, have no idea why or when they crossed it.

There is a purpose, but you will rarely see the technique used.

 

[DeSica]

What? didn't you *Love* Alien Resurrection? :shocked:

It wasn't all that bad...I saw it again the other day on AMC (I think). A bit too gross at points for my taste, but watchable...

As for crossing the line, it has to do with having continuity in the scene and not disorienting the viewer. If you film two actors having a discussion, and all of a sudden you jump from A on left and B on right to B on left when you just had A on left, you will puzzle the aduience, and they will be aware of the artifice, thereby losing their immersion in the film. It's like a little jolt.

That is a basic example of breaking the 180 degree rule. It can be broken in complex ways that don't even get noticed, but you have to pay attention as a filmmaker.