Framing and the two-thirds rule of composition...

[Filmkid2003]

Hey everyone. I am almost done shooting my film and I have a question about the two-thirds rule of composition and framing. From what I can gather by studying a lot of films done by masters of cinematography and doing my own research on the web, as well as my own experience in setting up a shot, the actor's head should be somewhere on the line of thirds vertically, and their eyes should be on the top line of thirds horizontally. I have two questions. Is it okay to cut off part of an actor's body with the side of the frame so that his head is on the line of thirds in a close up shot? Otherwise, in order to have his whole shoulder in the frame, his head would have to be in the very center of the frame and I thought that was a big "no-no". I am talking about a 16:9 frame, not anamorphic, which obviously would give you more room to frame with horizontally. There are a few shots where I had to cut off half of my actor's shoulder to do this in a close-up shot and I just want to make sure I framed the shot correctly.

My second question is... has anyone seen the film "A Dangerous Method" with Kiera Knightly? I watched the film the other night and noticed that in A LOT of scenes, the actor was in the very center of the frame. It wasn't just in the close up shots either. There were a lot of medium shots that had the actor in the very center of the frame as well. I know theses are just "rules" of composition but, to my eyes, it looked awful. I loved the color correction though. Other than the shots I just described, the film looked very cinematic.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Hey everyone. I am almost done shooting my film and I have a question about the two-thirds rule of composition and framing. From what I can gather by studying a lot of films done by masters of cinematography and doing my own research on the web, as well as my own experience in setting up a shot, the actor's head should be somewhere on the line of thirds vertically, and their eyes should be on the top line of thirds horizontally. I have two questions. Is it okay to cut off part of an actor's body with the side of the frame so that his head is on the line of thirds in a close up shot? Otherwise, in order to have his whole shoulder in the frame, his head would have to be in the very center of the frame and I thought that was a big "no-no". I am talking about a 16:9 frame, not anamorphic, which obviously would give you more room to frame with horizontally. There are a few shots where I had to cut off half of my actor's shoulder to do this in a close-up shot and I just want to make sure I framed the shot correctly.

My second question is... has anyone seen the film "A Dangerous Method" with Kiera Knightly? I watched the film the other night and noticed that in A LOT of scenes, the actor was in the very center of the frame. It wasn't just in the close up shots either. There were a lot of medium shots that had the actor in the very center of the frame as well. I know theses are just "rules" of composition but, to my eyes, it looked awful. I loved the color correction though. Other than the shots I just described, the film looked very cinematic.

The various rules of composition are 'rules'... 'more like guidelines'... for a couple of reasons. The generalization is called 'visual weight'... the most general statement is 'arranging objects in the frame to move the eyes of the viewer to important elements in the frame'.

With that in mind, there are a number of secondary rules having to do with 'what does it mean'... For film, with actors, often they are important, and so, setting the actor at different places in the frame, may give different 'feelings' to the shot.

An actor to the 'side' of the frame, (let's not focus on 2/3 or whatever...), will have a different 'feeling' than an actor placed in the center... At this point The Story enters in. Often a point at which the story is making a significant statement about the character, will have the actor centrally located. Shots with the actor to one side or another, may be 'lead ins' to other shots. The classic back and forth cutting between actos, each on one side or the other, moves the viewers eyes to one side of the frame to the other, 'as if you were there'.

"Air space" is also a visual story cue. An Extreme Close Up gives one type of feeling, a Closeup, that is a shot with the head of the actor, perhaps a bit of shoulder and air space on the top of the head, gives another. Medium shots, where we see the actor from waist to top of head, usually have a bit of air space for the top of the head.

As for "A Dangerous Method"(2012), since I've not seen the film yet, I don't know what Cronenberg had in mind for the shots you mentioned, but I'd guess they have some 'importance' given that his other films have had 'detailed' shots.

For example, in a 'fight scene', think perhaps "Raging Bull"(1980) as a 'classic', there is a different feeling in seeing the fight from a 'side view' such as a spectator would see, vs. the full frontal shots that the opposing fighter would see...

In "A Dangerous Method", perhaps Cronenberg is 'emphasizing' the 'oppositional nature' of the three, relative to several issues that the film story addresses, love, psychoanalysis, and friendship, which you'd have to understand the 'back story' about Freud, Jung, and how Freud did not see his method as a socially 'liberating' process, but a method to accommodate the individual to the society they found themselves in. Occasionally Freud would make a comment about the society he lived in, and the 'wrong' methods of conforming the individual to the requirements of social living... but he would kick people out of the Psychoanalysis movement if they began to offer a more 'liberationist' view of what the purpose of Psychoanalysis was.

 

[Filmkid2003]

Thank you for your very informative input. I was thinking exactly what you said about Cronenberg having a visual storytelling reason for placing the actor directly in the middle of the scene as I was watching the movie and that is probably why he did it. Can you please answer my question about cutting off part of my actor's shoulder so that his head would be on the line of thirds in the frame? It is a frontal close up and he is facing the other actor he is talking to (he is looking past the camera). Should I have made sure his shoulder wasn't cut off and just had his head in the center of the frame instead? I am not trying to visually or subconsciously "tell" the audience anything with this shot. It's just a simple close up of the actor.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Can you please answer my question about cutting off part of my actor's shoulder so that his head would be on the line of thirds in the frame? It is a frontal close up and he is facing the other actor he is talking to (he is looking past the camera). Should I have made sure his shoulder wasn't cut off and just had his head in the center of the frame instead? I am not trying to visually or subconsciously "tell" the audience anything with this shot. It's just a simple close up of the actor.

Without seeing a frame, I really can't say much about such a placement. I will say, that from viewing a number of clips here, there is a tendency to crop 'way too close'. Especially when a novice actor/actress is 'emoting' to the point where they are bobbing in and out of the frame, or even if fully in the frame, they look like they have had too much coffee...

For a purely 'static' shot, I tend to place the person's head on the 1/3 or 2/3, left or right, and upper 1/3 almost always, if that's the sort of composition I'm going for. Depending I leave a bit of 'air space' on the top of the head, and perhaps a bit of shoulder, perhaps to the 'arm pit', if that's the cropping I'm going for.

As an additional note, I tend to use pretty deep focus, so, the shoulder would be in 'somewhat' focus, rather than totally fuzzed out by a shallow DoF, where the person's eye is the plane of sharp focus.

Another item that bothers me a lot about the heavy use of shallow DoF, is people have actors who move a lot, fall in and out of focus, and in an out of the frame...

Since we are talking about moving pictures, one should consider 'what comes next'. Does the next shot 'match up well' with the current one. Since you have 'moved' the viewer's focus to a actor's face at the 2/3, 1/3 gridmark( that is from the left the 2/3 mark would be on the right...), does the eye then have to 'jump' to somewhere else on the next shot...

In that regard, do the eye lines match. For example, say you had the actor with the eyes at the 2/3, 1/3 location. Say the next shot is of the second person in a conversation, are they at the 1/3, 1/3 mark and each actor's eyes aimed straight across the frame... as if they were looking at each other...

Or are they at a different position... and do their 'eye lines' match...

If it is easier for you to set up the shot... sure put the eyeballs for the actors on the 1/3 crosshairs... and make sure anything else in the frame leads the viewer to that point. So then the answer to the question, 'is there too much shoulder, (or whatever) in the shot' sort of answers itself... if your eye keeps wandering to the shoulder... it's too much...

There's also the 'back of the head' distance to the frame, with some one on one side, looking towards the opposite frame side... if the head is cut off by the frame... I'd have to ask 'what's so important?'... perhaps it is the eyes... but perhaps it's just due to a poor framing...

As for a philosophy... each shot should be 'telling' something... at least for narrative films... no, I think for 'all films'... each shot should 'tell something'... Otherwise, placing the objects in a certain place becomes an academic exercise... and will lack in 'authenticity' of the shot.

I realize that's not a definitive answer... or an easy one...

Here's a shot from "No Country for Old Men"(2007). I have not checked it to see if it is a 'full frame' still from the movie, but I think it is... anyway.

The 'eyeballs' of the actor are pretty much placed on the 2/3,1/3 grid, and the plane of sharp focus is such that the barrel of the gun begins to fuzz out about halfway down, and the back ground is somewhat fuzzy, but I'd bet the f-stop is around 4-5.6, as there is a little bit of DoF around the actor's face.

The top of the head of the actor is clipped by the frame, as well as the elbow. There is air space behind the the actor, and the actor's body, his back, at the shoulder blade area, is where it drops out of the frame.

When I look at this shot, my 'eye' runs along the gun barrel from the silvery silencer to the gunman's face and eyes. The white wall to the left, the open black doorway, and the brown wall behind act as 'framing' devices to keep my eye going back to the gunman.

 

[combatentropy]

First of all, relax. In time, your framing gets instinctive. You compose a shot, and it feels right.

None of that's helpful, though, when you first start out. Rules are your headmaster, and you should usually follow them. I remember having a page of reminders when setting up shots, and it included the Rule of Thirds. Bear in mind, others say it should actually be the Golden Ratio --- which is close but not the same exact proportion.

I think it's fine to cut off a shoulder, or whatever, if your shot is tight enough.


In passing, a movie I'm watching now is The Verdict. It has very traditional, classical compositions. Study that, and you can diverge how you feel like it, as long as you have a reason. Great movie, script-wise and directing, too, by the way.