Levels of Identification

[tom_wise]

I'm a big advocate of learning from books. I see so many filmmakers around me who simply aren't getting better. They've graduated film school and assumed their learning phase is over.

Tipota is correct that you need to compliment this more formal education with a healthy dose of wisdom. Traveling, observing, learning. These are the things that make you a good storyteller.

Learn-by-doing is a gigantic piece of the puzzle, but if that'sall you do, you should be careful to avoid plateauing.



To go back to the OP's original question, different types of shots are inherently more objective or subjective than others. In general, the more on-axis the camera is, the more subjective. If we are viewing somebody in an over-the-shoulder, it will be more objective. Push the camera past the shoulder into a single and you'll see how subjective the shot gets. This is a good camera move too, if the story calls for it.

Good points! I'm glad someone chose to address the OP's valid question.

Personally I thank God for books, without which I'd still be in the dark ages. Books have always given me a leg up. Certainly I read for pleasure. But I also began reading about "car mechanics" before getting my honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy, after which I opened a garage I had for fourteen years. Followed by reading-about then attending college to become a Registered Nurse. Followed by lots of reading and practice in photography...and finally here.

 

[john threat]

i noticed no one can name a awesome director who read a book about directing and that helped them become a great director.

 

[Rolf Silber]

i noticed no one can name a awesome director who read a book about directing and that helped them become a great director.

There definitely is not "a book" that turns one into becoming an "awesome" a director - this would be a bit too much of a Harry Potter approach.

But one look into film-history may tell us, that directors from Eisenstein to Lubitsch to Kubrick were also readers of books about film, about dramaturgy, about acting, about photography, about aesthetics, about the theory of art or about camera techniques.

So books are good companions on the journey to find out what kind of director one wants to become ....

 

[Granville]

i noticed no one can name a awesome director who read a book about directing and that helped them become a great director.

I am not trying to shoot you down or anything . . . BUT. . . I think that you are missing a lot of really good points.

A book is one medium for the exchange of ideas and experiences.

People write in order to track the development of their philosophies, workflows, etc.

It is a crucial medium for conversation.

I would bet that a great number of top director's studied books and listened to lectures long before (or while) gaining practical experience.

Reading, listening, watching shortens the learning process and gives some reference to the experiments that form your experience.

It seems maybe you are in the youthful phase of "f%*k the rules", which I partially agree with in that each finds their own way

and creates their own system of exploration, reaching their own conclusions based on their own due diligence.

Their is also the famous saying, "Know the rules before you break them."


By the way, I read an interview with Anthony Minghella, given shortly after finishing Cold Mountain in which he spoke about the

aspiration and inspiration Robert Bresson's book, Notes on Cinematography gave him.

 

[PopcornFlix]

i noticed no one can name a awesome director who read a book about directing and that helped them become a great director.

Spielberg
Lucas
Coppola
Cameron Crowe
Robert Zemeckis
John Lasseter

The books they've mentioned:

Hitchcock/Truffaut
Grammar Of The Film Language
The Visual Story


It's possible you don't consider these "awesome" directors. Also, none of them said "this book helped me become a great director," because these guys don't say that sort of thing about themselves. Most of them said things like "this book is invaluable," or "I go back and reread it from time to time to remind myself how to do my job."

Books are accelerants. They are time machines that can slingshot you past your own inexperience on the propulsion of Other People's Expertise. While you can learn everything from trial and error, reading a book from time to time lets you avoid some of the common mistakes. They help you focus your time on things that will give you more productive experience.

The best books introduce you to a new way of thinking. Perhaps before you read Hitchcock/Truffaut, you never thought about the narrative construction of dread and suspense. Maybe you just felt your way through it. When Hitch talks about how he deliberately turned the screw on the audience to build tension, you learn some new ways of thinking.

Books can also give you mentorship. You're never going to get to talk to Alfred Hitchcock. But Francois Truffaut did, and he was an accomplished filmmaker AND an acclaimed journalist, so he did a good interview. Wouldn't you like to know what Hitch said about filmmaking? There's a book for that.

The most important thing about reading books, is that it helps you stay open to learning new things.

IMHO, YMMV.

 

[PopcornFlix]

This seems backwards to me...if we are looking at the woman through the mans POV and she is looking directly at the camera, wouldn't we identify with the man, since that's the position we are in and being spoken too? Also, isn't that sort of shot too confrontational for us to identify with the woman?

Think of it as the amount of emotional connection we feel to the person facing the camera. Instead of objective vs. subjective, think of it as watching vs. participating. Look at this example:

When the eyeline is off-axis to the camera, it appears that we are "watching" the boy in red. That's what they mean by "objective." The further off-axis he's looking, the more we feel we're "watching" him relate to another character. We're "outside" of the conversation.

On the other hand...

When the kid's eyeline is closer to the axis of the camera, we feel more like the actor is talking "to" us. We feel like we're "inside" the conversation. That's what they mean by "subjective."

Hope that helps.

 

[Doc Bernard]

Spielberg
Lucas
Coppola
Cameron Crowe
Robert Zemeckis
John Lasseter

The books they've mentioned:

Hitchcock/Truffaut
Grammar Of The Film Language
The Visual Story


It's possible you don't consider these "awesome" directors. Also, none of them said "this book helped me become a great director," because these guys don't say that sort of thing about themselves. Most of them said things like "this book is invaluable," or "I go back and reread it from time to time to remind myself how to do my job."

Books are accelerants. They are time machines that can slingshot you past your own inexperience on the propulsion of Other People's Expertise. While you can learn everything from trial and error, reading a book from time to time lets you avoid some of the common mistakes. They help you focus your time on things that will give you more productive experience.

The best books introduce you to a new way of thinking. Perhaps before you read Hitchcock/Truffaut, you never thought about the narrative construction of dread and suspense. Maybe you just felt your way through it. When Hitch talks about how he deliberately turned the screw on the audience to build tension, you learn some new ways of thinking.

Books can also give you mentorship. You're never going to get to talk to Alfred Hitchcock. But Francois Truffaut did, and he was an accomplished filmmaker AND an acclaimed journalist, so he did a good interview. Wouldn't you like to know what Hitch said about filmmaking? There's a book for that.

The most important thing about reading books, is that it helps you stay open to learning new things.

IMHO, YMMV.

Very well put PopcornFlix! +10

 

[astrozombie]

Shame on you haters of book learnin'.


Im not super experienced, but Im quite sure the book is mostly right.

While im sure tons of great movies have been made without them, you could argue (Hitchcock would, and has) that the POV shot is the strongest, most centrally important shot in cinema. The over the shoulder shot, a convention seen ONLY in cinema, is a POV shot. And yes profile shots are (often) so objective feeling that they can jar you out of a story a bit (I know because its happened to me as a viewer)

I say you re-read chapter one of 5 C's of Cinematography ( i will keep doing so, till i get most of it right), and then go watch The Hurt Locker, and notice how you ****ing **** BRICKS every time the camera cuts to a wide shot, becasue you subconsciously wonder if its the POV of someone holding a detonator. Also notice how many POV shots put you "on the ground" with the protagonists and make you feel like youre behind a rifle and looking up at all the people that look alike and just might be the enemy". Im not saying POVS are some secret weapon of great directing but they might be close.

Then you can ask yourself whats up with the popularity of 3-D, and post Blair- Witch style found footage movies (not that im a huge fan of any of these). It has to with the desire for the audience for as close to a POV experience as possible, and the supremacy of the POV shot in the moviegoing experience.

Granted, take my advice with a grain of salt, I'm a better theorist than moviemaker at this stage, but I am QUITE sure that POV shots are one of the most important tools in cinema, and the eyeline thing you mentioned has more than a grain of truth in it, tho if youre calculating a direct ratio of eyeline to how involving/good the movie is, youd probably be doing it wrong.