Mr RObot annoyiing eccentric framing. DOES NOT (usually) WORK.

rayortiz313

rayortiz313

Active member
Trust me NOOONE loves odd compositions more than me.

I studied painting, I know all about it. Dividing space in interesting ways? All for it. Im a huuuge fan of Eisenstein and Dryers Passion OF Joan Of Arc. William Cameron Menzies? I literally study his work frame by frame (link to bordwell essay below).

But.....

The framing tricks on Mr Robot DO NOT WORK. Sometimes they create tension, but a character idly driving his kid down the road, moving screen right, with his nose pushed up all the way screen right DOES NOT WORK. Its not an interesting or daring composition. Its compositionally IL-literate.

The show has alot going for it but anyone interested in copying or experimenting with these ideas should study Menzies and Eisenstien and watch Passion Of Joan OF Arc, and DO NOT do it the way the foks at Mr Robot do. THeyre doing it wrong. What do I mean by that? The technique is about INTERESTING DIVISION OF SPACE. About masses being unequal in volume. Its not just about taking the subject and forcing them into the corner WITHOUT OTHER FORMS BALANCING THE FRAME.

William Cameron Menzies knew how to do it, so did Eisensteins cameraman. Mr RObot fumbles hard.

Nice try, guys.

http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/menzies.php
 
I looked at a good portion of your link, some very cool stuff in there, many beautiful shots that rely as much on the lighting as the composition for their power. I haven't seen Mr. Robot but I feel after a while framing becomes instinctive, though of course there is the very deliberately designed stuff you wrote about. On the ultra low/no budget stuff so many of us do you are often stuck with a meh real world location and try to make it work. The last short movie project I worked on was a friend's personal project that had those issues, mostly shot at his house, an office, a park, a bar. Tried to make everything look "cool" (that was about as far as my philosophy on the cinematography went) with nice compositions and when I could, lighting that fit the mood/story, never got too crazy. Several times I would just frame something a certain way and we'd decide we liked it 'cause it was "weird just to be weird" (really on that weird just a little off kilter compared to bland Lifetime movie framing or something). I had a few inspired moments of using wide angles in close up shots to convey this or that, and decided at a certain point in the story everything should be handheld from that point forward (we'd been on sticks for everything else) because of the main characters increasingly spiraling down/spinning out of control circumstances. If he ever finishes it I'll post a trailer. There's a thread on "another forum" with a bunch of stills.
 
The 4:3 (1:33) shot composition allowed for the vertical/diagonal stacking of images.

I don't know how many folks saw "In the Mood for Love" but Christopher Doyle shot it in 1:66, which allowed a similar type of framing.
 
To me, framing is like everything else we do as image makers and story tellers, any effects, framing, sfx, sound, looks, all need to be motivated by something, even if its something unseen or foreshadowed. If the non-usual framing is motivated by a character's state of mind or physical movement, it can always work. If it's stuck there just for an effect, just to be "different", it usually looks obnoxious. If it's overused, its obnoxious. This is why I am beginning to really dislike gimbals, Steadicams, sliders, jibs, and drones. The camera should not be moving all of the time, it gets so fatiguing for the viewer. Move the camera when there is a reason to move the camera, not because you have a bunch of toys at your disposal to move the camera. Some people still get it, but many don't have a clue and just move the camera because they can.
 
I have no problems with the shot compositions in the series. Works for me. It has a strong story line and the visuals carry it along very well. Could it be shot better? Sure, what couldn't. Shaky camera manipulations in non action scenes through the complete movie is my pet peeve.
 
There is a lot to talk about here. Can a TV series have a Meaning? Or is Meaning (again, capital M) only in realms of finite work: painting, book, film? I'm of the school that a TV show due to its lengths and dependence on never knowing how long it will last doesn't have Meaning of the same caliber as a finite work could allow - mostly due to the maker not taking full moral responsibility for their work (as it's impossible in a work without limits of time). As such fusing TV series with meaning is a nice attempt but ultimately fruitless.

That said, extreme visual otherness of the show (and i say it only based on some videos available online) gives a cue why the maker chose this approach. They naively assume that a TV series could be meaningful and so they try to visually give you indication that there is more going on than meeting the eye. It's a kind of visual subtext where what's being said with images is only part of the story. You indicate this otherness with framing, lighting and camera moves that go outside of the status quo approach. We had to deal with this issue a lot while working on our doc (link in my signature) so i studied this approach a lot. It WORKS if the maker has something important to "say" AFTER the viewer opens up his/her mind to the possibility of this otherness. Unfortunately, as it's a TV series, that "something important" is probably very banal in nature and so all that indication of otherness is wasted. (i hope you can tell how little value i have for TV series...)
 
Last edited:
What the heck, my measure of whether it is meaningful is if I will watch the next season and or recommend it to others.
 
Last edited:
I really love a lot about mr robot. they are doing so many things right. the extreme frames did draw my attention but I took it to be a greater meaning. Kinda like Patryk pointed out. I do believe that after a while the meaning may not have been as strong as when i first saw it but I binged watched it and my brain was probably pretty much a pile of mush after the 4th episode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top