Visual Language - Scene study, shot by shot !

J.R. Hudson

J.R. Hudson

Spirit Animal
Hitchcock said “If it’s a good movie, the sound could go off and the audience would still have a perfectly clear idea of what was going on.”


On my film blog, I am trying to concentrate on films visual language. Breaking scenes down, shot by shot, to find a truth in them, visually speaking.

If I can inspire and educate and make people think how they approach their own filmmaking, then I will be thrilled.

In order to break the rules, we need to understand them !


http://www.cineobscure.com/visual-langauge-the-point-of-view/ - No Country For Old Men

http://www.cineobscure.com/coverage-blocking-cuts-and-fatal-attraction-2/ - Fatal Attraction

http://www.cineobscure.com/visual-language-using-the-actor-subtlety/ - The Godfather Part II

http://www.cineobscure.com/visual-language-tombstones-ok-corral/ - Tombstone

http://www.cineobscure.com/visual-language-raiders-of-the-lost-ark/ - Raiders of the Lost Ark

http://www.cineobscure.com/visual-language-braveheart/ - Braveheart

I hope you enjoy it !


http://www.cineobscure.com/visual-language-braveheart/
 
That's a great scene. The v/o is brilliant (throughout the script in fact) and contains information that's not in the visuals so I wouldn't say it's unnecessary.

One reason the v/o works so well and is so seamless with the visuals is that both the visuals and v/o strike the same wry tone.

Longshanks must be one of the greatest movie villains ever.
 
Last edited:
Thanks again John. I'm actually learning something with these.
I'm looking back at the last two things I did and thinking, ooops. Why didn't someone say something?

I had that movie on VHS. Could become a classic.
//Mom thinks this and Rob Roy are a little overly dramatic. :)
 
Last edited:
STYLZ said:
Call me crazy but I didn't see any line crossing going on.
Click to expand...

I updated the article with a better explanation and thought process !


brianluce said:
That's a great scene. The v/o is brilliant (throughout the script in fact) and contains information that's not in the visuals so I wouldn't say it's unnecessary.

One reason the v/o works so well and is so seamless with the visuals is that both the visuals and v/o strike the same wry tone.

Longshanks must be one of the greatest movie villains ever.
Click to expand...

Longshanks was an evil dude.

the V.O. completely serves the scene, no doubt. But even better, is that VISUALLY, the same story is told, which only adds value to the V.O. and not just unnecessary exposition, whihc many films suffer from!

Thanks for reading everyone !
 
Good flick...although about as historically accurate as Young Einstein. Nice scene breakdown.
 
Hmmm. Maybe I'm missing something, I know you know this Hudson, but when a character looks at something or someone they are establishing a new eyeline/axis . So when Edward looks at his lover he establishes a new line/axis. Although the camera jumps the original line between Edward and the lady, it works because a new line was established. There actually is a line from Edward to all characters he looks at (and You actually state there is more than one axis.)
 
Last edited:
I think you are absolutely corret STYLZ, which made me reevaluate and break it down even more.

-

The eye line of the young prince does indeed create a new line (or handoff) for the camera to pursue.

-

I'm trying to think of it as a LINE BREAK w/ an asterik.

Does the camera jump over ? Yes

Is it legal ? Yes.

Does the Prince create a new line with his eyes ? Yes.

But the big difference I am seeing, is that it is not a new shot from the perspective of the prince's viewpoint. It is a shot some degrees off from the axis.

Imagine the shot from varying degrees around the axis; which angkes would work and not work ?

-

I'm no expert. I am doing this to educate myself and your thoughts have added great value to this one.
 
Yeah, actually I didn't give thought to it but it is off. More like an insert(albeit a character). More neutral. Maybe the neutrality of it makes the transition between those shots more acceptable. Now my brain hurts.
 
STYLZ said:
Yeah, actually I didn't give thought to it but it is off. More like an insert(albeit a character). More neutral. Maybe the neutrality of it makes the transition between those shots more acceptable. Now my brain hurts.
Click to expand...

If you stare it long enough it definitely seems more like an insert. But in context (and I don't have it handy to verify, so this could be way off) it probably feels like a POV shot. Eh? Maybe?
 
JasonFox said:
If you stare it long enough it definitely seems more like an insert. But in context (and I don't have it handy to verify, so this could be way off) it probably feels like a POV shot. Eh? Maybe?
Click to expand...

Definitely not a POV.
 
Not a POV

But the shot is shown from the line of the KING as you can see from the subsequent reverse. when the KING turns his head.
 
These are fantastic! It's funny because I had already broken down the Raiders scene and the Tombstone scene (for a western I am working on). These are a perfect way for anyone to study the language of film. They are succinct, informational and inspiring. Keep posting!
 

Attachments

  • chestful_of_blood_bar72.jpg
    chestful_of_blood_bar72.jpg
    200.1 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top