Visual Language - Scene study, shot by shot !

Hudson, could you put these in .pdf They seem interesting but each time I try to view the pages (blame internet in my country) the pics take forever to download and I can't see anything. I've tried changing browsers and networks too.

Thx anyway bro.
 
Good stuff. but can anyone inform me of the terms used it most of the links. I am inexperienced when it comes to typical cinematic terms..

axis-
crossing the line?
180 rule?

or any others that are important?
 
hey this helped heaps. what other films would be worth breaking down do you think? (without the obvious "every film")
 
Google those. And get a few books. That's what I had to do.

luke e said:
Good stuff. but can anyone inform me of the terms used it most of the links. I am inexperienced when it comes to typical cinematic terms..

axis-
crossing the line?
180 rule?

or any others that are important?
Click to expand...
 
J.R. Hudson said:
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 !
Click to expand...


WOW!!! This is some of the most valuable information I've got in very loooong time! Thanks. I'll be studying these, and conditioning my brain to think this way from here on out. One question, the 30 degree rule you talk a lot about... does that refer to the actors actions or the cameras location?
 
bentramer81 said:
WOW!!! This is some of the most valuable information I've got in very loooong time! Thanks. I'll be studying these, and conditioning my brain to think this way from here on out. One question, the 30 degree rule you talk a lot about... does that refer to the actors actions or the cameras location?
Click to expand...


Yeah, is super good information, thanks

the 30 degree rule is for the camera angle in relationship to the subject.

if you cut from one shot to another one that has less than 30 degrees of diference, it is likely that it looks like a "jump cut" meaning that it looks like it was a mistake.

there is also the 3x zoom one (less than 3x zoom looks like a jump cut)

These rules are only important for you to know, so you can break them properly...

H
 
I need help understanding something.
I'm kind of a newbie to this whole Cinematography thing and this movie "Fatal Attraction" was shot the way I usually think when I shoot stuff like this.
Crossing over lines to create certain feels, but my knowledge of crossing lines goes as far as the 180 degree rule where the camera should stay on one side of the Actors and I see where that's been crossed the way I do it but what I don't understand is... in scene number 14 & 16 on the article what line has been crossed there? Are we still talking about the 180 line still? Thanks for your help.

Article: http://www.cineobscure.com/coverage-blocking-cuts-and-fatal-attraction-2/comment-page-1/
 
I like your Hitchcock post at top of thread... Actually this is how films are often bought for foreign distribution.

The buyers at major festivals/conferences will turn down the audio, and watch a few minutes. If they can understand the film without sound (dialogue) they may watch the whole thing and buy it. If they don't understand the first few mins without sound, they move on... doesn't matter how good your distributables package is.

Hitchcock really was a genius in the visual medium. Knew exactly what he wanted- I believe the actor/protagonist in "Family Plot" said he average a 2:1 shooting ratio. Amazing. Anyone who wants to learn film- watch each Hitchcock movie 10 times, analyze EVERYTHING.
 
Luis_ said:
I need help understanding something.
I'm kind of a newbie to this whole Cinematography thing and this movie "Fatal Attraction" was shot the way I usually think when I shoot stuff like this.
Crossing over lines to create certain feels, but my knowledge of crossing lines goes as far as the 180 degree rule where the camera should stay on one side of the Actors and I see where that's been crossed the way I do it but what I don't understand is... in scene number 14 & 16 on the article what line has been crossed there? Are we still talking about the 180 line still? Thanks for your help.

Article: http://www.cineobscure.com/coverage-blocking-cuts-and-fatal-attraction-2/comment-page-1/
Click to expand...

Hi. Yes it's still the 180 line that is being crossed. Don't think of it as shot 14 alone... 14 is separated into TWO shots WITHOUT a cut. I assume this because there is no red line separating the two frames in shot 14. However, think of it as the cut from shot 13 (which isn't labelled) to shot 14. what we should have cut to was the mans LEFT side instead of his right.

The same applies to 16, it starts with him on the right side of the frame then he walks to the left side of frame. These are NOT two shots but ONE shot. Start frame to end frame. There is no line crossing here because we see the actor cross frame...

I hope you get to see this. I'll pm you just in case. Maybe someone can verify if I'm right or not...
 
I get what your saying. Thanks for explaining. I have studied many different shots after I originally posted this back in feb, and a rule that I have developed for my self from everything I looked at was to follow cheeks :) as strange as it may sound. Or use the lit cheek (the one that the light is hitting)

And looking at the shots in the samples given, that would actually work because what I gather is that it doesn't matter how many times the the actors cross or move to where ever, what matters is that the flow continues if you follow the same check. Or the one that's lit. (which is what I call the emphasis check) (That's my own rule made up by me from my observations so.....)

But, let me explain my self. Like if I'm shooting a left cheek then I would frame the other actor's responce with the right cheek. Or vise versa.

So like for example, in the article, I see it like this:
by frame numbers:
1:Left cheek lit
2:switch, his right cheek is lit which is my emphasis cheek (background responder left cheeck lit) in my mind that still keeps the flow.
3:Right cheek (so now I'm looking for a left cheek on my responder)
4:Bam! (left cheek lit) (that still to me is the emphasis side and keeps the flow)
5:bam! there's my right cheek again responding
6:Left cheek
7:right cheek
8:left cheek
9:right cheek
10:left cheek
11:right cheek
12: (what ever happened there, I'm still working with his right cheek, so I'm looking for a left cheek from her)
13:her left cheek is lit (to me is the emphasis side again)(even if I shoot it a little bit from the other side)
14:There is my right cheek that I'm still working with on both shots
15: The light is still hitting her on her left cheek, so I'm still working with her left cheek.

(So this whole time I'm telling my self, He is right cheek, and she is left cheek no matter what happens) That's how I'm keeping my flow.
(If at any point I switch any one of them around, then I will switch the responder as well)

in frame 16: to me captures his opposite side (his left) to make the transition to the new position. (when he moves out of the scene, the responder is left in view with the continued emphasis on her left cheek where it has been the whole time.

17 (unmarked): The switch is complete and even though he is not in the shot, I'm still working with her left side and I know I have to bring the responder back with his right cheek. (the same flow since the beginning of this whole setup)

17.2 (unmarked): Same, his right cheek, her left cheek.

17 (Marked): His right cheek, her left cheek (nothing has changed)

18 through 21 nothing changes

22! Now I'm shooting her right cheek, so to this shot I will shot my responder on his left cheek. (and continue like this until I switch someone's side again)
The only thing is I would have inserted the walk across the screen shot in between 21 to 22 to transition to the other cheeks :)
To me it doesn't matter where I switch, so long as I come back with the opposite cheek on the responder, and that I have made somekind of transition to allow the switch.

From this point on, to me everything goes from her right cheek to his left,
her right
his left
her right
his left
(you know what I mean)

then after he leaves, the other shots like the dutch shot and stuff is just her so I'm not looking for the opposite cheek of the one I'm shooting.

I saw a similar questionable shot in an episode of "24" the part where the madam president just stepped out of the safe room and the bad guy was talking to her. They shot her left side (which was lit) from over his left shoulder, and it came out great.

Anyway, these are my observations and this is what my crazy little brain has developed to keep the flow.

It works for me as a good way not to confuse the viewer and to keep the flow.
I know this is probably way off from what everyone esle goes by, and all this probably won't make any sense to anyone but me, but as they say... "to each it's own"

So..... for now, until my brain captures new data, I'll just have to continue recording from cheek to cheek :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top