Following on from the previous post on artifice in film, I wanted to use this opportunity to explore something else of a similar note that I have been thinking about as of late. It’s illusive to me for reasons I find hard to articulate and I think it mostly is explained through a practical understanding of the “180 degree rule” – but even that is somewhat illusive to me, at least in practice. Likely, it’s a lot more simple than I’m making it out to be.
Self-contextualising aside, the thing I wanted to explore is what I have decided to call the “impossible shot”: A shot which stands out to me (upon closer inspection of a scene) because a previously displayed composition has shown that space where the camera’s POV now is. Admittedly, this description is poor. I think that’s because what I’m trying to describe is fairly unremarkable. Rudimentary. It happens so frequently and without fuss. It’s a part of the language of cinema.
Take this scene from David Lynch’s MULHOLLAND DRIVE (2001), for instance.
The scene mostly takes place within a simple shot and reverse-shot structure.
Yes, the cameras seem to be floating as well – but this isn’t too important here.
What’s important is that both shots tell us that the other is impossible – at least within the implied linearity of the scene. The POV of each of them is pointed precisely in the direction of the frame of view of the other. This scene feasibly could have been filmed with two cameras, angled in such a way that an over-the-shoulder view could have been achieved without getting in the way of the other perspective. But that’s not the choice that was made. What does this tell us?
Before attempting to answer that mostly rhetorical question I feel the need to acknowledge that, again, this isn’t particularly remarkable! This way of shooting happens in film and television all the time. Scenes come together in the edit after coverage is gained and takes are done. It’s not a “mistake” or accident, and if you’re not looking out for it you might not even notice. I’ve seen this film a good handful of times and I hadn’t picked up on this before now. One could argue that it assists in subconciously building the eerie tension of the scene, but I don’t think that Lynch necessarily intended on this to convey his tone. Rather, I think he probably just wanted two very specific (floating) shots and this is how it worked out.
Is there a larger significance of the impossible shot or am I just picking apart artifice at the seams? For me, the main thing that shows us is that more than one take was used to edit this scene together, and that it works well, and you can do that!
A non-remarkable revelation for a non-remarkable observation.
Still gonna keep an eye out for it…