When watching movies, I usually find myself most captivated by the visuals. I become awestruck at the tiniest of technical decisions – a shot angle, a pan, the composition of characters in a wide shot. I become completely overwhelmed with what I can only think to describe as appreciation, even though the word doesn’t quite grasp the magnitude of this feeling. This happens to some degree with every film that I watch, but there are a few specific teams of directors and cinematographers (and editors) whose signature styles of coverage are, to me, particularly striking and enormously inspiring. And I think that it might just be these coverage styles – these visuals – that make their films.
I’ve often considered that cinematography (/editing) might be the captaining element of filmmaking – the most metamorphosing element of filmmaking. This thought initially existed as a small inkling, but has recently gained considerable momentum during my time in this studio. You can have a great story, but if the cinematography doesn’t work for it, then it’s worthless. The visuals of a scene are often the first thing people notice. And the most memorable part. Strong cinematography/editing is what makes stories believable for audiences. Strong cinematography/editing can carry a scene with no story. But more specifically, cinematography/editing is what interprets scripts. No, it’s what rewrites, recasts, and transfigures scripts. The visuals are what transform a script into something new and different. And the camera is basically a chameleon. Options for coverage style are myriad. This is what I want to look into. This is the idea that I want to play with.
What I want to do is examine how different coverage styles can transform a script in different ways. I want to experiment with how changing the camerawork and editing style can completely change the way an audience responds to a scene.
To do this, I’m going to have to remove some variables in order to better focus on seeing the effect of changing the cinematography and editing. So, I will shoot a single scene (a single script) in multiple ways (multiple styles of coverage). Unfortunately, I won’t be able to look into all of the coverage styles that interest me, but my aim is to shoot and edit at least three different coverage styles.
I have already researched and deconstructed a number of these, and I have a few more categories to go. At the moment, it’s a matter of choosing three coverage styles to execute. The shortlisted coverage styles that I’m considering are:
- Extreme-close-ups and quick cuts – Darren Aronofsky and Matthew Libatique style
- Subtle concealment – Danny Boyle and Anthony Dod Mantle style
- Dramatic disregard for continuity – Baz Luhrmann, Donald McAlpine, and Jill Bilcock style.
- Exaggerated, symmetrical shots – Wes Anderson and Robert Yeoman style
- Split-screens and triptychs – more general, but based on Danny Boyle and Anthony Dod Mantle’s style of coverage in127 Hours.
- Dynamic long-take tracking shot – Emmanuel Lubezki signature style.
My script will be very simple. One to two minutes long. Two characters sitting at a table and talking. This will be interesting because I anticipate that my coverage styles will require me to deviate from the conventional shot/reverse shot during the dialogue. But I won’t write the script myself. I don’t want to have a personal or preconceived idea of how it ‘should’ look. If I write it myself, it’s more likely that I’ll become attached to the script and have a predetermined idea of how it would best be conceived as a scene. Instead, I will either use a scripted scene from a film that I haven’t seen, or have someone else write the script for me.
The location will most likely be at RMIT. A room with a table and two chairs. Somewhere where I can control the lighting.
After editing these scenes, I will present them to an audience and observe their reaction. I’ll also show them the original script and ask for their thoughts on the effect of each realised coverage style. I think it’s important to get the perspective of someone who didn’t go through the scene-making process. And it’s absolutely imperative to consider the audience in this investigation.
I will reflect upon the realised scenes and contemplate the effect of each coverage style. What visceral effect does each have? What intellectual effect does each have? How do they change the ‘reading’ of the script/story? Which might work ‘best’ for the script and why?
Right now though, the next step is to do a test shoot to refine how I will approach the practical side of my investigation – the planning and shooting and editing.
Essentially, my project is an experimentation on and an enquiry into different coverage styles, and the extent to which cinematography and editing have influence over a script/scene – the extent to which they can, say, ‘rewrite’ a script and transfigure a scene.