For my research project, I opted to research the use of the 180 degree line in film, particularly the circumstances in which it is broken.

In summary, the 180 degree rule states that a hypothetical line is formed when two characters interact with each other, and that this line should not be crossed by the camera. This helps to avoid confusion, as one character is usually seen looking from left to right of frame, whilst the other is looking from right to left of screen. This ensures that viewers are aware of each character’s positioning within the setting. The rule can be important when shooting action sequences, but I was interested in how important this rule really is in dialogue scenes.

I began my research by finding scenes in which the line had been deliberately crossed, and attempted to determine why this might have been the case. Most of the scenes I found shared a similar theme of tension and suspense, which had been aided by the crossing of the line. For example, the famous interrogation scene between the Batman and The Joker in The Dark Knight (2008) crosses the line multiple times during the dialogue. Whilst this would usually be jarring and slightly confusing for the viewer in a less heated scene, it instead increases the tension between the arch enemies.

A second scene I found which crosses the line came from Donnie Darko (2001). This scene stood out against some of the other examples, as the line cross was used for comedic effect rather than tension. During a conversation between Donnie and Gretchen, we see the characters from one side of the line, before the camera is crossed to the other side, and a man is revealed to have been watching them from a distance.

There has been much discussion surrounding the importance of the line in conversations which depict more than two characters. Most say that if the line is crossed under these circumstances, the scene and the placement of characters within it becomes far too confusing to comprehend for the viewer. A scene from Mad Men does cross the line in a conversation between three people, however, and does not seem too jarring at all. This scene also stood out because  unlike the other two examples described above, there is no obvious reason why the line needed to be crossed, and it is highly likely that it was actually an accident. Nevertheless, this scene ended up being the inspiration for my main shoot, in which I used a similar placement of characters, but infused some tension into the dialogue in order to give the line cross some purpose.

I opted to cut my footage into four different edits, which each explored a different factor that is important to note when crossing the line. The first edit does not blatantly cross the line, whereas the second edit does explicitly break the rule. I do not think that the second version is significantly more uncomfortable or jarring to watch in comparison to the first, so I think that I did successfully cross the line in this edit.

After finishing the first two edits, a couple of factors that contributed to the success of the line cross became apparent, which I had not considered before. Maddy, the actor standing in the middle position, was conveniently wearing a bright red top on the day, whilst the other two actors were in darker colours. I believe this costuming ended up aiding the scene, as it signified where Maddy was in each shot, making the positioning of the other characters easily inferred.

I deliberately used ‘dirty’ shots of the characters, so that it was obvious to the audience that each actor was still in their original positions, and had not moved when the line was eventually crossed. This lead to the realisation that I should try and cut a version that did not include a ‘dirty’ shot. In the third edit, I removed Kate’s (the character in front of the lockers) shoulder from the frame when we see Jess (the third character) after the line is crossed. Although this small change makes the scene slightly more jarring, I do not believe that it become completely disorienting.

I think that the fourth edit is the most unsettling to watch. This version is exactly the same as edit one, except that I made the footage black and white, which eliminated the orienting red of Maddy’s shirt. The colour version of this footage is probably the easiest to follow, yet when the colour is drained from the scene, the cut to Jess seems to become far more uncomfortable. Prior to this edit, I had not considered the value of costuming when crossing the line at all. It has become obvious, however, that it is an extremely important factor that should be noted before endeavouring to break the rule.

My exploration into the significance of the 180 degree rule has revealed to me that the line can indeed be crossed, but there are several factors that should be considered before doing so. Primarily, it seems to be important that the cross serves a purpose, whether it be to enhance the tone of the scene or metaphorically represent the relationship that two characters have with one another.

I wrote and planned my own scene for week 12’s shoot. Although I had been investigating and studying other scenes which crossed the line from films and television shows, I found the thought of having to come up with my own idea from scratch quite daunting. The prospect of having to include at least three people in the scene was also worrisome, as most of the clips I had found that crossed the line only included a conversation between two characters.

A scene from Mad Men ended up becoming my main inspiration. Although I wrote very different dialogue, the blocking is quite obviously similar. I found it extremely helpful to draw out a floor plan of the scene from Mad Men to start off with, and then try and formulate my own scene around a similar positioning of cameras and actors. Despite studying this scene quite closely, I came to realise after I had edited my own footage that I had missed an important factor in the original scene. When the line is first crossed in Mad Men, The footage cuts from showing the three characters, Pete, Don and Roger in an establishing wide shot, before crossing the line to show Pete from a mid shot. An essential characteristic of this line cross is that Pete is seen continually talking in both shots, making the transition across the line smoother. Had I noticed this prior to filming my own scene, I would have definitely incorporated this technique into my own work, as I believe it is an effective method to cross the line successfully.

Another important factor in the Mad Men scene was a women’s bathroom sign on the wall behind Pete. This small prop allows for the viewer to recognize that Pete is still in the same position when the line is crossed, and has not moved at all. I endeavoured to find a location that also included some easily distinguishable background features. The area that we ended up shooting in we perfect in this regard, as each character had very different objects in the background of their shots, making it easy to determine where they are positioned in the setting.

I ended up cutting the footage that I recorded into four different edits. Initially, I had only planned on editing together two different versions, but after reflecting on the work, some other possible edits were brainstormed. The first version that I cut did not blatantly cross the line. In the second edit, I used a couple of different shots, which included a line cross. I do not think that the second version is significantly more uncomfortable or jarring to watch in comparison to the first, so I think that I did successfully cross the line in this edit.

After finishing the first two edits, a couple of factors that contributed to the success of the line cross became apparent, which I had not considered before. Maddy, the actor standing in the middle position, was conveniently wearing a bright red top on the day, whilst the other two actors were in darker colours. I believe this costuming ended up aiding the scene as it signified where Maddy was in each shot, making the positioning of the other characters easily inferred.

I deliberately used “dirty” shots of the characters, so that it was obvious to the audience that each actor was still in their original positions, and had not moved when the line was eventually crossed. This lead to the realisation that I should try and cut a version that did not include a dirty shot. In the third edit, I removed Kate’s shoulder from the frame when we see Jess after the line is crossed. Although this small change makes the scene slightly more jarring, I do not believe that it become completely disorienting.

I think that the fourth edit is the most unsettling to watch. This version is exactly the same as edit one, except that I made the footage black and white, which eliminated the orienting red of Maddy’s shirt. The colour version of this footage is probably the easiest to follow, yet when the colour is drained from the scene, the cut to Jess seems to become far more uncomfortable. Prior to this edit, I had not considered the value of costuming when crossing the line at all. It has become obvious, however, that it is an extremely important factor that should be noted before endeavouring to break the rule.

There are a few things I would do differently if I were to re-film this scene again. One of the obvious shortcomings of the final cuts is the poor audio quality. It seems I did not set the microphone up properly on the day, and because of this, attention is likely drawn away from the content of the videos and onto the annoying background hum. Some shots are also quite out of focus. I believe this is primarily due to the poor lighting in the area that we filmed, as I do recall struggling to find focus during filming. Despite these issues, I am quite happy with my final exploration into crossing the line, and I think that my knowledge on the topic has significantly improved over the course of the last few weeks.

After being able to film the scene I discussed in my previous blog post, I have gathered some more thoughts on the filming and collaboration process.

Although we started off with some technical difficulties when setting up, the filming process actually went reasonably smoothly. It was my first time working with people who were acting in my scene, but were not a part of the class, so this shed a new light onto working with people who may not really be aware of or understand what your aim is.

It was good to still be working with a couple of people from the class, however, because as I have mentioned previously, they were able to give tips and advice that did not adhere to my initial plan, but ended up being helpful in the post production process. An example of this was when I realised I had not planned how I would shoot the reactions of the three girls after they had been caught. By this point, our fourth actor had already left, so a wide shot with all four characters was no longer possible. A solution for this, however, was found when one of the actors suggested we film the reactions as point of view shots from the perspective of the fourth character. I was initially hesitant as to how this would turn out, but as our only option left to get the moment covered, I decided to take the advice. I think this ended up turning out really well in the final cuts of the scene, and It added a few more different angles, to make a relatively boring conversation quite diverse. I definitely wouldn’t have thought of shooting in this style myself, so being able to have other like minded individuals to make suggestions was extremely helpful in this scenario.

I chose the location for my shoot because it was a relatively similar setting to the Mad Men scene I was inspired by, in that it was a closed off hallway with distinguishing features behind each character, which would hopefully help the viewer to understand that everyone was still in their same places when I crossed the line. A downfall of this set, however, was that it was relatively cramped and prevented me from getting some shots exactly how I had intended. Despite this issue, I think we were able to get a fair mix of different shots. It may be better to allow for some extra space next time though.

Overall, I found this week’s shoot very successful and the collaboration process went smoothly and positively.

Tomorrow I will be conducting my last shoot for The Scene in Cinema. The scene I plan on directing, as part of my exploration into the 180 degree line, is probably my largest and most complex endeavour thus far. I will be directing four actors in the scene, and will have at least one other person helping me to record.

The previous two 180 degree line cross scenes I have shot have only contained two actors, so the jump to four characters has been a significant challenge. There will be three primary characters in the scene, and a fourth character will enter the discussion at the end of the clip. From the research I have done, there ability to film an encounter between more than two people without crossing the line is extremely difficult and requires a lot of planning. I’ve found that being able to plan the scene with an effective line cross in mind has also required some deep thought and probably some trial and error on the day. In order to cover all of my bases, I hope to film the discussion from several different camera set up positions, with the hopes to edit the scene in two different ways, seeing which works best.

I have deliberately written a scene which is tension fuelled, in order to give the line cross a purpose, and perpetuate this tone. The main aim of this shoot is to be able to cover the stressful discussion in a clear, but interesting manner. I hope that the line cross turns out well, so that it not only provides interesting coverage, but also to prove that this techniques can be of valid use in particular circumstances.

Finally, I hope that the planning I’ve conducted over the past few days does not cloud my thoughts when filming, and that I’ll be able to recognize if opportunities to change the plan arise on the day, or can adapt if I find a better shot to use. I also think that this exercise will prompt some more thoughts on the collaborative process, coverage and the technical skills I have learnt over the course of the semester.

Over the course of weeks nine and ten, I have had a lot of varying experiences with collaboration. In some circumstances, it has been helpful to have an extra set of hands and eyes to be able to recognize potential problems, and add recommendations, but at other times working with others can be difficult when you cannot see eye to eye.

When filming my own work, I often find myself so wrapped up in the need to get the content and staging right, that I can often neglect some of the technical aspects that need just as much attention. For example, when filming my own scene in week ten, my focus had been so encompassed with the need to get the right establishing shot, that I could not determine the reason why everything in the view finder was turning up blue. A fresh set of eyes, and the suggestion that it was probably the white balance that was playing with the colouring helped us to get back on track. If I had not of had the opinion of someone else who was less attached to the project, I probably would have simply found myself complaining about the colouring later in the edit suites.

In another circumstance, however, our attempts to complete a project in class on eye-line matches took a lot longer than was probably necessary, due to conflicting points of view on how the scene should be shot. As a result of this conflict, the focus was left not on the actual lessons being taught, but rather on just trying to complete the task at hand in a reasonably adequate manner.

Despite some issues, the vast majority of the collaboration I have been involved in over the last few weeks has been productive and positive. Working in groups has not only made my own exercises easier to combat, but also allowed me to learn about the topics that others are pursuing, and discovering the new technical skills they have had to learn specifically for their area of interest.

In week 10, I decided to venture out of my comfort zone and attempt to film a very short scene which I wrote and planned myself. One of the common theories about crossing the 180 degree line is that it can indeed be done successfully, if the camera is seen moving across the axis between the two subjects. I thought that I would try to play with, and adjust this rule by using a shot in which the camera was situated exactly on the line, but would not move at all.

The plan was to film a scene in which two people are seen sitting next to each other in a wide two shot, before cutting to a mid two shot on the line, and finally a close up on one of the subjects on the opposite side of the line to the first shot.

Although I felt that I had done a lot to story board and block my scene in advance, the final product of what was shot is still not completely to my liking. There are obviously some audio problems, and although this area was not my focus at all, I would have been able to capture at least some decipherable dialogue with the camera’s inbuilt microphone had I shot indoors away from wind and other noises.

Yet I do still have some more important problems within the scene. I had originally planned to film a mid shot for the second shot in the sequence, yet for some reason, on the day I seemed to have abandoned that plan and filmed a slightly wider frame than intended. I think that if this shot had of been closer in on the two subjects, that the following close up would not have seemed so out of place. The jarring between the second and third shots could also have been lessened if the final shot had not been so close up, and perhaps been a “dirty” shot, featuring the other actor’s shoulder.

Finally, my last issue with the scene was that I did not shoot the final shot for long enough. The scene cuts off very abruptly, and if I had stopped myself from cutting the take so soon, this issue could have been improved upon.

It is hard to know if, had I not made some of these mistakes, the line cross would have worked. I definitely do not think that it is a well covered scene in it’s current state. Yet if I were to make these minor improvements, I think that the line cross would have been a good way to portray the growing emotional distance between the two characters.

View exercise here

In this week’s Tuesday class, I decided to attempt to recreate a scene from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, which featured a 180 degree line cross. I felt that this scene was probably the simplest to try and copy in terms for playing with crossing the line, as the original’s rule break is quite obvious, and deliberately unsettling. From the examples I have found online, the ability to cross the line subtly is rare, so I felt that this scene would be a good starting off point for the practical aspects of my project.

During filming, I attempted to replicate the same shot sizes and order as closely as possible, however, when playing back the footage in the editing suites, I found that we had neglected to film some of the dialogue from the scene in a close up, as had been done in the film. This meant that I had to resort to only using footage from two different positions, rather than three, as  I had initially intended. Although I don’t think that this mistake affected the scene too drastically, it did prove to me how useful a continuity person could have been during production. Due to the purpose of our filming being to break an established continuity rule, an extra person who could have ensured we had done so smoothly would have been helpful.

Another possible reason behind this mistake was probably the fact that we had to shoot the scene out of order. It seemed logical that we would film the two shots that focus on Jack Torrence’s face (a close up and a mid shot), and then crossing to the other side of the hallway to get the long shot, which is the second shot in the scene. Whilst this was the easiest way to shoot the scene in terms of maneuvering equipment, it did cause confusion as to what dialogue was required in each shot.

Despite the technical difficulties that occurred, this exercise did result in me realizing that I probably need to more extensively plan the shots I will be filming and possibly outline a storyboard prior to the day of principal photography. It also proved to me just how logistically difficult it can be to move all of the equipment to the opposite side of the set for a single shot. I can certainly see why filmmakers would avoid having to cross the line, simply for time saving purposes, let alone continuity concerns.

Please see completed exercise below.

Barry Salt is able to encapsulate a significant portion of my thoughts about the 180 degree line in his book “Film Style and Technology: History and Analysis”. He summarises the rule by stating that “the camera should be kept on the same side of the line joining two actors who are interacting when it’s position is changed between two successive shots of them.” Not only does he describe the history and definition of this rule, he also questions it’s necessity.

One of the recurring thoughts I’ve had on this topic is whether an audience of casual movie watchers would even notice, let alone feel disoriented if the line were to be crossed in a dialogue scene. I have struggled myself to find a wide variety of examples a line cross, but I am certain that I would have experienced it plenty of times before, and yet not noticed that a ‘rule’ of cinema was being broken. Salt also addresses this issue, noting that the cross is “certainly not noticed by even habitual non-professional film viewers, and it can even be difficult for an expert to be certain whether the rule has been rigidly observed”.

Whilst delving into this topic, I am constantly finding myself replaying conversations in films, checking to see if the line has bee crossed. Whilst some of the examples I have referenced in other blog posts have been obvious and deliberate crosses, I am sure that this sometime simply just occurs by mistake. If this mistake were to occur in every single dialogue scene, perhaps even the rare cinema-goer would begin to sense that something is wrong, but how significant is a rare cross? As my ability to break this rule improves, I hope to try and show footage of my own and scenes from films to some friends who don’t study media, and ask if they notice anything drastically wrong with the scene. This could be a good little personal investigation into the true gravitas of the line cross.

References:

Salt, B 1983, Film Style and Technology: History and Analysis, 1st edn, Starword, Michigan

After deciding to choose the notion of crossing the 180 degree line as my area of exploration for the rest of the semester, I endeavoured to find some effective examples. The clips that I showed in my presentation from The Shining and The Dark Knight were both quite interesting and good examples, however I felt that they both shared the same intention to instill unease and tension within their audiences. Whilst they both cross the line in very different ways, the former being far more blatant that the other, I have been searching for other films that use the same technique for a different effect.

One scene I was able to find which used the technique for a comedic effect was this clip from Donnie Darko. Rather than aiming to unsettle the audience, the director instead crosses the line to show us an area of the setting which would not have been visible had the rule been adhered to. The sudden cut to the other side of the axis, revealing the man watching the two teenagers adds shock value to the scene. I especially like this example as it subtly reminds the viewer that the world in which the movie take place is 3D like our own, not the flat image that we see on the screen.

Admittedly, these three clips are all from fairly modern, American films. Perhaps they will be good examples to try and recreate over the first couple of weeks, but it would be important to try and explore how other countries approach the concept. An interesting written exploration may also be to investigate how the rule came to fruition, and the manner in which it has been treated over time. Also, these examples all seem to have deliberately crossed the line for a specific purpose or effect. I would like to explore what some other reasons to cross the line may be, and if we really need a reason at all. Can we simply cross the line for artistic effect, without the intention of inciting some sort of emotion in the audience, or is doing so still too rare and jarring for the viewer?

The terms ‘mise en scene’ and ‘montage’ have been provided primarily westernized definitions in my mind over the past few years of my secondary and tertiary education. Basically, to me, ‘mise en scene’ was everything visible within a shot, and the term ‘montage’ was usually applied to a series of shots that were cut together in order to show some type of progression or growth within the subject of a film. In regards to mise en scene, Bordwell and Thompson (2013) state that filmmakers and scholars “use the term to signify the director’s control over what appears in the film frame”. With origins in the theatre, the terms usually applies to those aspects that were also associated with ‘mise en scene’ in stage performances, such as “setting, lighting, costume and makeup, and staging and performance”. Relatively similar to my own, I do find this definition quite broad, although it does seem to be an important element in relation to coverage. The contents of the frame would make an important element to the way in which we cover a scene. Certain gestures or props may be integral to the story line, and require specific coverage like a close up or zoom in order to highlight their significance to the audience. Contrarily, mise en scene may also rely equally upon the intended coverage. The desired shot may require a certain lighting set up or blocking, in order to complete the decoupage effectively. It is for this reason that I believe these two aspects of film-making can be reliant on one another.

Bordwell and Thompson provide two different definitions for montage. The first, a rather broad perspective, simply states that it is “a synonym for editing”. I find this definition troublesome, as although it allows for far more leeway that the definition I had conjured up, it seems to lack an insight into the relationship between shots. The second definition provided by Bordwell and Thompson is that it “emphasizes dynamic, often discontinuous relationships between shots and the juxtaposition of images to create ideas not present in either shot by itself”. This second definition highlights the ability to conjure meaning through the simple association of two shots. Although the definition I had brainstormed myself focused primarily on a montage sequence, I do not think it is exempt from Bordwell and Thompson’s definition, rather a small facet of it. The focus of a montage sequence is to show progression whilst condensing time, which would not be possible without the process of editing or ordering these shots to create the “idea” of growth.

Perhaps a better example of the montage that Bordwell and Thompson describe in their second definition is the iconic match cut of a bone and satellite from 2001: A Space Odyssey. The two shots alone, shown seperately from one another, would not imply the themes of human evolution and the passing of time which are more obvious when the two images are cut together. Although much shorter than the traditional montage sequence, this cut, which certainly adheres to both of the broader versions of montage, still communicates the progression of time and increased knowledge of the human race.

It seems we often lean towards broader definitions of terms in film studies in order to cover the most eclectic examples. Although the terms mise en scene, decoupage and montage all seem to have relatively vague descriptions, it seems that they also rely upon and fuel one another. If we have a preconcieved idea of decoupage before filming, it is likely to consist of elements of mise en scene and montage, as when we envisage a final product, we usually imagine the contents and editing of the frame within the film, not simply the coverage of the elements alone.

REFERENCES:

Bordwell, D, Thompson, K 2013, Film Art: An Introduction, 10th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.