Found scene deconstruction

Upon first viewing of this scene at, the audience immediately recognizes the discrepancy between the Miller and the Portokalos family. The majority, including myself, would accredit this awkwardness to the acting of the characters. Certainly, this is a factor however, the camera coverage plays a dominant role in realizing this scene’s awkwardness.

The framing of the first two shots are quite similar in relation to the physical space around the characters. Both families are framed in a mid shot. The difference is that there are three millers and approximately fifteen Portokalos’ within the two frames. These shots are designed to emphasize the physical distinction between the two families.

The second frame – being a point of view shot from the Millers – encourages us to feel the intimidation felt by the two characters, Ian and Harriet Miller, at the point of encountering. Synonymously, the lingering of the camera on the Portokalos family invites the audience to take in the shocking density created by the mass amount of people within the frame. Centered at the bottom of the frame is a giant lamb that is roasting. The decision to linger the camera on this shot with the lamb continuously twirling on the spit adds an element of shock to the moment.

Constant cuts from the two family viewpoints create a stunning juxtaposition whereby the audience adopts both the place of the intimidated conservative Miller family, and the outgoing, ‘all-too-Greek’ Portokalos family. What Interests me is the choices made in designing the camera coverage here. The choice to frame so many people in a small space and then cut to a frame of the same length with only two people perfectly exaggerates the distinctions between two different families.

The camera adopts a slightly unsteady fashion as it lingers between the Portokalos family with a mid-close up shot as though it were one of the family members standing in the yard. This shot drew my attention because it makes me, the audience member feel somewhat entrapped within the claustrophobic space.

The last shot is a long shot that frames both families in the front yard of the Portokalos house. Previous to this shot, the Portokalos father, Gus, is introducing his endless list of family names. His list is then validated by the visual elaboration of the factual size of his family. This shot creates a great imbalance whereby the Miller family stands isolated in the background with the backdrop of the fire lit lanterns and street view whilst the Portokalos’ takes up the rest of the space.

What I love about a scene is when the camera coverage effortlessly exists. What I mean by this is that I don’t want to constantly be aware of the change in camera angles and covert editing as though I were watching a reflexive documentary (whereby the audience is actively made conscious of the construction of the film itself). Through the deconstruction of this scene I’ve begun to slowly tap into what it is I like about certain types of camera coverage, and that is, that it is subtle yet strongly delivers the intention. Looking back, we watched a scene from ‘Le Feu Follet’ (Louis Malle, 1966) whereby I was very conscious of the different camera angles for two reasons I believe: 1. There were many alternative angles 2. There were multitudinous cuts between those angles. I found myself distracted by the camera as opposed to the action in the scene. When watching a scene, I want to be immersed within the illusion of the moment, as opposed to being constantly reminded that I am watching a construction.

🙂