Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Scene Analysis

While it could be seen as slightly cliché, I decided to analyse a scene from Quentin Tarantino’s debut film, Reservoir Dogs (1992), specifically the “Professionals” scene.

The scene starts off with a medium two-shot with Mr White (Harvey Keitel) and Mr Pink (Steve Buscemi) having an argument. While the shot itself does not change during the argument, the camera itself is shaky, which would indicate that the camera is handheld.

When White attacks Pink, it moves to a medium-close up. The camera remains in this position while Pink pushes him back – leaving only Pink visible in the shot. White returns into view to punch Pink, who gets knocked down to the floor. As Pink falls, the camera moves to a low position to cover his fall.

The camera moves to a wide shot and tracks to cover the fighting, with short medium-close up shots of Pink being kicked, and White kicking. When the characters pull out guns, high and low point-of-view shots are used. The characters continue arguing, and the camera performs a slow dolly out.

The shot becomes an over-the shoulder behind a new character, Mr Blonde (Michael Madsen). He talks to the other characters during this shot, before cutting to a medium-wide shot of him casually drinking from a cup. It cuts to a wide point-of-view of the other characters recovering from the fight.

It then cuts a number of times between both of these shots – with the shot of Blonde being used during Pink’s line. It then cuts to a close-up of Blonde slowly removing his sunglasses. It cuts back and forth between the wide point-of-view and the close-up twice, before cutting to a medium-wide shot of Blonde when he speaks. It cuts between both shots during the dialogue, before cutting to a wide shot of Blonde leaning on a pole.

It then cuts to a wide pan of White and Pink walking towards the exit of the room, before cutting back to the wide shot of Blonde. It then cuts back to the two-shot, with White walking towards the camera, before cutting to a wide point of view looking at Blonde. White’s hand and gun are visible in the shot. As he lowers the gun, the camera returns to the two-shot.

Most of the shots used are fairly conventional, though they are used to great effect. The dim – mostly natural – lighting and shaky camera give the scene a gritty aesthetic. The use of wide tracking shots during fights give the viewer an almost voyeuristic perspective of the scene. Considering the number of times that shots became either point-of-views or over-the shoulders, I would assume that extensive blocking was done.

Reservoir Dogs 1992, DVD, Lionsgate, Santa Monica CA USA, Directed by Quentin Tarantino.

This week has been a bit weird, as the COVID-19 pandemic has meant that classes were cancelled for the week; but Robin was able to provide us with some work we could do in our own time.

First, we analysed how choices in coverage can change an otherwise similar scene. We were shown scenes of A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick, S. 1971) and O Lucky Man! (Anderson, L. 1973), which both portrayed scenes of an inmate being released from prison. While the two scenes share a number of similarities, even down to the same actor (Malcolm McDowell), the subtle differences in coverage made each scene feel completely different. Kubrick’s use of wide angles and stationary shots – even when the dialogue and action are distant – makes the viewer feel like they’re within the scene; where the traditional shots used by Anderson – especially when considering his use of zoom, pan and tilt – don’t have that effect.

The use of bright lighting inside the prison in A Clockwork Orange was also an interesting decision, at least to me. It made me wonder if the inside of the prison was actually a better place than the outside world – where the yard and warden’s office had a more sombre tone.

We also learned about the 180º rule, where – in a scene with dialogue – the camera must stay on one side of characters talking. This is mostly used to make sure that viewers are able to keep track of the characters, and that the characters appear to be looking at each other. Robin helped explain it to us with a segment from the TV series, Gossip Girl (2007).

It is not always observed, and while it can be confusing to some viewers, breaking the rule can be used to great effect. This was shown to us in The Fire Within (1963). In this scene, the cinematographer moved around the bar, showing the characters from a number of different shots from different directions. While it was initially unnerving, it made the scene visually interesting, and also complemented the layout of the room – with the round bar.

We also watched a scene from Margaret (2011). The scene starts off distant from the protagonist – as if she was part of the background. We only see wide tracking shots of her as she walks along the road, through shop windows, and as reflections. To me, this is establishing that her role is somewhat passive, in that events happen to her rather than her controlling those events. This is also shown where the bus driver is seen in the foreground welcoming his passengers and closing the door, almost making the viewer assume that he is the protagonist. It isn’t until where she starts asking the driver about the hat where it becomes clear that she is the protagonist. For most of the scene, both characters are framed by the door of the bus, which also helps maintain the distance between the protagonist and the events of the film. This distance is maintained until the lead-up to the accident, where it shows the protagonist running alongside the bus.

This week, most of our class was about learning about the different crew roles for a film, mainly focussing on the camera department – especially the focus puller, but also differentiating between the director and the first assistant director. Continuing on from last week’s reading, we also learned how to block a scene.

We converted the classroom into a film set, blocked and filmed a scene.  During the lesson, I learned how and where to place marks on the set, how to make sure a moving actor or prop is able to stay in focus through an entire scene, and which director gives instructions to which crew members. It was interesting learning that many focus pullers are able to do their job without using a viewfinder or monitor, as it seems like a difficult task.

Before learning about blocking – where the scene is briefly run through to see where the camera is moved and manipulated to correspond with the actors – I had always assumed that those manoeuvres were done during a regular rehearsal, rather than in a separate, earlier step. Blocking now makes sense to me, as it means that everything is sorted out before the rehearsal, and the cast and crew don’t have to worry about the camera department attempting to figure movements out during rehearsal.

I believe that the class was relevant to the studio because all of the tasks were designed to give us practical knowledge of an important element of coverage. Without knowing how to block a scene, the cinematographer would be unable to make sure the correct elements of the scene are shown properly; without knowing how to pull focus, the footage would be of poor quality and therefore unusable.

This week, we read an article from filmmaker Luis Bunuel, called Decoupage, or cinematic segmentation. It discusses the necessity of decoupage, which from what I understand, is the process in which the screenplay is translated to film; by planning the images in a way that expresses the emotions and beauty of the screenplay.

Having never heard the term decoupage until this class, I was unable to figure out how to define my major shortcoming in film – in that I couldn’t figure out the creative process of editing footage, particularly to make engaging, aesthetically pleasing videos. Now that I know more about the concept of decoupage, I feel like I can learn more and practice it.

Decoupage is one of the dominant themes in The Scene in Cinema, as it is a very challenging, yet necessary, part of filmmaking. Without it, the cinematographer would produce a boring, dull slideshow, even if their shots were aesthetically pleasing.

References:

Bunuel, L. c1928, ‘Decoupage, or cinematic segmentation’ in Bunuel, L. & White, G. 2000, An unspeakable betrayal : selected writings of Luis Bunuel, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 131-135. <https://primo-direct-apac.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=RMIT_ALMA11136895260001341&context=L&vid=RMITU&search_scope=Books_articles_and_more&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US>

When I signed up for The Scene in Cinema, I understood that the class was going to be related to the creative side of cinematography. While I have a basic understanding of the technical side of cinematography through previous classes, as well as my experience as a cinematographer on MyTV; I felt like I was just trying to capture the actors on camera, rather than trying to set a scene up in any artistic sense. Cinematography has always been interesting to me, but I had previously assumed that it would be complicated, and would require all sorts of equipment and crew to do a good job.

Within the first class, I was immediately proven wrong. We were split up into groups, and were asked to remake a scene from Le deuxième souffle (Jean-Pierre Melville, 1966) using only panning and tilting, it was surprising to realise how effective a scene could be created with just a single shot.

Afterwards, we were given scenes from other films – though each group was given a different one. We were given a scene from It was interesting seeing how different groups translated scenes in different ways to the source material. The group working with Tengoku to Jigoku (Akira Kurosawa, 1963) was the most distinctive, with the scene changing from the actors scared in a lounge room, to actors tip-toeing around, like they were escaping or hiding from someone.

With that being said, it took a little while for me to get used to the cameras that were provided, but I found it quicker to learn than the other cameras I had used in other classes; because all the important image functions had direct buttons and switches instead of being hidden in a menu.

The second class was slightly easier for me, as I have some experience with depth of field from photography, however, I was not used to the idea of recording shots using a camera sheet. Because of this, our group managed to forget to fill the sheet in. It would’ve been useful for us so we could reproduce the shots more accurately.

With that being said, I’m looking forward to the rest of the studio, though I still have no idea what a good reflection looks like – it keeps turning itself into recounts.

This week, we also read The Big Picture: filmmaking lessons from a life on the set (Reilly, 2009), specifically chapter 4 (What is a shot, anyway?) and chapter 23 (Blocking is overlooked and undervalued).

From what I understand, What is a shot, anyway? discusses how a shot is defined. Tom Reilly (2009, ch. 4) claims that ‘a shot is merely what is photographed in between the words action and cut‘. It makes a lot of sense to me, as I believe that new filmmakers often confuse a shot with a scene or angle. Reilly was able to use good examples to show how shots of different lengths are used, and when more elaborate equipment is required to translate the director’s ideas to the screen. It was also interesting to learn that many directors and cinematographers develop their shots on the day of filming. It makes sense – as it might be difficult to set up shots exactly until production.

Blocking is overlooked and undervalued is about blocking scenes, and how many viewers and directors have no idea how blocking works – if they know what it is at all. Blocking is where the actors and camera operators find their positions for a scene. Reilly talked about how some directors would just allow the actors to roam free on the set rather than just going to their marks ready for the camera operator. It was interesting to see how different directors and cinematographers block scenes, particularly in Woody Allen’s use of stand-ins, which would solve the problem of actors’ directions.

References:

Reilly, T. 2009, ‘What is a shot, anyway?’ 2009 in Reilly, T., The big picture : filmmaking lessons from a life on the set, Thomas Dunne Books: St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp. 16-18.<https://primo-direct-apac.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=RMIT_ALMA11136956340001341&context=L&vid=RMITU&search_scope=Books_articles_and_more&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US>

Reilly, T. 2009, ‘Blocking is overlooked and undervalued’ 2009 in Reilly, T., The big picture :
filmmaking lessons from a life on the set, Thomas Dunne Books: St. Martin’s
Press, New York, pp. 93-97.<https://primo-direct-apac.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=RMIT_ALMA11136956340001341&context=L&vid=RMITU&search_scope=Books_articles_and_more&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US>