This week has been interesting, though I still can’t seem to grasp the idea of working from home, though maybe if I can get my desk sorted out so I at least have a place to study, I might get through this.

This week, we continued to look into découpage, specifically how it could be used in single shot scenes. From the examples that Robin showed us, I believe that utilising a single shot works better for party scenes, as it is better able to capture the background actions and mood than using separate shots.

In My Sex Life, or How I got into an argument (Arnaud Desplechin, 1996), the use of panning to differentiate the characters and conversations, at least in my opinion, was effective, as it managed to differentiate the different conversations while still being able to cover the unique setting.

In Full Moon in Paris (Eric Rohmer, 1984), a stationary shot was used, relying on the actors to change position. This shot was able to focus on just the foreground actors dancing while still managing to depict the crowded dancefloor.

Another advantage of using a single would be in the ease of maintaining continuity. If a traditional multiple shot scene was used, the extras would either be out of sync or unnaturally choreographed to account for those changes; or the actors would need to be in a completely different scene – for example, in another room – which would detract from the “busy party” effect.

We then examined eye-lines. Unlike with the 180º rule, I had always assumed that matching the actors’ eye-lines was more of an exercise in common sense than a formally established practice (though to be fair, most coverage rules probably appear like this to the average viewer). However, it was interesting to see the amount of work that was needed to match them. This was especially evident in the scene from The Wild Bunch (Sam Peckinpah, 1969). I assume that making sure every eyeline was matched with the right actor was very time consuming, especially during production.