Noah Hodgson | Media Studios Blog

Property is No Longer a Theft: decoding what makes me dislike this scene so much

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OPZ1P2he-f-Z4YyhmovxPdI0WpHkFq4F/view

Generally speaking, I tend to find something positive to latch onto in the clips we’re shown in class – there’s almost always some take away or approach which I find worthy of consideration or further experimentation. One of the clips this week however, I felt a genuinely strong aversion to, I really kind of hated it actually – but rather than outright dismissing it as ‘bad’ or just not for me, I thought it may be worth coming back to and assessing exactly what it is about this scene that makes me loath it so much. The scene in question was shown to us as an example of an interior dialogue scene which was shot on a telephoto lens. This approach of course is rather non-standard, but at the same time so is framing a close up with a wide lens, and I’ve seen that work many times in films so perhaps this approach could too. If this scene is anything to go by though, that wouldn’t appear to be the case.

My first and biggest complaint about the lens choice in this scene is the way in which it seems to draw attention to itself – and worse yet it does so without having a valid justification for doing so (at least in my opinion). Which brings me to my biggest question this scene leaves me with – why was it shot on a telephoto lens at all? Plenty of similar scenes have been shot in a more standard way, and to my eye at least, the vast majority of them are much more watchable than this. With each move of the camera I’m only taken out of the scene more and more as the operator and focus puller perform large focus racks and reframes repeatedly.

These elements when combined with some frankly terrible ADR (I understand this is common of Italian films of the time, but I’m still no happier about it), the effect is to me, a scene which is about as far away from immersion as cinema can get. Because of this overbearing choice of lens, I feel entirely unable to invest in the scene, as I find myself constantly looking at what the camera is doing instead of what the actors are doing or saying. This scene to me only confirms why when I myself am behind the camera, I rarely will pull a lens any longer than an 85mm out of the box.

P.S. Apologies for the rant, I’m sure the film’s not actually that bad if I were to watch the whole thing 🙂

The Lighthouse is a film which carries with it an absolutely engulfing tone of madness. It is perhaps in my memory one of the most immersive experiences I’ve ever had in a cinema – the type of film where I truly couldn’t take my eyes off the screen. The type of film that locks you in its sense of dread and keeps you thinking about it long after its runtime is up. For these reasons I thought it’d be a great film to take a look at in terms of camera coverage, to try and unpack exactly how it achieves this unique mood and tonality.

This scene and indeed the entire film displays an incredible level of decoupage and methodical planning in regards to how the performances interact and intersect with the camera movement and framing. This becomes immediately apparent within the first shot of the scene, a fairly long take in which the dolly pushes slowly towards the two actors as their heated exchange grows in intensity. Notably as the frame shrinks, the actors move in towards each other, which allows the shot to continue for its rather long duration, holding the two in frame for some time before pivoting to prefer Pattinson. As the characters draw closer to each other, so does the audience, drawing us into their exchange and holding us there with them in their madness. 

The same shot continues into a low angle mid shot of Pattinson’s character, which begins to establish the power dynamic of the scene. In this early portion of the scene when Pattinson is antagonising Dafoe, he is framed from a low angle, which has the well documented effect of making him appear powerful. However as the scene moves on and the power dynamic of the scene begins to swing in Dafoe’s character’s favour, Pattinson shrinks in the frame, until eventually the camera looks slightly down on him, placing him lower in the frame huddled up in a corner. At this point as Dafoe takes control of the scene, the camera stops following Pattinson and begins following Dafoe, eventually framing him in an extreme low angle, making him appear almost demonic as he curses his counterpart.

Another notable aspect of the scenes coverage is the way in which it builds, holds and then releases tension through the framing and overall scene structure and progression of shots. The scene begins with a wide shot, moving in slowly as the tension mounts and the characters become increasingly agitated. Through Pattinson’s outburst a variety of mid shots and medium close ups are used to continue this building tension and to hold us there in that feeling. For argument’s sake if we were to cut back to the opening wide shot here, a great deal of the tension built up by the camera and performances would be irrevocably lost. Instead, as the scene pushes on into Dafoe’s extended monologue, the camera pushes in even tighter, building the tension to a fever pitch and holding it there for some duration by allowing Dafoe’s monologue to play out almost uninterrupted in just a couple of shots. It is only when Dafoe completes his monologue that director Robert Eggers allows the audience respite, in the form of a wide shot which shows Dafoe towering over Pattinson, thereby releasing the pressure valve even before Pattinson’s dialogue comes in to do the same.

Perhaps the most significant element that enables and informs the choices in coverage within this scene is the absolutely enthralling and mind-bending performances from Robert Pattinson and especially Willem Dafoe. If not for the way in which these actors are able to bring their characters and the extremely odd dialogue to life, the coverage here would likely not work nearly as well as it does. Director Robert Eggers did well to recognise the talent he had placed in front of the camera and made well considered choices in his coverage that both inform and enhance the performances of his two main actors. This scene, and indeed the film as a whole, stand as a perfect example of how familiar devices in camera coverage can combine with performance, cinematography and sound to create an absolutely unique and enthralling viewing experience.

The wisdom of the unrehearsed scene.

This particular reading from Tom Reilly is more or less reiterating the thoughts I’ve had over the last few weeks surrounding the potential for films to become a little stagnant through overplanning and over rehearsal. In my last few reflections I’ve spoken a lot about a discovery based approach to filmmaking – as it’s this approach I find myself most drawn to, both as a spectator and as a practitioner. In large part Reilly is referring to something akin to this approach, although he comes to a conclusion I found rather surprising – that the act of not giving actors time for rehearsal or blocking could actually be maintaining more directorial control over the film rather than less. I find myself somewhat agreeing with this sentiment – though honestly I find the actual directorial approach he’s speaking about to be somewhat questionable. Where in previous reflections I’ve praised a more reactive type of filmmaking where the director, cinematographer and actors would essentially ‘feel out’ a scene and make on the fly adjustments as they go, the approach Reilly refers to is one in which the actors are on that journey alone, while the director and cinematographer have already carefully planned out the scene without any input from the actors. You could even argue this leaves more room for an actor to experiment with their performance – by taking some choices out of their hands (i.e. where they will stand, how they’ll move, etc.) it’s possible that they would then be more free to focus on the details which are perhaps more impactful on performance, like how they say something or their reaction to another characters lines or actions. This kind of hybrid approach may just be the meeting point between the two styles I spoke about in reflection 5 – where the camera is behaving as it would in the classical hollywood era, but the actors are ‘discovering’ a scene as it unfolds, as they may in a more modern independent feature. It’s an interesting idea to me really, and while I certainly still find myself more attracted to the style of modern indie films, the approach this reading is breaking down is one I may look into further.

Decoupage: editing as ‘mere manual labour’.

The segment of Timothy Barnard’s book ‘Decoupage’ that we were given was certainly an interesting read and definitely gave me a lot of points to think over – especially in regards to the importance of pre-production in planning out a scene. However there was one quote in particular from a Luis Bunuel essay that I found particularly contentious – that editing is essentially just ‘mere manual labour’. Perhaps at the time that Bunuel wrote his essay such a statement would have been far less controversial, but in an age of digital cameras and the ensuing release of filmmaking from the grasp of celluloid limitations (particularly in regards to runtime and instant review), I find myself strongly disagreeing with Bunuel’s assertion. Though I certainly understand what Bunuel is trying to say (even if he is doing so more forcefully than I can agree with) – that editing should be manual labour if a film/scene is planned out thoughtfully in pre-production. In reality the editing process is, and I believe should be, just as much a process of discovery as production and pre-production. To suggest that editing is only manual labour is to suggest that the filmmaker must always get it right the first time – they must always have the best and most fitting idea for how a scene is to be composed before they actually compose it. Such a suggestion however, runs entirely counter to what I have discussed in my last reflection (on the increasing prevalence of discovery based, reactive filmmaking). If a Director’s approach on set is one of openness to a better, or at least different idea and of discovery on the day with their collaborators, then this philosophy must extend to the editing room. It is all well and good to suggest that decoupage is one of the more critical elements in a film’s success, because quite a lot of the time this is indeed the case. But to suggest that decoupage is the most important element – to the exclusion of editing (or indeed any other element of filmmaking), is in my opinion overly reductive and dismissive and misses the point of cinema as a collaborative art form.

Changes in scene coverage through film history.

The aesthetic traditions and tendencies in regards to camera coverage have been an ever changing realm within the film industry. Since the earliest narrative films there has been constant change in the way filmmakers have approached their craft, both from a practical and a philosophical standpoint – but perhaps the biggest diversion in regards to camera coverage has in my opinion only become commonplace within the last twenty or so years. That change came in the form of what I would describe as a naturalistic approach to cinematography, in which devices such as area lighting, handheld camerawork and a documentary style reactive camera – in which the camera follows the performance, rather than the other way around. There are many potential explanations you could give to why this approach to cinematography and camera coverage has become increasingly common;  you could argue that there has been an increased adoption of the philosophy that story and performance takes priority and that if more cumbersome aspects of filmmaking such as camera and lighting can ‘get out of the way’ of performance – then they should. This explanation is likely part of the equation – however I think the most significant factor in this aesthetic shift in many films comes down to the rise of independent film distributors such as Focus Features and A24, and the subsequent increase in prevalence of the mid-to-low budget indie film. The low budget nature of these films has made a documentary inspired approach increasingly appetising for filmmakers as it allows them to capture more footage and to capture it faster. The implications this has for coverage are far-reaching – but essentially what it boils down to is a somewhat less planned and rehearsed coverage plan and in its place one which is more reactive to space and performance. For films in the classical hollywood era from filmmakers such as Hitchcock, it was far more common and accepted to reset and relight for each shot and to take great care in how that shot would be staged, framed and lit. In modern filmmaking ‘area lighting’ has become increasingly common, with most other aspects of coverage being informed by this more naturalistic approach to cinematography. This approach involves filmmakers lighting for the scene and then making small adjustments for each shot as needed. As a result in modern films what we tend to see is a reactive handheld camera (facilitated by 360 degrees of lighting) and often a longer shot duration.

Take for example this scene from North by Northwest (1959):

The elements I want to single out here are the highly considered camera positions and movement, the classical stylised lighting (which prioritises aesthetics over consistency) and the way in which the camera often precedes the action on screen, rather than following it.

Now look at this scene from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004):

The difference could not be more apparent. In this example I would highlight the loose handheld camera, the naturalistic lighting (and the way it stays entirely consistent through the scene) and the way the camera follows the actors performances, rather than hitting marks in an overly staged manner. In one scene the coverage is masterfully planned and executed, where in the other it feels as though the filmmakers are allowing themselves to discover and experiment in response to what they’re seeing on the day. I don’t believe that either approach is any more valid than the other – it’s just interesting to see how wildly different these two examples are from one another.

Reflection 1

THE SCENE IN CINEMA | REFLECTION 1 | NOAH HODGSON

Reflection 2

THE SCENE IN CINEMA | REFLECTION 2 | NOAH HODGSON

Scene Analysis 1

THE SCENE IN CINEMA | SCENE ANALYSIS 1 | NOAH HODGSON

Reflection 3

THE SCENE IN CINEMA | REFLECTION 3 | NOAH HODGSON

Tom Reilly: ‘Blocking in overlooked and undervalued’

The perspectives Tom Reilly shares within this chapter certainly are rather contentious, and while in large part I agree with what he’s saying, I do feel he is overly dismissive of the collaborative possibilities of involving actors in the construction of a scene. While I one hundred percent agree that a Director should be intensely aware of blocking and spatial dynamics within the scene they’re filming, I do feel that Reilly’s suggestion that ‘actors should act; directors should block scenes’ is extremely dismissive of the creative importance of an actors involvement in the character they’re portraying. The absolute nature of Reilly’s assertions is the part I find the most troublesome, as I find it extremely difficult to believe that there could ever be a ‘one size fits all’ for how to construct a scene. To suggest that the ‘correct’ way to block a scene is to completely remove the actors involvement in the process, is I think unnecessarily dismissive.

However, as I’ve already mentioned, I do agree that a director should have a very firm grasp of their scenes blocking (though I do take issue with the assertion that most directors devise a scene’s coverage on the day of shooting – that sounds like an absolute nightmare as a DP). Often I’ve found it makes my job working in camera and lighting extremely difficult when a Director doesn’t seem to be able to clearly communicate the intended blocking of a scene, or worse yet is happy to allow the scene to unfold ‘naturally’ and allow the actors to find the blocking as they go along. From an efficacy standpoint it is highly problematic when a director takes this approach, especially for camera and lighting. For instance if you begin shooting a scene and an actor is given free reign of the set, there’s definitely a higher margin of error for a lot of elements – but especially in regards to focus, framing and lighting. As Reilly briefly mentions in the chapter, if the blocking is not firmly established prior to shooting, you could find yourself in a situation where an actor moves somewhere where the lighting or framing is less than ideal – an issue which becomes even worse if the performance is spot on for that particular shot and all of a sudden that’s the one the director wants to use, despite shortcomings in other areas. So while I can’t wholly endorse what Reilly is saying, it certainly would make my life easier if more Directors heeded his advice to have a clear concept of a scenes blocking prior to filming it (though perhaps with earlier pre-thought than simply in the morning of that shoot day).

Scene runs from 1:38 to 7:20

This particular scene from Mr Robot, is in my opinion a brilliant example of the potential impact that bold choices in camera coverage can have on the meaning and intent of a scene. Many of the choices of framing are highly non-standard, particularly in regards to the filmmakers rejection of framing on thirds. The scene is almost entirely framed in a non-standard manner, yet the intention of the filmmakers is entirely evident nonetheless. Every shot carries with it strong implications of power dynamics between the characters in play.

From the opening shot we see protagonist Elliot walking down a long and dark hallway, which opens out into a large windowed boardroom. This single shot carries clear implications for Elliot’s journey through the show thus far. Up to this point he has operated largely in the shadows, with a clear goal of taking down the faceless elite he believes is in control of the world. So as we see in this opening shot, Elliot emerges from this hallway (representing the tunnel vision he had towards his goal) into the bright boardroom where he is exposed and uncomfortable. The figures in the boardroom at first remain out of focus, faceless as Elliot has seen them up to this point. We then see Elliot walk from a MCU into a close-up, his eyes darting around the room, avoiding eye contact. We then cut to his POV, which shows the camera scanning the room, still avoiding the gaze of the faceless elites. When we come back to the close-up of Elliot his eyes finally rest as antagonist Tyrell comes into focus – Elliot finally has a face for the ‘evil’ he has been combatting. Following this the camera performs a dolly zoom, revealing more of the room and symbolising Elliot’s understanding of his enemy beginning to expand. We then come to a wide shot, revealing the spatial relationship of the figures within the scene and highlighting the uneven odds that Elliot finds himself up against.

As the scene progresses into Tyrell’s monologue and the subsequent exchange he has with Elliot, the filmmakers again make some really clear choices in regards to framing which highlight the power dynamic of the scene. The important element at play here is the positioning of each character in frame. When the camera is looking at Tyrell, he is positioned with a great deal of space to either side of him and above him. Where traditionally positioning a character small within the frame like this may be used to signify that character’s lack of power – here it does the opposite. What the framing is showing here is that Tyrell has room to manoeuvre, he isn’t boxed into a corner and is framed with a window overlooking a city behind him – he literally has all the space in the world. On the contrary Elliot is framed with a wall directly behind him – his back is literally up against the wall, showing his vulnerability and lack of comfort. One of the shots also frames him to the edge of the frame – backed into a corner. This effect only compounds even further when Tyrell stands up face to face with him, literally trapping him there. Clearly this scene is absolutely oozing with meaning derived from its choices in coverage, but seeing as I’ve hit the word count, I’ll leave it there!

Class Experience

I’m almost embarrassed at the revelation that came for me in class last week, as the phrase that got me thinking is something that’s so obvious and honestly something that I already understood, but I suppose I had just never intellectualised it until now. The phrase was such a simple one, but it really did get me thinking.

How a scene is covered changes what it means.

It’s so obvious really, of course how a scene is covered changes its meaning, but somehow despite my intense interest in all things camera I had just never considered it in any way nearly this succinct. I suppose it’s very easy to fall into the trap of thinking of camera coverage as a utilitarian measure – simply a means to the end of constructing a scene that is comprehensible to an audience. But this phrase for some reason just got my head ticking over, and in the week since that class I’ve found myself really thinking more about why filmmakers choose to frame shots and construct scenes the way they do – what meaning is it they’re trying to convey. It has made me appreciate all the more, films which really use shot selection to push forward the narrative – all the while increasing my frustration with films and television that fall into the trap of utilitarianism.

In particular since giving this concept more and more thought, I’ve almost begun to retroactively appreciate the things I’ve seen which got really experimental with their coverage. In particular I’ve been looking back at one of my favourite shows Mr Robot, which in terms of being experimental with camera coverage and framing is really the king in my mind. This certainly isn’t the first time I’ve taken inspiration from the shows creator Sam Esmail and Cinematographer Tod Campbell, and I was definitely aware of their strange approach to coverage already. But since giving more consideration to this idea of coverage creating meaning, I’ve gained an ever increased appreciation of the boldness of their approach. Mr Robot is a show which in a lot of cases creates its own visual language, where the vast majority of other media tends to rely upon established norms of scene coverage and framing on thirds. This simple phrase has really made me look at films differently, and much like how I’ve been looking more deeply into a show like Mr Robot, I’m looking forward to continuing to apply this new perspective throughout the rest of the semester (and beyond).

What is ‘The Scene in Cinema’ about?

To put it quite plainly, my understanding of what this studio is to be about is the art of camera coverage and how it can be used to construct a scene from the script through to the editing room. I’m once again coming into this studio with the hope of continuing to develop my practice as a cinematographer and to continue to expand my knowledge and ability within that role. I do of course begin this unit with what I would consider a relatively strong grasp of the basics of camera coverage – I understand the one-eighty degree rule, I know how to shoot a conversation scene with a shot / reverse composition and I understand the need and use for a variety of shot sizes. So with that in mind, what I’m really hoping to get out of this studio is the ability to use these fundamentals in a way that still renders a scene with its own flair or style, while still being viable to film with the allotted resources.

One aspect of camera coverage that I’ve experienced a lot in the work I’ve done, is that coverage very often comes down to an economic or time-based issue – especially where low budget shoots are concerned. It’s certainly not uncommon that some other element of a production comes into conflict with the coverage that I’d like to have. For example on a music video I shot recently there were multiple hurdles in coverage that were not adequately understood or planned for in advance, those being some special effects blood shots we could only reset a limited number of times and another shot in which a non-actor needed to perform some mild stunts which he was not overly comfortable with. These complications resulted in me needing to find creative work arounds on the day, which of course is a rather stressful situation to be in when you’re on a time crunch. The solution to this situation of course could have been found in pre-production if I were more adept at breaking down a script and understanding it’s difficulties fully, before I need to shoot it. So with that in mind, I suppose the real skill I’m hoping to acquire from this studio is to be able to devise coverage in pre-production, which will allow me as much creative freedom as I can get on the day of shooting.