‘Crossing the line’ is an evasive film concept. Not in its literal meaning, that’s fairly simple: if you’re shooting a scene (especially smaller, indoors) from one side of the actors/action, it’s generally unwise to cross the invisible line which sits between you and the other side of the room. It can mess with perspective and eyelines, and looks jarring to the audience. It becomes evasive when we ask if it’s a rule that must always be followed, and if not, when not?

We watched a scene from Army of Shadows in class, and in the scene, the director Crossed The Line. I noticed it, and I suppose it was slightly jarring, but I don’t think that means it doesn’t work in the context of the scene. It offers a new perspective, and ultimately it’s not difficult for the audience to understand where the camera is, it just takes a bit of time to recalibrate.

I also found this example of a professional film crossing the line, and while it’s obviously one of many, I like this one because I think that it’s a great shot. Peckinpah has been shooting the whole scene from one side, so that in the background there are passers-by, a station official, and other somewhat distracting mise-en-scene. When the line is crossed, it’s to isolate the two characters alone in a wide shot. There isn’t anything moving in the background, they’re occupying the frame alone. This comes as a (presumably) highly loaded question is asked, and by crossing the line at this time, the director is asking the audience to focus only on the two main characters of the scene, and what they’re saying. After the question dissipates, he cuts back to a shot from the first side he was shooting from, and background characters become visible again. I think that although it’s an unorthodox approach, in these two examples at least it can be a good option for coverage.