I had a thought, last class. We’ve been told that our stuff is too loose. To unrefined. That it should be 20% better than it is. Which is absolutely fair enough. In fact, I completely agree. But I think we need more instruction than that. What what be a good idea is if the teachers showed us how they would shoot a scene. If we made a scene under their direction.
Often, in class, when we tell each other that the framing doesn’t work for a shot, there’s no following explanation as to why. It usually just stops there; that the framing “doesn’t work”. If we can’t recognise – or articulate – why, then we won’t be able to avoid it next time. We need to break down exactly what it is that we don’t like about it and look at how it affects audience response and then think specifically about what would be a better alternative and how that would change audience response. We have to think right through the problem, looking at specifics, otherwise we won’t get anywhere. There’ll be no insight into anything.
The same thing goes for when we students are told that our shots are too loose. What is too loose? Why does it matter for the shot/scene/film – what harmful effect does it have? Why does it not look good? Why does it not work? What effect does it have on audience response? What specifically should be changed? Why would that benefit the shot/scene/film? Why does that look better? Why does that work better? What effect would that have on audience response? We need more reason. We need more illumination. More clarification.
The same this was going through my mind when Robin was comparing the “pukingly good-looking” cinematography in Road to Perdition (2002) with the “rough[er]” but more “sophisticated” cinematography in American Beauty (1999) – both shot by Conrad L. Hall. He was describing Road to Perdition as the “most contrived thing you’ve ever seen” and that its excessively beautiful cinematography actually takes away from what you’re watching. Whereas American Beauty is actually a bit rough if you look at any small component of it. The cinematography is not so technically-oriented as it is meaning-oriented. Hall doesn’t concern himself with getting things technically perfect in this film; he know what to put energy into and what not to. This is what makes the cinematography in American Beauty more organic and more sophisticated than that in Road to Perdition.
But what are the specifics here? I want to have the capacity to recognise all of these things for myself. What exactly is rough in which shots in American Beauty? Why is it considered rough? What would be the less rough alternative/s? Why do they usually seem the better option? What is the difference in audience response? Why do the ‘less refined technical elements’ (whatever that might mean) work in favour of the film?
What is so ‘pretty’ about Road to Perdition? What makes it that ‘pretty’? Why are these technical choices normally considered ‘good’? Why is it so excessive in this instance? Why does its ‘technical perfection’ (whatever that would mean) make it a less powerful film? Or a less [something] film?
We really need to spell it out for ourselves, letter by letter, otherwise we won’t get very far.
It’d be interesting to see what shots the teachers would opt for. What sort of things would they make a conscious effort to avoid? What sort of things would they make a conscious attempt to achieve? How would they go about doing this? What technical preferences do they have? What has their own practice/experience/research taught them about what to do and what not to do? Why? How?