It’s Kind of a Funny Story (2010)

It’s Kind of a Funny Story (2010)
Directed by: Anna Boden, Ryan Fleck
Starring: Kier Gilchrist, Emma Roberts, Zach Galifianakis

“For the first time in a while, I can look forward to the things I want to do in my life…I feel like I can handle it. Bike. Eat. Drink. Talk. Ride the subway. Read. Read maps. Make maps. Make art. Finish the Gates application. Tell my dad not to stress about it. Hug my mom. Kiss my little sister. Kiss my dad. Make out with Noelle. Make out with her more. Take her on a picnic. See a movie with her. See a movie with Aaron. See a movie with Nia. Have a party. Tell people my story. Volunteer at 3 North. Help people like Bobby, like Muqtada, like me. Draw more. Draw a person. Draw a naked person. Draw Noelle naked. Run. Travel. Swim. Skip—yeah, I know it’s lame, but whatever. Skip anyway.

Breathe.

Live.”

 

It’s weird watching your own life unfolding right on the screen in front of you. It’s Kind of a Funny Story was that movie for me, the movie that seems to have been taken right out of my own life. Granted, I’m not attracted to my best friend’s girlfriend, and my roommate is not an Egyptian hermit. Oh, I also have not checked myself into a mental institution after dreaming of suicide.

But aside from those differences, Craig Gilner (portrayed by Keir Gilchrist) is surprisingly similar to me in so many ways. Pressure from attending an elite preparatory school, summer program/college application-related stress, friends who can seemingly do everything, parents who never say the right thing at the right time, and of course, toying with the idea of suicide because of all this… stuff. 

‘Stuff’ is the only word that can accurately capture the seemingly mundane yet so overwhelming details of everyday life. And it’s this stuff that makes this a kind of a funny story: Charlie Chaplin put it best when he said that life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long shot. Craig’s week in 3 North gives him the leisure to observe life from a distance—“It’s kind of a funny story, but I was going to jump off a bridge. Funny, now that I think about it…” Now who can say that’s not a good conversation-starter? Feeling overwhelmed by life is an essential part of the growing-up process, and in retrospect it makes for quite a lot of funny stories. I remember contemplating suicide when I was 5 because I had lied to my mom about brushing my teeth and was afraid of her finding out (she never did)—back then, the situation was quite serious for me; now, it’s just a kind of a funny story.

One thing I found meh about the film was the rushed and overly idealized portrayal of Craig’s self-discovery while he was at 3 North. He thinks he’s no good at drawing, but bam! He turns out to be a genius artist. He’s never sung before, but after a (quite funny and endearing) fantasy rock concert sequence he’s surrounded by the other patients with their mouths agape. I have to say that it does fit nicely with the overall feel of the film, but to me it felt a little cliché.

Other than this, there really wasn’t anything else I disliked about this film. And even this was a minor complaint, so overall it was 100 minutes well spent. Kier Gilchrist (Craig), Emma Roberts (Noelle), and the GREAT Zach Galifianakis (Bobby), as well as all of the supporting characters had great chemistry with each other and managed the ‘psychiatric ward’ comedy without being cliché. I also really liked the subtle nod to Wes Anderson’s Rushmore, a stylistic choice that drew attention to the parallel between the two stories. (And of course because we’ve been studying his films in class for the past semester.)

To me, this is a very personal film because I’m going through so many of the same things Craig did—‘depression’ (although that seems too overbearing a word), ‘sometimes wishing I had an easy answer for why I’m depressed,’ discovering art, even the interest in maps—but it’s an interesting growing-up film that manages to deliver a cliché message in a not-so clichéd way. 

 Trailer:

Class #4 cont.: Auteur theory

So, who, or what, is the auteur?

The 3 main criteria for an auteur is as follows:

1. Technical competence
2. Distinguishing personality of the director: signature style
3. Internal vision: rather ambiguous, but refers to the tension between the personality of the director and the material

These three criteria can also represent different levels of a film director’s ability- technician, stylist, and auteur.

A director can move up and down this scale over the course of her/his career; in the end, it all comes down to the directing process and the result of this process. How much of the director’s internal vision stays intact from its conception within the director’s mind through the camera and mise-en-scene, and finally to the screen? Of course, this then begs the question of whether the film is actually ever finished: the film evolves when it comes into contact with different audiences that interact with the material and give it new meaning.

Factors that should be considered in identifying a director as an auteur through his/her body of work-
1. Similarities in style (cinematography techniques including but not limited to color palette, camera movement, camera angles and so on)
2. Recurring themes, motifs, metaphors
3. Character types
4. Development & evolution throughout career

What’s easy to overlook is that auteur theory is indeed just a theory: it is not the absolute standard in judging or interpreting films. There is a lot of criticism regarding the theory- for example, what exactly is the ‘interior meaning’ or the ‘tension’ that the theory relies on? Even the originators of auteurism had trouble defining this factor. Others include-
1. Denying the influence of the studio during the heyday of studio films
2. “The Death of the Author” -Roland Barthes (Wikipedia):
Barthes argues that the product should be processed independently of the author: “To give a text an Author” and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it is to impose a limit on that text.” We can never definitively know what the author intended, and relying on the personal characteristics of the author to argue for an interpretation restricts the full merit of the product.
3. The collaborative nature of filmmaking– what about the writers? Producers? Actors?  Hundreds of people work on a film, yet the auteur theory implies that all decisions and work is solely the director’s.
4. Then are all directors auteurs? Should all directors be auteurs?
5. Reduces the films of non-auteurs

Well known auteurs include Martin Scorsese, Stephen Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola and much more. Again, because the definition is rather ambiguous, any ‘collective’ list of auteurs is at least a little biased.

And this concludes the initial theory part of the Drama, Film and Society class. Now, the semester-long assignment is to 1. use the basic cinematography vocabulary and mise-en-scene analysis to 2. analyze the individual works of Wes Anderson and finally 3. identify whether Wes Anderson is an auteur or not. After Wes Anderson, our class will be watching the films of Charlie Kaufman and undergoing a similar process.

Wes Anderson (Wikipedia)’s Films:
Bottle Rocket (1996)
Rushmore (1998)
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
The Darjeeling Limited (2007)
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)
Moonrise Kingdom (2012)
The Budapest Hotel (TBA)

Charlie Kaufman (Wikipedia)’s Films:
Being John Malkovich (1999)
Human Nature (2001)
Adaptation (2002)
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Synecdoche, New York (2008)
Kung Fu Panda (2011) – script revisor/ not part of class viewing list
Anomalisa (TBA)
Frank or Francis (TBA)

 

Class #4: (Brief) History of the Auteur Theory

I’ve been trying to write an opening paragraph befitting of the majesty that is the auteur theory, but none of them seem quite right. Maybe it’s the writer’s block from all those college essays acting up, but for whatever reason I can’t seem to find the right words to string together. Which is frustrating, because the auteur theory is really the culmination of all the subjects that we discussed in prior classes, and I wanted this post to be really good, really meaningful as the last ‘Cinematography and Theory’ post. Because after this post, it’s mainly going to be actual film discussions and reviews. And I’m really looking forward to writing them- I just really feel like I should finish this first.

Deep breath. I can do this. I will finish this before I go to bed today.

Okay, so the auteur theory basically emphasizes the director’s role as the ‘author’ of the film. Auteur is a fancy French word for author- as it is with many things, the French have a way of making the same thing sound de qualité supérieure and plus intelligent. See what I mean?

Auteur theory originated in France, with the French New Wave. Andre Bazin provided a forum for the idea to develop in Cahiers du Cinema, a film magazine he co-founded. Supporters of the auteur theory argue that the final product is a realization of the director’s personal vision- Alexandre Astruc introduced the idea of ‘le camera stylo,’ or the camera-pen. Directors wield the camera as writers do pens to ‘guard against the hindrances of traditional storytelling.’ Later, Truffaut developed the theory when he argued that the best directors have an authorial handprint that runs through their whole body of work-distinctive stylistic choices and thematic concerns.

Though its origins lay in France, Auteur theory made a more lasting impression on American cinema. In fact, the name ‘auteur theory’ was coined by the British film critic Andrew Sarris in 1962- Sarris later published the acclaimed The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929–1968.

At the same time, the New Hollywood Movement was taking place on the other side of the pond; the studio system (ironically, the system that produced films that inspired Truffaut’s support for the auteur theory) was failing, and more power was starting to be levied towards emerging writer-directors. The Hayes Code that had been censoring on-screen material was banished, and directors found more power to create the violent, boundary-pushing films that 70’s directors are associated with.

This lecture from a University of Nebraska-Lincoln film studies class manages to clearly sum up the history of auteurism with great examples in just 2 minutes and 44 seconds-

Also, in addition to class, these articles were particularly helpful in understanding the emergence of auteurism-
1. Wikipedia article on Auteur Theory (of course)
2. Slate article on the history of auteurism and ‘The Singer or the Song?: Author as Production Worker’
3. Film Reference
4. Andrew Sarris’ Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962

Class #3.5: Mise-en-scene Analysis exercise

Mise-en-scene analysis of The Graduate

In our class, the following clip was analyzed briefly as an example of mise-en-scene and visual storytelling-

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3lKbMBab18]

I have not watched the whole film, which is why I thought analyzing a scene from this movie would be interesting. How much of the scene and what visual cues will I be able to pick up without knowing the plot? The only thing about this clip that I know is that the male character is Benjamin, who is being seduced by the older Mrs. Robinson. This is my first time analyzing a scene, and I felt at a loss for things to look for or say- until I found some questions courtesy of this site that will help me to analyze the mise-en-scene in this scene. I divided the scene into groups of related shots and analyzed them as follows:

1. 0:00~0:05
The sequence opens with a deep-focus medium full shot of Benjamin in what seems to be Mrs. Robinson’s home. The deep focus draws a large picture of the situation- it reveals the harsh lighting just outside the window, the overall color scheme and styling of the room. We see Benjamin in relation to this environment- lost and somehow trapped. The harsh bottom lighting on the tall plants outside the window, along with the shadows on the wall denote Benjamin’s entrapment within Mrs.Robinson’s home, and this is further suggested by the large color blocks of black flanking either side of him. Mrs. Robinson is clearly in control of the environment here- Benjamin (and we as viewers) can’t do much more than flinch at the sudden music Mrs. Robinson (outside the frame) turns on. The music sets the tone for the rest of the clip- even before Mrs. Robinson makes it clear, the music insinuates Mrs. Robinson’s intentions.

2. 0:05~0:53
Having established the overall atmosphere in the first shot, the scene utilizes camera angles and framing to illustrate the relationship between Benjamin and Mrs. Robinson. In the beginning of the shot, Mrs. Robinson dominates the eye of the viewer; once again, she is in command of the scene. She is placed at a higher position in the frame than Benjamin, and the camera is at eye-level with Benjamin. Benjamin (and the viewers) literally look up at Mrs. Robinson through this shot. During the dialogue, the camera cuts back and forth between Mrs. Robinson and Benjamin; they are in separate frames, volleying the conversation back and forth. It is only when Benjamin realizes what Mrs. Robinson is insinuating that the camera switches into a close shot of Benjamin’s reaction. This is followed by Benjamin literally walking out of the frame as he says, “I think I should be going.” Benjamin and Mrs. Robinson are now at the same height as he challenges Mrs. Robinson, which leads nicely into the next group of shots as Benjamin becomes increasingly agitated.

3. 0:54~1:20
Throughout the whole clip, the lighting around Benjamin created stark shadows against his outline, visually disconnecting him from his surroundings. As Benjamin realizes what Mrs. Robinson is asking, he distances himself from Mrs. Robinson, and these shadows around his outline envelop him completely. The camera follows him as he walks from left to right, his shadowy head remaining in the frame at all times. Visually the viewers get a sense that Benjamin is trying to make sense out of this situation, and is literally wavering between the choices he can make.

4. 1:20~1:24
Mrs. Robinson has Benjamin under her leg (literally). This frame composition makes obvious the power relationship between the two, as well as the probable outcome of this conversation.

5. 1:24~1:28
Even before we see Benjamin’s face (for the first time after seeing his reaction to Mrs. Robinson’s proposition), we get a close shot of a laughing Mrs. Robinson- this is her victory shot. We know she has succeeded, and this is further supported in the next shot, with Benjamin at the same level as Mrs. Robinson in one frame. The frame composition echoes that of 0:54~1:20; except in this shot, it is the back of Mrs. Robinson’s head that we see instead of Benjamin’s. By doing this, not only are the viewers given a shot of Benjamin’s reaction, but they are also informed that Benjamin is now at a place where shot compositions can be interchanged between himself and Mrs Robinson- they are now equals.

END SCENE

Class #3: Mise En Scene, with an emphasis on Music

Mise-en-scene definitely has to be one of my favorite words. The way it’s pronounced- ‘mizZ’, followed by the slightly nasal ‘en’, and the slithering ‘scenNE’ with the last syllable just slightly drawn out. Though French grammar makes me want to pull all my hair out, I have to admit that I have a special place in my heart -erm, ear- for l’élégance de la langue française (thank you Google Translate).

Pronunciation aside, the term ‘mise-en-scene’ actually has a pretty mundane meaning. Its literal translation is ‘Put on the screen’; Brian Henderson  gives it the slightly more elegant (read: esoteric) definition of ‘film criticism’s grand undefined term’ (thank you Wikipedia). Simply put, mise-en-scene means EVERYTHING WITHIN THE FRAME. I have to say, ‘grand undefined term’ has a nice ring to it, but it doesn’t really explain what mise-en-scene is, just that it’s undefined- and that doesn’t help much.

Anyway, the main aspects of mise-en-scene that we covered in class draw on and expand the cinematographic techniques we discussed in Class #1.This site provides a brief overview of the cinematographic techniques and how they are used in mise-en-scene analysis, and this site from Yale’s film studies course provides some great explanations and examples of mise-en-scene components. Here are the main aspects of mise-en-scene that we discussed in our class:

1. Physical aspects: Set design, art direction, costumes, just to name a few. Sets the scene and the characters, and is a major factor in visual storytelling. Pretty straightforward, and the Yale link gives great examples.

2. Acting performances: Actors and their characters. In our class, we touched on the fact that acting can be one of the hardest things to critique in a film. I definitely think this is true, though some of my classmates disagreed- I personally think that good actors make it look so easy when it’s really not, and that evaluating acting without ever having acted distances me from making a convincing evaluation.

3. Frame composition: The cinematographic techniques covered in Class #1, and how composition is a crucial aspect of the visual language of cinema. The way that different characters and objects are placed within the frame aids the viewers in many ways.

4. MUSIC (and sound): Sound encompasses music, background, and dialogue. There are two kinds of sounds- ‘digetic’ and ‘non-digetic.’ Digetic sound is the sound present in the narrative, the sound that characters are aware of. Non-digetic sound is sound that is NOT present in the narrative, the sounds that the characters are unaware of. Musicals make use of non-digetic sounds; the singing is considered non-digetic even though the characters are obviously aware of the music because it doesn’t exist in the reality of the situation presented onscreen.

The line between non-digetic and digetic sounds can easily be blurred, and some filmmakers intentionally blur the lines between the two to create an interesting effect. The example we discussed in class was the wise up sequence from Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC96_vph-oI]
The director purposefully makes it ambiguous whether Aimee Mann’s song Wise Up is being played in the context of the film, or whether it is non-digetic.
Another example comes from one of my favorite Wes Anderson scenes; clever use of music is a Wes Anderson signature, and this scene from The Royal Tenenbaums is no exception.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asGJbzMDjTs]
‘Ruby Tuesday’ by the Rolling Stones is digetic sound for most of the scene, but it expands into non-digetic sound towards the end of the clip.

In both of these clips, the music in the background ties the various scenes together. In Magnolia, it ties the various characters together; in The Royal Tenenbaums, the music spills into the next chapter, acting as a bridge in order to facilitate a smooth transition. A better example of music complementing the other aspects of mise-en-scene is the final scene from Clint Eastwood’s The Good, the Bad and the Ugly :
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmdAsL1n6q4]
The music builds up the tension of the scene in waves, and threads together the taut tension between the quick close-up shots of the characters’ faces and hands. The variations in tempo creates waves of tension, and the gunshot-like sounds clue the viewers in to the gun-frenzy chaos that is about to ensue.

The film composer Bernard Herrmann, well-known for his work on Hitchcock films, once said that “No one knows why music is needed in films, yet films don’t feel complete without it.” Music acts as the cement that holds the individual components of mise-en-scene together, as well as the separate scenes. It supplies what mere words, no matter how well delivered, can’t achieve and gives emotional cues as well. After all, a romantic kissing scene with sucking sounds instead of the romantic background music would be, well, awkward and frankly quite disgusting instead of dreamy and romantic. Unless the actor is …I won’t say.

Class #2: How Movies Move

What makes movies so intriguing to people? Why do people like them?

If we were to and make a list of all the answers to these questions, the list would probably never end. Tapping into the inner 4-year in every person, one would simply answer that “The pictures move!” Movies move, and this is what inherently intrigues us about them. Movement in films is not restricted to the literal ‘movement’ on the screen- the viewers are ‘moved’ into the world that the film creates and become emotionally ‘moved’ through the illusion of ‘movement’ that the technical weaving of still images creates.

Because movies are technically a sequence of still images, it’s easy to credit photography with being the direct predecessor of cinema. Though in the technical aspect this is largely true, the establishment and development of cinema as a cultural product stemmed more from the theatrical aspects of magic shows. The first movies were literally parts of magic shows, played in makeshift tents on circus grounds, and to the people watching them, these moving images were nothing short of magic. Cinema, much like magic performances, enthralls its audiences and gives them a sense of wonder. As viewers, we get lost in the artificial ‘realism’ within the screen- and this concocted realism leads us to willingly suspend logic and lose ourselves within the realm of the film.

One notable technique used in these early films is ‘rotoscoping.’ Though the term is now more heavily associated with hand-drawn animation techniques, it can refer to the general frame-by-frame manipulation of movies in any genre. Rotoscoping in early films often refers to the hand-coloring of single shots in order to make a ‘color’ film. This technique and the ‘magic’ of the cinema is well shown in the first science fiction movie ever made- Georges Meilies’ A Trip to the Moon (1902). The hand-colored version of the movie was restored completely and played at the 2011 Cannes film festival.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dTVfSJoj04]
*One thing to note here is that the soundtrack is NOT part of the original film- it was composed by the French band Air and inserted into the remastered version of the movie. The original (and better known) version of the film is the silent black-and-white film that is played with a spoken narration by Meilies himself.

Another technical aspect of this film is the frame rate, which is 16 frames per second (the standard fps of the time). To modern audiences, this low fps rate is what makes the movie look ‘choppy’- we are used to seeing video played at 24 fps and higher, and the frame rates are getting higher as technology progresses.

And now, for your viewing pleasure, is the full-length clip of Georges Meilies’ Le Voyage Dans le Lune. The science in the movie is surprisingly accurate in some parts and just pure fiction in others. But it is nonetheless an endearing film, especially with Meilies’ French-accent narration in the background (It helps that I’m a sucker for foreign accents).
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYRemE9Oeso&feature=watch-now-button&wide=1]

Class #1.5: Top 20 Cinematic Techniques Analysis

This video clip we watched in the first class gives clear examples of the top 20 cinematic techniques used in films. Though it has some mistakes and the terminology is s bit different, it is still a great video that helped me to understand how these techniques are being used in films. In this post, I finished up an exercise we briefly did in class- analyzing why the director used these techniques and what he/she wanted to convey by using them.

*Note: I have not watched most of these films in full length (embarrassing, I know), so most of my speculations are based solely on the presented clips.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3EnnBDgMww&feature=related]

1. Children of Men (Alfonso Cuaron, 2006): Long Take, Doggicam
The camera forces the viewer into the situation unfolding on the screen. The 360-degree shot literally traps the viewer in the car with the other characters, with no visible escape. It is very effective in capturing the almost claustrophobic tension in the car.

2. Children of Men (Alfonso Cuaron, 2006): Long Take, Tracking shot
The camera is treated as a character in this take. The splatters of blood on the lens and the head-like movement of the camera enables the viewer to become one of the characters on the screen. At one point, a woman even talks directly to the camera- to the viewers. The camera succeeds in providing a first-person narrative to them.

3. Atonement (Joe Wright, 2007): Long Take, Steadicam
The long take allows the viewers to observe the two characters during their trek through a battlefield, and at the same time partake in the emotions they go through while watching the horses being put to death.

4. Star Wars IV (George Lucas, 1977): Extreme Establishing Shot
Establishing shots are pretty straightforward; the order of the individual shots set the overall scale of space, the space vehicle and its orientation within space, and then establishes the setting in more detail.

5. Lord of the Rings (Peter Jackson, 2001): Establishing Shot
Standard establishing shot capturing the overall mood of the setting. Smooth and slow camera movements.

6. Cowboys and Aliens (Jon Favreau, 2011): Pan
The lateral movement of the panning camera (panning to the right) adds to the surprise factor at the end of the clip when Daniel Craig pops up at the right end of the screen.

7. Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino, 1992): Low Angle
A clear example of how low angle shots can imbue the shown characters with authority, menace.

8. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941): Crane Up
A shot that communicates the spatial orientation of the setting as well as the image of Susan Kane.

9. Mission Impossible (Brian De Palma, 1996): Dutch Angle
The oblique angle, as well as the sinister background music, adds to the confusion of the conversation. It also illustrates how Ethan Hunt is reacting in this conversation.

10. Shaun of the Dead (Edgar Wright, 2004): Frantic Zoom
Oh, it’s frantic all right.

11. Cloverfeild (Matt Reeves, 2008): Point of View (…?)
Handheld camera- drawing on the journalistic characteristics of this technique, conveys the unexpectedness of events.

12. Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010): Special Effects
One of the most striking scenes in the whole movie. It boggles my mind how he captured the movements so smoothly.

13. Zombieland (Ruben Fleischer, 2009): Slow Motion
Extends the ‘gross factor’ of the zombies…very effectively.

14/15. Kill Bill Vol.1 (Quentin Tarantino, 2003): Panoramic Traveling/Horizontal Panning
Coupled with the movement of various onscreen characters, lets the viewers survey the setting and the various goings-on.

16. The Other Guys (Adam McKay, 2010): High Angle, Tilt, Slow Motion
I think this would qualify more as a bird’s-eye shot than a high angle, but either way all three elements capture the process of the fall and the ‘thud’ of the fall very effectively.

17. A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968): Match cut
Interesting way to 1. show the passing of time 2. draw a parallel between the two time periods.

18. A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968): Spin
Essentially the same effect as the special effects in Inception. In Inception Nolan spun the set; here, Kubrick spun the camera. Matched with the ballet music, the camera ‘turns’ where the ballerina would have done a pirouette.

19. Limitless (Neil Burger, 2011): Limitless Zoom
LIMITLESS sight. LIMITLESS.

20. Eminem- Space Bound music video: split screen
Umm…hmm…. it shows two possibilities of a single event. Parallel universe, string theory malarkey.

Class #1: Basic Cinematography Techniques

A minimal understanding of cinematography techniques is needed in order to understand and interpret the visual language of films. After all, these techniques are the basic ingredients used by the filmmaker in the storytelling process. It’s important to note that each of these techniques and types don’t have a fixed purpose; different directors use them for different purposes under different circumstances. The following is a minimal list of the most fundamental cinematic techniques, with corresponding examples.

1. Shot Distance: An easy way to determine shot distance is by using the human body in the frame as a unit. (Of course, these three are not the only shot distance types that exist- these are just the most commonly used and identified)

credit: http://www.lightsfilmschool.com/articles/framing_heights/index.html

Long shot: Shows the whole human body, head to toes
Medium shot: Shows half the human body
Close-up: Shows only the face

2. Focus (depth of field)

Shallow: Focused on a singular plane of the frame.
Deep: Focused on multiple planes throughout the frame.

This clip, from the 1941 Orson Welles film Citizen Kane, makes use of the various shot distances as well as deep focus. From 0:30~1:45, the frame is in deep focus and holds three types of shot distances: the boy outside (long), the man in the doorway (medium full), and the people at the table (medium). 

3. Basic Shot Types: Different shot types allow filmmakers-the good ones, anyway- to complement dialogue, add subtext, foreshadow, contextualize on-screen relationships, and much more.

Establishing shot: A shot that establishes the situation (generally the time or place or both) the scene takes place in.
4-shot: A shot with 4 people in the frame
2-shot: A shot with 2 people in the frame
Over-the-Shoulder shot: A shot typically used in dialogue scenes.

As an example of how filmmakers can convey meaning through even a single still shot, here is a still shot from Woody Allen’s Manhattan:

credit: http://thefilmemporium.blogspot.kr/2011/11/classic-throwback-manhattan-woody-allen.html

 

This shot is a medium shot / 4-shot. The frame contains a parallel positioning of two man-woman pairs. This is the first clue that this is a picture of two pairs of couples, supported by the visual cue of the woman on the far right holding Woody Allen’s hand. However, the proximity between characters clues the viewers in to what will happen later on- the two characters in the middle will be drawn closer together, as shown in this shot, over the progression of the plot.

4. Angles: Since cameras serve as the literal ‘eyes’ of the audiences, camera angles can be effectively used to establish a relationship between the viewers and the material presented within the frame.

Eye-level: This angle is usually neutral, but it can also be used to draw the viewer into the frame, as shown in these still shots from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining.

credit: http://www.awardscircuit.com/2012/04/23/jack-nicholson-is-75-years-old-what-are-your-favorite-jack-roles/

In this eye-level shot, Jack Nicholson stares dead center at the viewers, forcing the viewers to make eye contact with this menacing figure. The viewers are forcibly being involved in the scene, placed at eye level with Nicholson, and are being drawn into the tension that Kubrick builds up throughout the movie.

This is another eye-level shot that draws the viewers directly into the harrowing situation playing out on the screen. The camera angle lets the viewers observe Jack Nicholson at eye level; at any moment, it seems as if Jack Nicholson will turn to the camera and start swinging the axe at the viewers. This is another example of an eye-level shot that draws the viewers into the scene.

Low/High Angles: The use of low/high angles often portray a power relationship between two things on the screen or the viewer and the material. Often, the extreme use of these angles can distort the size of the objects presented on screen to give them power, vulnerability, respect, menace, and other attributions.
Oblique (Dutch/canton) angles: Oblique angles denote precariousness, threatening atmosphere, and mental instability. It is a purposefully subjective shot that often reflects the onscreen character’s subjective point of view. Though filmmakers often use Dutch shots with obviously tilted angles, others use slightly tilted frames that the viewer might not even pick up on unless they are consciously searching for it. These oblique angles subtly show the precariousness of the unfolding events or inner mental instability without making it too obvious.

This Dutch shot from Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight denotes the mental instability of the Joker and makes the viewer feel somewhat uneasy. This uneasiness of the viewers that comes from the shot composition translates into their feelings regarding the character presented onscreen. The filmmaker is exerting control over how the viewers should approach this character, the Joker.

5. Camera Movement: Camera movements direct the viewers visual path through the space presented by the filmmaker.
Pan: Steady horizontal movement
Tilt: Steady vertical movement
Boom: The camera is fastened to a crane and moved.
Tracking shot: The camera moves as if on a track, or literally on a track
Hand-held/shaky: Often utilizes the camera as a character in the film. Journalistic, and subjective technique.
Steadicam: A mixing of the tracking + handheld shot.

This video analyzes the various camera movements and other cinematographic techniques in a sequence from Kill Bill Vol. 1.

On a summarizing note, the following video organizes the various cinematographic techniques we studied in the first class along with great examples taken from Peter Jackson’s The Fellowship of the Ring.