| Film Fanatic May 2003
Suspending Disbelief: Part Three
A college project, entitled News that Affects You,
taught me the importance of knowing how to communicate through visuals without calling
attention to the camera. At the time, I was predisposed to placing the camera at the most
oblique positions imaginable; no angle was too sharp, no dolly-in too kinetic
("dolly-in" means that the camera moves in toward the actors and the movie set).
The camera was always moving, and always positioned at a perspective that I considered
cool. To hell with storytelling! I was a filmmaker and showing off was all that mattered.
But my ego was in for a surprise.
Revealing subtext is the point, not placating ego
What my ego didn’t grasp was the point behind
camera placement. The camera isn’t supposed to be a character, a plot device, or a
distinguishable element within the context of a filmed frame. The camera is supposed to be
invisible -- a portal, an impartial eye to the action occurring onscreen. Like continuity
errors or terrible acting, bad camerawork can reveal the seams in a film to the audience.
While energetic and artistic camerawork can add to the enjoyment and excitement of a film,
it takes maturity and a keen understanding of a script’s subtext to make artistic
shots work naturally within a film’s story.
Some of my camerawork in News that Affects You did
work, but much of it only belied the illusion that the story was trying to create. When it
was screened in my sophomore film and video class, News that Affects You was lauded
as an ambitious project, but was also criticized by the professor for numerous shots that
didn’t work. Odd camera angles, a constantly moving camera, and visuals that
didn’t do a good job communicating details ended up sinking an original and
interesting concept. No one paid attention to our story that involved a network news
anchor framing an innocent man for murder. Instead, they were slapped across the face by
my self-conscious camerawork.
Adjectives and punctuation in a filmed sense
Variety is important unless your goal as a filmmaker is to
put the audience to sleep. While leaving a camera in a stationary position gives
consideration to the actors and set pieces, a moving camera placed on a dolly or mounted
on a Steadicam adds energy and
momentum to a scene. The choice depends on what the filmmaker wants to communicate. For
example, a chase scene in an action film would more than likely benefit from a moving
camera shot, rather than a lockdown one. If you remember back to our discussion about the cinematographer, I said that it was his job, and ultimately the
camera’s, to visualize the subtext and convey the mood of a screenplay through the
images. Framing an image is similar to using adjectives and punctuation in a sentence.
Adjectives give color and perspective to a noun, while punctuation stresses mood. Use too
few adjectives and a sentence will sound plain and unexciting. Use too many and the main
point you were trying to make will get lost. Of course, if you decide to use a period
where an exclamation point should go, then the dramatic flow or excitement of a scene may
end in a whimper instead of a punch.
An example of a visual adjective would be a low-angle or
canted shot, and is typically used to convey a sense of dread, imbalance, or the influence
one character has over another. Take the scene in the underrated Mission: Impossible
where Kittridge is debriefing Ethan Hunt in the glass-encased restaurant. As Kittridge
accuses Hunt of treason, director Brian De Palma frames each character in close-up so the
camera is tilted against the horizontal lines of the frame. The tilt effectively adds a
feeling of uneasiness to the conversation as well as visualizes the unknown motivation of
each character. However, De Palma is also smart enough to return to a relatively simple
and geometrically aligned shot to reestablish a point of reference and balance for the
audience.
De Palma also knows how to punctuate a scene. When Ethan
finally confronts the real traitor in a train’s luggage compartment, De Palma uses a
succession of dolly-in shots to punctuate each character’s reaction. Like a series of
dominos, each character’s understanding of the situation becomes clear as the
identity of the mole is revealed to Kittridge through a watch and a pair of spy-issue
steel-rimmed glasses.
I’m feeling kind of queasy
A self-conscious camera can do more than pull an audience
away from the illusion; it can also make them feel nauseous. I felt sick to my stomach
when I first saw Marc Rocco’s heavy-handed Murder in the First. Director Rocco
seemed to think that a story based on true-life events wasn’t compelling enough, so
he decided to keep his camera moving at every moment. There was never a point
during this film, which was about a prisoner who kills a guard after being locked in
solitary confinement for three years, where the camera wasn’t on a dolly, craning, or
swooping in. One scene in particular had Christian Slater speaking with Kevin Bacon in his
isolation cell. This is a situation where leaving the camera on a stationary shot would
have served the story better, but Rocco showed his lack of confidence by moving the camera
around, over, and inside the cell to the point where I found myself looking away from the
screen so that I wouldn’t succumb to motion sickness. As a result, my disbelief
eroded to a point where I didn’t care about the characters or the story. I just
wanted to leave the theater.
Who can fault young filmmakers for applying a technique
that television has deemed acceptable? Even "critically acclaimed" television
like Law and Order uses camera jitter and constant movement in their basic visual
design. They say this Cinema Verité approach is meant to make the audience feel as
if they are "there" in the middle of the action. I think it’s purely a
gimmick that has effectively turned me off to the show. Law and Order may have a
great acting ensemble and excellent scripts, but watching it only succeeds in making me
queasy. By comparison, cinematic acrobatics in a show like ER make more sense
because both its stories and atmosphere of day-to-day life in an emergency room are by
nature kinetic. Law and Order is a courtroom drama that is trying to squeeze added
drama out of its camerawork.
Many films have used shaky camerawork to
great effect. The trick is to use it in moderation and where it makes sense in the story.
David Fincher uses the camera brilliantly in his masterpiece Seven. The sequence
where David Mills gives chase to John Doe through apartment corridors and adjoining
buildings crackles with tension, not only because of Howard Shore’s fantastic score,
but also because Fincher chooses to use hand-held cameras where it makes sense in the
story. As a viewer I felt as though I was running alongside and ducking bullets with
detective Mills. Like De Palma, Fincher doesn’t overdo it. He alternates between
doses of shaky and stable camerawork so the audience can catch their breath and readjust a
point of reference. Fincher also uses odd angles and dolly-ins that punctuate rather than
upstage the story. When the serial killer finally reveals his identity in the lobby of the
police station, the audience is pulled into the drama with two well-executed dolly-in
shots. The dolly-in to the killer and a reverse angle of the two detectives punctuate the
surprise and drama of the scene.
Confidence equals knowing your story
At its root, self-conscious camerawork is nothing but
filmmakers’ insecurity with the material. They could be unfamiliar with the subject
matter, lack confidence in their actors or script, or simply be unsure of themselves. When
faced with the unknown, people would rather bluff than admit their ignorance.
Self-conscious filmmaking is an example of this.
The next time you watch a film, take a look at what the
camera is doing. Ask questions, too. How is the shot framed? Is the camera moving? What is
the camera’s angle to its subject? Then ask yourself if the choices of camera
position and composition fit the action and mood occurring onscreen. If you find yourself
paying more attention to what the camera is doing, then the filmmaker probably didn’t
make the right choice.
...Anthony Di Marco
anthony@hometheatersound.com |
