A Master Class in camera placement
Posted 30 October 2007 - 05:55 PM
Posted 30 October 2007 - 06:41 PM
The general guideline is whether you want to make something clear to an audience, like that two people are looking at each other when intercutting. If it's clear even if you break the rule, or if you deliberately want to make it unclear, disorienting, then you can ignore the rule.
Look at this scene from "The Shining". You see that the two wider angles cross the 180 degree line because they are dead opposite to each other, symmetrical to the room. So the two actors switch sides of the screen. But once Kubrick cuts into a close-up, he has a "correct" reverse angle close-up in terms of screen direction, not crossing the line:
So essentially he matched the coverage to the second wide shot, but he may have shot coverage to match the first wide shot as well, who knows.
Posted 30 October 2007 - 07:14 PM
Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:37 PM
If I had that location and were to do it, I probably would have done something where you move in and cover the conversation with Jack in the mirror. Something like the butler's closeup but move the camera a bit to the right and block Jack so he's in the mirror. It would fit well for me with the suggestion at the end of the movie as to jack's reality or origin (or lack thereof, however you take the ending).
I'm sure other people here could suggest many other ways to approach it.
Posted 31 October 2007 - 07:16 PM
Posted 31 October 2007 - 07:53 PM
This is why Kubrick probably wouldn't opt for the more dreamlike staging of a scene as a reflection in a mirror, unless he could use wide-angle lenses and maintain the formalism of the architecture, as opposed to abstraction. Not that he doesn't occasionally opt for abstraction and longer lenses.
Posted 31 October 2007 - 08:07 PM
While we're here, how about an exercise. How would some of you approach that same scene? Forget what Kubrick would or would not have done. Think about the script and how you might do it.