check out my new blog; One Shot

Hey guys,
Just wanted to share with you that I started a film-related blog last week called One Shot.
On this I post stories about my favorite single shots in my favorite movies. It combines film theory & history with some personal views. Check it out if you like some background info on cinema.

refractionsfilm.wordpress.com

cheers,
Reinout
www.refractions.nl

Very nice, thanks for posting.

Hey Reinout,

Just checked your blog and your site. Great work, man!

Groetjes uit België

Great site concept, very impressed with your showcased One Shot, indeed masterfully done. Have to agree the tension while everyone was casually chatting around the car, was gripping. The logistics of the shot are boggling, just considering the shadows while concealing the rolling crane rig. Aligning with the critics' endorsements, this kind of work stands out much more than CGI. For me though, I would have preferred not to have the second shot cutaway of the car exploding, rather to stay on our leading couple as the sound & light of the blast rocks their kiss. (Especially if it could have happened while the car's shadow was projected on the wall behind them)

Two lengthy shots immediately spring to mind. First the opening shot of Limitless with the endless zoom, of course it's an effect applied in post, but it was the first time I'd seen, & loved it. But perhaps more impressive is an action sequence in Children of men, where our lead is scurrying from cover to cover, from a bombed out bus, across to a building then up inside a stairwell, all while explosions are going off all around.

There was also a Hong Kong martial arts cop movie I saw where two guys were fighting & shooting down a hallway to crash thru the window & fall multiple stories, but the camera appears to follow them thru the breaking glass & fall right behind them all the way down, amazing sequence, sorry I can't recall the name.

However, I must confess my recollections are perhaps dominated by the sensational, the technical wow factor draws the attention while dropping the jaw. But the more subtle use of the extended amazing one shot, especially featuring actors in the most casual, natural conversation whilst in the midst of a logistically staggering scene construction, makes it all the more memorable.

Hi Tan,

I just want to chime in to tell you that I truly enjoy your comments on filmmaking. It always gives me pleasure reading them.

Aww, thank you for your kind words, Ronny. Greatly appreciated, & just the encouragement I needed after the vile animosity I've recently faced in another forum. This really is a lovely nurturing community here...

Nice work.

A similar concept, but different, is this site that I look at often:

filmgrab.wordpress.com

The creator just posts a series of frame grabs from an eclectic mix of movies. The simple concept enables you to study the framing, composition, colors etc of famous movies. Its a very handy reference. You can filter the movies by Name, Director, Cinematographer and date.

Great site, Simon. Not only does he capture the beauty in the frames, but he presents them in beautiful way, the thumbnails & slideshows make it a fantastic site. Just looking thru the familiar shots from Jaws, one is indeed reminded of the work & artistic perfection that goes into every single frame.

I've bookmarked the site & was just reflecting on how many great links I've obtained from FCP.co & the excellent membership here.

After enjoying Reinout's site earlier today, there is something gently gnawing at me. This may seem like an issue of semantics, but I should like to offer my slight variation on one of Reinout's views on film theory. First of all, I've bookmarked his site & I know I’ll return often. One of the greatest assets of FCP.co is that not only do we have members who understand all the technical wizardry that works the machines & delivers the image, but we've also been blessed with deep thinkers having a passion & sensitivity for creative artistic expression. Reading Reinout's writings reveals he resides in this camp. (hehe… sorry about the alliteration, couldn’t help myself)

Perhaps humor isn’t entirely necessary to soften anything here, as my variant opinion isn’t really a contention with Reinout’s, rather a different perspective or point of view.

On the main page there is currently an homage to “breaking the forth wall,” with a video montage link. There seems to be some confusion surrounding this term in film circles. I’ve even heard it referred to as breaking the fifth wall. That must depend on if you were raised in a house built by Buckminster Fuller.

Reinout’s description begins with my definition of breaking the forth wall, where the subject actually speaks to the audience or acknowledges them, often separating themselves from the other characters in the scene. Then Reinout’s description & especially the video montage, relax this definition to include anytime an actor looks directly into the lens. For me, this latitude is no longer accurate. Many of these instances are in fact a variation on POV.

In a scene with two main characters, after our establishing shots, which we may go back to from time to time, we often utilize the POV shot, mostly over the shoulder, shooting the scene at least twice, once from either side of the conversation. The angle of degrees off the eyeline determines the kind of conversation we want to portray. Ironically anger, fear & intimidation, closely match the camera’s alignment framework for intimacy & love, with a reduced angle. Sometimes as these scenes progress deeper, the angle becomes so small, half your frame may be the back of a head.

The decision to have an actor look directly into the lens, is a creative choice not favored by all directors or DOP’s. Sometimes it’s used in the breaking of the fourth wall, when the narrative changes to include the audience, causing a kind of disconnect with the notion that the film is a vicarious experience of observing real life. The technique has been used effectively mostly in comedic films, where we’re welcomed as insiders. It’s also used a lot in advertising, documentaries & news, where they’re striving to appear there are no walls, or total transparency in an effort to legitimize the testimony. Thus it’s a powerful propaganda technique when selling your spiel. The most morally frightening people are those who can look you straight in the eye while lying thru their teeth. However, many of the instances in the video montage don’t fit these categories, they are what I’d call a direct POV. The angle of incidence is head on, placing us in the direct dramatic gaze of the character, or more accurately we are placed directly inside the mind of the subject he is looking at. As we often say, “The eye is the window to the soul,” so you could metaphorically say, this technique places you inside the soul of the victim, that is scary. Some might think of it as the ultimate crescendo to the reduction of eyeline angles as we progress to complete intimacy, either in fear or love. Yet many directors still choose not to use this technique. Is this form of eye contact too startling for the viewer? If that is the desired effect, fine. Which is why I believe you see it used more in horror films than romantic ones. Perhaps as our conversation escalates into greater intimacy & we draw closer & closer to the true eyeline, we are drawn into the emotional involvement to the extent that we are believing & feeling the scene vicariously completely. At this precise moment, the direct eye contact could be one step too far, just enough of a startling jolt to break the spell & cause us to disconnect.

However, I could see it being used briefly in a love scene, if the lighting & post work produced a softer dreamlike quality, so that in the throws of passion we could accept the direct eye connection at a climatic moment.

But it would still be a soul bonding POV, & not breaking any proverbial walls.

On Reinout’s recommendation I shall watch The Diving Bell & The Butterfly for the first time tonight, which I’m certain will move me.

Thanks for the feedback guys!
@trixtrax I'll reply to your post a bit more extensively when I've some time tomorrow,
but you bring up some interesting points

@trixtrax9000

Finally time to reply. Great stuff about direct-POV vs. fourth wall breaking! As I understand you; you make a distinction between shots where the audience is literally addressed as such (like with Woody Allen in the Annie Hall scene where he's in the line waiting) and shots where the DOP simply uses a direct-camera-look to create a certain shock, without literally suggesting the audience is being addressed.

In a way it is a case of semantics of course, but a very valid one. Concerning my blog post, it boils down to if these scenes like the one in Twin Peaks can be considered really breaking the fourth wall. Thinking about it, I tend to lean more towards the idea that, 'no they do not'.

In the Twin Peaks scene, the spirit of Bob is not literally interacting with the audience. He's closing in on Maddy and we see this through her eyes. So we are still displacing ourselves into a character on screen, instead of being included in the scene as an audience. If that is where the distinction lies, then no wall has been broken.

But on the flip side, the fact that audiences often react so strongly to direct POV shots suggests that 'something' is being communicated through such a shot which points to a more visceral emotional connection with what is shown. We fear the spirit Bob more because we see him closing in on 'us' for example. Though he doesn't literally address us, the illusion is created that that is exactly what is happening. So even though we logically know it's not an audience interaction, sub-consciencely we can't help but react to it.

Anyway, good topic to discuss about! And thanks for the feedback! I'm at post no.7 now, so I'm trying to keep it going

Great thread, interesting reading.

Twin Peaks really freaked me out when I was younger; everyone in Ireland was hooked on it (the 2nd season kind of lost it, but the 1st season was pure gold). The pilot episode was one just a brilliant piece of storytelling.

There was some other scene I distinctly remember, where the mother of Laura is trying to remember if she saw anything that could help the investigation. She remembers the 1st time she went into Laura's room after she disappeared (and in a flashback realizes that Bob was hiding in the room - though she had not noticed him at the time). The way it was put together was very freaky - I had the lights on in my bedroom that night....

Having just returned from enjoying Reinout’s recent ruminations over at OneShot , I thought I’d type a few words here. First, it sounds like we’re on the same page with the 4th wall business, good.

I use the word “enjoyed” because OneShot revels in your passion for cinema. We often get caught up in all the technical parameters here at FCP.co, & rightfully so, we must master the tools, but I love that you delve into the soul of cinema. You really squeeze every drop out of a film, & I must confess you found more in Melancholia & Tree Of Life than I did. Yes, the individual shots you singled are gorgeous & almost ethereal, but to me they are greater than the sum total. Those films lacked that certain something to really connect completely. It all begins with the script. No matter how great their series of Rembrandts are strung together, it’s stories that truly emotionally engage.

Which is what makes your recommended Diving Bell & Butterfly work so wonderfully. Thank you for that, I’d never heard of it. The poetic narrative in act one is so rich & full of pathos, I loved almost everything about this movie. Beyond single shots, I’m drawn to powerful scenes. The one where the wife must hold the phone while the mistress confesses is … triumphant cinema! Treading the fine line between over done melodrama & flattened failed attempt, the director shows a beautiful sensitivity placing us inside the heart of this wrenching situation.

One little colorizing choice bothered me, the dream sequence of the Frenchman’s culinary fantasy. It was too stark, almost as if under fluorescent lights, it needed to be more sensually lit, warmer, more dreamlike. We deserved a fantasy feast fit for a Frenchman’s food fetish, instead it came off as if lit for a medical examination.

Overall a great film & ironically reminiscent of another French quadriplegic masterpiece - Intouchables

yeah, Intouchables has that same life-affirming theme as Diving Bell, good reference! Love that film also; and could very well end up on my blog some time in the future!

This comment can be sort of squeezed into the One Shot category. Although it's not a single frame of a cinematic Rembrandt frozen in time, it's about a silent 2 second insert shot that carried more significance than 5 pages of dialogue.

Tonight's episode of Homeland, the acclaimed Emmy winning Showtime counterterrorism cable juggernaut (episode 11 of season 2), contained this shot. Over in this thread I'd been talking about the "beat of a scene," the specific moment that exclaims the scene's cinematic purpose in the film. This episode features all sorts of emotional drama, as expected, but a particular scene between a husband & wife unfolded as a culmination of years of conflict. Of course we expect there to be some resolutions as the season ends next week. However, the 2 second insert shot comes near the end of their scene, & I'd wager it wasn't even in the script. It's a very subtle gesture, a minute earlier, after a particular line of dialogue, she places her hand on his, her wedding ring gleaming in the night. As the masterfully written & acted scene continues we focus on their faces, then the shortest of cuts, barely 2 seconds... she gently removes her hand. In the context, it's the beat of the scene & with tremendous power. Probably the choice of the director, & what a choice. With all the explosive action this episode featured, that moment is one of the key turning points of the season. So.. what makes me think it wasn't in the script? Hmm.. just a hunch.

Oh no, this thread's getting buried.

Ok, Reinout - I think I've met your match - you will be clicking still frames one after the other for your OneShot site.

You must see the movie Upside Down - not only is it marvelously imaginative, but every shot is gorgeous in textures, color, style & substance, often accompanied by stunning effects. It's a bit too dystopian to be a series of Rembrandts but there's no denying the visuals are high art.

Thanks for the tip! I'll definitely check it out!

Saw it yesterday. Very interesting find, never heard of the movie.
I have to say, story wise, it didn't really resonate with me that much, and no matter how imaginative the premise is, it also felt a bit silly at times to me with the whole mixing of gravities. Judged purely on script; I wouldn't rate it that highly...

Still; visually I have to agree that its filled with wondrous shots, both in effects and composition. I love how they used wide-angle lenses to create curved distortions in the image to suggest a convergence between the two worlds. Especially in the scenes where the boy and girl meet each other on top of the opposite mountain ranges. Those shots were amazing! They had such a great dreamlike quality. Maybe that shot might eventually enter my One Shot list!

Thanks again for the tip!

Hehe... glad you liked it. Yes, of course the story is a bit preposterous, & even accepting their gravity premise, what made the two while kissing under that rock ledge spin like boars on a rotisserie? Also the ending seemed lazy like they just wanted to wrap things up.

However, I was barely 5 minutes in & thinking of your site, the opening shots, the old house where he lives, the colors were gorgeous in such a dark depressing futuristic prison scape. The textures where he would walk out into the alley & towards a white light. Lots of lens flares too. One scene I really loved was when he was on fire, dove into the sea, released his weights, ascended up thru the clouds into the other sea. That was wonderful. (don't worry folks, that's not a spoiler)

Perhaps this sums up my new philosophy.... Even when life gives you a crappy story, we can still look for the beauty in it.


Ok, back to how you first began this thread. Remember the long take with Heston & the ticking time bomb in the car? Good... here's what looks like a GoPro (anamorphic?) mounted on top of a stedicam during a long shot in Hugo. Note the gymnastics the boom operator has to do to glide around chandeliers & other obstacles. Speaking of obstacles, watch how to capture a specific angle a wall must be removed at a precise moment in time.

I love the comment at the end, "Five or six more & we're good!"


:lol:

www.studiodaily.com/2012/05/a-view-from-...eadicam-rig-on-hugo/

Reinout & all lovers of the OneShot concept will be stoked to read this fascinating interview with Spielberg's Cinematographer, Polish born Oscar winner Janusz Kaminski. He's lensed every Spielberg flick since 93. His wisdom & passion are electric. Here he details 11 scenes that embody the OneShot ethos. Reading the text & following comments have spurred me to watch Lincoln & Munich, neither of which I was too keen on previously. The videos on the page are also impressive, the War of the Worlds shot is so mindbogglingly complex yet presented in such a simple straight forward way...

www.vulture.com/2012/11/how-steven-spiel...got-these-shots.html

"Some people say, 'Enough of this, move on,' but I like it! Light is life, and for me, the presence of light is essential."


PS - I had to try several browsers until I could get that page to scroll...

did my previous reply not get through? Anyway, Thanks for the links! Very, very cool stuff about Kaminski & Hugo. Loved that steadicam B-roll shot.