Two Questions about Before Sunset

[Book/TV Project]

No doubt these questions will demonstrate just how green I am about cinematography, but here goes anyway.

 

A few minutes into this film, the two main characters have a long discussion while sitting across from one-another at a small table in a cafe. It APPEARS that this was shot with two cameras, one each positioned just over the shoulder of each of the actors and that both cameras were rolling throughout the conversation. However, the cameras are not visible in the scene. Could someone tell me how this was done? One obvious possibility is that the cameras were repositioned each time there is a cut from one actor to the other. However, given the non-stop fluidity of the dialogue, this doesn't seem likely.

 

There are several long sequences in which the two main characters are talking as they walk toward the camera. These appear to have been shot by putting the cameraman on a truck and pulling the truck backward at a rate that is in remarkable synch with the pace of the walking actors. When this is done, how hard is it to keep the actors in the frame and keep the truck moving at a rate that equals that of the actors? It doesn't look easy.

Edited November 10, 2004 by Book/TV Project

[DavidSloan]

I saw the film, but I'm not sure they used 2 cameras...I think it was just a typical over the shoulder setup, i.e., they shoot the scene over one actors shoulder, then the other, and edit it together. As for the walking scenes, it was a steadycam not a truck. You can find plenty of info on the steadycam if you google it.

 

Hope this helps :)

[Book/TV Project]

David,

 

I've now had a chance to look at the supplementary material to the DVD. The scenes in which the actors walk toward the camera do indeed appear to have been done with a Steadicam. The operator is walking backwards while being more or less guided by someone behind him. We're not talking about a few feet. We're talking about significant distances. My hat's off to the guy who managed this. Turns out that there is an interview with the film's director on the film's website in which he talks about the proficiency of the Steadicam operator, a fellow named Jim McConkey.

 

As for the cafe scene, what you are saying is the most plausible, perhaps the only, explanation for how it was done. I'm just surprised at the fluidity of the dialogue if they shot the whole scene, or substantial parts of it, from each of the two points of view without stopping, and then merged the two takes.

Edited November 10, 2004 by Book/TV Project

[DavidSloan]

I suggest to you the films of Eric Rohmer. Before Sunset is heavily influenced by his style of long takes and seemingly banal dialogue. Pauline At the Beach is one of my favorite films, ever. It also happens to be shot by Nestor Almendros, in his ultra realistic style. Let me know what you think, if you see it.

 

http://imdb.com/title/tt0086087/

 

Ciao :)

[Chance Shirley]

> I'm just surprised at the fluidity of the dialogue if they shot the whole

> scene, or substantial parts of it, from each of the two points of view

> without stopping, and then merged the two takes.

 

Assuming they did shoot that scene with one camera, it's a testament to the power of good editing.

 

I think I read a piece on BEFORE SUNSET in AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER magazine a few months ago. If you could dig that issue up, it would probably answer many of your questions.

 

- - - - -

 

Chance Shirley

Birmingham, Alabama

[Book/TV Project]

Chance,

 

Thanks. I didn't know about the magazine article and will look it up.

 

David,

 

You raise a very interesting question.

 

As you would probably agree, I think that there is a need to recognize that films with a good deal of dialogue should not be put in the same basket just because there is a lot of talk.

 

It seems to me that Pauline a la plage is comedic and, more particularly, draws heavily on the conventions of farce. If someone told me that Pedro Almodavar was influenced by it, particularly in Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, I could see the connection. I don't see any connection with Before Sunset, and if the three people who wrote it have suggested that there is a connection, it seems to me that they are kidding themselves.

 

Before Sunset is a two-person study in character. As a matter of form, I can see comparing it with My Dinner with Andre, or Swimming with Cambodia, or Touching the Void. Apart from the question of form, it is very different from those films. It is very American (as distinct from European or Canadian or New Zealander or Australian) and it is romantic to the point of being sappy. On the upside, Julie Delpy's impersonation of Nina Simone, in the last two minutes of the film, is quite wonderful. In fact, it gives the film badly needed, indeed essential, elevation. On the downside, there are some things in the film - the stuff about Shakespeare and Company and the ride on a Bateau Mouche - that severely undermine the film's integrity. I'll say this. When Julie Delpy, who co-wrote the script, has her character say, as a reasonably well-educated resident of Paris, that her favourite Paris bookstore is Shakespeare and Co., she does some serious damage to the film's credibility, not to mention some violence to the memory of Sylivia Beach.

 

Pauline a la plage is a wonderfully funny film. Before Sunset ain't in the same league, although it is certainly charming in its own way.

[DavidSloan]

I never suggested that Pauline At the Beach is similar to Before Sunset...please read my post again-I said it's one of MY favorite films. Before Sunset does, however, draw heavily from Eric Rohmer's style, in general. The walk and talks, pseudo intellectual banter, plotlessness, and the omnipresent male/female sexual dynamic is pure Rohmer. Linklater has a history of being influenced by French directors starting with Slacker which basically took the concept of Bresson's L'argent, and instead of money used conversation.

 

I see some formal connection between My Dinner with Andre, and I'm positive Linklater studied Malle. Another film that comes to mind is Man on the Train.

Edited November 11, 2004 by DavidSloan

[Greg Gross]

Hello Book/TV Project,

Steadicam operators are hired by directors to do certain scenes of a film.

They are professional operators highly skilled at what they do,so not to be

surprised that they can walk backwards. I have seen them operate here in

Harrisburg,PA on location and was thrilled at times with their skill,dexterity.

They have a web site which you can look up- Association of Steadicam Op-

erators. I'm not sure but I think you were talking about a TWO-SHOT.

Example- girl on left, boy on right(visualize). Camera #1 shoots close-up

of boy over girl's shoulder. Camera#2 shoots close-up of girl over boy's

shoulder. I not going to go in to the subject of continuity and transposition,

camera axis etc. . There are a lot of good books on the subject and with just

a little studying you will understand it. Just one-The Five C's of Cinematography

by Joseph Mascelli(Silman-James Press,Los Angeles).

1. Camera Angles

2. Continuity

3. Cutting

4. Close-Ups

5. Composition

Best Regards, Greg Gross-Professional Photographer

Student Cinematographer

[Book/TV Project]

David,

 

Your admiration for Pauline a la plage mostly tells me that you have good taste, and, more importantly, a good sense of humour.

 

Pd170user,

 

Thanks. I have a copy of Five C's on order. I've now had a chance to look at the whole of the supplementary material for Before Sunset, and it is clear that they used both a Steadicam and a truck. In case we are not all using English in the same way, by truck I mean something that looks a lot like a wagon with no sides. It's not clear, from the DVD, where they used one and not the other.

[Greg Gross]

I'm not sure but I think you mean dolly(truck) in english. Was it on tracks?

I've also heard that you can use a dolly with larger tires on a smooth surface.

I personally have never seen it done. Best regards,

 

Greg

[Book/TV Project]

Greg,

 

Yes, I'm using the word truck in the same way that some people might use the word dolly. Either way, used without rails.

 

Someone sent me an e-mail asking me to explain my comments on the opening of this film as it relates to Shakespeare and Company. So here goes. There was a woman named Sylvia Beach who opened a bookstore in Paris called Shakespeare and Company. She was instrumental in the publication of certain works by James Joyce and others. The current "Shakespeare and Company" is not located in the same place and is under different ownership. There is an issue about how the owner(s) acquired the name, after Sylvia Beach's death, that I won't bother getting into. Within Paris, the current store is widely seen as a tourist trap for people who have a romanticized vision of the original store. In Paris, it is not seen as a serious store.

 

On his website, Richard Linklater says that he wanted to make the film in a way that captured the "real" Paris. Specifically, he refers to avoiding shots around the Eiffel Tower. In fact, almost all of this film was shot in locations that any resident of Paris would consider to be at the epicenter of tourist territory. It's hard to explain this, assuming that Linklater and his co-writers know the city (which Julie Delpy most definitely does), other than on the basis that they have a good deal of cynicism about the knowledge of the film's potential audience.