The Evolution of Framing in Cinematography

[Jeremy]

Obviously, framing is the result of all sorts of things, but most of all how this particular shot will better aid in the telling of the story as a whole, but it seems to me that the framing of shots has definitely changed over the years, and I was wondering what everybody's thoughts were on it.

 

For instance, thirty years ago, the "rule of thirds" seemed to be much more prevalent. I think maybe through the influence of commercial directors taking on feature films, this has changed. In a lot of commercials, our focus is found moreso in the center of the frame, leading us to think, "This is a Pepsi. Buy this." And now in feature films, "This is a person talking during an intimate conversation. Buy what this person is saying."

 

Shot, reverse shots definitely seem to follow this much more these days than previously. Whereas forty years ago, you might have the back of a head in the left third and the person talking, facing camera in the right third, and today you might have the back of the head in the left third and then the person talking, facing us in the middle of the frame, perhaps just a little bit to the right.

 

I'm not saying that I have any problem with the way that cinematography seems to have changed. I just find it interesting. For instance, if you watch "Requiem for a Dream," everything is centered in the frame. Or "The Royal Tennenbaums," everything is not only centered, but everything within the frame draws our attention to the center of the frame.

 

Maybe I'm totally off on this, but I'm interested to see what anyone else has to say.

[Rik Andino]

Well personally I believe the evolution of framing in cinema

Has been directly influence by the rise of Television in our lives.

 

Everything you pointed to has alot to do with the way a television functions

Everything is centered for television since it's such a small box.

So the focus is pushed to the center and there is a much more use of CU.

 

Also the fact that folks watch much more television commercials and music videos

Than they do movies has pushed audience to embrace the asethetics of quick cuts

Audiences these days are able to understand more in less time.

Because they've grown up watching television they don't need to be spoon feed

So directors and editors spend less time setting up the action and more showing it.

 

In the last forty years the modern world

Has become a world extremely reliant on the electronic image

We get the majority of our information from electronic images (TV, internet, etc...)

So that changes they way people view movies

And ergo changes the way filmmakers make movies....

It's a terribly long discussion to get into & I'm sure other folks have more ideas...

Let's hear them....

 

Change & evolution is a natural way of life in world (for all things...)

You gotta learn to accept it and love it or die :)

[Glenn Hanns]

Obviously, framing is the result of all sorts of things, but most of all how this particular shot will better aid in the telling of the story as a whole, but it seems to me that the framing of shots has definitely changed over the years, and I was wondering what everybody's thoughts were on it.

 

For instance, thirty years ago, the "rule of thirds" seemed to be much more prevalent. I think maybe through the influence of commercial directors taking on feature films, this has changed. In a lot of commercials, our focus is found moreso in the center of the frame, leading us to think, "This is a Pepsi. Buy this." And now in feature films, "This is a person talking during an intimate conversation. Buy what this person is saying."

 

Shot, reverse shots definitely seem to follow this much more these days than previously. Whereas forty years ago, you might have the back of a head in the left third and the person talking, facing camera in the right third, and today you might have the back of the head in the left third and then the person talking, facing us in the middle of the frame, perhaps just a little bit to the right.

 

I'm not saying that I have any problem with the way that cinematography seems to have changed. I just find it interesting. For instance, if you watch "Requiem for a Dream," everything is centered in the frame. Or "The Royal Tennenbaums," everything is not only centered, but everything within the frame draws our attention to the center of the frame.

 

Maybe I'm totally off on this, but I'm interested to see what anyone else has to say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That?s an interesting Question.

For me your first point carries a lot of weight, form creates structure. An epic vista is aided by widesreen while a subject like imprisonment for e.g. might lend itself to a 1.33 frame very well.

I think you should also not forget that 4:3 or 1.33:1 had been on the "silver" screen long before wide screen in the form of Academy, so centering an object is not something new.

It could be that as cinema these days is so repackaged for other mediums such as web/TV there could be a built-in safety framing that can accommodate all these delivery methods. Personally I hate when something is shot 1.85:1 and is shown on a 4:3 TV as a pan and scan or even worse, re-cut by scanning portions of the screen....ARRRGGHH!!

They're still a lot of 4:3 sets in this world so until 16:9 is commonplace cinematographers will still give 4:3 framing some consideration (albeit under duress.)

I think framing in general has become quite loose obviously helped by such things as steadicam and much smaller/nimble crane systems and fly by wire systems as well as compact cameras.

Glenn.

[Jon Rosenbloom]

Centered C/U's are a personal choice of Anderson. (Think I read that in AC.)

 

This is one of those topics that invites the espousing of absurd generalisations. But I'll give it a shot:

Narrative film-making is not about the photography; it's about the actors acting. The vast majority of what you see on TV or at the theatre are varying degrees of closeups of actors' faces. If you're shooting 4:3, or even 1.85:1, and you have a medium 2 shot in which you have to see two faces, there are only so many ways you can frame the shot.

 

Orson Welles was really able to "expand" the frame. Remember the scene in "Citizen Kane" in which Kane is told he's bankrupt? Static camera, Welles starts out dominating the shot in C/U, but as he gets the bad news, he walks to the back of the set and shrinks in stature. As the question is about the evolution of framing, I'll hazard to say that that kind of bold approach has been largely abandoned for framing that is a lot tamer. Movies are about the actors and the story, and I think that most producers and directors want to do everything they can to keep the audience "in the story." They don't want to distract anyone w/ "interesting" photography. If you can get away w/ it, then it's kind of a bonus. Yes, that's a terrible generalisation, and there are plenty of contemporary exceptions (like Lance Accord's work), BUT, don't most H'Wood movies kind of look the same? For example, is there anything in the trailer for "The Interpreter" that alerts you that the great Khondji shot it? Plenty of big time DP's could have got the job, and the film would hardly have looked different.

 

Last, can we move beyond the "rule of thirds," and talk about "balance" instead?

[Josh Bass]

Somtimes I notice, and I guess I"m thinking mostly of TV shows (sorry can't name any in particular), that there'll be a closeup during a dialogue scene where the speaking character's lead room is in the opposite direction from where he's facting. If he's facing screen right, he'll have all this room on the left, while he's somewhat shoved up against the right edge of the frame.

 

What's the theory behind this? Does it just compose better than shooting it with the lead room on the "proper" side, for some reason?

[Mister X]

Anyone else, here, experience the "Labyrinth" at Expo 67?

 

When the National Film Board of Canada tried breaking out of the little box, (epitomized by 4:3 frames), the grand experiment was the construction of a theatre to fit the film's content, often accomplished by the use of multiple projectors. Something happening on one screen might move to another screen, rather than use editing or reframe the shot to capture the movement. The process was not without its flaws and a more "seamless" approach was sought; thus, IMAX was developed. The problem with IMAX is that it is theatrical in its scope, (not cheap, not easily broadcast, and not as affordable to the general public as those little boxes).

[Mark Allen]

Don't discount the rise of home video cameras as an influence on cinematography.

 

If you look at what Goddard and a lot of filmmakers in the 60's and 70's started doing when cameras became light enough to hand hold out in the streets - their cinema verite style was considered avant garde. Today that's just like many shows on television - many movies as well. We've grown accustomed to that sort of fluidity. I think that sort of style of filmmaking leans towards keeping the subject in the center of the frame as well.

 

Another reason for some center framing is probably reactionary to the over dynamism of post-modern cinematography. Meaning - so many people started showing off their incredibly composition prowess, I think a lot of filmmakers are going counter to that just to say "wait - here's just a guy, watch him."

 

Think back on movies at their inception. The metaphor was very much to use the cinema screen as a stage - so most shots were "full tableux" - basically showing the entire stage. It took a while before audience accepted the close up. It was uncomfortable at first to see this huge head floating in space.

 

I thought "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" did a really beautiful job of keeping the camera fluid yet retained a very attractive cinematic style. A camera that fluid is dangerous. In the wrong hand it can feel very self-conscious and fake... just like the self-conscious shot showing off of other dynamic styles.

 

A personal opinion - I think a lot of the art of shot composition is being lost under other priorities of making shots "cool" or showing off the star or what have you. The Citizen Kane reference is a great one - that's telling a story visually. You really feel what is happening on a deep level. I'd like to see more of that in film (and television for that matter).

 

One thing I like to do is look at the top press photos for inspiration - they are often captured on the fly, but with (usually) a lot of training and instinct behind them and can result in a pretty stunning image. I could talk about them, but you'll know what I mean just by looking them, here's a sample: http://www.worldpressphoto.nl/index.php?op...&bandwidth=high

[Michael Nash]

Somtimes I notice, and I guess I"m thinking mostly of TV shows (sorry can't name any in particular), that there'll be a closeup during a dialogue scene where the speaking character's lead room is in the opposite direction from where he's facting.  If he's facing screen right, he'll have all this room on the left, while he's somewhat shoved up against the right edge of the frame. 

 

What's the theory behind this? Does it just compose better than shooting it with the lead room on the "proper" side, for some reason?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's usually called "negative space," and can be used for a lot of different dramatic reasons. Negative space can be any amount of "empty" space in the frame that's reasonably devoid of a clear subject, separate from the main subject (the person's head, in this case). It doesn't always have to be behind the person's head to be considered "negative," but "empty" space that occupies the lead-room or nose-room in a CU tends to not draw as much attention to itself and feel as "empty."

 

I don't really agree that TV and movie framing has become all that boring or the same; I see tons of inventive framing in commercials, music videos, TV and features. While most narrative storytelling does still rely on the basics of CU's in the rule of thirds, there are plenty of variations even within the same show.

 

Pretty much all the Jerry Bruckheimer TV shows use some pretty adventurous framing, at least in the wide shots. All the CSI shows, Cold Case, Without a Trace. Cold Case in particular uses wide shots in the FBI office interiors with a low angle where literally the entire upper half of the frame is the ceiling of the set.

 

I would say that the rule of thirds IS an issue of balance, it's just the most "normal" and "comfortable" of ways to balance space withing the frame. But there are other choices you can use withing the same film, depending on what you want to express. There's also the centered, more formal and symmetrical balance; and dividing the frame into quarters instead of thirds to emphasize space. And you can divide up the frame into as many segments, grids, and shapes as you want if you really want to.

 

Edward Hopper is an interesting painter to look at for this concept; his frames are very precisely ordered to create that sparse, lonely feel (beyond the vacant subject matter). He almost always bisects the frame horizontally so that people's heads are below the midline, giving equal empty space to the subject's space. He also tends to put the people within a section or segment of the grid, rather than on a grid line, so the subject gets a little "lost" in the composition rather than becoming a focal point (He also always mirrors his subjects and major shapes within the frame, diminishing the visual importance of the subjects by balancing them visually with something else).

 

4:3 TV is a lot harder to vary the grid beyond thirds without creating obvious empty space, but it's been done. The X-Files did a pretty good job of pushing subjects to the side and top of frame in the CU's, and Murder One several years back used to always put the eyes on the upper 1/4 line rather than the upper 1/3, cutting the subject's forehead. It looked so cool!

[Michael Nash]

A personal opinion - I think a lot of the art of shot composition is being lost under other priorities of making shots "cool" or showing off the star or what have you.  The Citizen Kane reference is a great one - that's telling a story visually.  You really feel what is happening on a deep level.  I'd like to see more of that in film (and television for that matter). 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This one of those things that really bugs me about a couple TV shows, that just loses me. I've tried and tried to get into the TV show 24, and just can't. I finally figured out why; beyond the running storyline that's impossible to catch up with mid-way, it's ALL extreme closeup on someone's face or hands or whatever. It's all subject, no context, and no graphic composition to tell the story. Johnny Zero is another one like this that's all subject, although at least with dynamic camera angles. When I watch these shows I feel cheated out of the benefit of composition as a storytelling device, because there's no context to balance the subject, and no form to balance the content.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think both of these shows are well designed and well crafted. But my DP's eye is looking for composition and form as narrative element when watching a show, and I don't get that when everything's just "CU of (subject)".

 

Great link on the photos; these two show off the concept of a 4-part grid and empty space very well:

 

 

http://www.worldpressphoto.nl/index.php?op...&bandwidth=high

 

http://www.worldpressphoto.nl/index.php?op...&bandwidth=high

 

 

Additionally to balance, other graphic elements of composition to consider are line and angles, depth, and closed-form vs. open-form (among many others).

 

La Femme Nikita comes to mind when talking about angles and diagonal lines. When the action is tense and dramatic there is an emphasis of diagonal line and depth in the frame; when she's being domestic the space becomes flatter and the lines in the frame are more plainly horizontal and vertical. Diagonal lines and low angles always appear more dynamic and exciting, which is why "stylish" action filmmakers like Michael Bay (and his whole Propaganda ilk) use them so much.

[Guest fstop]

Wow, Michael!

 

These are very insightful observations on framing you share with us. I am very grateful that you have explained these theories for us, I've learned alot from many of your posts on framing.

 

I agree entirely with your comments on Hopper, a master of stark composition, particularly the way he moulds it so expertly with light and shade to often exgarrate desolation. Other artists would have opted for limited depth of field to isolate the subject matter, but Hopper is somewhere else. I think every aspiring post modern DP is indebted to Hopper's control of space.

 

Here's one of my favourite Hoppers, The Usher - your theory of selective sections works on so many levels with this one:

 

 

You've got emphasis on power, socio-political, personal angst, drama (the Usherette lying thoughful yet static below the corner toplight is rendered with more visual theatricalities than the comparitively subdued movie screen up front! Note the seating rail acting as a fence cornering off our lead subject and all of a sudden she's an exhibition piece with a somewhat established territory. Geographically, the Usherette is but a few metres from the guy in the third row, Hopper would tell us they are a million miles away, and of course, perhaps they are.

 

Working with the vertical architecture too, going with the Usherette's head tipped foreward and the dramatic toplight.

 

All very intelligent stuff and something I know I tend to take for granted. Thanks guys for the great thread!

[Sam Wells]

Wow, Michael!

 

Here's one of my favourite Hoppers, The Usher - your theory of selective sections works on so many levels with this one:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Let me ditto that too Michael !

 

BTW check out The Usher referenced by Gordon Willis in "Pennies From Heaven"

 

-Sam

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Everyone should study the "rules" of compostition and I really recomend going to museums and looking at compostion with this knowledge in mind. Look at the "whole" of the piece and what the actual shape of the canvas is. Then look at how the artist used the space within.

 

Often you'll see things that go against traditional theory yet still work. For example there are a number of western paintings in one of my local museums that use bottom center composition within approximately a 1.78 frame. It works well for some shots yet seems like too much sky in others. What you have to figure out is why.

[Wendell_Greene]

BTW check out The Usher referenced by Gordon Willis in "Pennies From Heaven"

 

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And Hopper's "Nighthawks" too!

[Jeremy]

And Hopper's "Nighthawks" too!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nighthawks is definitely Hopper's most famous painting. It seemed strange to me when they put it on a stamp. It's like, "Feeling of desperation and loneliness, trapped in the inner city -- is now sending your letter to grandma!"

 

One of my favorite paintings of Hopper's is "A Woman in the Sun." The subject is naked in her bedroom, but it's not erotic at all. The painting is so simple, yet there are so many things that can be read into it. It's early morning, because her shadow is straight behind her. She's looking out an unseen window. We can see the rolling hills in the distance, but she's alone, trapped inside her home. There are high heels beneath the bed, hinting at something in her past, and a longing to be elsewhere, or she went elsewhere, and no she's back where she started... and then she's holding a cigarette -- probably the smallest thing in the frame, but for some reason I'm instantly drawn to it, and I'm wondering why she's smoking, staring at the sunrise... alone.

 

This is what images should do for us, and this is what we should strive to do as imagemakers. It's that whole a picture can tell a thousand words cliche again, but dammit, it's true.

 

Thanks for bringing up Hopper... and those press photos are amazing!

[DavidSloan]

Do we have any Casper David Friedrich fans in the house? I'm obsessed with his Sokurovesque images.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

more

Edited February 17, 2005 by DavidSloan

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Do we have any Casper David Friedrich fans in the house?  I'm obsessed with his Sokurovesque images.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes, I love his works.

[Felipe Perez-Burchard]

here is my favorite CDF... very relevant and comparable to Hopper's lonely frames at times.

 

-felipe.

[Jon Rosenbloom]

[i would say that the rule of thirds IS an issue of balance, it's just the most "normal" and "comfortable" of ways to balance space withing the frame.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My objection to the rule of thirds is that it's always just thrown out on its own (usually in High School photo class) w/ no explanation for WHY it works, as if the instruction to divide the frame into thirds is the be all and end all of composition. Line, perspective, balance, visual weight are much more powerful tools to have at your disposal, and they're really not difficult to understand. (They're certainly easier on the brain than 24p pulldown issues!)

 

For instance, I'm no MFA, but here's what I see in The Usher: Hopper heightens the drama of the scene by presenting an intentionally unbalanced composition. First, he breaks w/ convention by putting the thick vertical column dead center in the frame, which is visually disquieting. Moreover, the painting is tilted way over to the usher - she's at the right side (we tend to "read" frames from left to right), and she's brightly lit - adding to her visual weight, whereas the rest of the frame is pretty dark. What keeps the girl from capsizing the frame is the counterweight in the top left of the painting: the silver and white of the movie screen. Last, the seating rail helps define the usher's space, but it is also a plainly orthogonal element, there to lend depth to the image.

 

I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's great to go on a scout and be able to say, "There are no good orthogonals here, let's keep looking."

[pkbissen]

great post. i'm pretty sure Hopper was an inspiration for the look of Road to Perdition. Check out the DVD special features for more on it.

 

and the photos at World Press Photo are incredible.

[Michael Nash]

"The Usher" is actually entitled New York Movie (1939). I disagree that it's an "unbalanced" composition, Hopper's stuff is very balanced and ordered. It's just that the apparent "subject" (the girl) is not placed in a traditional focal point or dividing line, but rather within a section of the frame. Most of Hopper's compositions are organized this way. You could argue that the figures in Hopper's paintings are as much "context" to the cityscapes as "subject," Instead of the other way around. I think that's part of what makes his frames so unsettling, the environment takes on an ominous personality by virtue or "real estate" and balance within the frame (you kind of expect them to come to life at any moment, like the buildings in Dark City). But I tend to agree with your observations otherwise.

 

 

Getting back to the original topic of the evoltion of framing: I think the pace of editing in modern film and television has a lot of influence on composition. In paintings and photographs, the eye has a long time to linger over the composition and consider spacial relationships. In quick-cut television, you really can't present an image that's too complex for the audience to process before the next cut. I'm not saying that's a bad thing or absolute, just the nature of progressively changing and moving images.

[Guest fstop]

This is EXCELLENT Michael- thankyou so much for giving everyone the opportunity to see your symmetry, shapes and motifs markings grids- I think this is just awesome that we can talk this in depth about art on this filmmaking board! I'm WELL impressed!

 

Not to nitpick, but New York movie was originally titled "The Usher" when it was a work in progress, and as far as I have read this name remained at selected exhibitions since.

 

Anyway, I cannot stress to those without an art history background just how essential it is to dig into the classics as well as contemporary painting to expand your understanding of composition.

 

GREAT stuff!

Edited February 18, 2005 by fstop

[Dan Salzmann]

I also think that comic books have had an amazing influence on composition, lighting and editing.

Apparently Fritz Lang and Orson Welles were big Will Eisner fans and it shows in their work.

[DavidSloan]

Funny that you mentioned comics, Dan...as I was just about to bring it up. Recently I've been turned on to the works of Frank Miller, and Alan Moore. The Watchmen, in particular, by Alan Moore, has some incredible compositions, and editing. Also, the way Contemporary comics structure their storylines is very experimental, and unique.

 

 

 

 

[Jon Rosenbloom]

"The Usher" is actually entitled New York Movie (1939). I disagree that it's an "unbalanced" composition, Hopper's stuff is very balanced and ordered. It's just that the apparent "subject" (the girl) is not placed in a traditional focal point or dividing line, but rather within a section of the frame. Most of Hopper's compositions are organized this way. You could argue that the figures in Hopper's paintings are as much "context" to the cityscapes as "subject," Instead of the other way around. I think that's part of what makes his frames so unsettling, the environment takes on an ominous personality by virtue or "real estate" and balance within the frame (you kind of expect them to come to life at any moment, like the buildings in Dark City). But I tend to agree with your observations otherwise.

 

 

Getting back to the original topic of the evoltion of framing: I think the pace of editing in modern film and television has a lot of influence on composition. In paintings and photographs, the eye has a long time to linger over the composition and consider spacial relationships. In quick-cut television, you really can't present an image that's too complex for the audience to process before the next cut. I'm not saying that's a bad thing or absolute, just the nature of progressively changing and moving images.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Points very well made. Is it more precise of me to say "unbalanced, but balanced"? Also, let's warn against the idea that symmetry and balance are synonymous.

Best,

J

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I've never really learned composition theoretically. I mean, the rule of thirds, negative space of course, but I've never studied it on a scientific level. So that was an interesting post, Michael. You do however pick up preferences as you go along - arrogantly, I think I'll just go with the gut as I've always done.