Max Field Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 (edited) Saw 50 Shades Darker yesterday (had really funny moments but only a decent flick) and shots with reverse lead room were abundant. Example: While this shot seems to have the purpose of showing the interaction behind them, there were many others without any form of activity going on, just completely defocused backgrounds without detail. Obviously this isn't the first film to ever do something like this, but I was wondering if there was some form of philosophy for why a DoP would elect to do the complete opposite of the lead room rule if there are no other details present. The primary rule of lead room where space is in front of the nose feels intuitive to me. Thanks for all insights. Edited May 1, 2017 by Macks Fiiod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Totally agree.. one of my pet hates.. if there is no reason its just pretentious IMHO.. might as well light it with the key on the wrong side too.. just to look edgy and breaking the rules man.. wonder who's idea it was.. DP or director.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John E Clark Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Saw 50 Shades Darker yesterday (had really funny moments but only a decent flick) and shots with reverse lead room were abundant. Example: While this shot seems to have the purpose of showing the interaction behind them, there were many others without any form of activity going on, just completely defocused backgrounds without detail. Obviously this isn't the first film to ever do something like this, but I was wondering if there was some form of philosophy for why a DoP would elect to do the complete opposite of the lead room rule if there are no other details present. The primary rule of lead room where space is in front of the nose feels intuitive to me. Thanks for all insights. Since I've not seen the film, my initial guess of the sample image, is the guy is 'pushing his way' into the off camera person's space. A person staring out a window, with could be interpreted two ways depending on the 'space'... no space... perhaps 'blocked' person... much space... perhaps many options... it is of course hard to tell post facto what was on the mind of the filmmaker/director/dop that lead to that specific composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted May 1, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 1, 2017 Usually when I see this trick used, it's to highlight something in the background. Maybe it's the location, or what's physically happening in the background. I personally don't like this trick at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakesh Malik Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 My theory for why the DP would choose to frame that way: When there's nothing in the background, it's going to make the frame unbalanced, which tends to make the audience uncomfortable. It also has the effect of making the other person's space feel cramped, while giving the other person a visually stronger and move overbearing position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 1, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 1, 2017 If it was OK for Gordon Willis, then I'm OK with doing it: Simplest reason is that there might be more visual interest in the background when short-siding the framing -- I've been in many restaurants where your choice is to short-side and see the restaurant or put the extra space conventionally ahead of the actor's look and see a wall. Other reasons include creating some sort of tension from the subject not "paying attention" to what is going on behind them, or suggesting that the world is going on without them so to speak, that the character is "outside" of society, or simply creating a feeling of unease from the unconventional framing. The scene from "Manhattan" above is about a couple breaking up and the short-siding emphasizes the happier couples around them in the restaurant that the main characters are not perceiving. "The Insider" has a lot of unconventional framing choices including short-siding characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted May 1, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 1, 2017 I've become a bit of a fan of doing that, but frankly I'm probably just copying much more skilled people than I am. I do notice that most of the examples here are in scope frames, which would clearly make it more noticeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Justin Hayward Posted May 1, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 1, 2017 I like it too. And sometimes only because I like unusual compositions. For some reason it tends to feel more like a painting, which I like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 But what if any background is totally out of focus.. there is no information there at all.. as the OP says... that would be the reason then.. in an otherwise "unstylised" film.. just because its jarring.. why not light it badly too.. have bad acting.. make it out of focus.. also jarring to an audience .. sure there can a reason to do it.. same as a jump cut.. but if there is no reason .. it can only be seen as some pretentious attempt as being "edgy " and even now its been over done .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Justin Hayward Posted May 2, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 2, 2017 why not light it badly too.. have bad acting.. I just think the framing looks cool. Maybe that means I like bad lighting and bad acting too, but I hope not. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Field Posted May 2, 2017 Author Share Posted May 2, 2017 Is getting an F on a Math test cool too? The answer is yes, but I feel there's tons of room for a feature to purely look "cool" without breaking certain rules. David showed those examples above but they really backed the primary rule of "telling the story". If there's nothingness in the background I see zero reason to mess around with the principles of lead room. It's there for coherency, which is important for spatial awareness within the telling of a scene. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 2, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 2, 2017 Like anything, it's a matter of exercising taste. Gordon Willis often had strong compositions that sometimes were unconventional but he did them with a certain conviction, they had a feeling of weight and purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 ......the primary rule of "telling the story". ........ the principles of lead room......spatial awareness...... The principals of headroom are a really worthy topic, even if it feels like an uncertain ship..When you invoke the "story" word it's like you jumped into the lifeboat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Justin Hayward Posted May 2, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 2, 2017 I think some of you are overestimating my intelligence. I'm not that smart. I look at images and nod "yes" or shake "no". :P But seriously, I think those Gordon Willis shots look great and what I mean by "look great" is they stimulate my aesthetic... they excite my taste... I like them... regardless of the context. But in context, even better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted May 2, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 2, 2017 Lol, I was just framing this way today on a beauty ad! Handheld, wide-open type of stuff. The shots on sticks/slider were more or less framed conventionally. I think part of it is just instinctual, if it looks good and feels right, do it. You can certainly intellectualize the choice, especially for a narrative film, but for advertising it's mostly done if it looks good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted May 2, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 2, 2017 But what if any background is totally out of focus.. there is no information there at all.. as the OP says... that would be the reason then.. in an otherwise "unstylised" film.. just because its jarring.. why not light it badly too.. have bad acting.. make it out of focus.. also jarring to an audience .. sure there can a reason to do it.. same as a jump cut.. but if there is no reason .. it can only be seen as some pretentious attempt as being "edgy " and even now its been over done .. I don't think short-siding a composition is 'bad' - it's just unconventional. Now, I'm not saying the composition in question is good or bad. To me, it's somewhat flat. If you look at the films of Wong Kar Wai, you'll see incredibly beautiful compositions using this technique. What makes a 'good' composition can be such a complex thing, purely on an aesthetic level. If you look at still photography, you tend to see a much wider range of 'acceptable' conventions being used. I think it's a shame that framing in cinematography is often much more bland as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 I just think the framing looks cool. Maybe that means I like bad lighting and bad acting too, but I hope not. ;) Justin.. sorry I wasn't meaning to imply that.. nor was my rant :) directed at you sir.. it really is a pet hate of mine.. but each to their own.. maybe Im too old !! my wife thinks so.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 (edited) I don't think short-siding a composition is 'bad' - it's just unconventional. Now, I'm not saying the composition in question is good or bad. To me, it's somewhat flat. If you look at the films of Wong Kar Wai, you'll see incredibly beautiful compositions using this technique. What makes a 'good' composition can be such a complex thing, purely on an aesthetic level. If you look at still photography, you tend to see a much wider range of 'acceptable' conventions being used. I think it's a shame that framing in cinematography is often much more bland as a whole. Yes good point.. I think in stills you can get away with alot of "un convectional " framing.. its just one frame..stand alone.. even the stills shots Dave posted of Mr Willis frames.. look great as stills.. you could hang them on the wall..but as a scene in a film.. of course moving images .. there are some conventions that exist for reason.. jump cuts.. POV,s.. crossing the line between 2 two talking to each other.. it could be fun.. cool.. jarring .. edgy or suite a film that would make that decision have some point or meaning.. but if there is no reason.. its just two people talking-to each other.. why do it.. solely that reviewers will comment on it.. ? why cram someone into the "wrong" side of the frame.. if you have nothing even in focus on the "air" side.. commercials and music videos you have alot more leeway and Ive done that too.. its totally what looks good.. thats what you getting paid for..but in a straight dialogue scene .. with no reasons to be "arty".. it should be what they are saying thats important ,not an awkward frame with just totally out of focus info not adding in anyway to the story... just for the sake of it.. IMHO.. Edited May 2, 2017 by Robin R Probyn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 The principals of headroom are a really worthy topic, even if it feels like an uncertain ship..When you invoke the "story" word it's like you jumped into the lifeboat Sorry, I meant lead room.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Sorry, I meant lead room.... Thought you might have been watching North Korean TV.. in Tokyo they always seem to be showing clips of North Korean tv .. possibility due to imminent nukes coming this way.. but they always have this huge amount of head room.. it annoys me more than the missiles TBH.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Justin Hayward Posted May 2, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 2, 2017 Justin.. sorry I wasn't meaning to imply that.. nor was my rant :) directed at you sir.. Thanks, I was just kidding around. I know I'm a genius. :P :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 Thanks, I was just kidding around. I know I'm a genius. :P :lol: You are sir ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted May 3, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 3, 2017 I see no reason not to be 'arty' as much as possible, we're not shooting news... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 3, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 3, 2017 Without unconventional thinking, we wouldn't have most of our cinematic language tools today. When Cecil B. DeMille first started having faces lit from the side for moodier scenes, some distributors complained that they were only paying for half a face. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Field Posted May 3, 2017 Author Share Posted May 3, 2017 A different way of thinking is essential to the evolution of a craft, the only point I'm making is THIS one in specific feels more regressive than progressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now