Jump to content

Theory Behind Reverse Lead Room


Max Field

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Worth reading:

http://reel3.com/short-siding-how-david-fincher-and-nicolas-winding-refn-get-it-right/

 

But even in the case of Irene and The Driver, you'll note that if the framing had been the other way, the background would have mostly been a bunch of wallpaper next to their heads, so the short-sided framing created shots with more depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
  • Premium Member

Very interesting, thanks for posting. When the first article mentioned "The King's Speech", I immediately related to what some of these guys are screaming about. I only saw that movie once, but, for me, the framing started as distracting, then became annoying. I'm sure Tom Hooper has a perfectly fine reason for those choices, but I was pulled out of the movie because of them. Which also illustrates why some finesse and a little subtlety can make those choices work so well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes innovation and being unconventional .. all for it.. and these examples at least it can be seen to serve the story.. isnt that the only point of cinematography .. at the end of the day.. DeMillie lit from the side for mood.. to serve the story.. no one would argue with that.. I would also short side if the more normal shot looked really bad..but to short side frame for absolutely no reason.. just to be unconventional ... why..?.. why not cross the line for every shot of two people with a scene of one telling the other their wife/husband/mother etc has been killed.. its unconventional but wouldn't really serve the story .. Im all for being arty.. trust me I spend all my time in offices trying to make them look interesting .. my point is there are some films were things are shot unconventionally .. but for no reason at all.. that is just pretension .. or clutching at straws ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think it works if there's a reason in revealing a subtext by using this framing.

 

There are plenty of other framing arrangements which are much more annoying. My pet one on UK TV is the out of focus two shot, with the focus on some meaningless foreground object - recent one had a door lock, others have the pile on the carpet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You could make the same complaint about other unusual framing conventions - excess headroom, centered compositions, significantly off-axis eyelines, lens height just above the eyeline, etc. When it's done well, it can greatly enhance the story.

 

Personally, I'd rather see filmmakers trying to do something interesting for their story instead of just sticking with convention by default. I guess what it comes down to is, there should always be a reason for the framing choices being made, whatever those might be. I suspect most of react negatively when we sense that not much thought has been put into such choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Gordon Willis made many unconventional choices in his career, some we don't recognize because they've become mainstream techniques now. The first shot in "The Godfather" makes an unconventional choice -- the lens zooms out from a close-up of the undertaker and ends up over the out-of-focus shoulder of Don Corleone. Then the undertaker gets up out of his chair to whisper into the foreground ear of Corleone and the focus doesn't follow him, it's not really focused on anything at that point, it's just focused on the air where the undertaker was sitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" I guess what it comes down to is, there should always be a reason for the framing choices being made, whatever those might be. I suspect most of react negatively when we sense that not much thought has been put into such choices."

 

What Ive been trying to say.. put in a better way..its not the act itself.. I have a problem with..be that jump cut..reverse lead.. excess head room..out of focus (most of my own work is)...Yoko Ono,s bare arse standing on a ladder for 2 hours.. its the WHY.. if there is no why.. well then why do it..

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been a plethora of cinema made since Cecil B. DeMille and even since Willis shot the Godfather.......it's hard to imagine

a framing or composition we haven't al seen before......and we either like a composition or we don't.......there doesn't have to be

any overtly profound reason for it....it's the same with composing and framing a shot. Sometimes we compose it a certain way because it just looks good. No need for intricate pretentious subtextual justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been a plethora of cinema made since Cecil B. DeMille and even since Willis shot the Godfather.......it's hard to imagine

a framing or composition we haven't al seen before......and we either like a composition or we don't.......there doesn't have to be

any overtly profound reason for it....it's the same with composing and framing a shot. Sometimes we compose it a certain way because it just looks good. No need for intricate pretentious subtextual justification.

 

 

Yeah but to me and Im sure plenty others the reverse lead shot is just an awkward frame.. its not pleasing to the eye.. (hence why most people dont do it or key light it from the wrong side).. IF there is some reason .. i.e. as stated .. we see some action, architectural feature.. a plane is the sky ..a small dog.. but something pertinent to the story of the film.. then sure ok.. BUT if there is no reason other than a hipster dir has seen it in music video.. or just to be "different" dude.. then I claim its bollocks .. :) and actually distracts from the film.. when a distraction isnt called for.. I rest my case Mi Lud..

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, we're just chasing our tails here now.

 

Devil's advocate - would you prefer 'by the BBC rulebook' framing by default? Eyes always on upper third, always 32mm wide/85mm CU, always soft upstage 3/4 key, always Hollywood Black Magic, always ACam/BCam rinse and repeat, T2/2.8 forever and ever, etc.

 

Isn't that just as dull, mindless, and uninspired? God forbid someone wants to shake things up a bit and take a chance without being called a hipster...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the artistic argument for breaking the conventional,but shots like reverse lead room just don't win me over. Now let's say it's something with more camera dexterity than panning your head the other way, or just something that's far less common than that shot in particular, I'm willing to give it a chance to see how it contributes to the lexicon of "shots to choose from".

 

To consolidate that point, if "groundbreaking" is the goal then rapidly barrel roll spin the camera, rig the key light to constantly move, anything I don't consistently see with more effort than tilting a camera head slightly to the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I understand the artistic argument for breaking the conventional,but shots like reverse lead room just don't win me over.

 

Well, it all just comes down to personal taste, doesn't it?

 

Here's another thought experiment though - someone says to you, close ups shot with a focal length wider than 50mm just don't win me over.

 

Would you also agree with that sentiment? Or would you think, maybe this person just hasn't seen it done well before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another thought experiment though - someone says to you, close ups shot with a focal length wider than 50mm just don't win me over.

Yeah but like... I don't feel like I would ever hear someone up in arms about that. Up in arms to the extent this thread is over reverse lead room. Provide a different example?

 

I grew up doing close-ups at 35, there was a point where it was the only cine prime I had lol. That involves something much different; style born from limitation.

Edited by Macks Fiiod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, sometimes 'awkward' is precisely the intent. Look at 'Ida' for example. Worked great. Other films, maybe not so much.

 

 

Yes for sure.. if there is a need for the frame to be awkward for the purpose of the film then yes fine all for it.. but just to do it because its sort of trendy ..then no I think its pretentious and not serving the film.. I guess I'm talking about narrative films here.. re the BBC rules.. the same.. of course not.. but the camera work shouldn't be over powering the film.. it should serve the film.. it can go the other way too like Ken Loaches style.. 50mm all shots leaning against a wall hand held.. just a person at the location looking . on.. which also can be visually boring.. but the content is more important than the camera work.. or at least should serve the film not be the highlight of the film.. I agree with your earlier point.. if there isa reason for any shot then fine.. same as all the zoom shots of the 60,s .. was alot of the time just because it was do able.. I mean really to do a reverse lead shot for no reason what so ever.. why..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yeah but like... I don't feel like I would ever hear someone up in arms about that. Up in arms to the extent this thread is over reverse lead room. Provide a different example?

 

Why would you get up in arms about unusual framing at all? Seem like there are plenty of actual things to be upset about. Bad screenwriting, for example. It's just a choice, like lenses, or runny eggs, or piercings...

 

My point was that the argument being promulgated here, namely that 'short-siding a frame look bad and should be avoided at all costs unless you have a very specific story reason for it' is a blanket statement of conservative aesthetic judgement that has no merit without context. It either works in a specific case or it doesn't. If it does work at all, then that's proof enough that it can work and should be in the toolbox. You'll have to take issue with specific instances where it doesn't work, well, specifically.

 

If you personally don't like the technique, that fine. Some people don't like wide angle close ups either, rubs them the wrong way. I'm saying it's kinda silly to make the leap from 'I hate X' to 'everyone should hate X, and anyone who does like it is wrong.' Short-siding is not the cinematic equivalent of a well-done steak. Because that actually is a travesty...

 

I'll leave you with this thought:

post-5721-0-14091700-1494874788_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

To me, short-siding Is just a sub-set of the larger concept of negative space: http://compositionstudy.com/negative-space/.

 

The general idea being that the entire frame is important, not just the nominal subject within the frame. It's not easy to say what makes a 'good frame' - but I think it starts with intention and the desire to communicate a non-visual idea in purely visual terms. Ideas like power, loneliness, one's place in society, state of mind. And compositions in film are not static - they are dynamic and change over time. What may begin as an unbalanced frame may resolve into one at the climax of the shot. Or it may not resolve at all, teasing the audience with an unexpected outcome.

 

Furthermore, not only is the entire frame important, but the shot in context of the sequence it is nested in, and in context of the larger film needs to be considered. Films are themselves compositions which unfold over time. So I think we may be missing the forest for the trees here.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. So maybe pick out specific instances where you feel it doesn't work then?

I sort of did with the original post.

 

Another where it felt off was the blueish strip club scene in Killer Joe.

 

Like the title said, I was looking for a concrete theory for why it happens without the presence of significant details behind the head. Your negative space link (and I think one of David's posts) are so far the only in favor arguments I've gotten aside from "why not".

 

Stuff as basic as rule of 3rds can be easily explained. Intent for why one would center frame something can also be easily explained. The assumption is that all choices have intent, I'm looking for the concrete statement that sums up the intent of reverse lead room. standard lead room has been verbalized simply on many camera education sites.

 

What is the simple verbalization for what a reverse lead room shot (with no background) will do for that frame in particular? You've elaborated on how it can help the variation of the hundreds of different shots in a feature, but aside from variation, what is it doing?

 

The lack of background variation of it is the nut I'm trying to crack right now.

 

I don't have an issue with it at all if the background is active.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The flip side to this coin are people that live by hard and fast rules without a specific reason other than this is the way they like it. Years ago I worked on a commercial for a DP that insisted on only edge lighting from the key side... no matter what. Didn't matter if it was motivated, unmotivated, or the other. Edge light equals key light side... period. I remember thinking how strange it was that he didn't care to look at any other possibilities. As if there were nothing better in the world of lighting than edge lighting from the key light side.

 

Okay fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...