Jump to content
Adam Frisch FSF

Over-use of close-ups.

Recommended Posts

You often hear that the over-use of close-ups is a product of films being made for, being influenced, or watched mainly on TV's. But the problem starts much earlier - in editing. This is where the over-use originates. This is probably the biggest drawback with modern NLE editing, the fact that everything is cut, paced and constructed on a tiny monitor and never looked at on a big screen until the edit is locked.

 

Me and a DP friend have done some unscientific tests and the results are clear: 9 times out of 10 an editor will cut in a close-up if they've got one. I notice the same thing when I update my own website with stills - it's the CU work that dominates, since it's more immediately communicative.

 

It's gone so far with big movies like Da Vinci Code - where I know they've had millions of dollars and went to all these fab locations - yet you can't tell because all there is is close-ups.

 

But we can all change that. If you don't deliver close-ups, then they can't edit them in. Arm yourself, stand up, and fight for wide's and mid's!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

though i completely agree that they are too prevalent, i have served as both dp & editor on narrative projects, and can see why the CUs end up dominating the edit... it's easier to control the rhythm of the scene by ping-ponging from actor to actor, and even if you just wanna alter the rhythm once and cut into a med or CU, it's hard to then step back away from the actor's "intensity" by going back to the wide once you've already used the CU, though i guess it depends on the scene. even when i shoot a scene with the intent of using primarily the 2-shot or wide, i'll shoot CUs for safety and often end up using a lot more of the CUs than planned.

 

also, in my experience, actors almost always give their best performances when in CU... whether this is a conscious decision on their part or not, i dunno.

Edited by jaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it can be problematic. But cutting to a CU and then trying to backtrack without losing intensity is precisely the reason one should keep CU's to a minimum - when one really wants to make a point. If you don't use them, then the audience will not have anything to compare to.

 

As for the acting in wide's I can't say that I've noticed a big difference, although you might have a point. I always find those actors who are less camera savvy - the ones who don't really know what their shot is - can often times have a slight advantage in those circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compromised set design and emotional over-involvement with actors on the part of the director and producer can also factor into this.

Increased podcasting and internet markets is not going to help those wides and mids either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Increased podcasting and internet markets is not going to help those wides and mids either.

 

I think this is a factor. While these tiny windows may only be a small influence, the DVD release is often a bigger market than the theatrical run. Studios and directors are likely aware of this, and compromise their shots.

 

But I also think directors have a strong hand in the edit decision. Perhaps they too fall victim to the small offline screen, but they usually get at least a chance to comment on the editor's first cut. If a director wants to stay on a wide, he/she can stay on a wide...

 

As DP's I think it's important to bring this up with directors during prep -- how tight is too tight? How wide is too wide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree. Overusing CU's kills the dynamics of a scene and can be way too intrusive in my opinion, not unlike over use of shaky handheld shots, rack focus, or the endless tracking shots in 'Elephant'.

 

There's a "less is more" lesson to be learned here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
though i completely agree that they are too prevalent, i have served as both dp & editor on narrative projects, and can see why the CUs end up dominating the edit... it's easier to control the rhythm of the scene by ping-ponging from actor to actor, and even if you just wanna alter the rhythm once and cut into a med or CU, it's hard to then step back away from the actor's "intensity" by going back to the wide once you've already used the CU, though i guess it depends on the scene. even when i shoot a scene with the intent of using primarily the 2-shot or wide, i'll shoot CUs for safety and often end up using a lot more of the CUs than planned.

 

also, in my experience, actors almost always give their best performances when in CU... whether this is a conscious decision on their part or not, i dunno.

 

 

I agree with Jaan that CU's are too prevalent, but also that they are good insurance. I am in the habit of shooting CU's not just for story telling but also to C.M.A. because I know when it comes time to edit I will find problems. I hate to use anything for a crutch but CU's have saved me from having to go back and shoot additional footage on more than one occasion. For that reason alone I think it's a good idea to keep shooting them.

 

If every one on the cast and crew are perfect or the budget and production schedule allow for going back to re-shoot scenes, then it's fine to shoot fewer and fewer CU's. In the end however the over use of CU's will probably not be solved by cutting in the camera, but rather in the fullness of time when every one, viewers, critics, producers, directors and hopefully editors just get sick of seeing them. I hope that day is not too far off in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WEEELLLLL, let me throw my 2 cents worth in. Stories are told in CU. An actor comunicates though their eyes and if a big star is involved, people want to SEE them. John Ford's vistas were vital to his films, agreed, but the story is told in the faces of his charatures. That's the one thing that can't be faked in a movie, the truth behind the eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...with modern NLE editing, the fact that everything is cut, paced and constructed on a tiny monitor...

 

Hmmm...compelling hypothesis. I assume this is why my school's edit room has got a digital projector hooked up to the FCP system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm...compelling hypothesis. I assume this is why my school's edit room has got a digital projector hooked up to the FCP system.

 

that's awesome. is this commonplace now at most film programs?

 

for pro/veteran editors, i would assume that the "small screen" syndrome would have a minimal effect, since i'm sure they constantly keep that in mind, but i think working with a large image would make a big difference for students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stories are told in CU.

 

Maybe you need to see more movies! :P

 

Of course CU's and the actor's performance are important parts of the film language. But so are many things that you CAN'T do in closeup. Some of the movies that have affected me the most emotionally are the ones that used the film form, not just the actor's face, to tell the story. Composition, editing, and the "space" you can create in a wider frame...

 

I'm just saying there's much more to telling a story in film than just the actor in CU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CU's and the actor's performance are the MOST IMPORTANT parts of the film language, w/out them you have a tavel log. I'm not saying splended wide shots aren't important but they're there to enhance an actor's performance, to add ambiance to the story. Everyone complains that special FX films many times are boring. This is because the visual has taken precidence over the the story. People go to the movies to see PEOPLE, the things they do, the way they feel, how they react. For a cinematographer, it's all about what's in the frame, for an audience, it's all about the story. That's why John Cassevettes is considered a genius and one of the greatest filmmakers to have ever lived. It wasn't because of the cinematography in his films, Hell, he'd had the camera to anyone, it's because of the emotion his films evoaked, and that came from the preformances his casts gave. Closeups bring an actor's face dead in front of an audience and force them to feel what he feels. He doesn't have to say a word. THAT"S story telling. (PS, I don't know how many films you've seen, but considering I usually watch 1 to 3 per day, I'll bet I've seen more than you have :rolleyes: )

Edited by Capt.Video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's awesome. is this commonplace now at most film programs?

 

Haa, well our place isn't exactly a "film program." that's our only decent edit machine, it's inside the communications department, which is a small house near campus that the school bought. It's pretty sweet though, it's got the whole "clubhouse" atmosphere goin' for it. The new teacher there has really been putting together a good little program, even though the major still isn't recognized as "film & video;" officially it's Communications: electronic media.

 

uh anyway, bottom line: i dunno.

 

(but our setup makes sense this way, because that room's got stadium seating, so it doubles as a screening room. The same projector/screen is used for both.)

Edited by David Sweetman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capt., you're obviously showing a preference for character-driven, performance-driven movies. But that doesn't encompass all of cinema, nor does it imply that the best way to shoot a performance is in a close-up.

 

For one thing, in a close-up you lose some interpersonal interaction since you don't see the other performers in the frame. You lose the sense of PLACE which can be part of the meaning of the scene. You lose BODY LANGUAGE -- some actors do things with their hands or posture that is read better in a medium shot. Some performances are even better shot from behind! Actors don't only act with their faces.

 

Plus, how tight a shot has to be is RELATIVE to viewing size. A medium shot may allow an audience to read everything in an actor's face while still keeping a sense of space and spatial relationship to other actors in the frame -- on a larger screen, not on a small TV set.

 

There are plenty of EMOTIONAL, human moments in cinema that don't involve cutting to a close-up. The famous deep-focus homecoming scene in "Best Years of Our Lives" is a famous example, where the husband returns from the war and walks into the background kitchen and surprises his wife while the kids watch in the f.g. You also mention John Ford, who was a master of using WIDE shots for emotional impact, not just pictoral effects. The preacher watching alone in long shot, silhouette on a hilltop, as the women he loves gets married to someone else in the foreground, from "How Green Was My Valley". Or when the Earp brothers discover the body of their dead brothers at night in the rain in "My Darling Clementine" he cuts to a highish angle of three hat brims with rain pouring off of them rather than show their faces. Their body language and the rain creates a bigger emotional impact than cutting to their faces, which would be a cliche.

 

Sometimes powerful emotions, like someone receiving news of the death of a loved one, are better shown in a wide shot, lending some dignity to the characters rather than shoving the camera in their face.

 

Lastly, I'm not against close-ups, I'm against the OVERUSE of close-ups, leaving the director with no tricks in his bag when he does need the emotional impact of cutting in closer if he has already played the whole scene in tight on some innocuous business.

 

We remember the powerful close-ups of classic movies because they were used with restraint, so that when we did cut to some screen-filling close-up of Ingrid Bergman crying, whatever, it had a strong impact on us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capt., you're...

 

word.  Mr. Mullen said it best.

 

Hmm... makes you think about how to cover stuff.

Edited by David Sweetman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember the mid-turning-into-a-wide in Saving Private Ryan when the mother of the two killed brothers see's the car coming through her kitchen window, how she walks onto the porch and finally collapses as she understands her third son is also dead. All in one shot, all from behind. No CU could enhance that. But then again, Spielberg is an absolute genius at staging and composition.

 

CU's are powerful stuff. They're a bit like dialogue - some people think they're essential to filmmaking and that it's impossible to tell a story without them. I say you can just as well do without dialogue and CU's if you wanted to.

 

Look at 70's movies that didn't have an afterlife on TV or video. Except for in Sergio Leone's films, you rarely would see what we'd call a CU today in pre 80's films. They're much airier, less claustrophic and more pleasant to watch than, say, in-your-face-stuff like 24, CSI etc. Anyway, my preference for 70's movies stems largely from that, I think. It's just classier, better storytelling. Overuse of CU's is hacksville, in my opinion.

 

Anyone feeling arty should see an extreme example of the wide approach: Songs From The Second Floor by Swedish director Roy Andersson (on DVD). It's absolutely brilliant visually - production designed to the 9th degree, all shot with a 16mm lens on 35mm, drained from color. It's like paintings - and very funny at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or the endless tracking shots in 'Elephant'.

The whole point of 'Elephant' are the tracking shots. Gus Van Sant is obviously more interested in creating a rhythm through movement and a sense of geography of this school. And that he achieves. It is a very different approach to overuse of close-ups, because the tracking shots fit into an overall astaethic and are therefore justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often find medium shots and wide shots more interesting than an endless array of close ups. I think it is ultimately due to personal taste.

 

Watch any movie before the mid eighties and you will find a very moderate use of close ups. Howard Hawks famously hated CU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another possible contributing reason for the overuse of CU's is the birth and increasing presence (use) of the digital camcorder. Holiday films used to be shot in 8, super8 or 16mm and then projected onto screens that were much larger than 99% of the worlds TV's and computer monitors.

The tendancy to shoot CU's on the usually mediocre resolution LCD monitors is greater.

Even when silver based still transparencies were popular they too were projected on those rollup screens.

The miniaturization of the digital age has unfortunately as well miniaturized the angle of view resulting in more CU's.

Last point: Camcorders often do not offer really wide focal lengths on their zooms because of "manufacturing costs". This also means longer focal lengths which often results in tighter shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching a bit of stuff shot by Chris Doyle, obviously Wong-Kar Wai stuff but also a gem called Last Life In The Universe by Thai filmmaker Pen-Ek Ratanaruang. That film in particular tells the story best in two-shots, to establish the relationship between the characters. Their story is as much about what they don't say and do with each other as what they do say. The wider two-shots, held for a long time, convey something about the relationship in a way that you just couldn't get in a CU.

 

It's not that CU's are inherenly bad; they're part of the vocabulary. But it would be foolish for filmmakers to limit their visual vocabulary. If anything, filmmakers should try to expand the vocabulary (which does happen often), to expand what they're able to say and say it more impactfully. Look beyond the closeup. Look beyond the dialogue. Look beyond the actor. Look beyond a linear timeline. It goes on and on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out Maborosi. No close-ups in the complete thing. The closest you get to one is in the 2-shots for the car shots.

 

The director uses the long and medium shots and ovten half-hides the heroine's face in shadows to create an emotional distance and to create a sense of longing (on the part of the spectator) to 'know' the heroine.

 

Fantastic cinematography and production design. My editor turned me on to it as I was attempting to do something similar for a short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • CineLab



    Ritter Battery



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Visual Products



    Serious Gear



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    G-Force Grips



    Tai Audio



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Glidecam



    Abel Cine



    FJS International



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Just Cinema Gear



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Paralinx LLC



    Metropolis Post



    Wooden Camera


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...