Links:

Reflection on Long Takes Speech

Reflection 1

Reflection 2

Reflection 3

Reflection 4

Reflection 5

Assignment 4: A Look Into The Cinematic World of Paul Thomas Anderson

For my last piece of reflection for the final assignment in this studio (other than the studio reflection) I felt it would be a good way to finish my reflections, with my thoughts on the process of decoupage, and how this concept will be present in my mind for the duration of my studies and work in media.

Decoupage was a process I was unaware of prior to this studio, but at the same time it was something I was subconsciously aware of when watching a film. When I have completed previous media work, I have always aimed for cohesion in the narrative, editing and style. Decoupage has given this idea a new meaning for me, as it encouraged me to spend more time focusing on narrative continuity in both story and production elements. Film Makers such as Antonioni and Paul Thomas Anderson both demonstrate extraordinary examples of this. Through their precise and delicate use of montage, the directors only cut where necessary, making the transition between shots feel necessary rather than cutting for the sake of cutting.

Since learning about the process of decoupage, when analysing film for assignments, it is always on my mind, encouraging me to think about the purpose of a cut, and what the film maker means by cutting at any specific time in the film. This idea of only cutting when necessary will definitely be an idea I will strive for in future assignments, encouraging me to think about why the camera needs to cut, what it needs to cut into, connections I want the audience to make about the narrative and what I want the audience to notice.

This week, we briefly looked into Michelangelo Antonioni and his ideas on the relationship between coverage and actors. In this week’s reading by David Forgacs “Face, Body, Voice, Movement: Antonioni and Actors”, we explore Antonioni’s directorial ability and his very well known poor treatment of actors. For example, in Antonionis “La Notte” from 1961, the lead actress Jeanne Moreau stated “Every day i felt morbid, near to suicide”. Forgacs however believes that this all leads to Antonioni’s end goal of making “his actors work effectively as part of the mise en scene”.

There were several statements Atonioni made in regards to the importance of actors which I disagreed with. One statement was “An actor does not have to understand’. I could not disagree with this more, as through my work on assignment 4, and specifically analysing “There Will Be Blood”, Daniel Day Lewis’ understanding of his characters personality, traits and decisions was something that drove the film. If an actor didn’t understand the role they were playing, the film would almost definitely not be the original the director had in mind.

During our zoom meeting, we watched a scene from “The Red Desert” which I felt was covered incredibly well due to Antonioni’s planned coverage. As the two characters walk around the room, different camera setups are used with each area highlighting a separate part of the room. This contradicts the 180 degree rule (not that this is a binding rule). However, not following it can often lead to confusion. Yet due to the camera following the pair as they gradually move around the room, easing the audience into the rooms next location, the audience does not become confused, and the direction allows for the audience to feel familiar with the surroundings rather than confused. This is also a smart way of maintaining audience interest whilst shooting in one simple location, by simply changing camera set ups entirely as the pair leisurely move throughout the room.

In Part 18, we looked into Jean- Pierre & Luc Dardenne and specifically their 2011 film, “Kid with a Bike”. The scene I will be focusing on for this reflection is Cyril in the hospital when he first meets Samantha. The Dardenne brothers gave very interesting commentary on this scene, which encourages me to look into more of their work. Their use of visual language has a strong sense of importance to it which inspires me to make creative decisions as well thought out as their own.

Once Cyril enters the hospital waiting room, there is a single camera setup, following all of the action in an “all encompassing shot”. Showing each character only when necessary, with quick pans around the room adding to the urgency present in the scene, with all characters in frame appropriately throughout. As Cyril grabs onto Samantha, a complete stranger at this point the social worker runs toward Cyril. The Dardenne brothers’ floor plan and direction is done excellently here, as the social worker and Cyril’s faces are facing away from the camera, yet the stranger’s face is shown the entire time, communicating the audience to her involvement in the film’s narrative. It is the subtle creative decisions such as these that I would like to take on board in future work, as I feel as though they are very successful in regards to foreshadowing character importance and narrative understanding all the while maintaining a sense of realism.

Another idea which I was fond of was the idea the brothers had in relation to Samantha’s character, as although Cecile De France was a famous actress at the time, they introduced her as just another face, “Concealing her among the others”. This stood out to me, as often in film, introductory scenes are quite dramatic in terms of their cinematography and actor placement, whereas here, Samantha is displayed as a normal person, adding an element of realism and humility, giving the film a more natural and realistic tone.

This week for my reflection, I wanted to explore the script “No Word” from part 14 from our online series and create a shot list as well as plan the coverage to create a scene which would flow from one shot to another, with cuts only where necessary.

I would begin this scene with a close up of the back of a man’s head, as he walks toward a door in a hallway (walks opposite direction to camera). The man opens the door and continues walking, as the man leaves the front door, the camera Dolly’s forward slowly, revealing the man’s front yard , his mailbox and an empty street. As the man reaches toward the mailbox and is in the centre of the frame, the camera becomes static. The man crouches and looks in the letterbox. He finds nothing and stands up and looks to his right, he then looks to his left and we have our next cut. We now have a close up of the man’s face, on the right side of the frame, with the empty street filling up the left side of the frame. As he looks down the empty street. The man turns back towards his house, the camera pans as the man walks toward the front door, gradually moving from the initial close up to a long shot. We return to the camera set up from shot one as the man walks back inside, and begins walking back down the hallway (toward the camera) as we dolly backward. The dolly comes to a halt when the man passes an open letter on a table, he stops and stares for a moment, then picks up the letter. As he picks up the letter the camera pans to the left revealing a living room. The man walks toward a couch and takes a seat. We now have a mid close up from directly above the man’s left shoulder, as he carefully opens the letter. The shot ends as the man pulls out a piece of paper from inside. The final shot is a mid shot from the front right of the man, below eye-line as he reads. His eyes moving quickly from left to right on the page with a slow zoom as the man begins to smile, with the shot ending with a close up of the man’s smiling face.

I aim to utilize long takes, which combine several types of shots into one in order to increase audience attention, and create a realistic flow of events, with cuts only where necessary, with shots which display narrative events clearly as well as complimenting the story through the type of shots used E.g. close ups used to show man’s confused face, as well as man’s smile at the end. This was a useful task, as it encourages me to think critically of what I am filming, questioning which shots would display different emotions from the character, elevate audience understanding and all the while remaining visually interesting.

In Part 17 in our online series of notes, we explored analysing and interpreting scripts. I found the questions posed by Robin as very intriguing and thought provoking, as the detailed questions surrounding every element of the script encouraged me to be more critical of my shot selection in relation to the emotions, thoughts and ideas I am trying to establish in a scene.

The questions that stood out to me were surrounding scene 1, such as “How to Begin”, “Do we have an establishing shot”, “Do we need this?” and “Can we get straight into it”. These are all things that need to be thoroughly considered when interpreting a script, and especially the first scene which should in most cases set the tone for the rest of the film. If I were to direct Scene 1, I would have an establishing long shot of Ella at the book shelf, sifting through the books. I would make this shot about 10 or so seconds, to give the audience time to analyse the character and familiarise themselves with the location.

Another series of questions which stood out to me were “Do we observe all her actions at a distance or do we get close to her” and “Do we go into her concentrated world?”. These are things that I should ask myself more often when planning coverage, as I believe these three questions are some of the most important to consider when creating a shot list. It is very important to consider these factors in relation to how we want the subject/ ideas to be perceived. For example we could start with a long shot establishing the setting whilst showing the Ella at the bookshelf. Then moving to a close up of the bookshelf as she is turning some on their sides, shot from above Ellas shoulder, as we analyse her movements. Then when she finds a book of interest, we move to a close up of her face, in order to establish a more personal connection with her and understand the importance of this book discovery.

These are all ideas that need to be thought of thoroughly in order to create a film that has carefully applied decoupage, through its planned coverage which compliments and expands on the script. These questions also invite me to think more critically for my research essay, analysing the relevancy and importance of all shots rather than taking them at face value.

An idea presented by Cormack during our assignment 3 presentations, focused on the concept of long takes and their importance in film when executed well. This idea sprung at me, as it is incredibly relative to my studies on Paul Thomas Anderson, as Anderson utilises them very frequently. E.g. “There Will Be Blood” runs for a total of 158 minutes and has 678 shots, meaning the average shot lasts for 13.3 seconds,  which is quite an achievement considering a study done by Cornell University found the average shot length to be a mere 2.5 seconds. Long takes are something i am very fond of, due to their uninterrupted nature, which allows you to draw more attention to what is on the screen, gain a greater connection with characters and when they are done well, they make the film feel more realistic as a whole, as if you were in the films world observing alongside the characters and not in a cinema.

Cormack’s speech encouraged me to think deeper into the intention of these long takes, and the impact that they can have on the narrative, as well as the decision to use them during the process of decoupage. For Example, In “There Will Be Blood”, the establishing shot for this scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugTbwvVuLKA ) begins as a mid shot of Eli Sunday walking alongside an oil pipeline which leads to a pool of oil. As Eli walks further away, it turns into a long shot showing the full extent of the oil pool, and finally ends with an extreme long shot of Three men in the distance, in the direct path of Eli Sunday. This shot works well as the coverage allows for each segment of the shot to flow smoothly into the other. As Eli walks further, the camera pans upward, moving with ease from a mid shot to an extreme long shot. These types of shots also contribute to the decoupage, as each segment of the shot eases to the next, from seeing Eli walking in the foreground to noticing Daniel Plainview and his colleagues in the background, the audience now knows where Eli is headed, and when we cut to the next shot of Eli walking on a side profile long shot, the audience is aware of where he is heading due to Anderson’s planned coverage.

Paul Thomas Anderson was born on the 26th of June in 1970. By 1997 his second film “Boogie Nights” was released and he was nominated for his first Oscar for best original screenplay. As of 2020, Anderson has been nominated for 8 Oscars, with each of his 8 films receiving wide critical praise. Andersons approach to coverage works as a method of heightening narrative understanding and meaning. These films are often quite intense in their subject matter, providing his viewers with an in-depth character study of their protagonists with screenplays that are all unique and thought provoking. But it is the detailed planned coverage which drives his narratives and provides the audience with a true understanding of events and ideas through concise and thought out use of visual language. I will be breaking down several parts of three of Anderson’s films, “Magnolia” (1999), “There Will Be Blood” (2007) and “The Master” (2012). These films are all quite different in terms of their subject matter, but similarities remain between the three. These similarities include their overall coverage, visual communication of power, use of sound, establishing scenes and the thematic similarities between the three films and how these ideas are conveyed visually. With thirteen years between these films, it allows us to analyse Anderson’s progression of visual language and form, and ask if his cinematic style has indeed changed.

“There Will Be Blood”, focuses on Daniel Plainview, played by Daniel Day Lewis, a self-proclaimed “Family Man’ in the oil industry, who will do whatever it takes to build his business. “The Master” is a film about a WW2 veteran named Freddie played by Joaquin Phoenix, struggling to find his place in society until he finds a home in a small religious movement known as the cause, whose leader is Lancaster Dodd, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Finally, Magnolia is a mosaic of unique characters, all experiencing their own personal crisis. Due to the nature of the film focusing on eight individual character arcs, I will be focusing on the story of Frank Mackey played by Tom Cruise, who questions his path of life upon reflecting on his relationship with his estranged father.

One of the most crucial moments in film, are the opening scenes. This is something that Anderson takes into consideration, as his opening scenes coverage, sound and editing all help immediately establish the films characters, themes, pace and style.

The first scene in “There Will Be Blood” opens with an extreme long shot, revealing a harsh, isolated and empty Californian desert. These Long shots will be used significantly throughout the film in establishing scenes. Plainview’s isolation is communicated in these moments through the endless mountains surrounding him in every direction, yet he seems unfazed in his solidarity, seen in a mid-shot as he sits by a campfire contently. Anderson then introduces us to the violence that will remain present in the film, as within the first minutes, Plainview has broken his leg, and he later watches his co-worker die beside him at the bottom of an oil shaft. Plainview is surrounded by violence and pain, yet he does not seem bothered by this, communicating to the audience both his passion for success, and his lack of empathy. Soon after, we see Plainview stare at his co-workers now orphan son H.W. . Plainview stares at H.W. with great confusion, still covered in the blood of his father and the oil from the shaft, shown in a close up. The Opening scene lasts for 17 minutes, with no dialogue whatsoever until the very final shot. Anderson utilises no dialogue to establish the tone and pace of the film, whilst allowing for the audience to observe the type of character Plainview is and to understand him and his motivations clearly. The last shot of this segment is a hopeful one, as Plainview sits next to his newly adopted son on a train, we observe a brief moment of tenderness, with Plainview smiling toward his son in a mid shot. This moment is providing the audience with a false hope, as before the shot ends, audio of Plainview sales pitch is played over the shot. As the tender moment slowly fades into the sales pitch, Anderson is communicating that Plainview’s passion is not his family as he claims, but is rather in oil, showing the audience of Plainview’s priorities in life early in the film. It is through the mentioned visual language that allows Anderson to provide a clear understanding of our films protagonist, whilst also setting the films pace and style.

Similarly to “There Will Be Blood”, “The Master” also adequately sets the tone of the film whilst establishing the flawed protagonist, Freddie. The first shot of Freddie is a closeup, as a violin fades into a slower more emotional rhythm Anderson allows a moment for the audience to observe Freddie in near silence. With the bottom of his face covered by the outside of a boat, and his forehead covered by his helmet. The colour of Freddie’s helmet greatly matches the colour of the boat, providing strong contrast highlighting the top of Freddie’s face. Anderson has likely chosen this as the first shot of Freddie in this film as he stands out, establishing early of Freddie’s separation from society through the shots use of colour and contrast. As we cut to the beach, we hear abstract music with strong guitar plucks, communicating early on that something is not quite right with Freddie. We later witness Freddie pouring alcohol into a coconut on the beach, not only does this alert the audience of his addiction, but it also progresses the idea of his separation from society, as he is by himself in a shady area, whilst the rest of the beach is in sunlight with groups of people together. Later, as other men build a sand sculpture, Andersons floor plan works again to show Freddie’s isolation from the world. As the other men sit around the sand on the left two thirds of the screen, Freddie is standing on the far right of the frame with a significant gap between him and the rest of the soldiers. When Freddie does decide to join in, he begins to make sexual movements on this sculpture as the other men stare concerningly. This is a way Anderson shows us of his overtly sexual nature, making both the soldiers around Freddie and the audience watching gravely uncomfortable, communicating that he isn’t even accepted from the soldiers around him, let alone when he will return to society. This scene ends with the men on a ship, headed back to civilisation with a beautiful shot of Freddie on the top of a ship from a bird’s eye view, with all the other men in frame on the deck below Freddie. This is again another way of Anderson showing us that Freddie is not like those around him and is seen as an outcast to society. This bears similarity with “There Will Be Blood”, as here Anderson utlises the opening to establish key ideas around the protagonist as we have seen previously.

“Magnolia” begins with a series of short stories focusing on the ideas around chance, which is a major theme in the film. However, I will be speaking about the scene followed shortly after, in which all main characters are introduced through fast editing, accompanied with a song reminiscent of those released around the time of the film’s release, matching the context of the time the film is set, similar to “There Will be Blood” and “The Master”. The audience meets Frank first, with a long shot of a living room with a television in the bottom centre of the frame. The camera movement is very immersive as we almost immediately zoom in toward the TV until it is an extreme close up with the TV screen filling up the frame, followed by a dissolve into the raw footage displayed on the television. This quick zoom is utilized to establish the film’s pace and tone. With the speed of the camera providing a sense of alertness to the audience as we quickly zoom in to begin analysing the character immediately. This is very different to the previous 2 films, which shows a direct contrast with his early and later films, as “There Will Be Blood” and “The Master” are paced much more slowly, with the camera lingering on our protagonists far longer, allowing us to understand their nature gradually. Whereas in “Magnolia” we are only shown brief moments of our protagonist’s, yet the coverage  during these short moments adequately establishes the films characters and themes .Frank is initially shown in a close up, as the audience becomes familiar with him, until as he begins the move toward the camera, we slowly zoom out, following his movement toward the audience. Frank makes very misogynistic and spiteful comments toward women, which immediately shows the audience Frank’s personality and misogynistic tendancies. The shot that follows after is another close up, yet this time we begin with half of Frank’s face in shade, which creates the idea that Frank may not be who he appears to be, and there is something that the audience has not seen yet, foreshadowing later events in the film. Following this, we meet the next character in the film, Claudia. Our first shot of Claudia is accompanied with a continuation of the audio from Tom Cruise’s video from the television playing in the background, which communicates Anderson’s idea of all of the films characters which seem unrelated, but in reality have an unspoken connection as human beings all going through their own personal battle/crisis.

If there is anything we can take from these three films’ opening scenes, we learn that Anderson utilities these opening scenes to establish the films protagonists as explicitly as possible, the themes that will be present in each film and the tone and pace of the movie as well.

Anderson has a certain way of showing the audience who is in power in the scene, regardless of what is currently happening in the script. Through his choice of framing, actor movement and moving between a wide range of close ups, long and mid shots, Anderson guides the audience toward what they should be paying attention to, as well as visually displaying power in the narrative.

The scene I will be focusing on from “The Master”, is the first moment in the film where Dodd’s leadership is ultimately threatened at a dinner party, where someone’s arguments belittle Dodd in front of his family and friends as well as discredit his belief and ideas. As Dodd is speaking of his theory on humans existing since the beginning of time, a man standing behind Dodd named John Moore interrupts, questioning Dodd’s claims. Moore is standing up, in a mid-shot, whereas Dodd is sitting down in a mid-shot. Moore’s mid shot is from a low angle, communicating the power that he already has over Dodd, as Dodd has to also look up toward him. As Moore makes his remarks, he maintains strong eye contact barely looking away, and speaking very clearly and precisely, while Dodd is speaking nervously, looking away and being overly defensive to any question posed to him. When Dodd feels threatened, he stands up to arrive on Moore’s eye level and ultimately challenge the power that Moore holds over him. Anderson shows that the power dynamics have not changed, as once Dodd stands up, Moore moves slightly closer to the camera, enlarging him in the frame as he still maintains power in the conversation.

The scene from “There Will be Blood” which communicates similar ideas, begins in Eli Sundays fathers’ home, in which Daniel Plainview discusses with the father his hope to purchase his land. The first shot is a long static take, in a mid-shot of a table with Plainview, His son as well as Eli Sunday and his father. For the duration of this shot Daniel is directing all of his comments and remarks towards the father, even when Eli makes a comment, Daniel quickly acknowledges his presence but returns to the father, as he views Eli’s comments as unnecessary as the father would traditionally be a family’s decision maker. It soon becomes apparent that Eli is the more dominant of the two Sundays, and Plainview begins to shift his focus on Eli, thus after one minute and 13 seconds there is a cut in which we have a mid-close up of Daniel, H.W. and Eli, with Eli’s father mostly out of frame, and it is now the audience realise that Eli is the one Daniel will be dealing with. Anderson utilises these long takes in a very meaningful way, as they produce emphasis and importance on the coming shots, as due to the scarcity of cuts, each shot has significant meaning as to what Anderson is trying to convey.  Eli maintains Daniel’s concentration with his determined and thoughtful questions, and it becomes clear that Eli is the one holding the power in this situation. As Eli states his high monetary demands, the conversation’s intensity has picked up, and this is communicated with close ups of the two characters which cut back and forth during the conversation, with moments of silence throughout allowing the audience to breathe and notice how each character reacts to provocative comments. We only get one shot of the father’s face, where he is making the decision and simply states “whatever Eli Says”. His father’s lack of power is not only shown in the writing, but in the placement of this shot. The shot of the father is a mid shot, and it comes in after back and forth close ups of Daniel and Eli serious conversation. Moving from close ups of these two’s intense discussion to a mid shot of the father, show that he is not as involved in this decision as his son Eli, and is purely acting on his son’s decisions rather than other two characters who are attempting to achieve their own two personal goals. These are just some of the visual devices Anderson utilises to communicate power in his narrative.

A scene from “Magnolia” in which the coverage explicitly shows who is in control of the scene, focuses on an interview between Frank and a news reporter, asking Frank about lies he had told. The scene begins with a mid-shot establishing the location well, with the TV reporter in the centre of the frame in the foreground and the cameraman in the back far right corner of the screen. Following this, there are only two camera set ups which are used, which are over the shoulder of either character. The power in this scene is mostly shown through Anderson’s direction of actors and choice of framing, with Frank spitefully staring initially in a mid-shot, yet as the questions become more provoking we move to a close up of  Frank moving around fidgeting nervously throughout, with the TV reporter remaining relatively still, calm and composed, establishing somewhat of a moral high ground between the two. As the questions become more provocative, Anderson allows silence for the audience to analyse Frank, as he sits in shock during several moments, biting his lip, awkwardly laughing and staring spitefully at the reporter. As the reporter lays out facts to prove Franks lies, we have a slow zoom, allowing for the audience to focus more deeply on Frank, as his public image is torn apart on television. When we cut back to the reporter, she is now bigger in frame than Frank, showing her power. Even as we cut back to Frank and have an extreme close up, with the top of his head out of frame, when we cut back to the reporter, she is once again bigger in frame, showing that she is still the more dominant of the two in this scenario. This scene plays out similarly to that of “The Master”, as the size of the character in the frame is used as a visual representation of the battle for power as characters arguments intensify, and is a clear and precise method from Anderson to communicate these ideas.

It is apparent that Anderson’s use of framing, camera setup, movement and acting gives the screenplay its meaning, which enhances the ideas surrounding the more dominant role in scenes of conflict, where one’s power is ultimately threatened.

There are several themes which Anderson carries across all three films, including father and son dynamics and reconciliation.

In “There Will Be Blood”, Plainview is a self-proclaimed “family man”. When he says this, we have a mid-shot of Plainview and his son H.W., as the camera slowly zooms and pans toward H.W., moving to a shallow depth of field, with H.W. in focus and Plainview out of focus whilst he is mentioning his son. Yet once Plainview finishes speaking about his family values, the camera focuses back on Plainview, and H.W. is slowly out of frame. This communicates early to the audience that Plainview views H.W. as a business asset rather than his child. Later in the film, H.W. becomes deaf due to an oil explosion, due to this he is rendered useless and is a liability for Plainview’s self-proclaimed ‘family’ business. Upon this, a man named Henry arrives at Plainview’s house, claiming to be his brother. Thus, Plainview now has a new man for the face of his family business, and his son is sent away to deaf school. This dynamic is elaborated further toward the end of the film, where a grown up H.W. has a meeting with his father, which is the last meeting between the two characters. This meeting has a direct parallel with The Master, with the cinematography communicating different messages relating to the outcome of these characters’ final meetings. In “There will be Blood”, Plainview has turned into an insane man, shown in the scene prior with him shooting his own belongings. He has his wealth, his own mansion, yet it has given him nothing but spite for everything and anyone around him. The Meeting is in a dark room, with very little natural light, as Anderson is providing a grim outlook for the relationship between the two characters even before the meeting has begun. The conclusion of this provides an element of hope for H.W and darkness for Plainview. H.W leaves the meeting turned sour with his translator and life-long friend, he is calm and composed, showing no emotion, providing a hopeful future for H.W. with Plainview now out of his life. This directly contrasts Plainview, as he is left alone, screaming abuse toward his son, showing the opposite ends and results from these relationship dynamics. Lighting as an outlook for characters is used similarly in “The Master”.

In “The Master”, Dodd is a father figure to Freddie. Dodd provides Freddie with a new outlook on life, as well as a sense of belonging and community he had never had before. After Freddie abandons Dodd, he travels to London to have one final meeting with the man who had changed his life. The meeting between these two characters immediately contrasts Plainview’s with H.W. as seen with the large windows with natural lighting compared to Plainview’s house which is shrouded in darkness. Both characters are shown in close ups, smiling toward one another and the room is filled with natural light, which gives the audience a hopeful outlook for our protagonist, providing great contrast to the meeting in “There Will Be Blood”, as Anderson again uses lighting as a motif.

Magnolia offers a scene similar to the latter two, which is a final meeting with Frank’s father, only the coverage of this bears contrast to the other two films. As Frank arrives at his father’s home who is on his deathbed, they have their first conversation in many years. This scene acts as a personal explanation, and shows the cause and effect correlating with Earls abandonment during Frank’s childhood, as well as providing understanding of Frank’s mask of hate toward women. Anderson gives us an intimate moment, as we see the root of Frank’s misogynistic views, which have been a cover for the lifetime of pain brought on by his father. Anderson communicates these ideas with a long uninterrupted take in a mid-shot focusing on the two characters, showing Frank sitting down, as his father lays near lifeless in the foreground. The final shot of this scene is a mid-close up of Earl. Anderson only shows Earl momentarily, to show his near vegetative state rather than providing an impact on the narrative. Due to the nature of the film focusing on separate characters all experiencing their own problem, the scene is cut short to focus on other character arcs and returns several minutes later. We return to the same mid shot of Frank, which promotes the ideas of all characters simultaneously experiencing their own battle. The scene is driven by Tom Cruise’s acting, who slowly proceeds to break down, shaking in sadness, hiding his tears and appearing vulnerable. Anderson utilises this single camera set up, to show the audience this event in its true form, with no close up of Frank up until this point. Anderson adapts a somewhat neorealist approach, with an uninterrupted mid shot of a somewhat impartial camera, as we simply observe this moment as if we were there with them. We then cut to other story arcs, and return with our first close up of Earl, as he stares at his son in a brief moment of clarity as the father and son make eye contact. This is followed with a close up of Frank, as we watch him speechlessly observe his father as he tries to speak with a face of hope rather than the anger we have seen prior. Once we return to the close up of Earl, he has passed away. Anderson shows us a moving and emotional moment of unspoken reconciliation. Cruises expressions and acting gives this away, as he stares at his father with a glimmer of hope, signalling somewhat of a new beginning for one of the films flawed protagonists.

Upon analysing these final meetings of three characters and their fathers/ fatherly figures, Anderson’s coverage communicates a hopeful outlook as a result of these interactions. From H.W.’s future now separated from his cruel and manipulative father, to Freddie parting ways with Dodd peacefully and  taking the love he has received from  Dodd’s group toward an independent life and finally Frank, who has an unspoken moment of reconciliation, hinting toward a new path in life away from hate.

After looking closely at Andersons creative choices across all three films, we begin to better understand the purpose of the shots used far more clearly, as a device used to both develop characters and allow for the audience understanding in narrative dynamics. Andersons coverage is well planned, which gives each shot in his films a significant power, as they all individually work as a creative tool to drive the film’s story and provide visual meaning of the narratives.

Links: 

Reflection 1: The Line and Beyond

Reflection 2: Some More Thoughts on Focal Length

Reflection 3: Paul Schrader

Scene Analysis: Not My Tempo

Not My Tempo.

“Whiplash” is a film directed by Damien Chazelle released in 2014, about an aspiring drummer named Andrew Nieman (Miles Teller) who joins a well acclaimed music conservatory with a music instructor named Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), who will stop at nothing to ensure perfection in his band. 

Up until this scene, there had been no tension between Andrew and Fletcher, and as such the scene begins quite timidly with a high angle shot from over Fletcher’s right shoulder with a shallow depth of focus as Andrew looks up at his teacher awaiting instruction. There is then a shot of Fletcher from a low angle behind Andrews left shoulder with a shallow field of view focusing on Fletcher as he tells Andrew not to worry about his performance, which provides the audience with the impression that Fletcher is a kind and supportive teacher. As these two types of shots are above each character’s shoulders, eyelines are maintained well. We cut back to a mid close up to see Andrew with a smirk on his face due to the support he has already received from Fletcher. We then have two extreme close ups of Andrew quickly fiddling with his drums, then cutting to him rearranging his paper. These help communicate to the audience of Andrews nerves as he prepares for his first performance with his new band. 

There is then a mid shot of Andrew playing, followed by a long shot with a great field of view showing the entire band playing together. There are several mid shots of both Andrew playing, as well as Fletcher complimenting Andrew until there is a long shot of the entire room with Fletcher quickly beginning to raise his hand stopping the music, followed by a mid close up of Fletcher finishing his hand raise. The editing allows this movement to look seamless and the hand movement flows in between shots cohesively. Fletcher stops the music, telling Andrew he is playing out of tempo. The next shot of Andrew playing is a slightly closer mid shot of Andrew, showing the scenes intensity is slowly picking up. When Andrew makes another mistake and Fletcher stops the music, we have another mid shot of Andrew from above and behind Fletcher’s right shoulder with a shallow field of view, yet as Fletcher corrects him his blurred upper body in the foreground enters the frame and slightly covers Andrew. The blockage of Andrew from Fletcher symbolises the power Fletcher has, and foreshadows the dynamic of the twos relationship to come. 

As the scene continues, all seems well. Fletcher remains silent and turns around as the band continues playing without Fletcher’s interruption. There is a mid shot of Andrew nervously looking up at Fletcher for a brief moment whilst playing, communicating Andrews worries in the scene. There is then a cut to a mid shot of Fletcher resting his hand on a chair, before we cut to a long shot of the band as Fletcher picks up the chair and throws it at Andrew, to a mid close up of Andrew ducking and avoiding the chair that goes over his head, followed by a long shot of the band as they all flinch and stop playing their instruments suddenly. The last three shots go for a brief 2 seconds. This rapid editing communicates the intensity and shock of what has just occurred as well as Fletcher’s impulsive, angry and violent nature. This is followed by a mid shot of Fletcher agitated moving side to side and then an extreme close up of Andrew as he rises up from where he was avoiding the flying chair. The shot of Andrew has a shallow field of view, focusing on Andrew’s face as he stares in shock. After the chair is thrown, the sound design is done very well, as all instruments come to an abrupt end, as well as a drum symbol that has been hit that leaves a ringing noise that lingers for several seconds, which slowly fades out as we cut to Fletcher and the sound of Fletcher taking a deep breath which overpowers the drum noise. The noise of the drum combined with Fletcher’s deep breath, allow the audience a short moment to breathe, recollect and take in what they have witnessed. 

We have back and forth editing from a mid shot of Fletcher and the extreme close up of Andrews head on the right side of the frame facing Fletcher who is out of frame. When Andrew doesn’t know the answer to one of Fletcher’s question the same mid shot of Fletcher is used as he abruptly storms toward the camera in the direction of Andrew as the camera rapidly follows his movement, providing the audience with fear and anxiety as he marches toward the camera, providing us with a similar point of view as Andrew so we can feel the danger that he is experiencing. We then have a close up of Fletcher on the left side of the frame staring at Andrew like a hawk as Andrew stares at the ground unable to make eye contact, which again communicates the power dynamics between these characters in the film. We then have a shot from Andrew’s shoulder of Fletcher from a low angle as he literally speaks down to Andrew and condescendingly tells Andrew to look back at him. We are then introduced to a new shot as Andrew follows Fletcher’s instructions and begins attempting to count the tempo Fletcher is insisting on, with Fletcher slapping Andrew whenever a mistake is made. This shot is with Andrew on the left side of the frame and Fletcher on the top right of the frame, with both staring at one another with a shallow depth of field with other band members in the background looking away from the altercation. These two shots as well as a close up of Andrew from a slightly elevated angle alternate with fast editing and rapid dialogue, communicating the tense nature of this scene. As Fletcher  berates Andrew for not knowing his tempo at the 3:50 minute mark, the close up of Andrew shows a tear streaming down his face as he bows his head in shame. Until the 4:15 second mark there is back and forth editing of the two characters as Fletcher attempts to make Andrew admit to him and the class that he is upset. At 4:15 seconds, there are two close ups of other class members as they stare into the distance, communicating the power dynamic Fletcher has over the entire class, not just Andrew. Even other classmates not involved in the altercation are too afraid to look at what is happening, but simply look away in fear instead. 

At 4:17 seconds, the shot of both Andrew and Fletcher on either side is reintroduced as Fletcher forces Andrew to scream to the class that he is upset. This shot lasts for 20 seconds and is accompanied with a slow zoom as Fletcher viciously instructs Andrew to say he is upset louder. This shot works very well as it simultaneously shows us both characters during this situation, with Andrew crying as he is forced to scream to the class, accompanied with J.K. Simmons great acting as Fletcher speaks down to Andrew, as he goes on a rant about Andrews worthlessness and even goes to degrade his parents as well, all while Andrew wipes away his tears. The use of a longer shot in duration in comparison to the rest of the scene is useful as it allows the audience to witness in full this passage of dialogue and the effect it has on Andrew. This shot is followed with a close up of Fletcher as he instructs Andrew for the final time to say he’s upset even louder.  As Fletcher instructs this, he is at his most vicious point in the scene, as the Cameras low angle close up focuses on Fletcher’s scrunched up face with veins pulsating all over his face and neck as he fills with rage. Andrew for the last time devastatingly screams that he is upset, scrunching his face as he screams and then bows his head in shame. Fletcher then tells the other student to take Andrews place, as Andrew stares down with a blank look on his face, completely destroyed from Fletcher’s bullying. The final shot of the scene shows Fletcher sitting frozen for a brief moment before standing up and moving out of his seat for the next student with a shallow field of view, focusing on Andrew, as Fletcher walks from the left of the frame and leaves the shot on the right whilst out of focus. With Fletcher now out of frame and Andrew off of the drums, the scene comes to a close.

It is due to Damien Chazelle’s screen direction, direction of actors, and specifically camera placement that allows him to communicate the scenes intensity as well as providing the foundation of the power dynamics which will be prevalent for the remainder of the film.