When we watch a movie, we’re usually not conscious of the cuts made by the editor. The camera angle may change dozens of times during a scene, and we follow along as if the flashing from one viewpoint to another wasn’t at all unusual. You might think this is just because we’ve been accustomed to watching TV and movies, but researchers have found that even people who’ve never seen a motion picture have no difficulty following along with the cuts and different camera angles in a video.
But little research has actually been done on the impact of changing camera angles in a movie on our perception and memory of a scene. While cutting abruptly between camera angles seems unnatural, moving a camera from place to place while filming can be quite realistic: after all, people walk around all the time; their own viewpoint is constantly changing. One study did find that people have better memories for a static scene filmed with a moving camera, compared to two still shots taken from the beginning and end- points of the camera’s motion.
But what about dynamic scenes? If the people in a scene are themselves moving, will an abrupt cut to a new camera angle disorient the viewer? Filmmakers have found anecdotally that a 180-degree shift in a cut can be extremely disorienting — that’s why when watching a football or basketball game we usually see the action from just one side of the field or court. But do smaller cuts have a similar impact?
Interestingly, it can be quite disorientating if there are *no* cuts or very few, as the viewer unconsciously (at first) thinks the film-maker is playing with them, and you end up looking out for the ‘hidden’ cuts, such as in Rope or Ep4 of Psychoville. It’s quite rare, I think, for an uncut scene to be played out as is, without drawing attention to itself, as in the opening shot of The Player, where, during that uncut scene, there are several references to previous films that have played with the idea. Personally, I love it.
Also, it always used to amuse me when TV magicians of a certain wiggy type used to insist that there are no camera tricks. Well, of course, a cut isn’t a ‘trick’ exactly, is it? Done properly – ie a quick close-up for a reaction shot then back to the wide shot a second later – can be supremely effective. Regarding Psychoville, there is one cut that I had to watch 3 or 4 times to see. Inspiring stuff. It’s also astonishing how much info we can follow in fast paced pop promos for example, where some shots in quick succession are less than a quarter of a second long. This is apparently done because people have short attention spans. That’s really pushing it
I recommend watching Warhol’s ‘Empire State Building’.
There’s a couple of TV examples where the camera angle has been used to indicate the disoriantation of the character. The Mitchell and Webb “The Surprising Adventures of Sir Digby Chicken-Ceaser” uses this to great effect but more recently it’s been used for the Stacy character in East Enders.
The grammar of the edit is largely based around natural eye movement. The reason crossing the line is so disruptive is that it constitutes a huge movement in space, rather than a turn of the head. That’s not a complete obversation – you can follow conversations that cut between opposing “over the shoulder” shots, which doesn’t happen in real life, but this seems to be a natural extension of eye and head movements. In real life the two people talking rarely swap places, which is what happens when the 180 degree rule is broken.
Even cutting on action (i.e. from a medium shot of someone reaching for a cup to a close up shot of their fingers gripping the cup’s handle) is informed by our own tendancy to switch our gaze to movement and action.
And let’s not forget that at the birth of cinema we didn’t really know what we were doing. For years films consisted of the tableau, the equivalent of setting up a static camera to capture the entirety of a scene, as though in projection you were creating the illusion of a theatre stage before the viewer. “I paid for the whole damned actor, so I wanna seem the whole damned actor”. The classic modes of representation were arrived at because they were the most successful; if we didn’t need to learn how to “read” them, then they were bound to be more successful than other less intuitive modes.
The ethics of presenting magic on television is interesting, as Gaz has said. One cannot misdirect the camera in the same way that one can misdirect a living person. If someone has performed the same trick a hundred times for people and employs a piece of misdirection (a gesture with the left hand, say, to hide the magician flipping over the top card of the deck being held in his right hand) is it really dishonest for the camera to elide the move of the right hand all together. if the purpose of filming the trick is to represent to viewers at home what they would see if they were there in the flesh, then i the majority of cases it’s not misleading.
Holy crap, Lafayette, that was interesting.
As well as following eye movement, cut frequency is times to coincide with the viewer’s blinking. For instance, long shots accompany relaxed or slow scenes, and action scenes have fast cuts, as one tends to blink more often than when at rest.
I feel that editors and directors rely on this too often now, and make fast cuts where it’s not necessary (Michael Bay spring to mind), or to cover up an inadequately shot scene. They also take it to an extreme and make cuts so fast that it is hard to follow what is going on. I hear from older people that fast cuts are often too confusing, and they long for a time when an action scene was simpler, and more about observation than participation.
While I can follow fast cuts, I would like them reserved for the most intense moments, rather than the hero excitedly opening his mail or something. I long for the days of deep focus and where tension is built by the writing, rather than how often the camera changes.
Oh yes .. very disturbing if they move too fast from angle to angle .. annoys the hell out of me and can make me dizzy .. especially if I dont focus from controlled psyche but just watch it from my more emotional observing self ..
Also disturbing …. all those scenes that are way too dark .. damned you can’t see a damn thing and I dont rent/go to a movie not to see a damn thing. But that aside from the angle stuff.
I myself remember quite often situations from daily life from different angels than I really was in at. E.g. remembering a performing artist not from the front but from the back or from aside. Or height .. position of yourself in a scene … the memory of that is not always correct either in my case. On the other hand .. I do remember my lower height in childhood quite well when remembering stuff …
At times I see people in different sizes … it sort of visualizes something about the inside of people in certain situations … So two having an argument .. the yelling one is still in the same size .. but holding a bit back to keep control of herself … the yelled at one, who does not take it serious, is a very small person all of sudden .. almost half the size he normally is …
but erm .. that’s my brain at times … it seems to adapt to my psychologic nature at times in a rather extreme way .. but only when I’m not in my normal focus ..
Sloppy camera work is annoying .. too fast moving around .. not steady camera’s .. Can’t recall that many right now but I do know it is something that annoys me quite often in certain movies. Or very artistic techniques .. can be annoying too. They take away the focus from the story .. makes the technique become in front ot the story and that should normally def. not be the case .. it should carry the story .. give it the right things here and there .. make it even better.
Extreme fast stunts and such .. annoys the hell out of me .. I don’t want to watch a movie like that .. (I myself need to adapt to something I dont feel like adapting to at all .. speedy gonzalez mode is not what I wished for when in my chair watching tv … speedy gonzalez but then in fixed mode ..)
Oh well … lots of things that annoy me in this area … but also lots of things that interest me … which at times interest me more than the story itself … (I also like to check character for their normal selves .. what they really were thinking etc etc … searching for little signs of the true self ). I once learned that they never focus on an object without reason in a movie … Now, that is not always true I discovered .. but quite often it is … all those little things.
when i learned to shoot video, the most amazing thing to me was how one could control what people see in any given scenario just by putting only what one wishes to include into the frame. for an example, attend an event personally & then check out the news coverage of it–video DOES lie!
Alongside the 180 degree rule in film making there is also a 30 degree rule. This says that separate shots of the same thing should move at least 30 degrees. If you don’t do this the cut jars and is a jump cut. The adjacent shots should be different enough as well as not too different.
If either rule is broken it can disorient the viewer but often a filmmaker might want to do this. Baz Lurhman seems to have thrown these rules out of his window and the French New Wave had fun messing about with them.
In my experience movement in a scene is not as much of a problem as the amount of characters in a scene. The 180 rule helps with continuity and when you have three or more people in a scene it can get confusing as the eye lines change and the imaginary line shifts as the eye line does. It’s a pain in the arse but if you don’t get it right it can look like Tom is talking to Harry when he’s meant to be talking to Dick.
I work with kids a lot teaching this sort of thing and it’s amazing how often they don’t understand that a scene is built up of several different shots. Most literally haven’t noticed that there are cuts when they are watching things.
This book is generally a good primer in fim grammar… I always pull it off the shelf if I’m storyboarding something for quick and easy reference -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Setting-Up-Your-Shots-Filmmaker/dp/1932907424/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248359587&sr=8-1
Crossing the line? This was day one of film school. Not really a new concept, still it’s quite interesting.
Psycho’s most famous scene was of course (and always is) the main case study for crossing the line, the disorientation that results and the effectiveness of this result when it came to scaring people into feeling they were being kniffed.
It also occasionally comes in handy for deconstructionist comedy. Shaun Micallef is a bit of a demi-god in that world.
“When we watch a movie, we’re usually not conscious of the cuts made by the editor.”
Unless it’s directed by Michael Bay that is.
I find all of this stuff fascinating. Does anyone know of a good video, e.g. on YouTube, which illustrates the 180 degree rule?
Should also add, really interesting comment from LaFayette. I’m a film nerd and can talk about this kind of thing for hours while other people sit there with blank looks on their faces.
Nice reference @flap…tata
[...] How “cuts” in movies impact our minds [...]
“Professional” wrestling such as WWE makes use of rapid camera angle changes to distract from/obscure what is really happening.
You will very often have a camera angle change before an impact takes place.