j \ \ ise

c n

S ce ne

77

Te r ritor ia l s pa ce within a fra me c a n be m a n i pu l a t e d with c o ns ide r a bl e psyc hologica l comple xity. W h e n a f igur e lea ve s th e fr am e , for e x a m pl e , t h e c a me ra c a n adjust to this s u d d e n v a c u um i n t he c om pos i t io n by p a nn i n g slightly to ma ke allowa nc e s for a ne w ba la nc e of we ights . Or the c a m e r a c a n r e ma i n sta tionary, thu s s ugge st ing a se nse of loss symboliz ed by t he e mp ty s pa ce t ha t th e c ha ra c t er for mer ly oc c u pi e d. Hostility a nd s uspic ion be t we e n two c ha r a c t e r s c a n be con veye d by ke e p i ng t he m a t th e e dge s of the c ompos ition, with a m a x i m u m of s pac e be tw e e n t h e m ( 2- 31d ) or by ha vi ng a n intr usive c ha ra c te r force his o r h e r physica l p re s e n c e i nt o th e o t h e r c ha r a c t e r 's te rri tory, whic h is te m por a ri l y de f i ne d by t h e c onfine s of t he fra me .

Spatia l c on ve nti ons vary from c ult ur e to c ul tur e , a s a n thr op olo gis t Edwa rd T. Hall d e m on s t r a t e d in such studie s as The Hidden Dimension a nd The Silent Language. Hall disc ove re d that pr o xe mi c p a t te r ns th e re la tions hips of or gani sm s within a given s pa c e c a n be inf lue nc ed by e xte r na l c ons ide r a tions . C limate , noise level, a nd th e d e g re e of light all t e nd to alte r th e s pac e be t wee n individuals . P e op le in Anglo- Saxon a n d No r t h e r n E ur o p e a n c ulture s t e nd to us e m o r e s pac e th a n thos e i n w a r m er c lima tes. Noise , da nge r, a n d lac k o f light t e n d to m a ke p e o pl e move c lose r toge the r. T a king thes e c ultura l a nd c on te xtua l c ons idera tions into a c c oun t, Hall subdivide d t he way p e op le use spa ce i nto four ma jor pr ox e m ic pa tt e rns : (1) th e intimate, (2) t he personal, (3) t he social, (4) t he public dista nce s. I nt im a te di sta nc e s r a ng e f rom s kin c o nt a c t to a bo ut e ig ht e e n inc he s away. T hi s is t h e dis ta nc e of physic al invo lve me n tof love , c omf ort , a n d te nde rn e s s b e twe e n individuals. W ith s tr a nge rs , s uch dis ta nc es would be r e ga rd e d as intrusi ve . M os t p e o p le wo uld re a c t with s uspic ion a n d hostility if t he ir s pa ce we re i nva de d b y s o m e o n e they di d n ' t know ve ry well. I n m a n y c ult ure s , ma inta i nin g a n in ti ma t e dis ta nc e in publ ic is c on s id e r e d ba d ta ste . T h e pe r s on al dis t a nc e ra ng es roug hly from e ig ht e e n i nc he s away to a b o ut fou r feet away. Individua ls c an to uc h if nec e ssa ry, since the y a r e literally a n a r m' s -l e ngth a pa r t . T h e s e dis ta nc es t e nd t o b e r e s e rv ed for frie nds a n d a c q ua i nt a n c e s r a t h e r th a n lovers or m e m b e r s of a family. P e rs ona l dis ta nce s pr e s e rv e th e privac y be t we e n individua ls, yet the s e r a nge s d o n ' t nec ess arily suggest exc l usi on, a s i nt im a t e dis ta nce s a lmos t always d o . Social dist anc e s r a n ge fr om four fe et to a b o ut twelve feet. T he s e a r e the dis ta nce s us ua lly r e se r ve d for i mp e r s on al bus iness a nd ca sual socia l ga th e ri ngs . It's a frie ndly r a ng e in mos t ca ses, yet s o me w ha t m o r e for ma l th a n th e pe r s ona l dis ta nc e . Or dinar ily, social di sta nc es a re ne ce s sa r y wh e n t he r e a r e m o r e th a n t hr e e m e m b e r s of a g r o up . In s o m e case s, it wo uld be c o ns i de re d r u d e for two individua ls to pr e s e rv e an in ti ma t e or pe rs ona l dis ta nc e within a social situation. Su ch be h a vi or m i gh t b e i nt e r p r e t e d a s s ta ndoffish.

2- 3 1 a. Like Water for Chocolate (Mexico, 1992) , with Lumi Cavazos and Marco Leonardi, directed by Alfonso Arau. (Miramax Films) 2-3 1 a, b, c, d. Although e ach of these phot os portray s a conversation betwee n a ma n an d a wom an , ea ch is staged at a different proxe mic range, suggestin g totally different undert ones. Th e intimat e proxemics of Like Water for Chocolate are cha rged with erotic energy: The cha racters are literally flesh to flesh. In Return to Paradise, the chara cters are strongly attracte d to eac h other, 2- 31b. Return to Paradise (U.S.A.,
(Polygram Films)

1998), with Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche, directed by

Joseph Ruben.

continued 78

2-31c . Your Friends & Neighbors (U.S.A., directed by Neil LaBute. (Gramercy Pictures) 2-3 1 continued

1998), with Ben Stiller and Catherine Keener,

but they remain at a more discreet pe rsona l proxemic range, with eac h respec ting the other' s space. The cha rac ters in Your Friends & Neighbors are more wary, especially th e woma n, who s e e ms to find her blowhar d dat e e xtre me ly resistible. The c hara cters in Zabriskie Point are barely on speaking t erms. The social proxemic range betwee n the m implies a lot o f suspicion an d reserve. Psychologically, the y're miles apart. Each of these shots contains similar subject matter, bu t th e real conte nt of e ach is define d by its formin this case, the proxemic ranges betwe en the actors. 2- 31d . Zabriskie Point (U.S.A., Michelangelo Antonioni. (MGM) 1970), with Rod Taylor and Daria Halprin, directed by

2- 3 2 . Persona ( Swe de n, 1966), with Liv Ullmann, directed by Ingmar Bergman. Throughout this sce ne , whic h c ontain s n o dialogue, Bergma n use s spac e to communic at e his ideas spac e within the frame an d the s pace implied betwe en the ca mer a (us) and the subject. The c hara cte r is in a hospital room wa tching the ne ws on television (a). Suddenly, sh e see s a horrifying sce ne of a Buddhist mon k setting himself on fire to prote st the wa r in Vietna m. She r etreats to th e cor ne r of th e r oom, to the very edge of the frame (b). Bergman then cuts to a close r shot (c), intensifying our emotional involvement. The full horro r of her reaction is c onveyed by th e extr e me close-up (d), bringing us into an intimate proximit y with her.
(United Artists)

Public di sta nc e s e x t e n d from twelve fee t to twenty-five feet a nd m or e . T his r a n ge te nds t o b e f orma l a n d r a t h e r d e t a c h e d . Displays o f e m o t i o n a re c o ns id e r e d ba d form a t the s e dis ta nce s . I mp o r t a n t public fi gure s a r e ge ne ra lly s ee n in t h e publ ic r a n ge , a n d be c a us e a c o ns id e r a bl e a m o u n t of spa c e is involved, p e o p le ge ner a lly mu st e x a gge r a t e the i r g es tur e s a nd raise the ir voice s to be u nd e r s t o o d clearly. Most p e o pl e adjust to pr o xe mi c p a t te rn s instinctively. W e d o n 't usually say to ours elve s, "T his pe rs o n is inv a ding my int ima t e s pac e " wh e n a s tr a ng e r h a p p e n s to s ta nd e i ght e e n inc he s away fr om us . However , unle ss we 'r e in a c omba tiv e m o od , we involuntar ily te nd to s te p away i n s uch c ir c ums t a nc e s . Obviously, social c on te xt is also a d e t e r m i ni n g fac tor in p r ox e m ic pa tt e r ns . In a c r owde d subwa y car, for e xa mp le , virtually e v e ry one is in an int im a te ra ng e , yet we gene ra lly p re s e r ve a p ubl ic a tti tu de by no t s pe a ki ng to th e pe r s on who se bod y is literally pr e ss e d aga inst o u r own.
80

; \\ i s e <" n S c e n e

P ro xe m ic pa t t e r n s a r e pe rfec tly obvious to a n yo ne wh o has b o t h e r e d t o obs e rv e th e way p e o p le obe y c e rt ain s patial c onv e nt ion s in ac tual life. But in movies , t he s e p a t t e r n s a r e also r e la te d to t he shots a n d t he ir di st an c e r a nge s . Al th ough s hots a r e n ot always de f ine d by t he literal spa c e be t we e n t he c a m e r a a n d th e obje c t ph o t o g r a p h e d, in te rm s of psychologic al effect, s hots t e nd to sugges t physica l di sta nc e s. Usually, filmma ke rs have a n u m b e r o f o pt io ns c on c e r n i ng wha t ki nd of s ho t to use t o c onve y th e a c t ion of a s c e ne . W h a t de t e r mi n e s t he ir c h o ic e t h ou g h usually instinctive ly r a t h e r t h a n c onsc iouslyis the e m ot i on a l impa ct of the diffe re nt pr o xe mi c r a nge s . E a c h pr o xe mi c pa t t e r n ha s a n a p pr o x i ma t e c a me ra e quiva l ent . T h e int ima te dista nc e s, for e x a m pl e , c a n be l ike ne d t o t he close a n d ext re me clos e shot ra nge s . T h e pe r s ona l di st a nc e i s a ppr ox im a te l y a m e di u m c lose r a ng e . T h e soc ial dis ta nc e s c or r e s po n d to t h e m e d i u m a n d full shot r a nge s . An d th e publ ic dis ta nce s a r e r oughly within th e l on g a n d e xtr e me long shot ra nge s . B ec a use o u r eyes identify with t he c a me ra 's le ns , i n e ffect we a re pl a c ed within the s e r a nge s vis-a-vis t he s ubjec t ma tte r. W h e n we a r e off ere d a close -up of a c ha ra c te r, for e xa mp l e , in a se ns e we feel t ha t we ' r e in an intim a t e r e l a ti ons hi p with t ha t c ha ra c te r. In s om e inst anc e s , thi s t e c hn i qu e c an b in d us to t h e c ha r ac te r , forc in g us t o c a re a b o u t h im o r h e r a n d to identify with his or he r pr o bl e m s. If the c h a r a c t e r is a villain, t he c lose -up c a n p r o d u c e an e mo ti o na l re vuls ion in us; in effect, a t h r e a t e ni n g c ha ra c te r s e em s to be inva di ng o u r spa c e . In ge n e ra l , t h e g re a te r t he dis ta nc e be twe e n the c a m e r a a n d the subje ct, th e mo r e e motion al ly ne ut ra l we re ma in. Public p r ox e mi c ra nge s t e nd to e n c o ur a g e a c e rta i n d e ta c h m e n t . Conve rse ly, t he c loser we a re to a cha ra c te r, th e m o r e we feel tha t we 're i n pr oximity with hi m o r he r a nd h e n c e t h e g re a t e r o u r e m oti on a l involve ment . "L on g s hot for c ome dy, c los e-up for tra gedy" was o n e of C h a pl in' s most fa mous pr on o u nc e me n t s . T h e pr ox e m ic princ iples a re s ou nd , for wh e n we a r e c lose t o a n a c t io na pe rs o n sl ipping on a ba n a na pee l, for e x a mpl e i t's s e ldom funny, be c a use we ar e c o n c e r n e d for th e pe r s on 's safety. If we se e th e s a m e e ve nt from a g re a te r dist anc e , however, it ofte n strikes us as c omic al . C ha p li n u se d close -ups sparingly for this ver y re a so n. As l ong a s C har lie r e m a in s in l on g shots, we t e n d to be a m us e d by his antic s a n d a bs ur d pr e d ic a me n ts . I n sc e nes of gr e a t e r e m ot io na l impa ct , however, C ha pl in r e s orte d to c los e r shots, a nd t he ir effect is ofte n deva sta ting on t he a u di e n c e . W e suddenly rea liz e tha t t he situa tion we've be e n l a ugh in g a t is no lo ng e r funny. P e r ha ps th e mos t f a mous ins ta nc e of th e power of C ha pl in' s close-ups is f ou nd at the c onc l us io n of City Lights. C ha rlie has fallen in love with an im pov e r is he d flower v e n do r w h o i s bli nd. Sh e be lie ve s h i m to be a n e c c e nt ric mill iona ire , a nd o ut of vanity he allows he r to c o nt i nu e i n this de lus i on. B y e n ga gi ng in a s erie s o f m o n u m e n t a l la borslove ha s r e d uc e d hi m to w or k he m a na ge s to s c ra p e to g e t he r e n o u g h m on e y for h e r t o re ce ive a n op e r a t i on th a t will re st ore h e r sight. B ut he is dr a g ge d off to ja il be f or e s he c a n sc arcely th a nk him for t he m one y. T h e final s c e ne ta ke s pl ac e se veral m o n t h s la ter. T h e yo u n g wo m a n c an now s ee a n d owns h e r own m od e s t flower s h op. C ha rl ie is re le a se d

2- 33a . The Gold Rush (U.S.A., 1925), with Charles Chaplin and Georgia Hale, directed by Chaplin.

Both thes e sce ne s involve a fear of rejection by a woma n Charlie hold s in awe. The sc ene from The Gold Rush is pre dominantly comical. The tr amp has belted his baggy pa nts with a piece of rope, but he doe sn't realize it is also a dog's leash, and while dancing with th e saloon girl, Charlie is yanked to the floor by th e jittery dog at the other end of th e rope. Because the c a mer a r ema in s relatively distant from th e action , we tend to be more objective a nd de tac hed and we laugh at his futile a tte mpt s 'to pres erve his dignity. On the other ha nd , the fa mous final shot from City Lights isn't funny at all an d produc es a powerful e motional effect. Because the c ame r a is in close, we get close to the situation. The proxemic distance be twe en the c amera and the subject forces us to identify mor e with his feelings, which we ca n't ignore at this range.
(rbc Films)

2- 33b . City Lights (U.S.A., 1931), with Charles Chaplin, directed by Chaplin.

j\ \ i ^ f

i* M

S ce ne

8 3

from pris on, a nd dis he ve le d a nd dis pi rite d, h e m e a n d e r s past h e r s ho p window. She se es hi m ga z ing a t h e r wistfully a n d joke s to a n as sista nt t ha t s he's a pp a re n tl y m a d e a n ew c o nqu e s t. O u t of pity s he goe s o u t t o t he s tre e t a n d offers him a flower a n d a sma ll c oin . Ins ta ntly, s h e r e c ogniz e s his t ou c h . Ha r dly a bl e to be lieve he r eyes, she c an only s ta mm e r, "You?" In a se rie s of a lt e r n a ti n g close-ups , the ir e m ba r r a s s m e nt i s u nbe a ra bl y p r o l on g e d ( 2- 33 b) . Clearly, he is not th e idol of h e r r o ma nt ic fanta sies, a n d he is painfully awa re of h e r dis a pp oi n tm e n t. Finally, h e s tar e s a t he r with a n e xpr e ss ion of s ho c ki ng e m ot io na l na k e dne s s . T h e film e n ds on this ima ge of s ublim e vulnera bility. T h e c hoi c e of a shot is ge ner a lly d e t e r mi ne d by pra ctic a l c ons ide ra tions. Usually, th e d ir e c t or selec ts t he s h ot t ha t mos t clearly conve ys t he dra matic ac ti on of a s c e ne . If t h e r e is a conflict be t we e n t he effect of c er ta in proxe mic ra nge s a nd the cla rity n e e d e d to convey wha t's go in g o n, mos t fi lmma kers will o pt for c larity a n d ga i n th e ir e mo t io na l imp a c t t h r o u gh s om e o t h e r m e a ns . But t he re a r e m a n y ti mes w he n s ho t c hoi c e isn't nec essa rily d e t e r m i n e d b y functi onal c o ns id e r a ti ons .

T h e c on c e pt s of o pe n a n d cl ose d f or m s a re ge ne ra lly us e d by a r t historia ns a nd c ritics, b ut t he s e t e r ms c a n also be useful in film analysis. Like mo st the or et ic al c o ns tr uc ts , they a r e be st u se d in a re la tive r a th e r t ha n a bs ol ute s ens e . T h e r e a r e no movie s tha t a r e c ompl e te ly o p e n or c los e d in for m , only thos e t ha t te n d towa rd the s e polar ities. Like o t h e r critical te r ms , the se s h oul d be a ppl ie d onl y wh e n they a r e r ele va nt a n d helpful i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g wha t ac tually exists in a movie . O p e n a n d c lose d f orms a re two dis tinct at tit ude s a b ou t reality. Ea c h has its own stylistic a nd te c hnic a l c ha ra cte ris tics. T h e two t e r ms a r e loose ly re l a te d to t he c o nc e pt s of re a lism a nd for ma lis m a s they ha ve b e e n de f ine d in t he s e c ha pte r s . In g e ne r a l , re alist fil mmake rs t e n d t o use op e n forms , whe r e a s formalists le a n to wa r d c los ed. O p e n for ms te n d to be stylistically rec essive, whe r e a s clos e d for ms a r e ge ne ra lly self-consc ious a n d c ons p ic u ous . In t e r ms of visual d es ign , o p e n f orm e mpha s i z e s i nfor ma l, u nob tr us i ve c om pos it ions . Ofte n, s uc h im ag es s ee m t o ha ve no d is c e rni ble s t r uc t ur e a n d sugge s t a r a n d o m f or m of or ga ni z a tio n. Obje cts a n d figures s e e m to ha ve b e e n f ou nd ra t he r th a n de li ber a te ly a r r a n g e d ( 2- 35) . Clo se d for m e mph a s iz e s a m o r e stylized d es i gn. Al t ho ug h s uc h im ag es c a n s ugge st a supe rfic ial re a lism, s e ld om do the y ha ve t ha t a c c id en ta l, disc ove re d look tha t typifies o p e n for ms . Obje ct s a n d figure s a r e m o r e pre cisely pla c e d within t he fra me , a nd t h e bala n c e of we ights is e la bora te l y wo rk e d out . O p e n f orms stress a p pa r e n tl y s imp le te c hn iq ue s, be c a us e with the s e unse lf-c ons cious m e t h o d s the fi lmma k e r is a ble to e mp ha s iz e t he im me di a t e , th e familiar, th e in ti ma t e a spe c ts o f reality. So me t i me s s uc h im age s a r e ph ot og r a p h e d i n only partially c on tr o ll e d situa tions, a nd t he se a le a t ory c on dit ion s

2-34 . Mrs. Soffel (U.S.A. , 1984), with Diane Keaton (center), directed by Gillian Armstrong. Period films have a tend ency to look stagey an d researched, especially w he n the historical details are too neatly pre sente d an d the characters are posed in a tightly controlled setting. Armstrong avoided this pitfall by staging m an y of her sc enes in open form, alm ost like a docum en tar y caught on the run. Note how the m ain character (Keaton) an d her children are almost obscured by the unim porta nt extra at the left. A m ore formal image would have eliminated such "distractions" as well as the cluttered right sid e of th e frame and brought the principal characters toward the foreground. Arm stron g achieves a m or e realistic an d spontaneous effect by deliberately avoiding an " arranged " look in her mise en scene. (MCM/umted
Artists)

c an p r o d u c e a s ens e of s po nta ne ity a n d dir e ct ne ss tha t would be difficult to c a pt u re in a rigidly c o nt ro ll e d c o nt e x t ( 2- 36) . C los e d f orms a re m o r e likely to e m pha s iz e th e unfa milia r. T h e ima ge s a re rich in te xtur a l c ontr a st s a n d c om pe ll in g visual effects. Be c aus e t he mise en s c e ne is m o r e prec is ely c ont r oll e d a n d stylized, th e r e is often a de l ib e ra t e artificiality i n the s e ima g es a s e nse of visual impr oba bility , of be in g o n e r e mo ve fr om reality. C los ed for ms a lso te n d to be m or e dens e ly s a t ur a te d with visual in fo rm a ti on ; ric hne s s of form lakes p r e c e d e nc e over c ons i de r a ti ons of sur fa ce re alism. If a c onflict s h ou ld aris e, for ma l bea uty is sacrificed for t r ut h in o p e n forms; in c los ed forms , on t he o t h e r ha n d, litera l tr ut h is sa crifice d for be auty. C om po s it i on s in o pe n a n d c los ed forms e xpl oit t he fr ame diffe re ntly. In ope n -f or m im age s , t h e fr a me t e nds to be de e m ph a s i z e d . It s ugge sts a window, a t e m po r a r y ma sk ing, a n d implies t hat m o r e i mp o r t a n t i nf or ma t io n lies outs ide t he e dge s of th e c om pos i ti on . S pac e is c o nt i nu o us in t hes e shots, a n d to e m pha s i ze its c ont inuity ou ts ide t he fra me , di re c tors ofte n favor pa n n i n g th e ir c a m e r a ac ros s t h e loc a le. T h e s ho t s e e ms i n a d e q ua te , to o n a r r o w i n its c onfine s to c ont a in th e c opi ous ne s s of t he s ubje ct ma tte r . Like m a n y of the pa i nti ngs of E dga r De gas (who usually f avored o p e n f or ms ), obje cts a n d eve n
84

2 - 35 . The Garden of the Finzi-Continis (Italy, 1970) , with Dominique Sanda (center), directed by Vittorio De Sica. Realist directors a re more likely to prefer ope n forms, which tend to suggest fragments of a larger exte rnal reality. Design an d compositio n are generally informal. Influenced by the aesthetic of the docume nta ry, open-for m images se em t o have been discovered rather than arr anged. Excessive ba lance a n d calculated s ym met ry are avoided in favor o f an intimate an d s ponta ne ous effect. Still photo s in ope n form are seldom picturesque or obviously artful. Instead, they suggest a frozen instant of trutha s na pshot wreste d from the fluctuations of time. This sc en e deals with th e expor ta tion of Italian Jews to Nazi Germany . Their lives are suddenly thrown into chaos. . (Cinema 5)

figure s a r e arbitra rily c u t off by the fra me to re inf orc e t he co ntinu ity of t h e subj e c t m a t t e r be yo nd th e for ma l ed ge s of t h e c omp os it io n. In c los ed for ms , th e s ho t re pr e s e nt s a m ini a t ure pr os c e ni um a rc h , with all t he ne ce s sa ry inf or ma t ion carefully st r uc t ur e d within th e c onfine s of th e fr ame . Spa ce se e ms e nc los e d a n d self-c onta ined r a t he r tha n c o nt in uo us . Elem e nt s ou ts ide the fra me a r e irre le vant, a t least in te r m s of t he forma l pr op e rt ie s of the individua l s hot , whic h i s is ola te d from its cont ext in s pace a n d ti me ( 2- 37). For the s e re a s ons , still p ho t os ta k en from movie s t ha t a r e p r e d om i na ntl y in o p e n form a r e n o t usually ver y pretty. T h e r e i s n ot h i n g intrinsic ally str ikin g or e ye -c atc hing a bo u t t h e m . B ooks a b ou t movies t e n d to favor p ho to s i n c losed form be c a u s e the y a r e us ua lly m o r e obviously be autif ul, m o r e "c ompos e d. " T h e b e a ut y o f a n o pe n -f or m i ma g e, on t he o t h e r h a n d , i s m o r e e lusive. I t c an be l ik e ne d t o a s na ps h ot tha t mira c ulously pr e se r ve s s o m e c a nd i d r a r e e xpr es s ion, a k in d of h a p h a z a r d in st a nt of t ru t h, a c e rta i n visual a mbiguity. I n op e n- f or m movie s, th e d r a ma ti c ac tion ge ner al ly le a ds t he c a m e ra . In s uc h movie s a s Faces a n d Husbands, for e x a m pl e , John Cassavetes e m pha s iz e d the fluidity of the c a m e r a a s it dutifully follows the ac tors whe r e ve r they wish to
85

2- 36 . Space Cowboys (U.S.A., 2000) , with Clint Eastwood and Tommy Lee Jones; directed by Eastwood. This photo is in open form, but it's also tightly frame d, allowing the chara cte rs very little room for move me nt . Open form always sugge sts an inc omplete visual idea, with impor ta nt information missin g or cut off by th e una cc ommoda ti n g frame. Of course, all ima ge s have to be cut off s ome wher e, but in open-form images, the outer edge s o f the picture often s ee m inappropriately arbitrary, producing an unbala nc ed composit ion, as though th e tumultuous sprawl of the subject matt er wa s too uncontrolled to be packaged tidily. Often, such sc e ne s are phot ogra phed with a ha n d- he l d c a m e r a to suggest a ha phaz ar d, i mpromptu recording. (Warner Bros.)

go, s e e ming ly pl a c e d at the i r disposa l. S uc h films sugges t th at c ha n c e plays an i m p o r t a n t r ole in d e t e r m i n i ng visual effects. Ne e dle s s to say, it's n o t wha t a ctually h a p p e n s on a set tha t' s im p or t a nt , b ut wha t seems to be h a p p e n i n g on t he s c re e n. In fact, m a ny of t he s imple st effects in a n op e n- f orm movi e a r e a c hie ve d a fter m u c h pa i ns ta ki ng l a bor a nd m a ni p ul a t io n. I n close d-for m films, on th e o t he r h a n d, the c a me ra often a ntic ipa tes t he dr a m a ti c a c tion . Obje cts a nd a ctors a r e visually blo c ke d o ut within th e c on fines of a p r e d e t e r mi n e d c a me r a s e tup . Antic ipa tory s e t up s te nd to imply fatality or d e t e r m in is m , for in effect, the c a m e r a s e e ms to kn ow what will h a p p e n e ven be for e it oc c urs . In t he films of Fritz La ng, for e x a mp le , t he c a me ra often s e e ms to be wa iting i n an e mpt y r o om : T he do o r o pe n s , t he ch a ra c te r s e nt er , a n d t he a c tion t he n be gins . I n s o me of Hitc hc oc k' s movies , a c ha r a c t e r is se e n a t t he e dg e of th e c om pos it ion, a n d the c a m e r a s e e ms to be pla ce d i n a disa dvanta ge ou s posi tion, t oo far r e mov ed from wh e r e the a cti on is a ppa r e nt ly g oin g to occ ur. B ut th e n the c h a ra c te r decicies to r e t u r n to th a t a re a whe r e th e c a me r a ha s be e n wa iting. W h e n suc h se tups a re use d, t he a u di e n c e also te n ds to anticipa t e a ctions. Instinctively, we e xp e c t s om e t hi n g or s o m e o n e to fill in t he visual va c uu m of t he shot. Philosophic ally, op e n for ms te nd to s ugge st fr e e d om of c hoic e , a multiplicity of o pti on s o pe n to the c ha ra c te r s. Close d forms, con-

2- 37. Another Country (Great Britain, 1984), with Rupert Everett (center doorway), directed by Marek Kanievska. In close d form, the frame is a self-sufficient miniature universe with all the formal el eme nt s held in careful balance. Though ther e ma y be m or e information outside the frame, for the duration of any given shot this information is visually irrelevant. Closed forms are often used in s cenes dealing with e ntr a pm en t o r c onfine me nt, such as this sho t in which the protagonist is about to b e disciplined by his boardin g school superiors, (Orion classics)

versely, te nd to imply de stiny a nd the futility o f the will: T h e ch a ra c te r s d on ' t s e em t o ma ke t he i mp o r t a n t de cisions; t he c a me ra d oe s a n d in a d va nc e . O p e n a n d cl os ed f orms a r e mo s t effective in movie s w he r e th e se tec hni qu e s a r e a pp r o pr i a te to t he subjec t ma tte r. A pris on fil m usi ng mostly op e n for ms is n o t likely t o be e m oti ona l ly c onvi nc ing. Mos t movie s us e b o t h o p e n a nd c los e d f orm s, d e p e n d i n g on the specific dr a m a ti c c on te x t. R e n oir 's Grand Illusion, for e xa mp l e , use s c lose d f or m s for t h e pr is o n c a m p s c e nes a n d o p e n for ms a fte r two o f t he p ri s one r s es c a pe. Like mo s t c in e ma t ic te c hn iq ue s , o p e n a n d clos ed forms ha ve c er ta in limit ati ons a s well a s a dva nt a ge s. W h e n u s e d to exce ss , o p e n f or ms c a n s e e m sloppy a n d naive , like an artles s h o m e movie . T oo ofte n, o pe n f orm s c a n s e e m u nc on tr o l le d, unf oc us e d , a n d e ve n visually ugly. Occ asionally, t he s e te c h ni qu e s a r e s o bla ndly un obt r us i ve th a t the visuals a r e b or i ng. On th e o th e r h a nd , c los e d for ms c an s e e m arty a nd pr e t e nt i ou s . T h e ima ges a re so u ns p o n t a n e o u s tha t the i r visual e le me nt s look c o mp u t e r - p r o gr a m m e d . M a ny viewe rs a r e t u r n e d off by th e stiff f orma lity of s om e c lose d-form films. At the ir worst , the s e movie s c a n s e e m d e c a d e nt ly ove r wro ught a l l ic ing a n d n o c a ke . A systematic mis e en s c e n e analysis of any given s h ot inc l ude s t he following fi fte e n e l e me n ts :
87

a 2- 38 . Full Metal Jacket (Great Britain/U.S.A., 1987), directed by Stanley Kubrick. Even within a single s cene, filmmakers will switch from open to closed forms, dependin g on the feelings or ideas that are being stressed in each individual shot. For example, both of these shots take place during a battle sc ene in the Vietnamese city of Hue. In (a), the c harac ters are under fire, a n d th e wounde d soldier's he ad is not even in the frame. The form is appropria tely ope n . The frame functions as a tempor ary masking device that's too narrow in its sc op e to include all the relevant information. Often , th e frame s e em s to cut figures off in an arbitrary m a nner in ope n form, suggesting that th e action is continue d off screen, like newsree l footage that was fortuitously photographed by a came r a opera tor who was unable to super impose an artistic form on the runaway materials. In (b), the form is closed, as four soldiers rush to their wounde d comr ade, providing a protective buffer from the outside world. Ope n a n d closed forms a re n't intrinsically meaningful, then , but deriv e their significa nc e from the dr ama tic conte xt. In s om e cases, closed forms ca n suggest e nt ra pme n t ( 2- 37) ; in othe r c ases, such as (b), closed form implies security, cama raderie , (wamer Bros.)

]W i s e

en

S c e ne

89

1. Dominant. W he r e is o u r eye a tt ra c t e d first? Why? 2. Lighting key. H ig h key? Low key? Hi g h c ontra s t? S o me c o mb i na ti o n of these ? 3. Shot and camera proxemics. W ha t type of shot? How far away is t he c a me r a from t h e a c tion? 4. Angle. Ar e we ( a n d t he c a me r a ) l ooki ng up or d own on th e subject? Or is th e c a me r a ne ut ra l (eye le vel)? 5. Color values. W h a t is t he d o m i n a n t color ? Ar e t he re c ont r a s ti ng foils? I s t he r e c o lor symbolis m? 6. Lens/filter/stock. How d o t o gr a p h e d ma teri als ? the s e di sto rt or commen t on the ph o-

7. Subsidiary contrasts. W ha t a re t he m a in eye-stops a fte r t a kin g i n th e d o mi n a nt ? 8. Density. Ho w m u c h visual i nf o rm a ti o n is p a c k e d i nt o the ima ge? Is t he t e xt ure stark, m od e r a t e , or highly de ta ile d? 9. Composition. How is t he two- dime nsio nal s pac e s e g me nt e d a n d or ga nized? W h a t is t he und e r l yi n g des ign? 10. Form. O p e n or c lose d? Doe s t h e im a g e sugge st a wi ndow t ha t a rbitrarily isola te s a f r a g me n t of th e sc ene ? Or a p r os c e n i um a r c h, in whic h t he visual e le me nt s a r e c arefully a r r a n ge d a nd he ld i n ba la n ce ? 11. Framing. T ight o r loose? Do t he c ha r a c te r s ha ve no r o o m to mov e a r o u nd , or ca n the y move freely wi tho ut im pe di me nt s ? 12. Depth. On h ow ma ny pl a ne s is th e im a ge c o mp o s e d? Doe s the ba ckg r o u n d o r f or e gr o u nd c o m m e n t in a ny way on t he m i d gr ou n d? 13. Character placement. W h a t pa r t of t he f ra m e d s pac e do t h e c ha r a c te r s oc cupy? C e n te r ? Top? Bo ttom ? Edges ? Why? 14. Staging positions. c a me r a ? W h ic h way do the c ha r a c t e r s look vis-a-vis t he

15. Character proxemics. H ow m u c h spa c e is th e r e be t we e n the c ha ra c te rs ? T h e s e visual p rinc i ple s , with a pp r op r ia t e modif ic at ions , c an be a ppl ie d to any i ma ge analysis. Of c our s e , while we ' r e actually wa tc hing a movi e, m os t of us d o n 't ha ve th e time or i nc lin a tio n to e xp lo r e all fi fte e n e l e m e nt s of mise en s c e ne in e a c h shot. None t he l e s s , by a pplyi ng t he se pr inc ipl e s to a still p h ot o , we c a n tra in o u r eyes to "r e a d" a movie i ma ge with m o r e c ritical s ophis tic a ti on. For e x a mp le , t he ima ge from M (2-40) is a go o d insta nce of how f orm (mis e e n sc e ne) is actually c ont e nt . T h e s hot ta kes plac e ne a r t he e n d of t he movie . A psyc hotic child-killer (L orr e ) ha s be e n h u n t e d down by th e m e mb e r s of th e u nd e r wo r l d. T h e s e " no rm a l" c rimina ls ha ve ta ke n hi m to a n a b a n d on e d wa r e ho us e wh e re they in te nd to pr os e cu te a n d e x e c ute th e ps yc hopa th for his he in ou s c rime s a n d in do in g so take the police he a t off themse lve s. In this sc e ne, the killer is c onf r ont e d by a witness ( c ent er ) who holds an i nc r imi na ti ng piec e of e vid e nc e a ba lloon. T h e c o mp o ne n t s o f t he shot inc l ude the following:

2- 39 . Production phot o from Booty Call (U.S.A., 1997), with (front to rear) director Jeff Pollack and actor Jamie Foxx, co-producers John M. Eckert and John Morrissey, and (standing) actor Tommy Davidson. Many filmmakers insist on using a video assist moni to r on thei r sets as a quick-chec k device before actually s hoot ing a s ce ne on film stock. Stock is more e xpe nsiv e an d not nearly so i mmedia te in t er ms of feedback. By photogra phing a sc en e with a video c ame ra , the director can correct any pr oblems in th e staging an d mise en sce ne. Th e actors can c heck to se e if their pe rfor manc es are too subdue d o r too broad or to o what ever. The c inema togra pher can preview the lightin g a n d c amera work . And the pr oducers can see if their money is goin g down th e drain. When everyone is satisfied, they can the n pro ceed to shoot th e s cen e on movie stock . The video run-through is like a pre liminary sketch for a finished painting or a dre ss rehearsal for a stage play. (Columbia Pictures)

1. Dominant. T h e ba l loon , th e br ight e st obj ec t in th e f ra m e. W h e n th e p h o t o is t u r n e d up s ide do wn a nd c o nve rt e d to a p a t t e r n of a bst ra c t s ha p e s, its d o mi n a n c e is m o r e re adily di sc e r nibl e . 2. Lighting key. Murky low key, with high-c ontra s t spotli ght s on t he ba l loo n a n d th e fou r ma in figures. 3. Shot and camera proxemics. T h e s hot is slightly m o r e dis t an t t ha n a full s hot. T h e c a me r a pr o xe mi c r a nge is socia l, pe r ha p s a b ou t te n fee t fro m t he d o mi n a nt . 4. Angle. Slightly hig h, sugge s tin g a n air of fatality. 5. Color values. T h e movi e is in bla ck a n d white . 6. Lens/filter/slock. A s t a n da r d lens is us ed , with no a p p a r e n t filter. Stand a r d slow stock. 7. Subsidiary contrasts. T h e figures of t he killer, the witness, a nd th e two c rim ina ls in th e u p p e r left. 8. Density. T h e s h ot h a s a high de gr e e of dens ity, especially c o ns i de ri ng th e s hadowy light ing. Suc h de tails a s t he t e xt ur e of the bric k walls, t he c re as es in t h e c lot hing , a n d t he expres sive faces of t he a ct ors a r e highlighte d. 9. Composition. T h e i ma ge is divide d i nt o t h r e e g e ne ra l a re aslef t, c e nte r, a nd r ig ht su gge s t in g instabilit y a n d te ns ion. 10. Form. De finitely c los ed: T h e fr am e sugge sts a c ons tr ic ti ng cell, with no exit for t he pri sone r .

j \ \ ise

en

S c ene

11. Framing. T ight : T h e kille r is t r a pp e d in t he s a me t e rr i tor y with his t hr e a t e ni n g a c c usor s. 12. Depth. T h e i ma ge is c o m p os e d on th r e e d e pt h pla ne s : the two figure s in t he for e gr ound, the two figures on t he stairs in th e m i d g r o u n d , a nd th e brick wall of t he b a c k gr o u nd . 13. Character placement. T h e a c cus e rs a nd ba l loo n towe r above the killer, s ea ling off a ny a ve n ue of e s c a pe, while he cowe rs be low a t th e e x t r e m e ri ght e d ge , a l mos t falling int o t h e symbolic bla ckne ss outs i de th e fr ame . 14. Staging positions. T h e a cc us er s s ta nd in a qu a r te r - tu rn posi tion , implying a gr e a t e r intima c y with us t ha n the ma i n c har a ct er, wh o is in th e profile pos ition, tota lly un a wa re of a n yt hin g b ut his own t er ror . 15. Character proxemics. P rox e mic s a re pe r s ona l be t we e n the f or e gr o un d c ha r a c te r s , th e killer's im m e di a te pr o bl e m , a n d i nti ma te be t we en th e m e n o n t h e stairs, wh o f unc tion a s a do u bl e thr e a t. T h e r a n ge be tw e e n t he two pa irs is s ocial. Actually, a c om p le t e mise e n s c e ne analysis of a given s hot i s e ve n m o r e c o mpl e x . Or dinar ily, any i c onog ra p hic a l e l e me nt s , in a ddi ti on to a c o s tu m e a n d set analysis , a r e c on s id e r e d p a r t of th e mis e e n s c e ne . But s inc e th e s e ele m e nt s a r e disc uss ed in C ha pt e r s 6 a n d 7, re spectively, we c on fine ourse lves only to the s e fifteen for ma l cha ra c te ris tic s. In t he se first two c h a pte r s , we've b e e n c o n c e r n e d ta n t s our c e o f me a ni n g in the movi e sthe visual ima ge . exist in t ime a nd have m a ny o th e r ways of c o m mu n i c a t i n g ra phy a nd mise e n s c e ne a r e me re ly two l a ngua g e systems with t he mos t i mpor But of c our s e movie s inf or ma ti on. P hotog of many. For this rea -

92

M '

en

S c en e

s on, a film ima g e mus t s o me ti me s be r es tr a ine d or less s a tu ra te d with m e a n in g s th a n a pa i nti ng or still p ho t o , in which all the ne ce ss ary i nf orm a tio n is con ta ine d within a single ima g e . T h e prin ci ple s of varia tion a n d re str a int e xist i n all te mpor a l arts. In movie s, the se princ iple s c an be s ee n in thos e ima ges tha t s e e m r a t he r u nint e r e st in g, usua lly be c a us e the d om i n a n t is f ound e ls e whe re i n the music, for e x a m ple , or the e diting. In a se nse , the s e image s a r e visual res t ar ea s. A filmmaker ha s litera lly h u n d r e d s of diffe re nt ways to c onve y m e a n ings . Like t he pa in t e r or still ph o to g r a p he r , t he movie dir e c t or c a n e mph a s i z e visual d o mi n a n t s . I n a sc e ne po r tr a yi ng viole nc e, for e xa mp le , he o r s he c a n use dia g ona l a nd zigz agging line s, aggressive colors , clos e-ups , e xt r e m e angl e s , ha r s h ligh ting c ontr as ts , u nb a l a n c e d c om pos it ions , la rge sh a pe s , a n d s o o n. Unl ike mos t ot h e r visual a rtists, t he filmma ke r c an also sugges t viole nc e t h r ou g h m o ve me nt , e it he r o f th e subje ct itself, the c a m e r a , or b o t h . T h e f i lm ar tist c a n s ugge s t vi ol enc e t h r o u g h edi ting, by ha ving o n e sh ot c ollide with a n o t h e r i n a ka le idos c opic e xplos ion of dif fe re nt pe rs pe c tives . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h r o u g h th e us e of t he s ou ndt r a c k, vi ole nce c a n be c onve yed by l ou d or r a pid di a lo gue , h a r s h s o u nd effects, or s t ri de nt m usic . Pre cise ly b e c a us e th e r e a re s o m a ny ways to c onvey a give n effect, th e filmma ke r will vary t he e mp ha s is , s ome times stre ss ing im a ge , s o me t im e s m o ve m e n t , o t h e r times s o un d . Occa siona lly, espec ia lly i n clima ctic s c e nes , all th r e e a r e us e d a t t he s a me time .

FURTHER READING ARM IF.IM, RUDOLF, Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954). Primarily abo ut paintings and drawings. BORDWF.LL, DAVID, JANET STAIGER, and KRISTIN THOMPSON, The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960 (New York: Columbi a University Press, 1985). A fine scholarly study. BRAUDY, LEO, The World in a Frame (G arde n City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976). Filled with intelligen t insights. DoNDIS, DONIS A., A Primer of Visual Literacy (C ambridge , Mass., a nd Lo nd on, England: T h e M.I.T. Press, 1974). Primarily on design and com position. DYER, RICHARD. The Matter of Images (L ondon and New York: Routledge, 1993). T h e ideological implications of images. FREEBURG, VICTOR O., Pictorial Beauty on the Screen (New York: Macmillan, 1923). A discussion of the convention s of classical com position . HALL, EDWARD T., The Hidden Dimension (Gard en City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1969). How hu m ans and o th er animals use space. NILSEN, VIADIMIR, The Cinema As a Graphic Art (New York: Hill an d Wang, 1959). How reality is shap ed by form, with major emphasis on classical composition. RUESCH, JURGEN, and WELDON KEES, Nonverbal Communication (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966). SOMMERS, ROBERT, Personal Space (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969). How individuals use a nd abuse space.