A cinema organist once told me, "Minors, Majors, Sixths and Sevenths; everything else is noise." However, although I respected his talent as a very technically accomplished musician, I simply had to reply by saying, "I couldn't disagree more."
Today I listened to one of my all time favourite albums Trout Mask Replica by Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band. Trout Mask Replica is definitely one of the weirdest albums ever made and it is almost guaranteed that the first time you hear it you will wonder what on earth is is that you're listening to. I suppose you could say that the reason for this is that it breaks many musical rules with it's odd harmonies and weird structures.
This rule breaking is very common in music. For example, the blues used many notes that were not, "Minors, major sixths and sevenths." As does Jazz. This musical rule breaking was particularly prominent in the Bebop era, when musicians used to throw cheeky little flattened notes into their melodies to make them chaotic and unpredictable, as well as breaking many other rhythmic and tonal rules.
So how does this relate to film?
In film, like music, there are also many rules and guidelines that have been developed to stop a film from turning into a lot of nonsensical chaos and, like music, there are also many people trying to come up with new ways in which these rules can be twisted or broken.
Story rules
It is generally believed that a story should eliminate anything which is unnecessary to the overall progression of the story, so in a film or a TV show you should not be surprised if everything a character does furthers the story in some way.
For example in an episode of the TV show Fringe, one of the main characters suggests to the other characters that they go and eat pie from a local cafe. The fact that this character suggests they try the cafe's pie is presented as a comic moment in the TV show, but when they get to the cafe and experience strange goings on you realise that the characters needed to be in that cafe in order for the story to progress. It is very rare that a mainstream TV show or film would include a scene with characters going to a cafe for pie, unless it was important to the story, but let's imagine for a second that it hadn't progressed the story; would that be so bad?
Watching the episode in question, I remember feeling slightly let down by the fact that the only reason the characters had went to this particular cafe was so that the story line could progress and not simply so that they could eat pie. This may sound odd, but I actually liked the idea of the characters just going to a cafe and eating pie for no reason. This, and other instances like this, have made me realise something about myself; I like it when things that happen in films happen for no reason.
Luckily for me, there are many directors who have the same opinion as me on this and many independent films (and some mainstream ones as well) do feature moments which happen for the sake of it and not to progress the story.
For example:
- In the Werner Herzog film Fitzcarraldo, there is a part at the beginning when they are watching an opera and, although the fact that they are attending the opera is of importance to the story, showing as much of it as is shown is not.
-
- There are also certain pieces of dialogue in the Quentin Tarantino film Pulp Fiction that have become so famous for this, that to talk about them here would be pointless. Royale with cheese, anyone?
The 180 degree rule
The 180 degree rule exists to avoid distracting viewers from what is happening in a film by confusing them about where it is happening. For example, if you were to film an army attacking another army it would be confusing if you were to cut between two shots taken from different sides of the army, as it may look as if they have suddenly changed the direction they are attacking from.
This rule is not just helpful in scenes featuring armies, but in pretty much any scene. When capturing something on camera this rule is often obeyed religiously, but there are notable examples of types of footage in which is is never used. For example, when filming bands performing live on stage at music events the camera operators and editors do not seem to acknowledge the existence of the 180 degree rule at all. Perhaps this is because it is assumed that the viewer has a clear idea in their head of where the stage is in relation to the audience and will therefore not get confused when watching a performance from many different angles.
In these 3 shots, taken from live footage of Muse at Glastonbury in 2004, you can see that the editor cuts strait from an angle with the camera at the front right side of the stage, to an angle from the back left side of the stage, before immediately cutting to a wide angle of the stage from a distance. Is there a 180 degree rule present here? It doesn't appear so.
In film however, this kind of disregard for traditional continuity editing is more rare. There are however, some notable examples of times when filmmakers have broken this rule. A good example of someone who was famous for showing complete disregard for the 180 degree rule is a filmmaker I am very fond of, and have mentioned in my blog before, Yasujiro Ozu.
Diagram of scene and angles
The shots pictured above are from a dialogue scene in the Ozu film Tokyo Story. They show no regard for the 180 degree rule (This is most likely deliberate as some of Ozu's early work uses the 180 degree rule). This kind of 360 degree editing is common in Ozu's films, but despite this the editing in Ozu's films does not draw attention to itself. In fact, even when you are trying to pay attention to Ozu's editing style, it is often very difficult to concentrate on where the cuts are and which angles are being used. This proves that, in some instances, the 180 degree rule may not be as necessary as some would have you believe.
Handheld and shaky camera work
It is often said that shots in which the camera is handheld have the effect of either disorienting the viewer or making the footage look more gritty and documentary like. Traditionally therefore, there would only be two times when you would use a handheld camera shot; when you are trying to disorientate the viewer (as you would in a horror movie), when you are trying to make the thing on screen seem gritty and realistic (there are many handheld camera shots in the TV drama Homeland for example), or when you are trying to do both (as in the beach scene from Saving Private Ryan).
However, if you look more closely at some films, you will realise that handheld camera shots are much more common than many would have you believe and they are not always used for the purposes outlined above. For example, just the other day a few of my housemates were watching a mainstream american film, featuring Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Isla Fisher, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Melanie Laurent, called Now You See Me and it featured handheld camera work in a scene in which you wouldn't normally expect it. The scene depicted a hungover Mark Ruffalo apologising to Melanie Laurent in a kitchen over a cup of coffee. Now don't get me wrong, there were many scenes in the film featuring action packed spectacle, but this was certainly not one of them. This particular scene was a calm one in which two of the characters bonded, so the handheld camera was certainly not intended to make the audience feel unsettled. Nor was it the kind of film where gritty documentary-like realism would be beneficial. This breaks many of the cliches of what a handheld camera is expected to depict and this is only a cheesy Hollywood example.
There are many other examples of times when handheld cameras are used for other reasons than just to disorientate or imitate documentary. For example, in the ridiculously entertaining 4 hour long Sion Sono directed romantic black comedy Love Exposure, handheld camera work is featured frequently throughout the film. It could be said that the only reason that the handheld camera work is not noticed as much in Love Exposure, is because there are so many other things wrong with the film that you don't have time to notice the camera work. It could also be said that the handheld camera work in Love Exposure compliments the cheap and slightly silly nature of the film. Either way, Love Exposure ends up being a very rewarding watch and the frequent handheld camera work is not distracting from the overall film experience.
There are other films in which the handheld camera does not go unnoticed, but this can sometimes be used in a very creative way.
In the french film Rust and Bone for example, the camera work is extremely chaotic and handheld, but is edited in a very creative way which compliments it. In Rust and Bone the camera work can sometimes make you feel slightly frustrated, as it never quite seems to focus on anything long enough for you to get a good look at it. However, it often seems to randomly focus in on small details and parts of the set that wouldn't ordinarily be focused on in a conventionally shot film. This has the effect of making your brain piece together a mental picture of the room (instead of simply looking at what is in the frame), as it would if you were sitting in someone's front room nervously glancing around. Which has the effect of making you feel as if you are in the same space as the characters.
Other filmmakers have used handheld camera work to demonstrate a form of rebellion against excepted film rules. Lars Von Trier is very famous for this and has developed an interesting stylistic language which compliments his films (which can sometimes be overly reliant on shock value). Another rebellious filmmaker who enjoyed breaking rules as a form of rebellion is Jean Luc Goddard. The camera work in Goddard's early films is very interesting, as it uses things like handheld camera work, jump cuts and breaking of the 180 degree rule, not to disorientate the viewer, but instead to create a mise en scene which is trendy, hip and fashionable in its rebellion. Goddard's films therefore, and indeed Sion Sono's, show that there is another thing which handheld cinematography can be good for; giving a film a sense of young and youthful energy.
Other shaky camera movements
More interesting than the flamboyant cinematography and editing in Goddard's first film Breathless (A bout de souffle) however, is the subtle sloppiness of the tripod shots in some of the dialogue scenes in Bande a Part. Tripod movements are another way in which camera movements can be shaky, as the person operating the tripod may not be steady enough in their movements. In Bande a Part there is a dialogue scene which is filmed mainly in one shot, in which the camera is on a tripod. The shot is not static however, as the camera pans backwards and forwards slightly to follow the actors. The pan movements however, are quite shaky, which some may argue makes the film look bad. I however, think that these shaky movements add to the overall look of the film. This shows that shaky panning movements on a tripod, whilst seeming amateurish, can also contrarily add to a film's beauty.
Another way in which a camera's movements can be shaky is in the use of the zoom lens. Sometimes zooms can be very shaky and feel unnatural, as at the point when the camera operator adjusts his/her hands the zoom stops for a bit meaning that the zoom does not happen at a constant speed. As you've probably guessed by the rest of this blog however, there is at least one example of a time when this kind of messy zoom has actually added to the overall look of a film.
The softcore porn director Jesus Franco (who was surprisingly artistic for an erotic filmmaker) was famous for using the zoom lens in his films. In the film Vampyros Lesbos, a film which contains more stylistically shot footage of scorpions, kites and scenery than it does footage of erotic acts, there are many uses of the zoom lens. I would not say that I am a fan of Vampyros Lesbos, but I do admire the fact that it is visually interesting. The use of zoom in the film also adds to the visual style and the fact that the zoom lens is operated in a shaky manner adds to the visual style even more. So I guess this is a good example of a time when shaky zooms have helped a film's overall style.
So what are you saying?
In conclusion, the point I am making here is not that we should completely discard these film rules. Instead I am simply saying that they are there only as a guide and we should not feel limited by them.
Pictures from:
www.mondo-digital.com
wormholeriders.net
objectivenot.wordpress.com
Wikipedia
and screen grabs from youtube footage.
The opening shot of this scene is an establishing shot of the two characters. You can see the window leading on to the street in the far background. This shot is not held for very long.
Next there is a shot of Aoyama from a low angle. This shot is taken from a position outside of the space in between the characters, meaning that Aoyama’s relationship to the camera is not as direct as it would be if it was in between them. This makes us feel as though we are watching proceedings from an external position rather than feeling as though we are seeing it from one character’s perspective. 
Next we have a similar shot of Asami also taking a drink. The interesting thing about both these shots is that neither character has spoken yet, but there has already been 3 shots. These 3 shots are quite quick ones and the period of silence lasts no longer than you would expect a silence to last in an ordinary conversation, but cutting back and forth like this lengthens the silence and makes us understand that the characters have not reached a stage where their conversations come naturally yet.
Next we have a shot of Aoyama, as he begins to speak. The fact that we can see a bit of Asami in the side of the shot, makes us conscious of the intention of reaching her with his words. (Throughout the scene, both characters are shot on a wide enough lens, that you can see their surroundings quite well)
Asami is shot from the side with hair covering her face slightly. Her head is tilted downwards. These things mean that we feel how closed she is at this point in time.
Aoyama asking more questions.
At this point something quite interesting happens. We cut to Asami on the other side. The 180 degree line is broken creating subtle dissonance in the scene. Audition is a film famous for the fact that it suddenly changes course and becomes more dark half way through, but there are things, like this cut, that happen earlier in the film that foreshadow what happens in the second half. We feel uneasy about Asami from the beginning and shots like this help us to feel that way. This side of Asami is much less covered than the other side, as we are closer and her hair is behind her ear. It is almost as if we are being allowed to see more of the real Asami than Aoyama is getting to see, as the shots from her other side represent what she is like on the outside and this side is a glimpse into her inner world.
Here we have a more distant shot taken from the street. Once again we are on the other side of the 180 degree line.
Now we have a shot of Asami, where the camera’s angle has closed in from the side shots we were previously seeing of her. This has the effect of making her seem weaker than she was when she was being shot from the side. This as she is being asked about something which she is not as good at lying about. 
Aoyama is now shot from the side,making him seem stronger than he was before when we saw him eagerly leaning in towards us. He is asking questions which could potentially unmask Asami at this early stage in their relationship, saving him the torment and horror he has to endure at the end of the film.
Asami is then shot from the side again as the subject is changed. She is closed again and less exposed than she was when discussing the thing she had difficulty lying about.
We then see another long shot of the two characters. This time from the other side looking towards the street from the inside of the restaurant. In this shot the people, who were around them before have disappeared. This implies that the conversation has been going on for much longer than we feel it has. 
Despite there being no break in the conversation, we have suddenly moved to a new location. The new location is almost sneaked into the film. There is no establishing shot to announce its entry. This is an interesting way of showing that Aoyama and Asami have reached the stage that they are now at over several dates, without having to show the audience the unimportant stuff, like the end of the last date and the beginning of this one. Instead Miike edits both dates together into one conversation.
Next there is an unusual shot of the location from above.
In this shot we see Aoyama from a more open angle than Asami in the last shot meaning we are not looking at him as directly as we look at Asami. She is in the stronger and firmer position. 
We are then drawn in closer to Asami. 
Aoyama is then filmed from the space in between the two characters. We can feel his connection to her.
