j \ \ i s e c n S c e n e 7 7

Ter ritor ia l space within a frame can be m an i pu l at ed with co ns iderabl e psychological complexity. Wh e n a f igure leaves th e fr am e, for ex am pl e , t h e ca me ra can adjust to this su d d en v acu um i n t he com pos i t io n by p ann i n g slightly to ma ke allowances for a new ba lanc e of weights . Or the cam e ra can r emai n sta tionary, thu s suggest ing a sense of loss symbolized by t he emp ty space t hat th e cha ra ct er former ly occu pi ed. Hostili ty a nd suspicion bet ween two charact er s can be con veye d by ke ep i ng t he m at th e edge s of the compos i-tion, with a m a x i m u m of spac e betw een t h em (2-31d ) or by havi ng an intrusive cha rac ter force his o r h e r physical p re sen ce i nt o th e o t h er c haract er 's terri tory, which is tem porari l y def i ned by t h e confines of t he frame.

Spatia l con venti ons vary from cult ur e to cul ture , as an throp olo gis t Edward T. Hall d em on s t r at ed in such studies as The Hidden Dimension a nd The Silent Language. Hall discovered that pro xe mi c p at te rns— th e re la tionships of organi sm s within a given space—can be inf luenced by external cons iderations . Climate , noise level, a nd th e d eg re e of light all t end to alter th e space bet ween individuals . Peop le in Anglo-Saxon an d No r t h ern Euro p ea n culture s t end to use m o re space th an those i n w arm er c limates. Noise , danger, a n d lack o f light t en d to m ake p eo pl e move closer together. Taking these cultura l a nd con textua l con-s iderations into accoun t, Hall subdivided t he way p eop le use space i nto four major prox em ic patt erns : (1) th e intimate, (2) t he personal, (3) t he social, (4) t he public distances.

Int im ate di stances r ang e f rom skin co nt act to a bo ut e ig ht ee n inches away. Thi s is t h e dis tance of physical invo lvemen t—of love, comfort , an d ten-de rn ess b etwee n individuals. With s tr angers , such dis tances would be r e ga rd ed as intrusi ve . Mos t p eo p le wo uld react with suspicion a n d hostili ty if t heir space were i nvade d b y s o m eo n e they di d n ' t know very well. I n m an y cult ures , main-ta i nin g an in ti mat e dis tanc e in publ ic is con s id ered ba d taste .

T h e per son al dis t ance rang es roug hly from eig ht een i nches away to ab o ut fou r feet away. Individuals can to uc h if necessary, since they ar e literally an arm' s -l ength apar t . Th ese dis tances t e nd t o b e r eserv ed for friends a n d acq uai nt an ces r a t h er th an lovers or m em b e r s of a family. Personal dis tances preserv e th e privacy bet ween individuals, yet these r anges d o n ' t necessarily sug-gest excl usi on, as i nt im at e dis tances a lmos t always d o .

Social dist ances r an ge from four feet to ab o ut twelve feet. The se ar e the dis tances usually r eserved for i mp er son al bus iness a nd casual socia l gath eri ngs . It 's a friendly r a ng e in mos t cases, yet so mew hat m o r e formal th an th e per sonal dis tance . Ordinar ily, social di stances are necessary wh en t he re ar e m o r e th an t hre e m em b e r s of a g ro up . In so m e cases, i t wo uld be co ns i de re d ru d e for two individuals to preserv e an in ti mat e or persona l dis tance within a social situa-tion. Su ch beh avi or m i gh t b e i nt erp ret e d as s tandoffish.

2-31 a. Like Water for Chocolate (Mexico, 1992) , with Lumi Cavazos and Marco Leonardi, directed by Alfonso Arau. (Miramax Films)

2-31 a, b, c, d. Although each of these photos portrays a conversation between a man and a woman, each is staged at a different proxemic range, suggesting totally different undertones. The intimate proxemics of Like Water for Chocolate are charged with erotic energy: The characters are liter-ally flesh to flesh. In Return to Paradise, the characters are strongly attracted to each other,

2-31b. Return to Paradise (U.S.A., 1998), with Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche, directed by Joseph Ruben. (Polygram Films)

c o n t i n u e d •

78

2-31c. Your Friends & Neighbors (U.S.A., 1998), with Ben Stiller and Catherine Keener, directed by Neil LaBute. (Gramercy Pictures)

2-31 c o n t i n u e d

but they remain at a more discreet personal proxemic range, with each respecting the other' s space. The characters in Your Friends & Neighbors are more wary, especially the woman, who seems to find her blowhard dat e extremely resistible. The characters in Zabriskie Point are barely on speaking t erms. The social proxemic range between them implies a lot of suspicion and reserve. Psychologically, they're miles apart. Each of these shots contains similar subject matter, but the real content of each is defined by its form—in this case, the proxemic ranges between the actors.

2-31d. Zabriskie Point (U.S.A., 1970), with Rod Taylor and Daria Halprin, directed by Michelangelo Antonioni. (MGM)

c d 2-3 2. Persona (Sweden, 1966), with Liv Ullmann, directed by Ingmar Bergman. Throughout this scene , which contains no dialogue, Bergman uses space to communicat e his ideas—space within the frame and the space implied between the camera (us) and the sub-ject. The character is in a hospital room watching the news on television (a). Suddenly, she sees a horrifying scene of a Buddhist monk setting himself on fire to protest the war in Viet-nam. She retreats to the corner of the room, to the very edge of the frame (b). Bergman then cuts to a closer shot (c), intensifying our emotional involvement. The full horror of her reac-tion is conveyed by the extreme close-up (d), bringing us into an intimate proximity with her. (United Artists)

Public di stances ex t en d from twelve feet to twenty-five feet a nd m or e. This r an ge te nds t o b e formal a n d r at h er d et ach ed . Displays o f em o t i o n a re co ns id ered ba d form at these dis tances . I mp o r t an t public fi gure s ar e generally seen in t h e publ ic r an ge , an d bec ause a co ns id erabl e a m o u n t of space is involved, p eo p le generally mu st ex aggerat e thei r g es tures a nd raise their voices to be u nd e r s t o o d clearly.

Most p eo pl e adjust to pro xe mi c p at te rn s instinctively. We d o n ' t usually say to ourselves, "This pe rso n is inv ading my int imat e space" wh en a s tr ang er h ap p e n s to s tand ei ght een inches away from us . However , unless we 'r e in a combativ e m o od , we involuntar ily te nd to s tep away i n such cir cumst ances . Obviously, social con te xt is also a d e t er m i ni n g factor in p rox em ic patt erns . In a crowded subway car, for e xa mp le , virtually ev ery one is in an int im ate ra ng e, yet we generally p reserve a p ubl ic a tti tu de by no t speaki ng to th e pe r son who se bod y is li terally pressed against o u r own.

8 0

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

Pro xem ic pat t ern s ar e perfectly obvious to an yo ne wh o has b o t h er ed t o observ e th e way p eo p le obey cert ain spatial conv ent ion s in actual life. But in movies , t hese p at t ern s ar e also r e la ted to t he shots an d t heir di st an ce r anges . Al th ough shots ar e n ot always def ined by t he literal space bet ween t he cam era an d th e object ph o t o g ra p h e d, in te rm s of psychological effect, shots t end to sugges t physical di stances.

Usually, filmmakers have a n u m b e r o f o pt io ns c on c e rn i ng what ki nd of sho t to use t o convey th e act ion of a scene. Wh at de t er mi n es t heir ch o ic e— t h ou g h usually instinctively r a t h er t h an consciously—is the em ot i on al impact of the different pro xe mi c r anges . Each pro xe mi c pat t ern has an a p pro x i ma t e ca me ra equival ent . Th e int ima te distances, for ex am pl e , can be l ikened t o t he close an d extreme close shot ranges . T h e per sonal di st ance i s approx im atel y a m e di u m close r a ng e. Th e social dis tances c or r es po n d to t h e m e d i u m an d full shot r anges . An d th e publ ic dis tances ar e roughly within th e l on g an d extreme long shot ranges . Because o u r eyes identify with t he c ame ra 's lens , i n effect we are pl aced within these r anges vis-a-vis t he subject matter. W h en we ar e off ered a close-up of a character, for exa mp l e , in a sense we feel t hat we ' r e in an inti-m at e r e l a ti onshi p with t hat character. In som e inst ances , thi s t ec hn i qu e can b in d us to t h e character , forcin g us t o care ab o u t h im o r h er a n d to identify with his or he r pro bl em s. If the ch aract er is a villain, t he c lose-up ca n p ro d u ce an e mo ti o na l revuls ion in us; in effect, a t h reat e ni n g cha ra cter seem s to be invadi ng o u r space .

In gen eral , t h e g rea ter t he dis tance between the c am era an d the subject, th e mo re emotion al ly neut ra l we re main. Public p rox emi c ranges t end to en co ura g e a certa i n d e ta ch m en t . Conversely, t he c loser we are to a character, th e m o re we feel that we 're i n proximity with hi m o r he r a nd h e n ce t h e g reat er o u r em oti on al involvement . "Lon g shot for comedy, c lose-up for tragedy" was o n e of Ch apl in ' s most famous pr on o u nc e me n t s . Th e prox em ic principles are sou nd , for wh en we ar e c lose t o an act io n—a perso n sl ipping on a ba n a na peel, for ex ampl e—i t's se ldom funny, because we ar e c o n ce rn ed for th e per son 's safety. If we see th e sam e event from a g re ater dist ance , however, it often strikes us as comical . Chap li n u sed close-ups sparingly for this very reaso n. As l ong as Char lie r em ain s in l on g shots, we t en d to be am use d by his antics an d absurd pred ic amen ts . I n scenes of great er em ot io nal impact , however, Chapl in r esorted to c loser shots, a nd t heir effect is often devastating on t he au di en ce . We sud-denly realize tha t t he situation we've be en l augh in g a t is no lo ng er funny.

Perha ps th e mos t f amous ins tance of th e power of Cha pl in ' s close-ups is fou nd at the concl us io n of City Lights. Charlie has fallen in love with an im pov er ished flower v en do r w h o i s bli nd. Sh e believes h i m to be an eccent ric mill ionaire , a nd o ut of vanity he allows he r to co nt i nu e i n this delus i on. By en ga gi ng in a series o f m o n u m e n t a l labors—love has r e d uc e d hi m to w ork —he m ana ge s to scrap e to g et he r en o u g h m on ey for h er t o receive an op erat i on th at will rest ore h er sight. But he is drag ged off to ja il before she can scarcely th ank him for t he m oney. Th e final scene takes pl ace several m o n t h s la ter. T h e yo u n g wo m an can now see a n d owns h er own m od es t flower sh op. Charl ie is re leased

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

Both these scenes involve a fear of rejection by a woman Charlie holds in awe. The scene from The Gold Rush is predominantly comical. The tr amp has belted his baggy pants with a piece of rope, but he doesn 't realize it is also a dog's leash, and while dancing with the saloon girl, Charlie is yanked to the floor by the jittery dog at the other end of the rope. Because the camera remains relatively distant from the action, we tend to be more objective and detached and we laugh at his futile a ttempt s 'to preserve his dignity. On the other hand, the famous final shot from City Lights isn't funny at all and produces a powerful emotional effect. Because the camera is in close, we get close to the situation. The proxemic distance between the cam-era and the subject forces us to iden-tify more with his feelings, which we can'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 c e n e 8 3

from prison, and disheveled a nd dispi rited, h e m ea n d er s past h er s ho p win-dow. She sees hi m gazing a t h er wistfully an d jokes to an assistant t hat she's app aren tl y m ad e a n ew co nqu es t. O u t of pity she goes o u t t o t he s treet a n d offers him a flower a n d a small coin . Ins tantly, sh e r ecognizes his t ou ch . Hardly abl e to believe her eyes, she can only s tamm er, "You?" In a series of a lt ern ati n g close-ups , their e m ba r rassm e nt i s u nbe ara bl y p ro l on g ed ( 2-33 b) . Clearly, he is not th e idol of h er ro ma nt ic fantasies, a n d he is painfully aware of h e r disap-p oi n tm en t. Finally, h e s tar es a t he r with an express ion of sho cki ng em ot io nal nak edness . Th e film en ds on this image of sublim e vulnerability.

T h e choi ce of a shot is generally d e t er mi ne d by practica l cons idera-tions. Usually, th e d ir ect or selects t he sh ot t hat mos t clearly conveys t he dra-matic acti on of a scene. If t h er e is a conflict bet ween t he effect of cer ta in prox-emic ra nges a nd the clarity n e e d e d to convey what 's go in g o n, mos t fi lmmakers will o pt for c larity a n d gai n th eir emo t io na l imp act t h ro u gh som e o t h er m e ans . But t he re ar e m an y ti mes w he n sho t choi ce isn ' t necessarily d e t e rm i n e d b y functi onal co ns id erati ons .

T h e con cept s of o pe n an d cl osed form s are generally used by ar t histo-rians a nd critics, b ut t hese t erms ca n also be useful in film analysis. Like mo st theoret ical co ns tructs , they ar e best u sed in a re la tive r a th e r t han absol ute sense. Th e r e ar e no movies that ar e compl etely o p e n or c losed in form , only those t hat te n d toward these polar ities. Like o t h e r critical terms , these sh oul d be a ppl ied onl y wh e n they ar e r elevant an d helpful i n u n d er s t an d i n g wha t actu-ally exists in a movie .

O p e n a n d closed forms are two dis tinct at tit udes a b ou t reality. Each has its own stylistic a nd technica l characteris tics. T h e two t erms ar e loosely re l a ted to t he co nce pt s of realism and formalism as they have b ee n def ined in t hese cha pter s . In g eneral , realist fil mmakers t en d t o use op en forms , whereas for-malists lean to war d closed. O p e n forms te n d to be stylistically recessive, whereas closed forms ar e generally self-conscious an d consp icu ous .

In t erms of visual d es ign , o p e n form e mphas i zes i nformal, u nob trus i ve com pos it ions . Often, such im ag es seem t o have no d iscerni ble s t ruct ur e a n d sugges t a r a n d o m form of organi zatio n. Objects an d figures seem to have b een fou nd ra t he r th an deli berate ly a r r an g ed ( 2-35) . Clo sed form emph as ize s a m o re stylized d es i gn. Al t ho ug h such im ag es can suggest a superfic ial realism, seld om do they have t ha t accid en tal , discovered look that typifies o p e n forms . Object s an d figures ar e m o r e precisely place d within t he frame, and t h e bal-an ce of weights is e laboratel y wo rk ed out .

O p e n forms stress ap paren tl y s imp le te chn iq ue s, because with these unself-conscious m et h o d s the fi lmmak er is able to emp ha s ize t he im me di at e , th e familiar, th e in ti mat e aspects o f reality. So met i mes such im ages ar e ph o-t og rap h e d i n only partially con tro ll ed situations, a nd t hese a leat ory con dit ion s

2 - 3 4 . 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 whe n the historical details are too neatly pre sente d an d the characters are posed in a tightly controlled sett ing. Armstrong avoided this pitfall by staging man y of her sc enes in open form, almost like a doc-umen tar y caught on the run. Note how the main character (Keaton) an d her children are almost obscured by the unimporta nt extra at the left. A more formal image would have elim-inated such "distractions" as well as the cluttered right sid e of th e frame and brought the principal characters toward the foreground. Armstron g achieves a mor e realist ic an d sponta-neous effect by deliberately avoiding an "arranged " look in her mise en scene. (MCM/umted Artists)

can p ro d u ce a sense of spo ntane ity a n d dir ect ness that would be difficult to ca pt u re in a rigidly co nt ro ll ed co nt ex t (2-36) .

Closed forms are m o r e likely to em pha s ize th e unfamiliar. Th e images are rich in textura l contr ast s an d com pe ll in g visual effects. Because t he mise en scene is m o re precisely c ont roll e d a n d stylized, th er e is often a del ib erat e artifi-ciality i n these imag es—a sense of visual improbability , of be in g o n e r emo ve from reality. Closed forms also te n d to be m or e densely sat urated with visual in fo rm ati on ; richness of form lakes p rec ed e nc e over c ons i derati ons of sur face realism. If a conflict sh ou ld arise, formal beauty is sacrificed for t rut h in o p e n forms; in c losed forms , on t he o t h er ha n d, litera l trut h is sacrificed for beauty.

Com po s it i on s in o pe n an d closed forms expl oit t he fr ame differently. In open -form im ages , t h e fr ame t ends to be de em ph as i zed . It suggests a win-dow, a t em po rary mask ing, a n d implies t hat m o re i mp o r t an t i nformat io n lies outs ide t he edges of th e com pos i ti on . Spac e is co nt i nu o us in t hese shots, an d to em phas i ze its cont inuity ou ts ide t he frame, di rectors often favor pa n n i n g th eir cam era across t h e locale. T h e sho t seems i n ad eq ua te , to o n ar ro w i n its confines to cont ain th e copi ousness of t he subject matter . Like m an y of the pai nti ngs of Edgar Degas (who usually f avored o p en forms), objects an d even

8 4

2 -35 . The Garden of the Finzi-Continis (Italy, 1970) , with Dominique Sanda (center), directed by Vittorio De Sica. Realist directors are more likely to prefer open forms, which tend to suggest fragments of a larger external reality. Design and composition are generally informal. Influenced by the aes-thetic of the documentary, open-form images seem to have been discovered rather than arranged. Excessive balance and calculated symmet ry are avoided in favor of an intimate and spontaneous effect. Still photos in open form are seldom picturesque or obviously artful. Instead, they suggest a frozen instant of truth—a snapshot wrested from the fluctuations of time. This scene deals with the expor ta tion of Italian Jews to Nazi Germany. Their lives are suddenly thrown into chaos. . (Cinema 5)

figures ar e arbitrarily cu t off by the frame to re inforce t he co ntinu ity of t h e sub-j ec t m at t er be yo nd th e formal ed ges of t h e comp os it io n.

In c losed forms , th e sho t represent s a m ini at ure prosc eni um arch , with all t he necessary informat ion carefully st ruct ured within th e confines of th e fr ame. Space seems enclosed an d self-contained r a t her tha n co nt in uo us . Ele-m ent s ou ts ide the frame are irre levant, a t least in term s of t he formal prop ert ie s of the individual shot , which i s isolated from its cont ext in space an d ti me (2-37).

For these reasons , still p ho t os tak en from movies t hat ar e p red om i -nantl y in o p e n form are n o t usually very pretty. Th e r e i s n ot h i n g intrinsically str ikin g or eye-catching a bo u t t h em . Books ab ou t movies t en d to favor p ho to s i n c losed form becau se they ar e usually m o re obviously beautiful, m o re "com-posed. " Th e b eaut y o f an o pen -form i mag e, on t he o t h er h an d , i s m o r e e lusive. I t can be l ik ene d t o a sna psh ot that miraculously preserves so m e ca nd i d r ar e express ion, a k in d of h ap h aza r d in st ant of t ru t h, a certa i n visual ambiguity.

In op en- form movies, th e d rama ti c action general ly leads t he cam era . In such movies as Faces a n d Husbands, for ex am pl e , John Cassavetes em pha s ize d the fluidity of the c am era as it dutifully follows the actors wherever they wish to

8 5

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 framed, allowing the characters very little room for movement . Open form always suggests an incomplete visual idea, with impor tant information missing or cut off by the unaccommodating frame. Of course, all images have to be cut off somewhere, but in open-form images, the outer edges of the picture often seem inappropriately arbitrary, producing an unbalanced composit ion, as though the tumul-tuous sprawl of the subject matt er was too uncontrolled to be packaged tidily. Often, such scenes are photographed with a han d-held camera to suggest a haphazard, impromptu recording. (Warner Bros.)

go, seeming ly pl aced at thei r disposal. Such films sugges t th at c ha n c e plays an i m p o r t an t role in d et e rm i n i ng visual effects. Needless to say, it 's n o t what actu-ally h ap p e n s on a set that ' s im p or t ant , b ut what seems to be h a p p e n i n g on t he scre en. In fact, m any of t he s implest effects in an op en- form movi e ar e achieved after m u c h pai ns taki ng l abor a nd m ani p ul at io n.

In closed-for m films, on th e o t he r h an d, the ca me ra often antic ipates t he dram ati c action . Objects a nd actors ar e visually blo cked o ut within th e con -fines of a p red e t er mi n e d c ame ra setup . Antic ipatory set up s te nd to imply fatal-ity or d et erm in ism , for in effect, the cam era seems to kn ow what will h ap p e n even before it occurs . In t he films of Fritz Lang, for ex amp le , t he ca me ra often seems to be waiting i n an empt y ro om : The do o r o pen s , t he ch aracter s ent er , an d t he action t he n begins . In so me of Hitchcock' s movies , a charact er is seen a t t he edg e of th e com pos it ion, an d the cam era seems to be place d i n a disadvan-tageou s posi tion, t oo far r emov ed from wh ere the acti on is apparent ly g oin g to occur. But th en the ch arac ter decicies to r e t u rn to th at area whe re th e ca mer a has bee n waiting. Wh en such setups are used, t he au di en ce also ten ds to antici-pat e actions. Instinctively, we exp ect som et hi n g or so m eo n e to fil l in t he visual va cuu m of t he shot. Philosophically, op e n forms te nd to suggest fr eed om of choice , a multiplicity of o pti on s o pe n to the character s. Closed forms, con-

2-37. Another Country (Great Britain, 1984), with Rupert Everett (center doorway), directed by Marek Kanievska. In closed form, the frame is a self-sufficient miniature universe with all the formal el ement s held in careful balance. Though there may be more information outside the frame, for the duration of any given shot this information is visually irrelevant. Closed forms are often used in scenes dealing with entrapment or confinement, such as this shot in which the protagonist is about to be disciplined by his boarding school superiors, (Orion classics)

versely, te nd to imply destiny a nd the futili ty o f the will: Th e ch aracter s d on ' t seem t o ma ke t he i mp o r t a n t decisions; t he c ame ra d oe s— an d in ad vance.

O p e n a n d cl osed forms ar e mo s t effective in movies w he re th ese tech-ni qu es ar e a pp ro pr i a te to t he subject matter. A prison fil m usi ng mostly op e n forms is n o t likely t o be em oti onal ly convi ncing. Mos t movies us e b o t h o p en a nd closed form s, d e p e n d i n g on the specific dram ati c con tex t. Ren oir 's Grand Illusion, for e xa mp l e , uses c losed form s for t h e pr iso n c am p scenes a n d o p e n forms after two o f t he p ri soner s escape.

Like mo s t c in emat ic te chn iq ues , o p en an d closed forms have cer ta in limit ati ons as well a s advant ages. Wh en u sed to excess , o p e n forms can seem sloppy a n d naive , like an artless h o m e movie . Too often, o pe n form s can seem u nc on tro l le d, unfoc used , an d even visually ugly. Occasionally, t hese te ch ni qu es ar e so blandly un obt rus i ve th at the visuals ar e b or i ng. On th e o th e r h a nd , c losed forms can seem arty a nd pret ent i ou s . T h e images are so u ns p o n t an e o u s that thei r visual e le me nt s look c o mp u t e r -p ro gra m m ed . Many viewers ar e t u rn ed off by th e stiff formality of s om e closed-form films. At the ir worst , these movies ca n seem d ecad ent ly overwro ught —al l ic ing an d n o cake.

A systematic mise en scen e analysis of any given sh ot incl ude s t he fol-lowing fi fteen el emen ts :

8 7

a

2- 38 . Full Metal Jacket (Great Britain/U.S.A., 1987), directed by Stanley Kubrick. Even within a single scene, filmmakers will switch from open to closed forms, depending on the feelings or ideas that are being stressed in each individual shot. For example, both of these shots take place during a battle scene in the Vietnamese city of Hue. In (a), the charac-ters are under fire, and the wounded soldier's head is not even in the frame. The form is appropria tely open. The frame functions as a temporary masking device that's too narrow in its scope to include all the relevant information. Often, the frame seems to cut figures off in an arbitrary manner in open form, suggesting that the action is continued off screen, like newsreel footage that was fortuitously photographed by a camera 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 wounded comrade, providing a protective buffer from the outside world. Open and closed forms aren't intrinsically meaningful, then, but derive their signifi-cance from the dramatic context. In some cases, closed forms can suggest ent rapment (2-37) ; in other cases, such as (b), closed form implies security, camaraderie , (wamer Bros.)

b

]W i s e en S c e n e 8 9

1. Dominant. W he r e is o u r eye a tt ract ed first? Why? 2. Lighting key. H ig h key? Low key? Hi g h contras t? So me co mb i na ti o n of

these? 3. Shot and camera proxemics. What type of shot? How far away is t he ca me ra

from t h e action? 4. Angle. Are we ( an d t he ca mera ) l ooki ng up or d own on th e subject? Or

is th e ca me ra ne ut ra l (eye level)? 5. Color values. Wh a t is t he d o m i n a n t color? Are t he re c ont r as ti ng foils? I s

t he re co lor symbolism? 6. Lens/filter/stock. How d o these di sto rt or c o m m e n t on the ph o-

t o gr ap h ed materi als? 7. Subsidiary contrasts. W ha t are t he m ain eye-stops after t akin g i n th e

d o mi n a nt ? 8. Density. Ho w m u ch visual i nfo rm ati o n is p ack ed i nt o the image? Is t he

t ext ure stark, m od e ra t e , or highly detailed? 9. Composition. How is t he two-dimensio nal space se g me nt ed an d organ-

ized? Wh at is t he und er l yi n g des ign? 10. Form. O p e n or c losed? Does t h e im ag e suggest a wi ndow t hat arbitrarily

isolates a f r ag men t of th e scene? Or a p ros cen i um arch, in which t he visual e le me nt s ar e carefully ar r a n ge d a nd he ld i n balan ce?

11. Framing. T ight o r loose? Do t he character s have no ro o m to mov e a ro u nd , or ca n they move freely wi tho ut im pe di me nt s?

12. Depth. On h ow ma ny pl anes is th e im age co mp o sed? Does the back-g ro u n d o r fore gro u nd c o m m e n t in any way on t he m i d gr ou n d?

13. Character placement. Wh at par t of t he f ram ed spac e do t h e character s occupy? Cen ter ? Top? Bo ttom ? Edges? Why?

14. Staging positions. Wh ic h way do the c haract er s look vis-a-vis t he ca mera ?

15. Character proxemics. H ow m u c h space is th er e bet ween the characters?

Th es e visual p rinci ples , with a pp rop r ia t e modif icat ions , can be a ppl ied to any i ma ge analysis. Of cour se , while we ' r e actually watc hing a movi e, m os t of us d o n ' t have th e time or i nclin atio n to exp lo r e all fi fteen el em ent s of mise en scene in eac h shot. Nonet hel ess , by applyi ng t hese pr incipl es to a stil l p h ot o , we can tra in o u r eyes to "r ead" a movie i mage with m o re critical sophis ticati on.

For ex amp le , t he image from M (2-40) is a go o d instance of how form (mise en scene) is actually cont ent . T h e shot takes place ne ar t he e n d of t he movie . A psychotic child-killer (Lorre) has be en h u n t e d down by th e m e mb er s of th e u nd erwo r l d. Th ese " no rm al" criminals have taken hi m to an a b a n d on e d wareho use wh ere they in te nd to prosecu te an d ex ecute th e psychopath for his he in ou s crimes an d in do in g so take the police heat off themselves. In this scene, the killer is conf ront ed by a witness ( cent er ) who holds an i ncr imi nati ng piece of evid ence—a balloon. T h e c o mp o ne n t s o f t he shot incl ude the following:

2-39. Production photo 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 David-son. Many filmmakers insist on using a video assist moni tor on thei r sets as a quick-check device before actually shoot ing a scene on film stock. Stock is more expensive and not nearly so immedia te in t erms of feedback. By photographing a scene with a video camera , the director can correct any problems in the staging and mise en scene.

The actors can check to see if their performances are too subdued or too broad or too what -ever. The c inematographer can preview the lighting and camerawork. And the producers can see if their money is going down the drain. When everyone is satisfied, they can then pro-ceed to shoot the scene on movie stock. The video run-through is like a pre liminary sketch for a finished painting or a dress rehearsal for a stage play. (Columbia Pictures)

1. Dominant. T h e bal loon , th e br ight est obj ect in th e f ram e. W h en th e p h o t o is t u rn ed up s ide do wn a nd co nve rt ed to a p at t ern of abst ract shap es, its d o mi n an c e is m o re readily di scernibl e .

2. Lighting key. Murky low key, with high-contras t spotli ght s on t he bal loo n a n d th e fou r ma in figures.

3. Shot and camera proxemics. T h e shot is slightly m o re dis t an t t ha n a full shot. T h e ca me ra pro xe mi c r ange is social, pe rhap s a b ou t te n feet fro m t he d o mi n a nt .

4. Angle. Slightly hig h, sugges tin g an air of fatality. 5. Color values. T h e movi e is in black an d white . 6. Lens/filter/slock. A s t an dard lens is used , with no ap p a ren t filter. Stan-

d ard slow stock. 7. Subsidiary contrasts. Th e figures of t he killer, the witness, a nd th e two

crim inals in th e u p p e r left. 8. Density. Th e sh ot h as a high de gr ee of dens ity, especially co ns i de ri ng

th e shadowy light ing. Such details as t he t ext ure of the brick walls, t he creases in t h e c lot hing , an d t he expressive faces of t he act ors ar e high-lighted.

9. Composition. T h e i mage is divided i nt o t h ree g ene ra l areas—lef t, center, a nd r ig ht— su gges t in g instabilit y a n d tens ion.

10. Form. Definitely c losed: T h e fr am e suggests a cons tr ic ti ng cell , with no exit for t he pri soner .

j \ \ i s e e n S c e n e

11. Framing. T ight : T h e killer is t r a pp ed in t he same t err i tory with his t hr eat e ni n g accusor s.

12. Depth. T h e i mage is co m p os ed on th ree d e pt h planes : the two figures in t he foreground, the two figures on t he stairs in th e m i d g ro u n d , a nd th e brick wall of t he b a ck gro u nd .

13. Character placement. Th e accusers a nd bal loo n tower above the killer, sealing off any a ven ue of escape, while he cowers below at th e ex t r em e ri ght ed ge , a l mos t falling int o t h e symbolic blackness outs i de th e fr ame.

14. Staging positions. Th e accuser s s tand in a qu ar ter - tu rn posi tion , implying a great er intimacy with us t ha n the mai n charact er, wh o is in th e profile pos ition, tota lly un awa re of an yt hin g b ut his own t er ror .

15. Character proxemics. P rox emics are per sonal bet wee n the fore gro un d character s , th e killer's im m edi a te pro bl em , an d i nti mate bet ween th e m e n o n t h e stairs, wh o function as a do u bl e threat. T h e r an ge betw een t he two pairs is social.

Actually, a c om p le t e mise en scene analysis of a given shot i s even m o re co mpl ex . Ordinar ily, any i conog rap hical e l eme nt s , in addi ti on to a co s tu m e an d set analysis , ar e c on s id ered p ar t of th e mise e n scene . But s inc e th ese ele-m ent s ar e discussed in Cha pt er s 6 an d 7, respectively, we con fine ourselves only to these fifteen formal characteris tics.

In t hese first two ch apter s , we've b ee n co n ce rn ed with t he mos t i mpor -tan t source o f me a ni n g in the movi es—the visual image . But of cour se movies exist in t ime a nd have m any o th er ways of co m mu n i cat i n g informati on. Photog -raphy a nd mise en scene ar e merely two l anguag e systems of many. For this rea-

9 2 M ' s e e n S c e n e

son, a film imag e mus t so meti mes be r es tr a ined or less satu rate d with m ean in g s th an a pai nti ng or still p ho t o , in which all the necessary i nform atio n is con -ta ined within a single imag e. Th e prin ci ples of varia tion an d restr a int exist i n all te mpora l arts. In movies, these principles can be seen in those images that seem rat her u nint erest in g, usually because the d om i n a n t is found elsewhere—i n the music, for ex am ple , or the editing. In a sense , these images ar e visual res t ar eas.

A filmmaker has literally h u n d re d s of different ways to convey m ean -ings . Like t he pa in t er or still ph o to g rap he r , t he movie dir ect or can e mph as i ze visual d o mi n an t s . I n a scene po r tr ayi ng violence, for exa mp le , he o r she can use diag onal a nd zigzagging lines, aggressive colors , close-ups , e xt r e m e angl es , har sh ligh ting contr as ts , u nb a l an ce d com pos it ions , large sh apes , a n d so o n. Unl ike mos t ot h e r visual artists, t he filmmaker can also sugges t violence t h rou g h m o ve me nt , e it her o f th e subject itself, the cam era , or b o t h . Th e f i lm ar tist can sugges t vi ol ence t h ro u g h edi ting, by having o n e sh ot collide with a n o t h er i n a kaleidoscopic explos ion of dif ferent perspectives . Fu r t h er m o re , t h ro u g h th e use of t he sou ndt r ack, vi olence can be conveyed by l ou d or r apid di alo gue, h ar sh so u nd effects, or s t ri dent m usic . Precisely b ecause th ere are so m any ways to convey a given effect, th e filmmaker will vary t he emp has is , some-times stress ing im age, so met im es m o vem en t , o t h e r times so un d . Occasionally, especially i n climactic scenes , all th r ee ar e used a t t he same 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 (Garde n City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976). Filled with intelli -gen t insights.

DoNDIS, DONIS A., A Primer of Visual Literacy (Cambridge , Mass., a nd Lo nd on, England: Th e M.I.T. Press, 1974). Primarily on design and composition.

DYER, RICHARD. The Matter of Images (London and New York: Routledge, 1993). Th e ideologi-cal implications of images.

FREEBURG, VICTOR O., Pictorial Beauty on the Screen (New York: Macmillan, 1923). A discussion of the convention s of classical composition .

HALL, EDWARD T., The Hidden Dimension (Gard en City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1969). How hu mans 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 Califor-nia Press, 1966).

SOMMERS, ROBERT, Personal Space (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969). How individu-als use a nd abuse space.