What's new

The Cinematography Discussion #1 (1 Viewer)

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Something to note regarding this technique. Compare the effect to the straight slow zoom in.

Slow zoom in usually represents inner thought for the character in focus or perhaps them feeling intensity or pressure in the moment. Sometimes it can be to intensify the person with the audience, usually if the character is speaking, but this is also often done with an inward tracking shot instead.

By adding the reverse tracking (zoom in/track out or vice versa) the element of thought or intensity remains, but it is now spiced with discomfort, estrangement, a sense of uneasiness.

This is the language of film, of course. I'm sure many of the readers in this thread are more attuned to it than the average viewer, but I think sometimes the casual fan might disregard a notion such as "language of film" as some pompous arty BS idea.

But it's not. The conventions of certain shots and techniques become almost phrases and idioms that all viewers come to understand instinctively.

In this case think about the effect of switching to a normal zoom. You have a two shot of DeNiro and Liotta, a typical conversation/situation for the characters to normally be in, and a typical type of shot for such a normal conversation. The conversation, the bond, the interaction is the center of the frame at this point, before switching to 180 degree cuts back and forth between talking close ups.

So if the film sits static, it's just a conversation, it's comfortable and friendly. Change to the slow zoom and it becomes an intense conversation, but one in which both parties are intense. Their conversation becomes important, but both characters are active and intense in the scene. While it could be an argument, it tends to be more neutral seriousness, perhaps the details of a deal or plan. In a romance it could be the romantic connection being made. Even here it could be friendship growing.

But go back to the way it's done (zoom in/track back - the background helps give that away), and the situation becomes very odd. It feels discomforting to many people to even see such a shot, almost inducing dizziness. That makes this typical moment (though the voice over tells us differently too) very non-typical. It is intense in a way that is out of control. It makes the DeNiro/Liotta friendship feel suddenly wrong, bad even.

Were it just the zoom then Liotta maintains control, perhaps even dominance of the situation in our minds. After all the VO effect tells us that he knows all the angles, he is on top of it. Add the slow zoom to that and you have Pacino in the Godfather getting ready for his counter-attack right under the nose of his enemy. He becomes the most dangerous element.

Instead, the situation is out of his control and that shot gives us that feeling. We literally might even want to reach out and stop the camera from doing this odd movement to regain control ourselves.

So Liotta knows what's going on, but he has no idea how to handle it.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Seth has gotten the wheels turning for me. I started thinking about when I have seen various versions of the "Vertigo" counter zoom effect and how they were done. I've wondered if there is much of a difference between track out/zoom in and track in/zoom out. As Seth points out, they both create uneasiness, but I wonder if they do it in different ways, and why do they create uneasiness in the first place?

I think it has a lot to do with familiarity, Tracking shots are very familiar. After all, when you walk down the street, you are "tracking." Zooming shots are familiar, at least they have become familiar, so maybe they don't create uneasiness. The counter zoom is so completely unnatural in many ways, maybe it can only cause uneasiness. Usually, it is used quickly, like in Vertigo for a sudden jolt, but it was used in the scene mentioned in Goodfellas for a slow revelation and increasing discomfort.

So, I wonder if there is a difference in the emotional result of zoom in/track out and zoom out/track in. The first results in less visible background and might serve to isolate the subject more, while the second results in more visible background. Maybe the first is better for the sudden realization that someone is not who they were thought to be and probably dangerous, while the second is better for the sudden realization that things are not as simple as previously thought and the subject is the bringer of this revelation, and not necessarily dangerous. Maybe something has been written about this.
 

Andy Olivera

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
1,303
I agree about the track in/zoom out variety being used often for moments of realization. The appearance of the actor remains the same, while the background spreads out. That's consistent with realization, as when you realize something you're view or knowledge is expanded.

With the track out/zoom in shot, the background remains the same, while the character appears to move into it. I'm not really sure to what this could be equated.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Actually Andy, not to be a stickler, but with a track out/zoom in shot the background does change. It has to. Just as much as the opposite move, it's just in the opposite direction.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Certainly in normal life a person won't experience the visual effect of the "opposite direction info" coming in. Unless you are using a teloscope or something while walking. ;)
So I think that blows out the brain's visual cues first off. That's most likely the source of uneasiness and even dizziness.
I agree that the expansion of the surroundings does tend to be used for realization.
But again, doesn't it seem like this is the "mind blowing" realization, as opposed to the zoom shift in, as seen in "M" as the police detective comes to an understanding (forget the exact subject now). It's not a fast zoom, but it's definately racked to a 2nd point and as fast as someone walking toward the character.
That sort of realization seems much more in control to me. Like a detective putting the pieces together in a smart way, rather than suddenly being devastated by some sudden new awareness.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Are you sure that was a zoom in M Seth? I don't think there were any zoom lenses at that time. I don't have the disc to check.
 

Nathan V

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Messages
960
Let's not forget the world famous Goodfellas 'restaurant shot,' a tracking shot which lasts OVER FOUR MINUTES!

Also, in Casino, there's the track/pan/zoom/handheld shot of the fat man entering the counting room at the beginning, which doesn't cut for 3 minutes. Both very, very impressive. Imagine the rehearsal for both cast and crew, given the sheer number of actors in each shot, and the sophisticated camera moves.

Scorsese has some of the best cinematography in his films.

I don't know who DP'd Goodfellas, but in Casino it's Robert Richardson (of JFK fame) and in Taxi Driver it's Michael Chapman.

great discussion.

Regards, Nathan
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John


You're right. You almost lost me for a minute though. I couldn't remember which one you were talking about. You mean the one at the Copacabana. Of course, that isn't actually a "tracking" shot, since there are no tracks or truck. It is Steadicam. Good work too on both those scenes. A lot of planning to pull those off.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
I'm a little bored and thought I'd bump this puppy........

Hopefully, there will be another thread....sometime......
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Bumping this thread in preparation for the second discussion to come soon.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,816
Messages
5,123,864
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top