Revolutionary road (13 replies and 7 comments)
Dear master roger in first frame helen and april both of them make conversation about his son. Most of the shots from April OTS and the scene ended up with singles. I assume the whole scene was april perspective only and also audience want to observe as April. Right? Second image when frank wheeler and Maureen sitting on hotel. Why did you make them with little short focal length? Could you remember the focal length?
2. Maureen and frank meet on hotel. I assume this is kind of secret matter. That's why you have made this shot wide view?
That moment when you accidentally reveal that you're a pirate. Come on buddy - you can afford to rent!
3. April standing in road and thinking about past house searching. In this case she is watching the road. The shot made back of her totally. Why didn't you just show her frontal?
I think you need to consider what effect each shot had for you. You are on the right track when you talk about perspective.
Probably frank and Maureen meet secrecy. That's what you made long shot. Could you tell what focal length did you use for second shot. I assume answers hidden in my questions!
Master roger what about climax scene. When april admitted in hospital. Frank telling about april was unconscious. This is purely very sentimental and emotions scene. But you have composed wide shot when frank crying, could you tell why?
I think we made that shot to be a little observational. The book, on which the film is based, is almost a documentary report on suburbia. The shot observes 'human behavior' from a distance.
We are talking about hospital scene only right? Can we make the audience little observational in long shot whilst important character get emotions.But you were told Over the shoulder shot only would give observational.
The film has very strong thematic (and story) resemblance to Bernsteins opera 'Trouble in Tahiti' (premiere 1952). Was the opera discussed while preparing the film?
Trouble in Tahiti is the story of one day in the life a desperately unhappy, married people (Dinah and Sam), lonely, longing for love, and unable to communicate.
Quote from the libretto:
"up-to-date kitchen, washing machine, colorful bathrooms, Life magazine, Sheraton sofa, Chippendale chair, bone chinaware, real solid silver, two-door sedan and convertible coupe – Who could ask heaven for anything more?"
Regarding an over the shoulder shot. Yes, it feels to me that an over the shoulder shot is more observational than a single of a character with their eyeline close to the camera. That doesn't negate a wide shot, made on a slightly longer lens and with foreground, also being observational. But all these things are subjective and each film maker has different ways of doing things.
Apologize asking again master. The shot observe human behaviour from the distance regarding the frank and Shep conversation in hospital or frank and Maureen restaurant meet?
In this same movie frank and april can't raise the child. They are talking about pregnancy. In this shot april asking to frank. Do you really want another child? What focal length did you use for this shot. I assume 35mm. Why did you leave the april image out of focus when she talk about the child? Treating a character out of focus is kind of another aesthetic tool for cinematographer?
To me this shot shows that Frank is closing himself off for April. Turning his back to her and focussed on himself.
It might seem a little far-fetched: one could even say his dark side is getting the better of him.
Yes, that is right. The story is about two characters and the perspective changes from one to another. Here it was more interesting to be 'with' Frank.
In the restaurant the wide shot is there to establish the clandestine nature of their meeting rather than being strictly 'observational'.
Thanks master roger. I am little happy about restaurant meet shot. When I watch the shot i found wide shot purpose for their secret meet. And one thing I can't understand why frank runs down the street after he lost april.
Also, I think the other thing to consider is the context of the shots. What comes before and after because out of context, as an image, it can feel observational when it may in-fact not be.
Yes, context is everything. A still photograph has to tell a story in a single frame. What is so interesting about film is the juxtaposition of images and how they build into something that can mean so much more than they do by themselves. More often a film is just a jumble of shots, a jumble of coverage, which is why the work of a Melville or a Tarkovsky or a Zvyagintev or a Kubrick or a Bresson really stands out. I wish I understood the way images work the way they do.