- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 2 days ago by
.
-
Topic
-
-
Replies
-
Not Roger, but it could be as straight forward as the writing in the script. For example it may (script) indicate that the character is watching his two children playing outside in the garden, to which you probably don’t want to blow out the windows — But there’s no hard/fast rule. You could blow out the shot in one shot and see through it 2 shots down the line.
Thanks!
Well, if you need to see through the window or if you are obliged to blow it out (because it’s a set or anyway the background is not the right one) the choice is forced. But when you have two options (blow it out or not) it’s an artistic choice, and i find interesting to understand how the choice is made.
In my little short i’ve got a shot with a window, it turned not so bad after all but it’s quite boring. I tried to blow it out a little the window in post production and the shot became more visually interesting. I’m learning on the way and i’m going by instinct (a nice way to say i actually know nothing about what i’m doing, ah ah! 😀 ) so i’d like to understand how real cinematographers decide what to do in these cases.
I see and misread your previous “(in case of both options)”. I think it would come down to instinct. If you see yourself blowing out the window every single time if both options present themselves, and you visually agree with that more, then listen to your instinct.
I think it largely comes down to taste, script and the mood and placing the characters in a believable world.
Watch the scene of Inglorious Basterds where Christopher Waltz is interrogating a farmer who’s “sheltering enemies of the state”. There are moments where we actually see the “outside” world through the windows. Would it feel different to you if the windows were blown out instead? Or does it give us a sense of place.
I’m sure Roger and even David have better answers though. Just adding my .02
Thanks Tyler! I appreciate your inputs! I agree with you, it has to do with how the character (and in general the scene) relates to the outside world.
While i like the effect of (at least partially) blown out windows what actually makes me curious is this famous shot by Roger, the coin scene in No Country for Old Men. That window was a perfect candidate to be blown out (a dramatic scene, the warm tones of the landscape, the actor perfectly framed within the window, etc) but Roger did not. And of course the scene is perfect as it is. Knowing when not to do something is even more important than knowing when to do that, i think.
So, trying to understand why he did not blow out that window my answer is that the thresher (or whatever it is) in the background is important, for example to visually emphasize for this character the background of a pacific country man, while a blown out window would have separated him from his world (and in that scene the connection between that man and his world is important).
Or simply Roger likes tractors.
Hello Luca!
This question was asked in the past in the older forums, and the answer from Mr. Deakins was so “simple” that when I did read it, I did realize how “simple” can be a talent.
Basically, the answer was: If you (in that case was Mr.Deakins) think that the background is something related to the scene and add narrative informations to the story, maybe you have to show it.
If, for some reason (practical reason, I think among others), your exterior view is not related to the story, maybe you can think of diffusing and go for “blow out effect” not to be “distracting” or even subtract narrative layers to the story.This is what I remember about this question, and for me, it was really gold to think about this.
Apologize for my bad English. Hope my cent can be helpful.
Max.Grazie Max! 🙂
I see examples of what you wrote in many movies in effect, even if i think most of the times the practical aspect is quite relevant. Anyway, this discussion helped me make my mind around my shot, not only about the blowing out but also in terms of relationship between character and everything else, it’s an area in which i need to really improve in my directing skills (not that it will require a lot of effort, given that my skills are close to zero).
Grazie Max! 🙂
I see examples of what you wrote in many movies in effect, even if i think most of the times the practical aspect is quite relevant. Anyway, this discussion helped me make my mind around my shot, not only about the blowing out but also in terms of relationship between character and everything else, it’s an area in which i need to really improve in my directing skills (not that it will require a lot of effort, given that my skills are close to zero).
Ideally you are making the decision based on story reasons — does the background add any important narrative detail or set the appropriate mood for the performance to play against, or is it distracting to the story and performance (keep in mind that a hot window can also be distracting sometimes.) And if (a big “if”) realism is important for the story, does the balance between the interior and exterior feel believable, natural?
But the truth is that often you are also taking into account logistical issues. Will the real background keep changing throughout the day as you film coverage, creating matching issues? Is the background correct for the period of the story (maybe there is some anachronistic element that needs to be de-emphasized)? Is the background correct at all (maybe the location is a cheat for another location)? Can the background be shot at the correct time of day for the story or will you be filming past sunset into dusk for a day scene? How much control do you actually have over that background (maybe you’re in a skyscraper on the 50th floor and the windows are too large to gel)?
And then there are similar practical considerations. Will the background always stay in the background or will the actor move to the window and be followed by the camera, making the background more prominent?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.