5

More boring grammar

 

Interviews are television at its least complicated. Yet without appreciating the pitfalls and having a basic grasp of television grammar they are stunningly easy to get wrong, either on location or in the studio. Interviews are only the beginning.

Crossing the line

There is nothing harder to explain in words than the grammar of crossing the line of action or the optical barrier as it is often described. There is also nothing easier to demonstrate, by design or by accident. The beginner need not stay awake at night wrestling with the abstract concept since observing a few simple rules can avoid serious trouble. Crossing the line is an unforgivable sin only in the eyes of a complete purist; there are ways of getting away with it when nobody will notice. But every director must be aware at all times of the risks involved. As with most direction problems the root is not the technology of the medium but the psychology of the audience.

The brain is wired to recognize the difference between left and right. Without that we would be perpetually disorientated. The idea comes from the fact that one human can only be in one position looking in one direction at one time. The trouble is that although one person has always the same left and a right there are many different lefts and rights presented by the rest of the world. We stand behind someone and his or her left and right are the same as our own. The person turns to face us. As far as he or she is now concerned our left hand is the other's right hand and vice versa. Left and right are subjective. To illustrate this let us imagine a road in Britain with a bus approaching (we have to specify in Britain because the bus will be on the left-hand side of the road). Person A and person B are facing each other on opposite sides of the

road waiting to cross. A looks left at the bus approaching on the far side whilst B looks to the right at the same bus coming on the near side. A recognizes that it is safe to start crossing at least as far as the middle of the road, B can see that it is unwise to step off the pavement until it has passed. There is no problem for the individuals. A sees the action happening from left to right; B sees it from right to left. But let us assume that by some paranormal telepathic process we can suddenly switch their viewpoints between A and B. Person B will perceive the approaching vehicle coming from the left and, on the far side of the road, will happily step off the kerb looking the wrong way, and be promptly mown down.

This is the stuff of nightmares. Unless we are hallucinating we simply cannot do this. But a television director can. Substitute two cameras for person A and B and we have the two opposing viewpoints. So far so good until we start cutting between the two. Now in alternate shots the same bus is travelling first right to left, then left to right, first it is near then it is on the other side of the road. Ultimately it will either pass itself or meet itself in a head-on collision. Too much of this will give the viewer a nervous breakdown. The equivalent effect can easily occur by accident. A simple illustration is a football match. An easy way of shooting a game with two cameras might be to place one on each side of the pitch. Unhappily the cameras will have crossed the optical barrier. The play will be going in diametrically opposite directions on each camera. When the director cuts between them the direction of play reverses at each cut until there is complete visual confusion. Every goal is going to look like an own goal, except the real own goals. Only the colours of the shirts will give the poor viewer the slightest idea of what is going on. In monochrome the game would make no more sense that a disturbed ants' nest.

The humble one-plus-one interview can run into trouble. We have established that the way to shoot this is cross shooting with the cameras as close as possible to the eyelines of the participants. There is an invisible line of action which to all intents passes between the two noses. Any pictures shot within 180° on the same side of the two will look natural. On each cut the two will appear to be looking in each other's direction as in a normal conversation. However, if one camera should stray behind one performer and across to shoot over the far shoulder the far

shoulder the shots become ridiculous. On each cut the two participants will no longer be facing each other but will seem to be sitting behind each other as if on a bus.

Take this one stage further to the traditional cinema sequence of the High Noon style gunfight. So long as the two cameras remain on the same side of the street the two gunslingers will advance closer with every cut. When the bad guy in the black hat draws his pistol only to fall to his knees in a pool of blood we know that the good guy in the white hat has been the faster. Now if the two cameras set up on opposite sides of the street the two gunslingers appear to follow each other along the road and at the moment of truth, with a close-up of the bad guy's hand going for the gun followed by a long shot of the same bad guy falling slain, it will look for all the world as though he has just shot himself in the back. In conclusion, so long as the cameras stay on the same side of the 180° line of action all ought to be well. Up to a point that is. The complication is that the line can keep changing and sometimes there is more than one line!

Let us look at a table-top demonstration. Logic tells us that if there is a line of action the table top is like a football field and that so long as all the cameras stay somewhere within an arc in front of the table all the shots should cut and all will be well. If this was to be nothing but a game of table-top football this would be the case. But the presence of the demonstrator introduces a new line. The demonstrator is talking direct to the viewer. The viewer is one-half of an interview set-up. There is a line of action running between these two noses, the one in vision and the one watching.

This is easier shown on camera than explained simply because the brain has difficulty coping with something which it is conditioned to regard as impossible. Consider a demonstration shot on two cameras. If camera one is the traditional mid-shot ‘chat’ camera and camera two offers close-ups from either left or right there is no problem. Any two shots will cut. Now introduce a third camera. If the work surface is very cluttered with props the temptation will be to place camera two at one end of the table and camera three at the other.

The shot of the demonstrator on camera one will cut with either of the shots on the other two cameras. But the two other cameras are as surely facing each other as the two people facing each other across the street as the bus approaches. Try to intercut cameras two and three and objects will jump back and forth across the screen, and if the demonstrator comes into successive shots there will be alternate left and right profile shots and the same hand coming once left to right and then right to left Finally, to add to the confusion, let us introduce a fourth camera to take shots over the shoulder. The images are coming from all four points of the compass. Randomly cut between them and complete confusion is guaranteed. The only sure fire way of keeping out of trouble will be to keep all four cameras within a mere 90° arc of the demonstrator, to one side or the other. The trouble with playing it that safe is whilst television grammar will be maintained it may now be impossible to get all the shots the director wants. So it is going to be inevitable from time to time that the director must be prepared to throw away the rules and find ways to cross the dreaded optical barrier.

What must be clear is:

1 The director does it knowingly, not finding it a horrid shock in the studio or the editing suite.

2 It is done in a way that does not disorientate and annoy the viewer.

3 If it is done as a deliberate effect it should be recognizable as one and not look like the director's mistake.

The same old message. Break all the rules you like but know when and why you are doing it.

Crossing the line can be made to pass unobserved by the viewer.

1 As it is always possible to cut from any of the close-ups, except the over-the-shoulder one, to the mid-shot or long shot of the demonstrator it is always safe to cut this master shot between the close-ups. Although safe this might result in a ping-pong directing style like close-up-mid-shot-close-up-mid-shot-close-up. This should not happen if as a result of the rehearsal the props on the work surface are sensibly grouped so that all the close-ups during one section come all from the same end of the table.

2 The closer the close-up the less worrying the crossing of the line will appear. If something as small as a matchbox fills the screen and a finger tip appears in shot to indicate it, nobody is likely to notice that the hand was moving right to left in the mid-shot but the finger tip reappeared descending left to right in the close-up.

3 The greater the difference the camera angle between the two shots the less any lack of continuity will be noticed. As we will explain the eye and the brain will happily accept cuts of quite contrasting kinds and a cut between a high angle wide shot and a low angle close-up of an object will disguise any incidental line crossing. For this reason the over-the-shoulder shot can be made to work. By its nature it is likely to be both at an exaggerated high angle and offering a big close-up of the action. What would not work would be a mid-shot from the front cut to a similar mid-shot from behind.

Accidental crossing of the line ought to be difficult in any rehearsed studio production simply because any problem should be immediately obvious on the camera monitors. Just switching between cameras will conclusively prove whether cuts will work or not. With single camera work when there are pauses between each set-up and actions are shot out of sequence things can be more tricky. The shooting of reverse-angle questions and cutaways is a case in point. If the eyeline of the interviewer is not the opposite to that of the guest the line will have been crossed. The two will appear to be looking in the same direction with the one talking to the back of the head of the other. Walking shots can be a menace when one is to be cut to another.

If our interview is to start walking in front of a stately home in the first set-up and continue at the stable block in the second one the convention is for the performers to walk through the frame and disappear left or right and for them to reappear moving apparently in the same direction in the following picture. But if the camera crosses the line they will seem to have walked out of shot to the left and immediately returned from the same direction as though they had walked into a wall or remembered they had left something behind. If performers exit camera left normally we expect them to re-enter from camera right.

There are ways of minimizing or disguising the problem.

1 Shots moving from left to right or vice versa will always cut to shots of the performers moving straight towards or away from the camera. These are neutral shots and can be used to reverse a line of action. They are frequently used to bridge left to right and right to left movements in car chases.

2 An extremely high angle shot will establish a new geography and disguise line crossing.

3 Salvation in the editing suite is found in well-chosen cutaway shots. The location director should never return without having made time for shooting as many as possible.

Certain types of studio programme frequently involve line crossing. The sort of debate involving a panel of guests and a large participating studio audience is a case in point. Even with a multiplicity of cameras there are going to be times when the optical barriers are confused. Different lines apply when the guests on the stage debate amongst themselves, the audience argues to and fro, a presenter walks amongst the crowd with a microphone and when the audience and a member of the stage panel have an altercation. So long as there are repeated reminders of the real geography of the set-up, like wide shots of the audience from the stage or a wide angle of the whole studio from the back, the audience will forgive and forget any visual confusion. Nonetheless

the convention of not crossing the line should be observed as far as possible. If the rules are ignored completely it will soon appear incomprehensible who is talking to whom; members of the panel will be seen talking to the backs of each other's heads or facing in opposite directions and audience shots from alternative sides of the studio will result in a visual anarchy.

Moving cameras

The interview and demonstration set-ups are most easily covered by static cameras. Interviewers, interviewees and demonstrators are normally static. A whole new dimension is added when either the camera or the subjects of the camera become wholly mobile. A camera shot can move in two possible ways. It can physically be transported from place to place to change the picture.

1 It can track, meaning to move physically towards or away from the subject.

2 It can crab, or move sideways normally to follow a move.

3 It can elevate, meaning go up on its camera mount. Also called craning up.

4 It can depress, which is to go down on the mount. Also called craning down.

Or it can appear to move by a lens effect.

1 It can pan, which entails swivelling the camera left or right on a static mounting.

2 It can tilt or swivel up or down.

3 It can zoom, which is an optical lens effect to widen or narrow the angle of view.

How many of these moves can be achieved depends on the mount. A tripod is limited to moving the lens. Any decent pedestal or other studio camera mounting can achieve all of these basic effects. A really good operator will use various combinations of all these moves in combination to achieve the best possible framing of the shots. For example, a zoom from a long shot to a close-up should involve a pan at the same time to adjust the composition. A track-in may involve a simultaneous tilt up with a pan left or right. Shots combining the different elements are known as developing shots. They are best done so subtly that the audience is not aware of their existence. Any feature film or good quality television drama will employ developing shots throughout. It is important for the director of any sort of production though to be quite clear about the difference between the different moves. A zoom can achieve a very similar framing to a track, and craning up can do something similar to a tilt but the actual effects can be very different.

Tracking, crabbing and craning are difficult to do well by the camera operator but are all easy on the eye. We can know what it feels like to walk towards something, or circle around it and we know how to stand up and peer over a wall. Because the camera reproduces something like normal every day experience there is only confusion if the moves themselves are not sensible. Some directors have a fatal fascination with 360° tracking shots around a performer which serve no apparent purpose at all. Hunting hyenas may circle their prey but such behaviour at a party might draw attention to itself. American television directors seem to lump together each of these different camera moves as a ‘dolly’. The main moving camera problems arise with panning, tilting and zooming.

The pan

The human head can pan, but the eyes can not. Eyes can only cut. The point is easily proved. Watch anyone looking out of the window of a moving train. Rather than keep a fixed stare as the landscape pans past, the eyes constantly flicker side to side, taking a series of rapid snapshots. When a head pans across a landscape the eye flickers from point of interest to point of interest as the eye and brain select and focus on them. One of the big differences in the experience of going to the cinema and watching on a normal domestic television is that the cinema screen is large enough for the eye to flit around wide-angle shots and select points of interest. The small scale and low quality domestic TV set does not allow this luxury. In consequence the television pan is an unnatural move. It works painlessly though if well done. That means using it to reveal new visual information and allow the viewer to interpret the move as a series of mental cuts.

1 If a pan is too fast it confuses the eye. The very fast ‘whip pan’ reduces the image to a blur. This can be used as a deliberate dramatic effect. A normal pan done too fast can produce a strobing effect on the television screen, particularly in the case of close-ups and shots with a high contrast between the back and foregrounds. On older generation video cameras there can even be a smearing effect on the picture.

2 If a pan is too slow it becomes dreary. If there is not new information revealed at a comfortable rate and the eye has nothing new to stimulate it there is a subconscious urge to cry out ‘get on with it will you!’ Unless the subject is the limitless tedium of the Empty Quarter or the Siberian wastes the slow pan is to be treated with caution.

3 There is no point of a pan from one subject to another if there is nothing informative in between. If the background in the middle of a pan is irrelevant or distracting it is better to do what the eye does and cut straight from A to B.

4 A pan has to have a beginning and an end. If the camera starts to pan it will automatically be assumed that it is doing so to reveal something of great interest. If it goes nowhere in particular but comes to rest just because the operator cannot find anything more interesting to focus on the viewer might want to ask if the journey was really necessary.

Tilting up and down raises the same problems though normally in less acute ways. A tilt up is one way of approximating the way we appraise each other to take in status, and particularly sexual attraction. (Men and women do size each other up in a predictable series of anatomical ‘shots’ though they do not invariably start at the ankles and progressively move to the face or vice versa.) A tilt is a good way of giving the impression of grandeur in the case of a towering building or forest tree. Because of the incompatibility of vertical human proportions and the oblong television screen the pan up or down may be the only available way to portray subjects like models in fashion shows.

The zoom

Neither the eyes nor the brain can zoom. The zoom was never intended to be used as an optical effect but was a device for combining the possibilities of a whole range of fixed angle lenses in a single optical unit. Even then it was never welcomed by serious film cinematographers who continue in most cases to prefer fixed lenses. Technical design problems of video cameras rather than artistic requirements gave the zoom its dominance. Zooming in vision is a dramatic effect which tends to draw attention to itself. So it is either best deliberately used for that purpose or avoided. The distinguishing mark of amateur home movies is the incessant use of the zoom, generally combined with endless and aimless pans.

A zoom is not the same as a track. With a track-in the angle of view remains constant and as the camera moves, any foreground passes on either side and the background simultaneously changes perspective to reveal or conceal visual information. A zoom simply changes the angle of view, selecting a part of a picture and dragging it towards the viewer (or the reverse). There is not often an excuse for showing a zoom in a properly equipped studio. St is most noticeable in very low budget talk shows and is more to do with the disinclination of the camera operators to move from one spot than the creativity of the director.

A location unit with a single camera and a tripod may have no alternative to using the zoom to follow action. The question must always be asked whether it is necessary to show the zoom movement or whether cuts between static frames will do the job more neatly. Zooms, combined with other moves are common in developing shots which are part and parcel of filming drama. The essence is that they should be completely unobtrusive to the audience and used as a subtle way to tighten or loosen shots. Once they become obvious the suspension of disbelief that naturalistic drama depends on can be shattered.

Since the zoom is a visual trick it is something easily done as a digital video effect in post production. It is also susceptible to all sorts of fun and games. Zooming in and simultaneously tracking out, or vice versa, in an amusing trick much copied since Stephen Spielberg's film Jaws. The subject remains the same size in the frame whilst the background appears to zoom. To get the timing right the director must allow for interminable takes and get a very patient camera operator.

Moving people

As cameras and lenses can move in relation to performers so the performers can move in relation to cameras. The director now has a range of new problems to consider before selecting a lens angle and a camera position. Just as the choice of an angle of view can change the perspective and appearance of static characters in a landscape so a similar choice can affect the impression of speed and excitement once the subjects begin to move.

Recall the main considerations for setting up a static shot:

1 Camera position in relation to the subject

2 Camera height and angle of view

3 Lens angle and depth of field

4 Whether successive shots will cut

Now consider the possibility of the performer no longer static but coming towards the camera or moving across the frame from side to side.

The narrower the angle of view the less the depth of field. So if a performer or vehicle comes directly towards the lens he or it will rapidly pass in and out of focus. If the subject is going to stay sharply defined the camera operator will have to ‘pull focus’, i.e. constantly adjust the focus throughout the length of the walk. This is a measure of a good cameraman. Even so pulling focus is not something to be done unrehearsed and is only reliably done if the camera operator has an assistant to manipulate the focus ring during the move. Matters are even more complicated with a long walk towards camera as the operator will have to adjust the framing by subtle tilting and zooming at the same time. However, the move towards the narrow-angle lens creates some interesting effects. Since both foreground and background will be mostly out of focus the viewer will have very little reference to the speed of the approach. At the furthest end of a telephoto lens the resulting shot can resemble slow motion.

A shot often seen is of an aeroplane taking off filmed from the end of a runway. For obvious reasons the director will prefer to be as far back as possible, and to frame the plane from its starting position the camera will be low down. The foreground will be partly out of focus and distorted by heat haze and aviation fuel fumes from the tarmac. As the aeroplane takes off it will be thundering towards the camera at several hundred miles an hour but will appear quite differently. The relative increase in size in the frame from start to finish will develop incredibly slowly. Without other points of reference in focus the aircraft will seem almost to hover until the final moments when it fills the frame or rises overhead.

A similar popular shot is of a crowd from a high vantage point on the narrowest angle lens. On a static shot the crowd pass in and out of focus as a sea of bobbing heads. When the intention is to follow one figure in the crowd the operator has to follow focus and adjust the framing to hold the subject sharp whilst the swirling movement around moves in and out of a blurred fore- and background. There is a dreamlike effect created.

There is yet another complication to introduce. Depth of field also depends on the amount of light available. The smaller a camera aperture the greater the depth of field, but also the greater amount of light needed to record the image. The aircraft and crowd scenes described will need a reasonable depth of field if the cameraman is to have any chance of holding focus. So the best bet is to choose a bright sunny day. Conversely there could be too much light around to create the desired mood. A sharply defined background may be the last thing desired. In which case there has to be an alternative means of reducing the light and enabling the camera to use a very small aperture. Video cameras come with what are called neutral density filters built in, film cameras have a matte box which is a filter holder in front of the lens. Using neutral density (ND) filters the operator can effectively put sun glasses on the camera.

Shooting an approaching subject on a long lens seems to slow things down. Shooting on a wide-angle lens has precisely the opposite effect. In this case our camera on the runway will portray the aircraft as a merest dot on the horizon. The perspective drawing of the runway will be such as to appear filling the full width of the frame in the foreground and narrowing to a point of infinity. The impression is increased by the tapering of the two straight, parallel sides and possibly navigation lights along the middle. Everything will be in sharp focus. As the plane takes off it will appear to travel even faster than in reality, it will start as a dot and end by filling the entire picture. A runway is not the most opportune place to try this as on a wide angle the camera might have to be placed uncomfortably close to the approaching aircraft, but this wide-angle shot is particularly popular for filming railways. The trains appearing to race towards the camera and finish either roaring past or even passing overhead. If safety regulations allow, half bury a camera in the shingle between the sleepers or alongside the track. Do not expect the camera operator to stay with it.

Car chases gain a lot of excitement from wide-angle shots combined with low camera positions. A car approaching at 20 miles per hour can appear to be travelling at 70. A crash or accident can be portrayed by cutting just as the approaching vehicle fills the wide-angle frame and dubbing suitable sound effects.

So much for performers and vehicles coming towards narrow- or wide-angle lenses. If the action is across the screen the reverse conditions apply. Anything going across the screen on a wide angle seems slowed down. Anything going across the screen on a narrow-angle lens seems speeded up.

On a wide angle a figure only a dozen or so metres away will appear as a small figure taking ages to cross a wide horizon. This can be a very useful shot because of the depth of field involved. A shot could start with a vast but clearly defined panorama of desert or jungle which a presenter, physically close to the camera position, can enter whilst holding forth, cross frame slowly and exit without the audience's attention ever wavering from the geography. But if the performer were to run across the shot for dramatic reasons the effect would be very tame.

Contrariwise our runner shot running across frame from a distant camera position on a narrow-angle lens appears to be travelling amazingly fast. To hold the shot the camera will have to pan with the performer. Because of the angle any background will pass through shot at great speed. Psychologically we judge speed forward by the apparent reverse speed of a background. Remember the disorientation you feel when sitting in a stationary railway carriage and another train alongside starts to pull away. There is a sudden panic-inducing sensation that it is the stationary carriage which is on the move. The impression will be heightened because not only will the background to our runner be racing past but it will also appear as an out-of-focus blur.

Shooting a static or slowly walking performer on the narrow-angle end of the lens through foreground activity can be used to convey an impression of a busy environment. Much of the background will remain in distant focus but any foreground activity will rush through shot as a blur. Shooting performers across a busy street with passing crowds and foreground buses can create a great impression of frantic activity. The more complex the shot the greater the potential problems for the camera and, just as important, for the sound. The ‘how do you see it?’ type of ignorant director who leaves everything to the camera crew is matched by the know-all who insists on shots that are plainly impossible for the conditions and time available. At the end of the day the director is the boss, but camera crews merit consideration and consultation.

A careful choice of shots can bring quality to the most mundane story and immediately distinguishes the professional director from the slapdash one.

Canted angles and other obsessions

Some directors seem to show a peculiar penchant for employing one-legged camera operators or two-legged tripods. They strain for effect by abandoning natural horizons in favour of canting the camera angle 45° or so to the left or right. The impression given is of a camera tripod on deck during the last hours of the Titanic. The effect if used is exaggerated in combination with walking/talking presentation and low wide angles. This effect can be created digitally in post production but is a favourite of certain hand-held camera operators who attempt to cover interviews from a kneeling position between the performers and have never heard of picture editing. An older description of Canted Angle is ‘Dutch Angle’ as in ‘Dutch Take’ or ‘Dutch Courage’.

Canted angles are almost as old as the cinema and were used with particular dramatic effect by Orson Welles amongst many other directors. The classic Carol Reed film The Third Man has lengthy sequences shot at canted angles to convey mystery, tension or terror. Anyone who thinks that using them is a creative breakthrough or a revolutionary style should go home and work on a blueprint for the wheel. Because canted camera angles are deliberately unnatural and disorientating they should be used with that in mind. As with aggressive and repeated pans and zooms they are often the mark of inept home videos rather than properly directed stories. If a style makes it difficult to distinguish pretentiousness from incompetence the director needs to examine his or her motives for choosing it.

Canted shots do have their uses. As always the great exception is shooting music. A montage sequence of shop fronts or street signs and skyscrapers, particularly at night, is exciting from low canted angles. This is not unnatural. A passerby in London's Piccadilly Circus looks up and tilts the head to read the neon advertisements. It is impossible to look up in Manhattan without seeing canted angles. If these pictures are to be cut in sequence together it is important to alternate the right and left angles otherwise they will appear as jump cuts.

A point of view shot from a toddler on the floor to towering adults can be represented by a canted angle as can a view from a hospital bed or a dentist's chair. It fairly represents the points of view of an audience at a fashion show looking up at a catwalk. Canted angles add little to a picture of a presenter walking down a street, a politician making a speech or an interview in a restaurant. Nor do they automatically make presenters look more fascinating, beautiful or exciting.