The workshop edit

The weekend was rather full, so I can't say I have gone far enough with the edit but perhaps I am just a little closer to I want.
My aesthetics is never to use the same shot twice, that each moment will have it's own shot, but when you are shooting a scene with dialogue? The need to return to the other party as they discourse? Does this become a pointless convention? Well I suppose first you avoid the ping-pong of dialogue, but sometimes...
Next, forget the geometry, and consider how you represent what is actually happening.
Part of the solution is apparent when you watch directors like Antonioni, who defies convention by cutting from one shot to another with out varying the angle, eg. a medium-shot straight on to the subject to a medium close-up of the subject.
I tried this in the workshop. Here we are shooting a scene outside the bar. Paul and Claire have been having a great evening. They come out of the bar and into the street. They are giddy, a little drunk, by mostly giddy fro each other's company.
























Does it work? I cannot say I have the objectivity to be certain as yet. I have an insurance shot to place between the two if this fails, but having tried using it I really dislike the whole idea.
And also I wonder if this is skill? How each shot is framed, the intensity of what is happening...perhaps I just need to dig deeper?
So what I was playing with during the workshop is to vary the angle just slightly, so that as we cut from subject a to subject b, and then return to subject a, the angle has varied slightly and/or the camera has moved in closer. This choice is very much down to serving the scene.
The viewer might not be conscious of the change but it changes the emphasis and creates a form of intensity, eg. the viewer is still forced to learn the new shot, they are kept off balance.











Here Paul begins talking to Claire. Then the waitress interrupts him and I cut a side-on shot.












We return...












Now closer, but also with Paul on the left. I did not considering what this means. As I said I tried not to think too much.
It just felt that we needed to feel off balance. And that he trapped himself.
Now what if I were to cut out the intervening shot, and cut from one to the next directly?












Here is the angle I go to, when the waitress enters.












And later, for this finally words, a slight variation. Looking at it might think of varying this a little more in the shooting, but the idea is there.
Meanwhile I am reading an essay on Robert Bresson, The Rhetoric of Robert Bresson, by P. Adams Sitney:

...he has further emphasised the isolated "take" , or camera set-up, as an independent molecule of narrative, rather than as a facet of an illusory crystal.

This approach might be referred to as linearity, as opposed to geometrical, which is the preference of most formalist filmmakers. Not Bresson.

...he has linearized the metonymic principles by discrete movement of the camera which change carefully set-up long shots to significant close-ups, and vice versa, in an effort to attain maximal economy of means.

So on Saturday I am off to visit Roland in his new sound studio. Very exciting.