I'm sorry Smokey, that's a foul.
In storyboarding there's something that's known as the 180 degree rule, line of action, or the camera "line"; an invisible line that runs through the shot to maintain screen direction and continuity. Most times this line is the line of sight between two characters and is part of a semi-circular area where the camera can be placed to maintain continuity.
With some directors, this is a hard and fast rule that is not broken; with others, it is broken liberally. Most directors fall somewhere in the middle. The most important thing (at least to me) is knowing HOW and WHY one crosses the line. To me the 180 is not really a rule; it is a suggestion. Most of the time we are within the comfortable confines of the 180 semi-circle, but every now and then, to break up what can turn into monotony and also to generate interest, we go over.
Some suggestions on how to go over the line:
1. Lead the viewer's eye to the part of the screen where you want them to look when you cut over the 180.
2. Create a big enough change in the shot that the characters don't jump or pop.
3. Cut away to a third character or object or action
4. Cut to a neutral angle (an ON AXIS shot, where the camera is ON the line of action)
5. Move the camera over the line creating a new line.
6. Just do it (to elicit a reaction from the viewer) (good examples are the opening of The Insider by Michael Mann and the dinner scene from The Underneath by Steven Soderbergh).
It's up to us to use all the tools available to make our scenes and shots interesting. Just because a character is on the left side of the screen doesn't mean they have to be there for the whole scene; or because a car is moving from left to right doesn't mean it has to be moving left to right in every shot, especially in action scenes.
Take a look at your favorite films and see if and when the director goes over the line; look at it and ask yourself HOW and WHY the director did it.
(the above shot form the Big Lebowski is not an example of going over the line in the film sense).
12 comments:
Great Topic! I agree about your assessment of the "the line". A lot of the older, classically trained directors know when and why to cross the line to enhance the visual story telling but unfortunately I have seen a lot of just plain old lazy, and downright sloppy screen direction from some of today's contemporary film makers. (the culprits are too many to mention)
From characters and action flip-flopping around to confusing paths of action, today's shooters are too concerned about making guerilla and hipster films. A lot of the time it's also poorly planned second unit shoots where they end up with non-continuous footage in the editing room that has to be hashed out.
One must know this rule to break it and a lot of these young turks could use a little lesson from the likes of Hitchcock and David Lean.
I'm a big fan of classic storytelling. I have worked with several directors from animation to live action, feature to commercial, cinematics ,comics you name it. In it all I have noticed one thing, "clarity is king"! You can brake the line and/or screen direction, and sometimes it feels necessary, but those that don't tell a clearer story.
One way the "masters" did it that seemed to be un questionably OK was the portal (doorway). Other than that it always seems forced or unatural. Filmakers aren't the only ones who should be wary of the line. Any and every visual story teller should be diligent of the rules of the medium so that the story can take the listener or viewer someplace wonderful without them being too aware of the man behind the screen.
said...
The Ol' 180 "rule. Hello!!!!! its not a rule. First of all it comes from theatre where the stage only has one viewing point. The audience cant get confused staring at a procenium ( spelt wrong who cares) The other thing is its a practicle application for live action because you light one side of the set- If you cross the line you have to change the light set up - takes time- time= money- do not cross the line= save money.
Next, the 180 rule is a tool. To use or not use. I believe in clarity above all else but you can be confusing on purpose and make it clear or even better- cross the line for emphisis. This goes to Teds WHY you cross the line.
A story teller can cross the line to make a CLEAR emphisis that something is happening, It increases visual intesity- which stings the audience to pay attention- also it creates variety which is good- all the great directors do it and they do it for a reason- not willy nilly. I can list them all if you want but I dont have to.
So break it- use the tool. No rules.
Mandrews out
12/01/2005 4:41 PM
yes mark, yes you do have to, id like you to list them all please.
JK,
good topic. i agree with whats been said.
also, in comics, i think its a little more confusing if you cross it than it is on film. what might read as a change of vis-interest/pacing/tone on film when crossing feels a little too jumpy in comics, because you are not only dealing with timing but page layout and how a panel direction effects the following panels. thats just from my experience. which of course, is none.
how do you guys treat this "rule" in comics?
>oVi
Kurosawa
Miazaki
Speilberg
Ford
Capra
James Cameron
Ridley Scott
Kubrick
Micheal Mann
Fincher
Hitchcock
Coppola
Frankenhiemer
Brad Bird
David (fucking ) Lean!!!!!
Come on do I need to go on. Does anyone think these guys messed up?
Toolz not Rulz
Emphasis!!!! Intent!!! Variety!!! point!!! reason!!!!
Remember break the 180 responsiby.
this add paid for by the "180 is not a rule foundation"
As far as comics go Ovi. I think here is less continuity. Mignola breaks it all the time and I still get whats going on. Even the old guys like Kirby did to. I think its less jaring in comics because we can spend time looking at the image ( which is also more graphic ) I see this mostly in action stuff.
I find when doing COLOSSUS- that I would break the line for two reasons 1. emphisis _ to draw atention to a specific point im trying to make character or story wise.
2. Graphic weight. I may find one frame weighted to much to one side so the next frame would have to be weighted to the other side ( graphiclly) to have a balance and flow to the over all pg.
Toolz not rulz
Mandrews out
Mark,
Great points. I totally agree with your comments. like I said, one must know the essence of this rule to break it or use it. Call it a rule, a tool or whatever. I take issue with the people who do it and do it for the sake of it.
Thankfully your list does not include people I described earlier as lazy and sloppy. The guys in your list KNOW what they are doing.
Great comments, everyone! I enjoy reading different perspectives about topics like this.
In comics, I'll break the line as well to balance the page.
Tools not rules...nice one Mark; I like that.
-T
M,
yeah i mean i dont use it as a rule by any means, and i agree with the 2 reasons why you do break it. those are good reasons to do so. for me, its like i dont even think about all this tech' stuff when im boarding, i just pace and stage what feels right for the tone of the scene and the feeling of the character(s). all the tech stuff is secondary.
mignola is a horrible storyteller, why would you refer to him for story? haha, JK!!!
yeah, mignola is a beast and one of my favs' when it comes to pacing/stagging. etc etc, blah blah blah so forth and so on...
another way he breaks the line is he "cuts" to an object then cuts back from a diff' PVO to the action/characters/scene.
in the end, i guess my uneducated "rule" would be,
dont do whats right, do the RIGHT thing.
>oVi
M,
i was serious about listing the directors, but im glad you did. haha.
oops...POV
Oh, man, kudos to you for writing this post! Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant(and so true).
I was all set to leap in & yak on about this being one of my pet bugaboos(the supposed inviolate nature of "the line"), and make reference to a scene in "The Birds" I'd just seen which broke it all over the place...but of course Mark Andrews would beat me to it. Eh.
The main thinking re: animation is the supposed disorientation fiddling/playing with the angle and cutting might cause; but there are many, many examples of severe "over the line" scenes that work fabulously in animation("Lilo & Stitch" is a beautifully directed/boarded film with loads of over the line cuts, for example), for various reasons...the thing is, if it works, it works, and to shoot something down for supposedly 'technical" reasons at the board stage can be a mistake. Not that it can't result in a boo-boo, but as anyone knows who pays close attention to films, there are NO rules except what you can make work.
This is one of the best animation posts I've seen in ages--thanks.
Thanks Jenny; I'm glad there are so many folks out there who feel the way I do about this; I always thought during my career in animation that I would be fighting a losing battle if I ever brought it up with anyone!
Thanks for your comments -- I really should print all of the great replies to keep as reference -- you all have provided a lot of additional insight.
-T
Post a Comment