The basic story is of two reporters (Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein played by Redford and Hoffman) who are investigating a possible government conspiracy relating to the Watergate break-in in 1972. In the scene below, Bernstein (Hoffman) goes to the home of a young woman in order to press her for information. Naturally anyone associated with the conspiracy is going to be tight lipped, which is what Hoffman encounters in the scene.
What's important here are the visual choices made by Pakula and Willis to augment the scene, one that easily could have been a very repetitive and uninteresting series of talking heads in the hands of less competent filmmakers.
The breakdown:
Hoffman enters the home and we see immediately the woman he wants to question, separated from him by the rungs of the staircase. Right off the bat there is a separation between the two; inpenetrable, like the bars of a jail cell.
Hoffman moves into position to talk to the woman. What really got me here is how Hoffman is placed in the shot -- he has framed the woman into an incredibly claustrophobic bit of screen real estate. She has been squeezed into a section about 1/100th the size of the frame.
Reverse of Hoffman separated from the woman by the bars. Again this is a visual separation to support the script.
Here Hoffman moves clear of the bars to open the conversation with the woman. A visual progression where the intensity (repeating pattern of the bars) has been lowered.
Reverse of the woman clear of the bars, but she is still not revealing anything.
Hoffman returns behind the bars and sits on the couch, trying to prompt a reaction from the woman.
The woman remains behind the bars, confined to her small space. Standoff.
Hoffman chooses to wait it out. Note the lighting of the living room here, because it will change as the scene progresses.
Hoffman has waited the woman out, she loses the game and comes out from behind the bars. A huge turning point in the scene, done visually.
The woman enters the living room and takes a seat across from Hoffman. Note the lighting has changed dramatically from before; her side of the room is now much darker and colder. She is casting a heavy shadow. This continues the visual progression in the scene; where before the progression was with line and shape (bars), now it is done with tone (light and shadows).
Hoffman resumes his questioning; note he is on the dark side of the couch.
Hoffman is served a cup of coffee and he moves to the light side of the couch (another progression of tone) next to the lamp.
What has been set up now is a classic interrogation scene. Hoffman asking the questions with a strong single light source over his shoulder.
Continuation of the interrogation scene, where the woman is lit by one source and casting a heavy shadow. The camera has pushed in on her, increasing the intensity. The questioning resumes in these two shots until the final shot.
Final shot of the scene - the woman has given Hoffman a lot of information regarding the case he is trying to build, but still manages to keep some of it hidden from him. This is reperesented (along with her requested anonymity) by the lamp which covers her face. I love this ending shot, it's a bold choice and speaks volumes.
_____________________
21 comments:
Man this stuff is fantastic. Thanks for posting this. And Keep kicking ass!
awesome ted! Thanks for breaking the scene down. I love this stuff!!!!
I love this movie. I really like the scene with Robert Redford in the newspaper offices, where there's this big white pillar in the foreground and he's waaaay in the background as he answers a phone call. Somehow I think both foreground and background are in focus, but the eye is completely drawn to Redford even though his figure is furthest away because the pillar crops him perfectly. I may be describing it imperfectly but it's just one of many striking visuals.
Great stuff man, i love learning.
Ted,
Again, you posted an amazing and analytical breakdown of a film. In the future, I can see you as a director or a professor at UC Berkeley. I seriously think that you should consider teaching. You not only have an eye but considerable ability to break it down in prose.
I have some Cubans for trade to hear some more post about film making. Next time that I see, I will give you one. Seriously, your posts are analytical, concise and very insightful.
cK
Now I have to go and watch this jem again. Great breakdown.
Another thing that I love in this sequence is the camera angles chosen for the two characters as they are sitting across from each other. Notice how Hoffman is lower in the shot where the woman is given a stronger position in the frame. Even though she is the one being interviewed these subtle differences put her more in control of the situation. Adding extra dimension to the fact that she is not giving all of the information.
Great stuff!
Thanks Ted. Really good stuff.I am animation student and very regular follows your page.please keep sharing all these.
Wish you best of luck for everything you do.
Thanks everyone - I'm glad you enjoyed the breakdown. I learn a lot while analyzing these films and through the process of converting ideas into words. I'm glad to have this forum to share those ideas and read your input as well.
cK - thanks but when I get up in front of people I get very quiet. Still working on that.
Mr. Mathot, these are flippin' awesome, I love learning about this stuff more and more. Keep it going. You enjoy doing it, we enjoy reading it! Everyone wins!
-R.
Really awesome stuff. Thanks a lot, super educational and helpful. It blows me away to think how much cinematographers really think about every single shot and how not to waste any tiny bit of a shot it with non verbal information for the audiences...Thanks again for the awesome stuff
Great post, Ted! Very well thought out. I love this movie too!
Thanks for sharing this man, I've got to check that one out again. I love Hoffman's simple facial expressions.
In animation, sometimes you forget that less is more.
Wow, really great information Ted. Thanks man. And yeah, great movie.
I was impressed with Pakula and Willis' beautiful economy in images - only the elements that advance the story at any point in time are highlighted, while never allowing the shots to become aesthetically sterile. (It seems obvious, but few films can achieve such an equilibrium with subtlety.)
In a poignant scene where Nixon is sworn-in to second term, Woodward and Bernstein are typing his very "defeat" - visually the scene starts wide on an active office, everyone scatters as the TV report begins (they now become a frame for the main idea), the camera pushes-in slowly to end with a Nixon broadcast in the foreground, Woodward and Bernstein in the mid-ground and Nixon again in the BG.
Ted, thank you for the great post! I would not have learned as much, or seen this film in a while otherwise!
Great Breakdown. More more more!!!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Ted! Beautiful scene, too!
Thanks a lot for this, I love learning too. I read the beginning of your post, got my hands on the film and finished reading it. I´d noticed the visual play with the bars, completely missed all the work on the lighting.
I also love the ending scene, how Nixon is swearing Office and you can her the typewriters then the rounds are fired and you get this feeling the bombs are going to hit the target.
great great post
Reaaaaally cool post, I'm learning a lot reading your blog! Thanks for sharing!
this is great stuff. beautiful work on the site
That's a really good analysis you picked up on with the movie!
I have also learned that one of the most powerful symbolisms of any movie is its most telling absence and the creation of the greatest ironies in great american classsics.
During our history classes in the '70's, one of the biggest teltale signs of this movie, which, interestingly enough, generations of Americans have missed one potent political and historical fact: not one time throughout the movie or its credit roll, is a character or actor for the central person of Watergate: John Dean, the president's primary white house counsel. It wasn't until over 30 years later, that the movie's own director did not even realize he missed casting a character for John Dean. Needless to say, this omission greatly disturbed and upset the director.
Post a Comment