Clarity in filmmaking is a really important thing. If a film is confusing in its visuals, it can be next to impossible for an audience to understand the film and, to a further extent, enjoy the film and its characters. Sometimes directors create a scene that is intentionally ambiguous and confusing with its visuals, but it is a great way to distance an audience from your film.
This is a trend that has been growing over the past several years. Filmmaking has gotten less clean and more frenetic. Films seem to relish the confusing camerawork and visual composition. Films like Transformers and The Bourne Identity have proven that this is a popular style, but is it good?
Watch this scene from Quantum of Solace:
Quantum of Solace
Now watch this scene from Mission - Impossible: Ghost Protocol
Mission - Impossible: Ghost Protocol
The difference is stark and clearly represents two different styles of filmmaking. I think the difference in visual clarity is a huge factor in determining how effective each scene is but I want to know what you think. Which style do you prefer and why? What advice would you give Marc Forrester or Brad Bird about how they directed each film?
Can you think of any other scene comparisons (provide clips) that exemplify each style?
Both styles are purposely unclear in what they are showing and leave it for the viewer to pickup what is going on. In the James Bond movie the fast cuts and the fact that all the cars look the same make it difficult to tell what is happening. However this adds suspense because you don't know what is happening and who is "beating" who. In the Mission Impossible clip the sandstorm makes the shots blurry and all the different environments blend together. It is tough to tell where the main character is running to or from. I do not like this style of film making in comparison to James Bond because I just can't tell whats going on because the shots are poor and blurry, not because they are put together in an interesting fashion.
ReplyDeleteThe only example I can think of for this would be the fight between optimus prime and sentinel. You can't tell what is happening in the fight but there is plenty of action which keeps it awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf-zlRSHDMs
I do not favor the james bond unclarity. i didn't like it mostly because it was the opening scene, so having all black cars and so much cutting and confusion so early is worthless. it just makes the view feel completely unsure of what is happening, but not in a good way. Because it is the opening scene, there is no characters or visuals for the viewer to have in mind, and it automatically shoots to this fast cutting car chase scene, with similar looking cars, it makes the viewer completely nsure of what is being chased, why, and who is who, for a long period of time. In the mission impossible clip, i disagree with bieman because i like this style alot better, there is sand everywhere, so cutting so much and causing unclarity is good for the viewer, because thats how the protaganist is feeling also. he is blinding chasing a man through nothingness so it puts the viewer in the main characters shoes.
ReplyDeletethe only clip i can think of that reminds me of this is from the movie jumper. i couldn't find any clips of the scene im talking about on youtube, but its the one when the bad guys run into the main character and the other jumper, and they start fighting them, they both start teleporting all over the place to fight the guys and avoid their attacks. their is alot of unclarity throughout this scene because you dont know where he's teleporting to and it cuts between the two teleporters you're unsure of whos who for a short period of time.
Hmmm i think that the second one works and the first one doesn't. in the mission impossible scene, the sandstorm is the theme of the scene and an integral part of the environment that needs to be overcome, and the director uses it and the limitedness of visibility to make the scene intriguing, mysterious, and unique. it's memorable. as for the first one, it's just obnoxiously confusing. it's like, "look how close i can get my camera to a moving car." you can't follow it, and it makes no sense. i think its a really cool effect that definitely creates an air of confusion and fast-paced action, but they sort of overdid it. like, it's cool at first, but then it's exhausting and all you want is to understand what is going on.
ReplyDeletei don't have a fabulous example, but i think there is a little unclarity in it. but just a little. i mean it's pretty obvious what's going on, but there's still some cinematic manipulation that intentionally lends it a feeling of confusion. it's the inferi scene from harry potter... yeah, i chose a harry potter clip......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6oCIqu_jtE
in this scene i noticed all of these unnecessary cuts to harry's face. like the perspective and distance between image and camera hardly change at all, shifting just a little bit so that there's motion and confusion but no change in subject. i noticed that it's actually timed with his breathing. the shots of harry's face are always relatively close up, without incorporating any of the inferi. they are primarily in their own shots, so it doesn't really establish a spacial relationship. i think it was intentional, cause it leaves you kind of confused. it's funky you should watch it
I think having a frenetic style in film can be useful in some ways. It is a great tool for amplifying chaos in an action scene. For frenetic style I chose a clip from "United 93". In this clip I believe the director used the frenetic style very well. The style helped to amplify the action and at the same time create suspense. This style can also be a disadvantage in film. In the "Quantum of Solace" clip the frenetic style created confusion and disturbing visuals that were unpleasant to look at.
ReplyDeleteClarity is very important in film. I believe that clarity in film is necessary for the viewer to fully watch and understand a film. Clarity is instrumental in showing off the many principles of film making. Through clarity, principles are presented to the viewer and from the principles shown the viewer is able to take in everything the film has to offer. The clip I chose that shows off clarity in film is from an action scene in "Starsky & Hutch". This clip like the one from "Mission - Impossible: Ghost Protocol" shows off clarity in an action scene.
Frenetic - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcdnf0Ckxmc&feature=related
Clarity - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBX2b-zback
I think that the opening of the James bond movie was very confusing and really hard to follow. It goes from being a wide shot moving over the water, to close ups of two different cars with two different drives. I think that it is really hard to understand whats going on this scene because the close ups make it hard to follow the entire chase and who is actually doing the chasing. I think that Mission Impossible did a lot better job of being unclear in there scene because although the sand was a major present it did not put the scene over the top. i was still able to follow what was going on, who was doing the chasing, and also who was being chased.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if this is a good example of uncharity, but I thought that the opening scene of inception was very confusing and hard to follow. The shots themselves are very confusing and hard piece together because they are have no relation. I also think that the communication between the characters was also confusing because you have no idea what is going on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VXkUzf1et4
There's definitely a lot more going on in the James Bond clip, which is more effective in engaging the audience in the beginning. But as the chase goes on, such snapshots do become annoying, at least to me. Although I enjoyed Quantum of Solace, this scene is a lot of action. Mission Impossible was more fluid in it's piece-by-piece presentation, and each action was slower and more developed. One could tell that Ethan was going to take another route to whomever he was chasing through his GPS, where as James Bond was simply running, and his actions were shown as extremely calm in character, but sporadic in presentation.
ReplyDeleteIt is not only up to the director to make sure that the actual shot is clear, but the editors who cut and piece to movie together to create a believable, understandable turn of events.
I prefer the mission impossible sequence, rather than the james bond. During the Mission Impossible scene, we know exactly what is happening, and why the character chooses the actions he does before he does them. It almost makes us a part of the adventure, rather than just observing, because it feels like we are experiencing the actions with the character. In the Bond film, it is very quick, and half the time we are trying to piece together why and how the large number of shots connect, rather than focus on what is happening. It leaves me at least not focusing on the story itself, but the various images that are being thrown at me.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QydeJbXOqyI