Meaning of a movie shot type with too little of a leadroom












23














Sometimes in movies a character is shown in an interesting way. It's usually shot from a side and he or she is facing the frame with little to none of a space between their nose and the edge of the screen.



I was watching the latest Narcos movie and noticed it in a scene when Kiki and Jaime are chatting in a restaurant. Both are shown without much of a leadroom.



enter image description hereenter image description here



Curious when this type of shot is chosen? What meaning does it try to convey?










share|improve this question





























    23














    Sometimes in movies a character is shown in an interesting way. It's usually shot from a side and he or she is facing the frame with little to none of a space between their nose and the edge of the screen.



    I was watching the latest Narcos movie and noticed it in a scene when Kiki and Jaime are chatting in a restaurant. Both are shown without much of a leadroom.



    enter image description hereenter image description here



    Curious when this type of shot is chosen? What meaning does it try to convey?










    share|improve this question



























      23












      23








      23


      5





      Sometimes in movies a character is shown in an interesting way. It's usually shot from a side and he or she is facing the frame with little to none of a space between their nose and the edge of the screen.



      I was watching the latest Narcos movie and noticed it in a scene when Kiki and Jaime are chatting in a restaurant. Both are shown without much of a leadroom.



      enter image description hereenter image description here



      Curious when this type of shot is chosen? What meaning does it try to convey?










      share|improve this question















      Sometimes in movies a character is shown in an interesting way. It's usually shot from a side and he or she is facing the frame with little to none of a space between their nose and the edge of the screen.



      I was watching the latest Narcos movie and noticed it in a scene when Kiki and Jaime are chatting in a restaurant. Both are shown without much of a leadroom.



      enter image description hereenter image description here



      Curious when this type of shot is chosen? What meaning does it try to convey?







      film-techniques cinematography






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Dec 22 at 14:30









      iandotkelly

      34.9k8139163




      34.9k8139163










      asked Dec 22 at 9:58









      Vlad

      33529




      33529






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          22














          It's called 'negative space' and is often used to convey a sense of isolation - Watch: What's Negative Space



          Mr Robot does a similar thing, called quadrant framing - The Socially Anxious Framing of 'Mr. Robot'



          I don't know enough about it to provide a full answer, as I'm not certain precisely what is gained by having the negative space behind the subject, with them looking out of frame.

          The general 'rule' is to leave more space in front of the subject than behind - known as 'Looking Space' or 'Nose Room'.

          It's a technique I've used occasionally in stills photography and animation, but I'm not a cinematographer.



          I thought it worth adding a large quote from the second link, which explains some of the emotional power of this type of framing...




          There are many different established theories about composition that
          look to explain how a subject's positioning within a frame affects the
          audience's interpretation of that scene. The popular concept of the
          "Rule of Thirds" states that the frame is divided by imaginary
          horizontal and vertical guide lines that create a multi-quadrant grid,
          the intersections of which serve as focal points for important
          features of the image (faces, objects, etc.)



          There are a lot of ways to play around with this concept, like, yes,
          placing important stuff at an intersection, but you can also
          communicate different things by placing your subject within a certain
          quadrant. For example, placing Elliot in the bottom left quadrant
          gives the impression that he is isolated, even untrusting of the world
          around him. The reason for this stems from the relationship between
          "negative space" and "positive space." (Negative space is the space
          that surrounds a subject, while positive space is the subject itself.)
          If a subject, which is traditionally the focal point of a composition,
          only takes up a small fraction of the frame, the negative space
          becomes much more noticeable and even overpowering, which can result
          in eliciting emotions like loneliness, isolation, distrust, suspicion,
          and powerlessness.







          share|improve this answer



















          • 3




            I have no textual basis for this idea, and don't know if it fits with the plot of the episode; but it strikes me that in the shots of Kiki and Jaime above, the viewer is encouraged to identify with the man on screen. And what do we know about the man opposite him? Nothing. We see a similar technique of very close shots in horror movies. What's just off screen? The protagonist has no idea (metaphorically), and the filmmaker reflects this in the physical film by making the viewer have no idea what's there (literally). Metaphorical isolation and disorientation are represented physically.
            – Quuxplusone
            Dec 22 at 16:08












          • @Quuxplusone also, in the specific shot OP posted, could it mean something that the first photo, the character's back is against the wall and seemingly nowhere to go, but the other guy has an open space?
            – BruceWayne
            Dec 23 at 15:05






          • 1




            It would be nice to have a link to that scene [or even just season/episode/time-stamp] - so we can have a look at how the whole scene is set up. Trying to garner specifics from a couple of stills is not that easy.
            – Tetsujin
            Dec 23 at 15:08



















          11














          This specific image from Narcos is a mix of the Eyeline Match technique, Negative Space and the 180-Degree Rule, I found a great explanation of it in this book "Film: A Critical Introduction".



          This article gives a great summary and examples for Negative Space technique.



          I'm sure there are more videos on youtube with visual examples, but in short:



          Eyeline Match: The use of a character's line of sight to direct the cut, in a way that emphasizes that the character is looking at something offscreen that is important to the scene, be it an object or a character, followed by a shot of what he is looking at. It is done to create a spatial awareness and clearness to the viewer.



          The 180-Degree Rule: To film one side (A) of an action that will have an axis (the end of the screen), and to cross that axis the director will cut to the other side of the axis (B). This is also used to create a better spatial understanding for the viewer, the director can also break the rule to create more effects.



          Negative Space: Use of Contrast between the focus of a shot and a low impact field or object.



          Maybe there are even more techniques being used in this shot that I didn't catch, but these are the main ones.






          share|improve this answer































            4














            I haven't see that particular scene, but I know that shots are framed and lit a particular way to give the viewer a particular emotional impression. Personally, I get two things from the images you provided.




            1. If you lay the two shots over each other, the characters appear back to back. This means they are looking away from each other. This is emphasized by the visual divider in the horizontal middle of each shot: the wall shadows + booth back in the top shot, and the black chair in the bottom shot. The way these shots are framed would give me, as an audience member, the sense that the two characters are willfully not communicating. Were the two characters in the scene refusing to see each others' point of view? Was there some intentional miscommunication between them, or some secret / lie they were obviously not talking about?
              enter image description here


            2. As other answers have stated, the two characters look isolated, even in a claustrophobic sense. That is, their surroundings appear oppressive to them, boxing them into a tiny space in the frame.







            share|improve this answer

















            • 1




              why wouldn't you lay them side by side the other way, so they faced eachother? isn't their being back-to-back just a result of you choosing to put them back to back?
              – AmagicalFishy
              Dec 23 at 19:01










            • @AmagicalFishy I see what you're saying, and our minds do that automatically. But our minds are actually compensating for the direction they're actually facing in the frame of the shot. So on one level, our minds see them as having a face-to-face conversation. On another level, our mind puts the two shots together as they are framed and sees that they are back-to-back. (In the image I put together in my answer, I just cut each of the original still images in half and glued them together. I didn't transpose their positions as our minds automatically do.)
              – BrettFromLA
              2 days ago










            • do you have any proof of this? i instinctively see them as being face to face, and, before seeing your picture, the idea of their being back-to-back didn't actually occur to me. if you mirrored each image individually, i don't think the claim "now, on another level, our mind sees them as face-to-face" is true
              – AmagicalFishy
              yesterday










            • I don't have 3rd party proof, from interviews or articles. But I'm basing it on 4 years of film school and making my own movies. I used to know a cinematographer; it would have been great to get his thoughts on the composition.
              – BrettFromLA
              16 hours ago



















            4














            The other answers are great about explaining this type of use of negative space generally.



            Having seen this scene, I'd say that this particular framing is meant to show starkly that the characters are up against a wall, metaphorically.



            They have constantly been hamstrung by their own higher-ups, repeatedly blocked from doing the very job they are there to do, and in this scene the character on the right (your second image, framed so he is on left side, facing left), who is the team leader, is delivering the bad news to the other character (left side physically, facing right), that their latest attempt at making progress, when they thought they really had a win, has failed yet again.



            While they're both on the same team, working together, and facing the same obstacles, perhaps the framing further reinforces that they have to deal with different walls (barriers), or at least different parts of the same one, in that the superior is trying to fight for his team and the mission to higher ups, and must do that alone, while the other officer has only his own superior to convince, and having already done that, has no other avenue to succeed. Both are isolated in their own way, even as their interests and intentions are aligned.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            briantist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.


























              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes








              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              22














              It's called 'negative space' and is often used to convey a sense of isolation - Watch: What's Negative Space



              Mr Robot does a similar thing, called quadrant framing - The Socially Anxious Framing of 'Mr. Robot'



              I don't know enough about it to provide a full answer, as I'm not certain precisely what is gained by having the negative space behind the subject, with them looking out of frame.

              The general 'rule' is to leave more space in front of the subject than behind - known as 'Looking Space' or 'Nose Room'.

              It's a technique I've used occasionally in stills photography and animation, but I'm not a cinematographer.



              I thought it worth adding a large quote from the second link, which explains some of the emotional power of this type of framing...




              There are many different established theories about composition that
              look to explain how a subject's positioning within a frame affects the
              audience's interpretation of that scene. The popular concept of the
              "Rule of Thirds" states that the frame is divided by imaginary
              horizontal and vertical guide lines that create a multi-quadrant grid,
              the intersections of which serve as focal points for important
              features of the image (faces, objects, etc.)



              There are a lot of ways to play around with this concept, like, yes,
              placing important stuff at an intersection, but you can also
              communicate different things by placing your subject within a certain
              quadrant. For example, placing Elliot in the bottom left quadrant
              gives the impression that he is isolated, even untrusting of the world
              around him. The reason for this stems from the relationship between
              "negative space" and "positive space." (Negative space is the space
              that surrounds a subject, while positive space is the subject itself.)
              If a subject, which is traditionally the focal point of a composition,
              only takes up a small fraction of the frame, the negative space
              becomes much more noticeable and even overpowering, which can result
              in eliciting emotions like loneliness, isolation, distrust, suspicion,
              and powerlessness.







              share|improve this answer



















              • 3




                I have no textual basis for this idea, and don't know if it fits with the plot of the episode; but it strikes me that in the shots of Kiki and Jaime above, the viewer is encouraged to identify with the man on screen. And what do we know about the man opposite him? Nothing. We see a similar technique of very close shots in horror movies. What's just off screen? The protagonist has no idea (metaphorically), and the filmmaker reflects this in the physical film by making the viewer have no idea what's there (literally). Metaphorical isolation and disorientation are represented physically.
                – Quuxplusone
                Dec 22 at 16:08












              • @Quuxplusone also, in the specific shot OP posted, could it mean something that the first photo, the character's back is against the wall and seemingly nowhere to go, but the other guy has an open space?
                – BruceWayne
                Dec 23 at 15:05






              • 1




                It would be nice to have a link to that scene [or even just season/episode/time-stamp] - so we can have a look at how the whole scene is set up. Trying to garner specifics from a couple of stills is not that easy.
                – Tetsujin
                Dec 23 at 15:08
















              22














              It's called 'negative space' and is often used to convey a sense of isolation - Watch: What's Negative Space



              Mr Robot does a similar thing, called quadrant framing - The Socially Anxious Framing of 'Mr. Robot'



              I don't know enough about it to provide a full answer, as I'm not certain precisely what is gained by having the negative space behind the subject, with them looking out of frame.

              The general 'rule' is to leave more space in front of the subject than behind - known as 'Looking Space' or 'Nose Room'.

              It's a technique I've used occasionally in stills photography and animation, but I'm not a cinematographer.



              I thought it worth adding a large quote from the second link, which explains some of the emotional power of this type of framing...




              There are many different established theories about composition that
              look to explain how a subject's positioning within a frame affects the
              audience's interpretation of that scene. The popular concept of the
              "Rule of Thirds" states that the frame is divided by imaginary
              horizontal and vertical guide lines that create a multi-quadrant grid,
              the intersections of which serve as focal points for important
              features of the image (faces, objects, etc.)



              There are a lot of ways to play around with this concept, like, yes,
              placing important stuff at an intersection, but you can also
              communicate different things by placing your subject within a certain
              quadrant. For example, placing Elliot in the bottom left quadrant
              gives the impression that he is isolated, even untrusting of the world
              around him. The reason for this stems from the relationship between
              "negative space" and "positive space." (Negative space is the space
              that surrounds a subject, while positive space is the subject itself.)
              If a subject, which is traditionally the focal point of a composition,
              only takes up a small fraction of the frame, the negative space
              becomes much more noticeable and even overpowering, which can result
              in eliciting emotions like loneliness, isolation, distrust, suspicion,
              and powerlessness.







              share|improve this answer



















              • 3




                I have no textual basis for this idea, and don't know if it fits with the plot of the episode; but it strikes me that in the shots of Kiki and Jaime above, the viewer is encouraged to identify with the man on screen. And what do we know about the man opposite him? Nothing. We see a similar technique of very close shots in horror movies. What's just off screen? The protagonist has no idea (metaphorically), and the filmmaker reflects this in the physical film by making the viewer have no idea what's there (literally). Metaphorical isolation and disorientation are represented physically.
                – Quuxplusone
                Dec 22 at 16:08












              • @Quuxplusone also, in the specific shot OP posted, could it mean something that the first photo, the character's back is against the wall and seemingly nowhere to go, but the other guy has an open space?
                – BruceWayne
                Dec 23 at 15:05






              • 1




                It would be nice to have a link to that scene [or even just season/episode/time-stamp] - so we can have a look at how the whole scene is set up. Trying to garner specifics from a couple of stills is not that easy.
                – Tetsujin
                Dec 23 at 15:08














              22












              22








              22






              It's called 'negative space' and is often used to convey a sense of isolation - Watch: What's Negative Space



              Mr Robot does a similar thing, called quadrant framing - The Socially Anxious Framing of 'Mr. Robot'



              I don't know enough about it to provide a full answer, as I'm not certain precisely what is gained by having the negative space behind the subject, with them looking out of frame.

              The general 'rule' is to leave more space in front of the subject than behind - known as 'Looking Space' or 'Nose Room'.

              It's a technique I've used occasionally in stills photography and animation, but I'm not a cinematographer.



              I thought it worth adding a large quote from the second link, which explains some of the emotional power of this type of framing...




              There are many different established theories about composition that
              look to explain how a subject's positioning within a frame affects the
              audience's interpretation of that scene. The popular concept of the
              "Rule of Thirds" states that the frame is divided by imaginary
              horizontal and vertical guide lines that create a multi-quadrant grid,
              the intersections of which serve as focal points for important
              features of the image (faces, objects, etc.)



              There are a lot of ways to play around with this concept, like, yes,
              placing important stuff at an intersection, but you can also
              communicate different things by placing your subject within a certain
              quadrant. For example, placing Elliot in the bottom left quadrant
              gives the impression that he is isolated, even untrusting of the world
              around him. The reason for this stems from the relationship between
              "negative space" and "positive space." (Negative space is the space
              that surrounds a subject, while positive space is the subject itself.)
              If a subject, which is traditionally the focal point of a composition,
              only takes up a small fraction of the frame, the negative space
              becomes much more noticeable and even overpowering, which can result
              in eliciting emotions like loneliness, isolation, distrust, suspicion,
              and powerlessness.







              share|improve this answer














              It's called 'negative space' and is often used to convey a sense of isolation - Watch: What's Negative Space



              Mr Robot does a similar thing, called quadrant framing - The Socially Anxious Framing of 'Mr. Robot'



              I don't know enough about it to provide a full answer, as I'm not certain precisely what is gained by having the negative space behind the subject, with them looking out of frame.

              The general 'rule' is to leave more space in front of the subject than behind - known as 'Looking Space' or 'Nose Room'.

              It's a technique I've used occasionally in stills photography and animation, but I'm not a cinematographer.



              I thought it worth adding a large quote from the second link, which explains some of the emotional power of this type of framing...




              There are many different established theories about composition that
              look to explain how a subject's positioning within a frame affects the
              audience's interpretation of that scene. The popular concept of the
              "Rule of Thirds" states that the frame is divided by imaginary
              horizontal and vertical guide lines that create a multi-quadrant grid,
              the intersections of which serve as focal points for important
              features of the image (faces, objects, etc.)



              There are a lot of ways to play around with this concept, like, yes,
              placing important stuff at an intersection, but you can also
              communicate different things by placing your subject within a certain
              quadrant. For example, placing Elliot in the bottom left quadrant
              gives the impression that he is isolated, even untrusting of the world
              around him. The reason for this stems from the relationship between
              "negative space" and "positive space." (Negative space is the space
              that surrounds a subject, while positive space is the subject itself.)
              If a subject, which is traditionally the focal point of a composition,
              only takes up a small fraction of the frame, the negative space
              becomes much more noticeable and even overpowering, which can result
              in eliciting emotions like loneliness, isolation, distrust, suspicion,
              and powerlessness.








              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Dec 22 at 12:17

























              answered Dec 22 at 11:58









              Tetsujin

              17.9k66066




              17.9k66066








              • 3




                I have no textual basis for this idea, and don't know if it fits with the plot of the episode; but it strikes me that in the shots of Kiki and Jaime above, the viewer is encouraged to identify with the man on screen. And what do we know about the man opposite him? Nothing. We see a similar technique of very close shots in horror movies. What's just off screen? The protagonist has no idea (metaphorically), and the filmmaker reflects this in the physical film by making the viewer have no idea what's there (literally). Metaphorical isolation and disorientation are represented physically.
                – Quuxplusone
                Dec 22 at 16:08












              • @Quuxplusone also, in the specific shot OP posted, could it mean something that the first photo, the character's back is against the wall and seemingly nowhere to go, but the other guy has an open space?
                – BruceWayne
                Dec 23 at 15:05






              • 1




                It would be nice to have a link to that scene [or even just season/episode/time-stamp] - so we can have a look at how the whole scene is set up. Trying to garner specifics from a couple of stills is not that easy.
                – Tetsujin
                Dec 23 at 15:08














              • 3




                I have no textual basis for this idea, and don't know if it fits with the plot of the episode; but it strikes me that in the shots of Kiki and Jaime above, the viewer is encouraged to identify with the man on screen. And what do we know about the man opposite him? Nothing. We see a similar technique of very close shots in horror movies. What's just off screen? The protagonist has no idea (metaphorically), and the filmmaker reflects this in the physical film by making the viewer have no idea what's there (literally). Metaphorical isolation and disorientation are represented physically.
                – Quuxplusone
                Dec 22 at 16:08












              • @Quuxplusone also, in the specific shot OP posted, could it mean something that the first photo, the character's back is against the wall and seemingly nowhere to go, but the other guy has an open space?
                – BruceWayne
                Dec 23 at 15:05






              • 1




                It would be nice to have a link to that scene [or even just season/episode/time-stamp] - so we can have a look at how the whole scene is set up. Trying to garner specifics from a couple of stills is not that easy.
                – Tetsujin
                Dec 23 at 15:08








              3




              3




              I have no textual basis for this idea, and don't know if it fits with the plot of the episode; but it strikes me that in the shots of Kiki and Jaime above, the viewer is encouraged to identify with the man on screen. And what do we know about the man opposite him? Nothing. We see a similar technique of very close shots in horror movies. What's just off screen? The protagonist has no idea (metaphorically), and the filmmaker reflects this in the physical film by making the viewer have no idea what's there (literally). Metaphorical isolation and disorientation are represented physically.
              – Quuxplusone
              Dec 22 at 16:08






              I have no textual basis for this idea, and don't know if it fits with the plot of the episode; but it strikes me that in the shots of Kiki and Jaime above, the viewer is encouraged to identify with the man on screen. And what do we know about the man opposite him? Nothing. We see a similar technique of very close shots in horror movies. What's just off screen? The protagonist has no idea (metaphorically), and the filmmaker reflects this in the physical film by making the viewer have no idea what's there (literally). Metaphorical isolation and disorientation are represented physically.
              – Quuxplusone
              Dec 22 at 16:08














              @Quuxplusone also, in the specific shot OP posted, could it mean something that the first photo, the character's back is against the wall and seemingly nowhere to go, but the other guy has an open space?
              – BruceWayne
              Dec 23 at 15:05




              @Quuxplusone also, in the specific shot OP posted, could it mean something that the first photo, the character's back is against the wall and seemingly nowhere to go, but the other guy has an open space?
              – BruceWayne
              Dec 23 at 15:05




              1




              1




              It would be nice to have a link to that scene [or even just season/episode/time-stamp] - so we can have a look at how the whole scene is set up. Trying to garner specifics from a couple of stills is not that easy.
              – Tetsujin
              Dec 23 at 15:08




              It would be nice to have a link to that scene [or even just season/episode/time-stamp] - so we can have a look at how the whole scene is set up. Trying to garner specifics from a couple of stills is not that easy.
              – Tetsujin
              Dec 23 at 15:08











              11














              This specific image from Narcos is a mix of the Eyeline Match technique, Negative Space and the 180-Degree Rule, I found a great explanation of it in this book "Film: A Critical Introduction".



              This article gives a great summary and examples for Negative Space technique.



              I'm sure there are more videos on youtube with visual examples, but in short:



              Eyeline Match: The use of a character's line of sight to direct the cut, in a way that emphasizes that the character is looking at something offscreen that is important to the scene, be it an object or a character, followed by a shot of what he is looking at. It is done to create a spatial awareness and clearness to the viewer.



              The 180-Degree Rule: To film one side (A) of an action that will have an axis (the end of the screen), and to cross that axis the director will cut to the other side of the axis (B). This is also used to create a better spatial understanding for the viewer, the director can also break the rule to create more effects.



              Negative Space: Use of Contrast between the focus of a shot and a low impact field or object.



              Maybe there are even more techniques being used in this shot that I didn't catch, but these are the main ones.






              share|improve this answer




























                11














                This specific image from Narcos is a mix of the Eyeline Match technique, Negative Space and the 180-Degree Rule, I found a great explanation of it in this book "Film: A Critical Introduction".



                This article gives a great summary and examples for Negative Space technique.



                I'm sure there are more videos on youtube with visual examples, but in short:



                Eyeline Match: The use of a character's line of sight to direct the cut, in a way that emphasizes that the character is looking at something offscreen that is important to the scene, be it an object or a character, followed by a shot of what he is looking at. It is done to create a spatial awareness and clearness to the viewer.



                The 180-Degree Rule: To film one side (A) of an action that will have an axis (the end of the screen), and to cross that axis the director will cut to the other side of the axis (B). This is also used to create a better spatial understanding for the viewer, the director can also break the rule to create more effects.



                Negative Space: Use of Contrast between the focus of a shot and a low impact field or object.



                Maybe there are even more techniques being used in this shot that I didn't catch, but these are the main ones.






                share|improve this answer


























                  11












                  11








                  11






                  This specific image from Narcos is a mix of the Eyeline Match technique, Negative Space and the 180-Degree Rule, I found a great explanation of it in this book "Film: A Critical Introduction".



                  This article gives a great summary and examples for Negative Space technique.



                  I'm sure there are more videos on youtube with visual examples, but in short:



                  Eyeline Match: The use of a character's line of sight to direct the cut, in a way that emphasizes that the character is looking at something offscreen that is important to the scene, be it an object or a character, followed by a shot of what he is looking at. It is done to create a spatial awareness and clearness to the viewer.



                  The 180-Degree Rule: To film one side (A) of an action that will have an axis (the end of the screen), and to cross that axis the director will cut to the other side of the axis (B). This is also used to create a better spatial understanding for the viewer, the director can also break the rule to create more effects.



                  Negative Space: Use of Contrast between the focus of a shot and a low impact field or object.



                  Maybe there are even more techniques being used in this shot that I didn't catch, but these are the main ones.






                  share|improve this answer














                  This specific image from Narcos is a mix of the Eyeline Match technique, Negative Space and the 180-Degree Rule, I found a great explanation of it in this book "Film: A Critical Introduction".



                  This article gives a great summary and examples for Negative Space technique.



                  I'm sure there are more videos on youtube with visual examples, but in short:



                  Eyeline Match: The use of a character's line of sight to direct the cut, in a way that emphasizes that the character is looking at something offscreen that is important to the scene, be it an object or a character, followed by a shot of what he is looking at. It is done to create a spatial awareness and clearness to the viewer.



                  The 180-Degree Rule: To film one side (A) of an action that will have an axis (the end of the screen), and to cross that axis the director will cut to the other side of the axis (B). This is also used to create a better spatial understanding for the viewer, the director can also break the rule to create more effects.



                  Negative Space: Use of Contrast between the focus of a shot and a low impact field or object.



                  Maybe there are even more techniques being used in this shot that I didn't catch, but these are the main ones.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Dec 22 at 12:21

























                  answered Dec 22 at 12:03









                  Victor T. Leal

                  20714




                  20714























                      4














                      I haven't see that particular scene, but I know that shots are framed and lit a particular way to give the viewer a particular emotional impression. Personally, I get two things from the images you provided.




                      1. If you lay the two shots over each other, the characters appear back to back. This means they are looking away from each other. This is emphasized by the visual divider in the horizontal middle of each shot: the wall shadows + booth back in the top shot, and the black chair in the bottom shot. The way these shots are framed would give me, as an audience member, the sense that the two characters are willfully not communicating. Were the two characters in the scene refusing to see each others' point of view? Was there some intentional miscommunication between them, or some secret / lie they were obviously not talking about?
                        enter image description here


                      2. As other answers have stated, the two characters look isolated, even in a claustrophobic sense. That is, their surroundings appear oppressive to them, boxing them into a tiny space in the frame.







                      share|improve this answer

















                      • 1




                        why wouldn't you lay them side by side the other way, so they faced eachother? isn't their being back-to-back just a result of you choosing to put them back to back?
                        – AmagicalFishy
                        Dec 23 at 19:01










                      • @AmagicalFishy I see what you're saying, and our minds do that automatically. But our minds are actually compensating for the direction they're actually facing in the frame of the shot. So on one level, our minds see them as having a face-to-face conversation. On another level, our mind puts the two shots together as they are framed and sees that they are back-to-back. (In the image I put together in my answer, I just cut each of the original still images in half and glued them together. I didn't transpose their positions as our minds automatically do.)
                        – BrettFromLA
                        2 days ago










                      • do you have any proof of this? i instinctively see them as being face to face, and, before seeing your picture, the idea of their being back-to-back didn't actually occur to me. if you mirrored each image individually, i don't think the claim "now, on another level, our mind sees them as face-to-face" is true
                        – AmagicalFishy
                        yesterday










                      • I don't have 3rd party proof, from interviews or articles. But I'm basing it on 4 years of film school and making my own movies. I used to know a cinematographer; it would have been great to get his thoughts on the composition.
                        – BrettFromLA
                        16 hours ago
















                      4














                      I haven't see that particular scene, but I know that shots are framed and lit a particular way to give the viewer a particular emotional impression. Personally, I get two things from the images you provided.




                      1. If you lay the two shots over each other, the characters appear back to back. This means they are looking away from each other. This is emphasized by the visual divider in the horizontal middle of each shot: the wall shadows + booth back in the top shot, and the black chair in the bottom shot. The way these shots are framed would give me, as an audience member, the sense that the two characters are willfully not communicating. Were the two characters in the scene refusing to see each others' point of view? Was there some intentional miscommunication between them, or some secret / lie they were obviously not talking about?
                        enter image description here


                      2. As other answers have stated, the two characters look isolated, even in a claustrophobic sense. That is, their surroundings appear oppressive to them, boxing them into a tiny space in the frame.







                      share|improve this answer

















                      • 1




                        why wouldn't you lay them side by side the other way, so they faced eachother? isn't their being back-to-back just a result of you choosing to put them back to back?
                        – AmagicalFishy
                        Dec 23 at 19:01










                      • @AmagicalFishy I see what you're saying, and our minds do that automatically. But our minds are actually compensating for the direction they're actually facing in the frame of the shot. So on one level, our minds see them as having a face-to-face conversation. On another level, our mind puts the two shots together as they are framed and sees that they are back-to-back. (In the image I put together in my answer, I just cut each of the original still images in half and glued them together. I didn't transpose their positions as our minds automatically do.)
                        – BrettFromLA
                        2 days ago










                      • do you have any proof of this? i instinctively see them as being face to face, and, before seeing your picture, the idea of their being back-to-back didn't actually occur to me. if you mirrored each image individually, i don't think the claim "now, on another level, our mind sees them as face-to-face" is true
                        – AmagicalFishy
                        yesterday










                      • I don't have 3rd party proof, from interviews or articles. But I'm basing it on 4 years of film school and making my own movies. I used to know a cinematographer; it would have been great to get his thoughts on the composition.
                        – BrettFromLA
                        16 hours ago














                      4












                      4








                      4






                      I haven't see that particular scene, but I know that shots are framed and lit a particular way to give the viewer a particular emotional impression. Personally, I get two things from the images you provided.




                      1. If you lay the two shots over each other, the characters appear back to back. This means they are looking away from each other. This is emphasized by the visual divider in the horizontal middle of each shot: the wall shadows + booth back in the top shot, and the black chair in the bottom shot. The way these shots are framed would give me, as an audience member, the sense that the two characters are willfully not communicating. Were the two characters in the scene refusing to see each others' point of view? Was there some intentional miscommunication between them, or some secret / lie they were obviously not talking about?
                        enter image description here


                      2. As other answers have stated, the two characters look isolated, even in a claustrophobic sense. That is, their surroundings appear oppressive to them, boxing them into a tiny space in the frame.







                      share|improve this answer












                      I haven't see that particular scene, but I know that shots are framed and lit a particular way to give the viewer a particular emotional impression. Personally, I get two things from the images you provided.




                      1. If you lay the two shots over each other, the characters appear back to back. This means they are looking away from each other. This is emphasized by the visual divider in the horizontal middle of each shot: the wall shadows + booth back in the top shot, and the black chair in the bottom shot. The way these shots are framed would give me, as an audience member, the sense that the two characters are willfully not communicating. Were the two characters in the scene refusing to see each others' point of view? Was there some intentional miscommunication between them, or some secret / lie they were obviously not talking about?
                        enter image description here


                      2. As other answers have stated, the two characters look isolated, even in a claustrophobic sense. That is, their surroundings appear oppressive to them, boxing them into a tiny space in the frame.








                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Dec 22 at 17:42









                      BrettFromLA

                      14.6k546101




                      14.6k546101








                      • 1




                        why wouldn't you lay them side by side the other way, so they faced eachother? isn't their being back-to-back just a result of you choosing to put them back to back?
                        – AmagicalFishy
                        Dec 23 at 19:01










                      • @AmagicalFishy I see what you're saying, and our minds do that automatically. But our minds are actually compensating for the direction they're actually facing in the frame of the shot. So on one level, our minds see them as having a face-to-face conversation. On another level, our mind puts the two shots together as they are framed and sees that they are back-to-back. (In the image I put together in my answer, I just cut each of the original still images in half and glued them together. I didn't transpose their positions as our minds automatically do.)
                        – BrettFromLA
                        2 days ago










                      • do you have any proof of this? i instinctively see them as being face to face, and, before seeing your picture, the idea of their being back-to-back didn't actually occur to me. if you mirrored each image individually, i don't think the claim "now, on another level, our mind sees them as face-to-face" is true
                        – AmagicalFishy
                        yesterday










                      • I don't have 3rd party proof, from interviews or articles. But I'm basing it on 4 years of film school and making my own movies. I used to know a cinematographer; it would have been great to get his thoughts on the composition.
                        – BrettFromLA
                        16 hours ago














                      • 1




                        why wouldn't you lay them side by side the other way, so they faced eachother? isn't their being back-to-back just a result of you choosing to put them back to back?
                        – AmagicalFishy
                        Dec 23 at 19:01










                      • @AmagicalFishy I see what you're saying, and our minds do that automatically. But our minds are actually compensating for the direction they're actually facing in the frame of the shot. So on one level, our minds see them as having a face-to-face conversation. On another level, our mind puts the two shots together as they are framed and sees that they are back-to-back. (In the image I put together in my answer, I just cut each of the original still images in half and glued them together. I didn't transpose their positions as our minds automatically do.)
                        – BrettFromLA
                        2 days ago










                      • do you have any proof of this? i instinctively see them as being face to face, and, before seeing your picture, the idea of their being back-to-back didn't actually occur to me. if you mirrored each image individually, i don't think the claim "now, on another level, our mind sees them as face-to-face" is true
                        – AmagicalFishy
                        yesterday










                      • I don't have 3rd party proof, from interviews or articles. But I'm basing it on 4 years of film school and making my own movies. I used to know a cinematographer; it would have been great to get his thoughts on the composition.
                        – BrettFromLA
                        16 hours ago








                      1




                      1




                      why wouldn't you lay them side by side the other way, so they faced eachother? isn't their being back-to-back just a result of you choosing to put them back to back?
                      – AmagicalFishy
                      Dec 23 at 19:01




                      why wouldn't you lay them side by side the other way, so they faced eachother? isn't their being back-to-back just a result of you choosing to put them back to back?
                      – AmagicalFishy
                      Dec 23 at 19:01












                      @AmagicalFishy I see what you're saying, and our minds do that automatically. But our minds are actually compensating for the direction they're actually facing in the frame of the shot. So on one level, our minds see them as having a face-to-face conversation. On another level, our mind puts the two shots together as they are framed and sees that they are back-to-back. (In the image I put together in my answer, I just cut each of the original still images in half and glued them together. I didn't transpose their positions as our minds automatically do.)
                      – BrettFromLA
                      2 days ago




                      @AmagicalFishy I see what you're saying, and our minds do that automatically. But our minds are actually compensating for the direction they're actually facing in the frame of the shot. So on one level, our minds see them as having a face-to-face conversation. On another level, our mind puts the two shots together as they are framed and sees that they are back-to-back. (In the image I put together in my answer, I just cut each of the original still images in half and glued them together. I didn't transpose their positions as our minds automatically do.)
                      – BrettFromLA
                      2 days ago












                      do you have any proof of this? i instinctively see them as being face to face, and, before seeing your picture, the idea of their being back-to-back didn't actually occur to me. if you mirrored each image individually, i don't think the claim "now, on another level, our mind sees them as face-to-face" is true
                      – AmagicalFishy
                      yesterday




                      do you have any proof of this? i instinctively see them as being face to face, and, before seeing your picture, the idea of their being back-to-back didn't actually occur to me. if you mirrored each image individually, i don't think the claim "now, on another level, our mind sees them as face-to-face" is true
                      – AmagicalFishy
                      yesterday












                      I don't have 3rd party proof, from interviews or articles. But I'm basing it on 4 years of film school and making my own movies. I used to know a cinematographer; it would have been great to get his thoughts on the composition.
                      – BrettFromLA
                      16 hours ago




                      I don't have 3rd party proof, from interviews or articles. But I'm basing it on 4 years of film school and making my own movies. I used to know a cinematographer; it would have been great to get his thoughts on the composition.
                      – BrettFromLA
                      16 hours ago











                      4














                      The other answers are great about explaining this type of use of negative space generally.



                      Having seen this scene, I'd say that this particular framing is meant to show starkly that the characters are up against a wall, metaphorically.



                      They have constantly been hamstrung by their own higher-ups, repeatedly blocked from doing the very job they are there to do, and in this scene the character on the right (your second image, framed so he is on left side, facing left), who is the team leader, is delivering the bad news to the other character (left side physically, facing right), that their latest attempt at making progress, when they thought they really had a win, has failed yet again.



                      While they're both on the same team, working together, and facing the same obstacles, perhaps the framing further reinforces that they have to deal with different walls (barriers), or at least different parts of the same one, in that the superior is trying to fight for his team and the mission to higher ups, and must do that alone, while the other officer has only his own superior to convince, and having already done that, has no other avenue to succeed. Both are isolated in their own way, even as their interests and intentions are aligned.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      briantist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.























                        4














                        The other answers are great about explaining this type of use of negative space generally.



                        Having seen this scene, I'd say that this particular framing is meant to show starkly that the characters are up against a wall, metaphorically.



                        They have constantly been hamstrung by their own higher-ups, repeatedly blocked from doing the very job they are there to do, and in this scene the character on the right (your second image, framed so he is on left side, facing left), who is the team leader, is delivering the bad news to the other character (left side physically, facing right), that their latest attempt at making progress, when they thought they really had a win, has failed yet again.



                        While they're both on the same team, working together, and facing the same obstacles, perhaps the framing further reinforces that they have to deal with different walls (barriers), or at least different parts of the same one, in that the superior is trying to fight for his team and the mission to higher ups, and must do that alone, while the other officer has only his own superior to convince, and having already done that, has no other avenue to succeed. Both are isolated in their own way, even as their interests and intentions are aligned.






                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        briantist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                          4












                          4








                          4






                          The other answers are great about explaining this type of use of negative space generally.



                          Having seen this scene, I'd say that this particular framing is meant to show starkly that the characters are up against a wall, metaphorically.



                          They have constantly been hamstrung by their own higher-ups, repeatedly blocked from doing the very job they are there to do, and in this scene the character on the right (your second image, framed so he is on left side, facing left), who is the team leader, is delivering the bad news to the other character (left side physically, facing right), that their latest attempt at making progress, when they thought they really had a win, has failed yet again.



                          While they're both on the same team, working together, and facing the same obstacles, perhaps the framing further reinforces that they have to deal with different walls (barriers), or at least different parts of the same one, in that the superior is trying to fight for his team and the mission to higher ups, and must do that alone, while the other officer has only his own superior to convince, and having already done that, has no other avenue to succeed. Both are isolated in their own way, even as their interests and intentions are aligned.






                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          briantist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          The other answers are great about explaining this type of use of negative space generally.



                          Having seen this scene, I'd say that this particular framing is meant to show starkly that the characters are up against a wall, metaphorically.



                          They have constantly been hamstrung by their own higher-ups, repeatedly blocked from doing the very job they are there to do, and in this scene the character on the right (your second image, framed so he is on left side, facing left), who is the team leader, is delivering the bad news to the other character (left side physically, facing right), that their latest attempt at making progress, when they thought they really had a win, has failed yet again.



                          While they're both on the same team, working together, and facing the same obstacles, perhaps the framing further reinforces that they have to deal with different walls (barriers), or at least different parts of the same one, in that the superior is trying to fight for his team and the mission to higher ups, and must do that alone, while the other officer has only his own superior to convince, and having already done that, has no other avenue to succeed. Both are isolated in their own way, even as their interests and intentions are aligned.







                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          briantist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer






                          New contributor




                          briantist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          answered Dec 23 at 13:50









                          briantist

                          14113




                          14113




                          New contributor




                          briantist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.





                          New contributor





                          briantist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                          briantist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.















                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Список кардиналов, возведённых папой римским Каликстом III

                              Deduzione

                              Mysql.sock missing - “Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket”