This one is on the basics of “shot-reverse-shot”, “single shots” and “over-the-shoulder shots”.
If you’re filming a shot of a person and a shot of who they’re engaged with.
That’s called “shot”/“reverse shot”.
When you’re covering dialogue through shot-reverse-shot, you can do it in “single shots”.
Which is what it sounds like.
A single actor in frame at a time.
To me, that can cause some distance between the characters, in part, because we can’t see how close they are.
But, that makes sense here.
Hitchcock uses “single shots” in shot-reverse-shot as Marion and Sam talk about the impossibility of their love affair.
There’s a distance between them.
Almost like a border.
Then, watch how Hitchcock smashes that border with a “two-shot”.
But, single shots aren’t the only way to cover dialogue through shot-reverse-shot.
You can cover dialogue through shot-reverse-shot. But, instead of single shots, you use over-the-shoulder shots.
That just refers to camera placement.
To me, it accentuates their “closeness”.
So, here.
Hitchcock wants to emphasize how invasive this guy is because he wants us to not feel bad that Marion steals his money.
So, he positions them close, and shoots over-the-shoulder.
Think how different “single shots” might feel here.
Think low and high angles too.
Brief aside.
An over-the-shoulder shot invites us to think we’re right there, spying on what’s happening.
That’s why it feels “close”.
But, single shots invite us to wonder what the reverse shot looks like.
That wonder gets felt as a border between the images.
But.
Just because “over-the-shoulder shots” make actors feel close.
That doesn’t mean “single shots” can’t as well.
Here, the actors are as close as the last and it’s covered (not in over-the-shoulder-shots but) in singles.
Yet, we still feel that border.
Now watch.
Norman talked about his taxidermy hobby and is now telling Marion a creepy belief.
Hitchcock covers it in “singles”.
That border.
But, as soon Marion questions Norman’s “mother” (spoiler: Norman)
watch Hitchcock move Norman across that border like a chess piece.
Hitchcock covers the dialogue between Norman and Marion through shot-reverse-shot and in single shots.
Then, switches to a “low angle” side profile of Norman to suggest (1) he’s somehow suddenly become more powerful, and (2) without moving, he’s somehow crossed that border.
In these three threads, we’ve said.
CAMERA LOW, POINTED HIGH: actor looks powerful.
CAMERA HIGH, POINTED LOW: actor look powerless.
DUTCH ANGLE: makes us feel disoriented.
DOLLIES: can increase intensity.
ZOOM: can give more information.
SINGLES: can create distance.
And now here it is.
All of those techniques coming together in maybe the most iconic scene in cinema history.
If you stuck around for all three threads and found them interesting, I hope this scene feels new for you.
And that you’ve found a new way to consider film.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If I owned a chain of movie theaters like AMC, I'd spend a lot of time trying to figure out how I could do live screenings of NBA and NFL games and episodes of shows like Love Island with happy hour prices on drinks and snacks.
The complaint that people don't go to the movie theaters and support great, original movies is too much of a victim mindset.
The first question should be: how do we get audiences to remember and feel that watching movies in a crowd is a fun behavior they should do more often.
I would also try hard to figure out how to replace the television commercials with movie trailers.
Am I saying that I would play the trailer of Bring Her Back to a rowdy and drunk crowd of people who came to see the latest Love Island episode?
It’s a shame the Civil Rights Era is always discussed like talking point and not like brilliant psychological warfare.
No one has waged a more effective internal insurgency against a global superpower without using material force than African-Americans did from 1950 to 1970.
The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act are such insane accomplishments that will never be duplicated again in scale or scope and will remain unmatched.
Obama's election transferred a lot of power to one person.
The Acts transferred a lot of power to millions.
The Acts formally banned discrimination and segregation in public places, schools, employment, funding, voting and enforced the 15th amendment.
I genuinely do not think we could convince Congress to buy every American a sandwich.
One of the more surreal parts of reality is how many people have deeply held beliefs that would completely collapse under minor questioning in a courtroom.
I really do think the point of no return for America was when we decided that the opinion of an average person and the opinion of an expert were equally valid.
In hindsight.
WebMD and the idea that you could diagnose a situation by quickly looking online might’ve been the beginning of the end.