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
I’m so baffled at how this didn’t get more attention.
But, there is a screwball noir about two young sweethearts that steal from the wrong family.
It features a hysterical Damon Wayans and a ruthless Pam Grier.
It’s fantastic, called Cinnamon (2023) and is available on Tubi.
Also.
This feels like it could’ve easily worked as a Netflix series.
That said, I am truly platform agnostic.
So, if a black director makes a great film on a rock, I will find it.
But, for now, Bryian Keith Montgomery Jr. made a fun ass film and it’s on Tubi.
Random.
But, seeing that ABFF background in the previous picture reminds me that my favorite audience to watch a film with is a black audience at a small film festival.
There’s just this great vibe where everyone feels like they’re genuinely rooting for the filmmakers.
I loved Nope (2022) and thought it was Peele’s most personal film and felt like him wrestling with the burden of becoming an Event Filmmaker.
A film about the ethics of capturing the horrific, of exploiting one’s trauma for spectacle.
A devil’s deal with a literal Monkey’s Paw.
In the film, all of the horrific consequences come from people attempting to exploit for gain.
Reminded me of where Peele got the name for Monkeypaw Productions.
A “three wishes” short story where wishes are granted but with grotesque interpretations.
I feel like every aspiring director honestly wishes that they could have their own “Get Out” moment; and the acclaim, prestige and money that comes with it.
But, are you really ready to become a Hollywood spectacle?
Each month that goes by, I like really need the Harvard Business School case study on exactly how a small budget, coming-of-age film about a queer, black boy with no stars made $65 million, won Best Picture and set its distributor up for a multi-billion dollar valuation.
This morning, I was looking at box office returns (measured against budgets) for films I really liked this year and Moonlight’s marketing and distribution strategies took a perfect film and just absolutely nailed it somehow.
In modern cinema,
I feel like this piece of marketing can only be compared to the butterfly on Jodie Foster’s lips for Silence of the Lambs, that orange-ish, wordless Batman logo for Burton’s film and Uma laying and smoking on the bed for Pulp Fiction.