Lost Art of Filmmaking represents my attempt to highlight examples of film language that no longer seems to appear on the radar of a majority of working filmmakers. Each column, I’ll choose a clip from a movie that demonstrates a ‘lost art’ of some sort, ask you to watch it, and then go into detail about why this particular slice of movie is worth bringing back into focus.
I did ten shots of whiskey back-to-back before starting this piece. I mean, what would YOU do if you were going to write about a Walter Hill film?
48 HRS could not exist in todays world. It’s a film loaded with racist cops and jive-talkin’ black convicts and lady characters who are only sexy if they’re a hooker, slut, or con artist. It’s a film that screams “MEN WITH BALLS” in every scene, and would openly take a shit on THE NOTEBOOK or TWILIGHT as a matter of principle. Looking back now, maybe ten shots wasn’t enough.
Walter Hill’s not a showy filmmaker. Generally speaking, you’ll come away from his films remembering dialogue rather than specific shots. Makes sense, seeing he’s as much of a writer as he is anything else. What he does is let the material inform the scene, and you’ll see that in the clip below. Take a look:
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
The first thing that comes to mind is the terrific work of the background actors – the extras. The 1st A.D. did a wonderful job here (I assume), giving each of the background actors some ‘business’ to do, so they didn’t wander around like aimless insects. It’s important because if a single extra looks fake or unnatural… if a single extra looks in the camera… then the illusion of ‘reality’ is ruined. The point is NOT to draw attention, and with maybe thirty or so extras… that’s some craft there.
Another thing – all the camera moves are motivated by Nolte… not by ‘coolness’ or style. Camera moves shouldn’t occur ‘just because’ – it should have a reason. It should move with ‘movement’ – whether it’s a lead actor or an extra – it should be a motivated camera move dictated by an actor’s movement (in away, it’s as if the actor motivating the move is ‘pulling’ the camera with his/her blocking). So the camera doesn’t move arbitrarily – it’s ‘pulled’ by Nolte’s performance as he works the set.
This is Nolte’s scene – he’s pumped up, he’s pissed he lost his gun, and that his gun was used by the bad guy to kill two cops. And the scene takes place right after the killings. So it’s got to be energetic – it’s got to be kinetic. Nolte isn’t going to sob and pout – he’s gonna be pissed. That’s Cates’ character. and that’s a lot of emotion for a cop to go through. You could cut up the scene, sure, and it may look cool on film, but Hill’s no dummy – he realized that Nolte’s energy drives that scene, and cutting it up (although it’d do the job) would , and disseminate one important factor: the performance. Hill’s films are mostly about character, so, very smartly, he chooses to let Nolte’s energy propel the scene.
Another thing is that this scene is largely expositional. 48 HRS has a crime to solve and a killer to catch, but that’s not why we watch this story over and over. We want to see Eddie and Nick riff off each other – the mechanics of the plot serve as a means for each of them to do their thing. So it’s not necessary to bog the momentum of the film down with a whole lot of investigating or interviewing. Let’s just get that information out as quickly as we can so we can get to Eddie Murphy as soon as possible. Filming this scene in one shot is like an injection of information – get it, got it, good.
Also… watch out for the blocking. At one point, Nolte and another cop step up to the camera into a tight two-shot – because they’re going into the villain’s profile, and Hill wants us to pay attention. At another point, after talking to the the female ballistics expert (in another two-shot – it seems most of the two-shots occur when Hill wants us to absorb a specific bit of exposition), Nolte talks to some other cops. But this action takes place in the background. The focus of this part of the shot shifts briefly from Nolte in the backround to the blonde hooker in the foreground who’s being questioned by a female cop. We hear her take on the killer… Nolte listens in as she says there’s going to be more, because she feels he likes killing cops more than he likes getting laid. It’s a neat little detail, because it’s more interesting to watch Nolte ‘eavesdrop’ on this tidbit and see his reaction… he’s a cop, and if this guy likes killing cops so much, then it raises the stakes for Nolte.
I’d seen this movie a bunch of times, but only recently did I notice that this scene all occured in one fluid shot. In a way, a good ‘fluid master’ is like a good magic trick, and a good filmmaker should be like a good magician. You shouldn’t notice the illusion, and it’s not always necessary to draw attention to yourself… sometimes, the most effective way of hooking an audience is to allow them to get caught up in the moment and let the magic happen.
That’s it for this entry. What do you all think of the clip? Thoughts? Comments? Spit it out and join in on the conversation… and keep an eye out for the next one!
I love Walter Hill and wish he’d work more. As for this scene it is the kind of controlled chaos and blocking that was very prevelant in the 1980’s but has been abandoned now because it is so goddamn hard to do. In fact your boy Speilberg used to be brilliant at this kind of shit. Think the kitchen scenes at the beginning of ET. Even ‘ol Dick Donner did a good job with this sort of anarchy in “Goonies”. There is a propulsive energy built up here that is controlled by the performance of your leads, the movement the AD has coinstructed in the back ground, the camera moves, the vernacular heavy dialogue, the ocnstant buisness for the actors, the sound design is super important- that is where the real editing is here-, and ebb and flow is controled by the director. Truly brilliant work that wopuld now be shot with long lenses in macro closeup then sliced with the persicion of a chain saw each cut comment on by a whooshing sound on the soundtrack and some kind of Avid fart.
Again… this punches holes in my supposed mastery of film knowledge… but I feel that I only have seen a few Walter Hill films, and know more about his work as a producer and writer… but that illusion of controlled chaos and blocking… I think the most recent and relevant examples of this might actually have been E.R. Steadicams make it easier, of course, so it’s more difficult to do with dollies and laying down track and things like that. But the key is that it’s never showy – like I said, I didn’t notice it was a fluid master shot till it was almost over. Performance drove the scene. Performance dictated camera placement. And the fluid shot was easily the most economical way of telling that exposition as swiftly as possible and yet keep it from feeling like you’re ‘just being told.’
haha, Eddie is so wild! I love him.
A fine example of a shot that simply gets out the information without being to flashy. Like yourself, I became lost within the scene completely forgetting that it was one long fluid shot. Brilliant!
This shot makes me think: F**k you Michael Bay. Sorry, Mr. Bay… but if Walter Hill did TRANSFORMERS? Get the eff outta here….