Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • >> CineFix Host: For this week's list, we want to take a break from ranking things

  • and spend some time appreciating the beauty and the details.

  • Pointing out some of the subtle ways films speak to us in this

  • little moments you might have otherwise missed.

  • These are five unranked brilliant little moments in great films.

  • >> [MUSIC]

  • >> CineFix Host: Cinema is a distinctly active visual media,

  • where novels have the ability to dedicate pages of their story to the internal and

  • the complex, cinema is forced to find a way to show it happen.

  • So one of the things we really wanted to highlight with this list is how

  • clever film makers have found ways to visualize the un-visual.

  • How films managed to reach beyond the surface,

  • how they render the internal external in a clear and understandable way.

  • And what gave us this idea was a tiny little moment

  • from Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

  • When the green destiny sword is stolen by a masked thief and

  • the thief is track back to Governor Yu, Shu Lien sets out quietly investigate

  • the Governor's household, including his suspicious daughter Jen.

  • Now Shu Lien has already fought the thief and

  • she already notice the thief's particular martial arts skills.

  • Then we get this sequence and something important happens.

  • >> Jen: [FOREIGN]

  • >> CineFix Host: Without saying a single word, we get to watch Shu Lien

  • realize that Jen is a gifted martial artist and possibly the thief.

  • In just a few simple shots, Ang Lee has rendered realization visual.

  • Now, this doesn't happen in a vacuum.

  • He's already established Shu Lien's suspicion but

  • let's unpack this brief moment and how it works.

  • After establishing the scene, he cuts to a closeup of the brush tip and

  • what starts as a rather ordinary static shot lingers longer than you might expect.

  • Devoting extra time to gliding along with the brush stroke.

  • This extra time cues us to mark the beauty and rhythm of the writing and

  • pay a little closer attention.

  • The film cuts to the top of the brush and Jen's hand holding it.

  • Two long close-ups of different parts of the same object

  • in succession ,which will be a relatively unusual coincidence in a well-made film.

  • Of course, it's not a coincidence.

  • A well placed close-up doesn't just show us an arbitrary detail,

  • it shows us a specific one.

  • And in a place where we might not ordinarily expect it,

  • the close-up insists upon itself.

  • It asks us to consider why we're watching this close-up,

  • giving an ordinary object extraordinary importance.

  • Not only that, but this second shot specifically excludes the brush.

  • We are focusing on a handle and how it is held, its movement, its precision,

  • separate from its use as a writing instrument.

  • With this amount of time dedicated to it, it's hard for

  • the audience not to start making connections.

  • Finally to complete the sequence, we cut to a medium close up of Shu Lien

  • shifting her eyes from the brush to Jen, revealing the previous shot to be a POV.

  • This extra importance we've given to the brush tip and

  • the brush handle that wasn't just us.

  • We can conclude that the importance with which we regarded that object

  • is the same importance with which Shu Lien did.

  • And in three simple shots we see that Shu Lien is paying extra

  • special attention to the way Jen holds her brush.

  • And with a little inference has realized that Jen knows how to wield a sword.

  • Of course as an added bonus and if anyone hasn't picked up on it yet,

  • check out what Shu Lien says next.

  • >> Shu Lien: [FOREIGN] >> CineFix Host: What

  • she's really saying here, is I now know you know how to use a sword.

  • And from the look on Jen's face we're not the only one's who pick up on it.

  • Now while we're talking realization, Crouching Tigers reminds us

  • of another one, one that's even more technical and precise.

  • Because while there's no denying that the wonderful human performances of

  • Michelle Yeoh and Ziyi Zhang help us along, could a film show us realization in

  • the mind of a character who has no emotion at all?

  • And it obviously can,

  • as seen in the lip-reading scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

  • When Bowman and Poole go into an insulated pod to talk about their concerns over

  • their artificially intelligent computer system HAL, without it overhearing,

  • things don't quite go as planned.

  • >> Dave: You know another thing just occurred to me.

  • >> Frank: Hm? >> Dave: Well, as far as I know,

  • no 9,000 computer's ever been disconnected.

  • >> Frank: No 9,000 computer's ever fouled up before.

  • >> Dave: That's not what I mean.

  • >> Frank: Hm?

  • >> Dave: I'm not so sure what he'd think about it.

  • >> CineFix Host: First the set up,

  • the two astronauts talk privately about their concerns about HAL.

  • And traditionally they would be the focal point of the shot but

  • the drop dead centered deep focus framing of HAL along with their constant looks

  • towards him keep us ominously shifting our focus to

  • him throughout the entire conversation an unblinking and ever present threat.

  • And then we cut a closeup on HAL, the sound is dead silence, eerie silence, and

  • there's something odd about this.

  • At first it seems like we're getting this close-up off of the astronaut's

  • reference to him.

  • >> Dave: I'm not so sure what I think about it.

  • >> CineFix Host: But if we were still operating out of their perspective,

  • we would expect to still hear their voices in the background,

  • as if this was their POV.

  • But we don't, and we soon realize it isn't.

  • We've shifted perspectives to HAL's point of view,

  • which immediately signals to us that something else is going on.

  • And when the shot cuts again, we see what?

  • HAL is doing something, from his POV,

  • we see that he's following the entire conversation and no, we can't hear it but

  • the ultra-tight framing on their mouths tells us he's focusing on their lips.

  • It's an unusual composition.

  • It's not how normal people experience a conversation,

  • either in real life or cinema.

  • And this traditional breach lets us know that something different is going on,

  • which allows us to infer that he's reading their lips.

  • Imagine this shot if it were just a close-up, panning back and

  • forth between their entire faces, we would read it an entirely different way.

  • It might seem like HAL was struggling and failing to follow the conversation,

  • helplessly looking back and forth, but

  • by singling in on exactly what matters, their lips, we catch the real meaning.

  • Next we wanna take a look at Inglourious Basterds' pub scene.

  • When Lieutenant Hicox goes to a German tavern to meet with an undercover Bridget

  • von Hammersmark, the Gestapo Major Dieter Hellstrom becomes suspicious of his accent

  • and invites himself over to investigate.

  • And while Hicox manages to explain away the accent,

  • something else happens to give him away.

  • >> Hellstrom: [FOREIGN] >> Hicox: [FOREIGN]

  • >> Hellstrom: [FOREIGN]

  • >> Bartender: [FOREIGN]

  • >> Hellstrom: [FOREIGN]

  • >> Bridget: [FOREIGN]

  • >> Hicox: [FOREIGN]

  • >> CineFix Host: Sometimes it's

  • helpful to think of every shot as a close-up.

  • Even the medians, even the two-shots, even the wides.

  • That's because a director truly in control of his medium, is trying to show you

  • exactly what he wants you to see at any given moment, nothing more, nothing less.

  • If you're suppose to pay attention to just one thing, exclude everything else.

  • If you want to connect two things, put them together in a frame.

  • If you want to look at a big picture, you put it all in the frame,

  • and this way a two shot is a close up a relationship and a wide shot is

  • a close up of an entire room and a close up, is a close up of, well, the close up.

  • So, how does that play out here?

  • Well, it primarily hinges on one single shot, this one.

  • >> CineFix Host: Breaking this moment down into plain

  • English as we come to understand it, Major Hellstrom notices Lieutenant Hicox's

  • distinctly English gesture and realizes he is not a German after all.

  • Instead of breaking it into three different shots,

  • like Lee and Kubrick, Tarantino goes for it in one.

  • The shot begins as a closeup of his fingers holding up three, and

  • then turns into an over the shoulder on Hellstrom as he looks between Hicox's

  • fingers and his face, bringing the conversation to a dead stop.

  • Notice how this one shot starts with Hellstrom's dramatic head snap.

  • His attention shifts rapidly and

  • obviously, letting us know that something important has happened.

  • Note also that Tarantino's over the shoulder here provides actual information

  • about what Hicox's is doing by being wide and in focus enough to read, as opposed to

  • the over the shoulder earlier in the scene that provides far less information.

  • This keeps us thinking about the dramatic relationship between the two men

  • as opposed to just Hellstrom.

  • We're also cued into the shift in the nature of the scene by the immediate

  • rhythmic and sonic change.

  • What was previously a scene of snappy back and forth dialogue.

  • >> Bartender: [FOREIGN] >> Hellstrom: [FOREIGN]

  • >> CineFix Host: Turns into one of

  • silence.

  • >> CineFix Host: All we can hear are glasses clinking, water pouring, and

  • a low murmur in the background.

  • While Tarantino's directing choices here are certainly more efficient than our

  • previous example's, we're not sure they're clear enough to sufficiently convey

  • specifically that Major Hellstrom has noticed Hicox's hand gesture to any but

  • the savviest audience members on a first viewing.

  • While we certainly notice and abrupt shift, and

  • understand immediately that the jig is up and Hellstrom is now a dangerous enemy.

  • And this is probably all that Tarantino was going for,

  • the how is better explained later in dialog.

  • >> Lt. Aldo Raine: How'd the shooting start?

  • >> Bridget: Englishman, gave himself away.

  • >> Lt. Aldo Raine: How'd he do that?

  • >> Bridget: He ordered three glasses.

  • He ordered three glasses, that's the German three.

  • >> CineFix Host: This verbally pings us and asks us to recall the previous shot,

  • which we do because attention was drawn to it.

  • But it wasn't quite enough of a breach of expectation at the time to draw us

  • into a fully aware realization.

  • Enough of realizations, what about another supposed unfilmable?

  • How about a decision?

  • In The Godfather, Michael has volunteered to kill a rival of his family and

  • the dirty cop works for him during an apparent truce talk.

  • Michael has never worked for the family before, nor has he assassinated anyone and

  • while the plan was for him to go to the bathroom, retrieved the planted gun and

  • come out shooting, he doesn't.

  • >> [MUSIC]

  • >> CineFix Host: After a brilliant moment of indecision we don't have time to unpack

  • here, but extra credit if you do it in the comments,

  • Micheal sits down into a simple over the shoulder shot at the table.

  • But once included shoulder connecting him with Micheal and pointing toward

  • the dialog between them, soon becomes a clean single as the camera pushes in.

  • >> Speaker 11: Too bad,

  • [FOREIGN]

  • [NOISE].

  • >> CineFix Host: In keeping with the concept of every shot a closeup,

  • by excluding the other characters at the table,

  • the film is signaling to us that they're not important right now.

  • The plot isn't happening with them, it's just happening with Michael.

  • And pushing centrally inwards reinforces, intensifies, and

  • lets us know that this is intentional.

  • It makes our close up more close up, it asks us to focus more, to exclude more,

  • to be distracted less.

  • It invites us to heighten our focus on the subject in exclusion of the environment.

  • This leads us inwards, and to Pacino's performance.

  • Here, it's all in the eyes.

  • Now, I don't know if it's fair to call this performance realistic or not.

  • It's certainly believable,

  • no one's questioning whether Pacino is convincing us here.

  • But does someone making a decision move their eyes like this in real life?

  • I'm not sure.

  • It's hard to remember seeing anyone do this, and harder still to do it yourself.

  • What it is, is expressive.

  • Watch it without his eyes and see how much of a difference it makes.

  • >> Speaker 11: [FOREIGN] >> CineFix Host: They signal to us

  • inner movement, the wheels are turning, he's deciding something.

  • And it doesn't take much effort for the audience to intuit what.

  • And finally there's the sound.

  • >> Speaker 11: [FOREIGN] >> CineFix Host: What if we

  • extended our concept of close up to more than the image?

  • What if we do a close up with sound too?

  • What if we do a sound push in?

  • As the camera moves closer, Sollozzo's dialogue is quieter, almost further away.

  • Even if it were in our language, we hardly be able to hear it anymore.

  • We're no longer paying attention to the words just like Michael is.

  • And not only are the words not the point,

  • the fact that the words aren't the point is the point.

  • Coppola is drawing our attention to Michael's inattention.

  • And then, there's the subway sound, overwhelming the soundscape of the scene.

  • A sonic close-up of a pot bubbling over.

  • The unrealistic loudness and grating nature of the sound both intellectually

  • signaling a climax to his thought and emotionally pushing us into dis-ease.

  • Putting it all together, you have a handful of simple signifier's of

  • film language combining to communicate the complex notion of Michael deciding

  • to murder two men, all without a single word of expository dialogue.

  • >> [SOUND] >> CineFix Host: So we lied a little bit

  • when we said film was just a visual

  • medium, it's a sonic one too.

  • Although, people often forget sound in favor of its flashier brother image,

  • it's often just as important, if not more so.

  • Consider some of the low budget found footage movies,

  • like Paranormal Activity or Blair Witch Project.

  • The visuals are shaky and low-fi, and occasionally incomprehensible.

  • Shot for thousands, not millions of dollars.

  • When acquired by studios for wide release,

  • the same studios pump a couple million more into polishing the film.

  • But it doesn't go to the picture, no, that money goes to making the sound tolerable.

  • Given a choice between two films, one with poor picture and good sound, and the other

  • vice versa, you'll find most gravitating towards the better sounding film.

  • So for our last little feature at,

  • we wanna look at how sound can bypass the logical, the intellectual, and as we

  • hinted at with The Godfather, communicate with us on a visceral and emotional level.

  • To paraphrase famous sound editor Walter Murch,

  • while visuals tend to knock on our front door and get our attention,

  • sounds sneaks in through the back and acts on us without our knowledge.

  • And one of the most visceral examples of this we can remember, happens in 127

  • Hours, when after five agonizing days of being trapped under a boulder,

  • Aron Ralston finally cuts through his arm.

  • >> [MUSIC]

  • >> Aron Ralston: [SOUND] Aah!

  • >> CineFix Host: How does a film communicate intense pain?

  • Sure, you can show someone else experiencing it and

  • count on our empathy to fill in the blanks, but

  • there's a limit to the discomfort that our mere neurons can create.

  • So first,

  • watch the moment when Aaron cuts through his arm without sound, visuals only.

  • >> [MUSIC]

  • >> CineFix Host: Kind of mediocre, right?

  • We know he's in pain but we can't fight experience with it.

  • Now, give it a watch with sound.

  • >> [MUSIC]

  • >> Aron Ralston: Aah!

  • >> CineFix Host: It is much different, isn't it?

  • You're reaction probably range from mild shock to actual anxiety to significant

  • physical discomfort, chills, wincing and turning away.

  • >From a sound,

  • our bodies are bizarrely hard wired to respond vicerally to different sounds.

  • >From the anxiety that comes with the inaudible sub base rumble,

  • to the spine chilling response to nails on a chalkboard,

  • sounds seem to speak more to our emotions than to our intellects.

  • While Crouching Tiger's concepts take time for us to understand,

  • Aron Ralston's pain is instant because sounds don't communicate concept and

  • symbols so much as they communicate feelings and moods.

  • Consider 2001's eerie silence, Inglorious Bastards tense clinking,

  • the Godfather's roaring subway and now 127 Hours jarring electric nerve, shock.

  • We don't watch them and think to ourselves, hm, this silence is eerie now,

  • which means something bad is afoot.

  • Because we don't have to, we intuit it directly,

  • which when combined with the logical communication of a series of images,

  • makes up one hell of a cinematic toolkit.

  • You like this kind of list?

  • Wanna see more like it?

  • Any ideas for other lists you'd like us to do?

  • Seriously, we're running out of ideas here.

  • Let us know in the comments below and be sure to subscribe for

  • more Cinefix movie lists.

  • >> [MUSIC]

>> CineFix Host: For this week's list, we want to take a break from ranking things

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it