A Low-Tech Effects Shot from "Mission: Impossible III"

This is one of director J.J. Abrams' favorite visual effects shots from his film, "Mission: Impossible III". Rather than have actor Eddie Marsan forcibly shove the prop into Tom Cruise's nose, J.J. came up with a different idea on how to accomplish the shot.

direct link to YouTube
Watch his full TED talk from March 2007 here.

Post Magazine: "Star Trek" Returns

Post Magazine's cover story is all about ILM's visual effects for J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek." The article, written by Ken McGorry, touches on some of the major challenges behind our visual effects.

The article includes mentions and quotes from visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett, co-supervisor Russell Earl, animation supervisor Paul Kavanagh, digital production supervisor Michael DiComo, CG supervisor Tom Fejes, compositing supervisor Eddie Pasquarello, paint supervisor Beth D'Amato, and sequence supervisors Greg Salter, Mark Nettleton, David Weitzberg, Raul Essig, Conny Fauser, Jay Cooper, Francois Lambert, and Todd Vaziri.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

J.J. Abrams and DP Daniel Mindel shot Star Trek with an anamorphic lens... and if there's the sun or a star in the corner of a synthetic ILM shot — or when the Enterprise passes in a beauty shot and its lights strike the virtual lens — the compositors have to replicate all the complexities of light dancing across such a lens. "There are all these different layers to the lens flare that we have to replicate digitally," DiComo says.

ILM's Todd Vaziri analyzed what anamorphic lenses do and all their different properties so they could be used in simulated shots and they call the resulting program "Sunspot." Vaziri was a sequence supervisor whose job was to overlook all the sequences and make sure that ILM's shots were "correct to the film" — that they matched. "He takes great, great pains and it shows," says [compositing supervisor Eddie] Pasquarello. "That was one of our compositing coups that I feel made a difference here — finishing touches that help our shots blend with the live action that J.J. gave us."

Click here to see the full credits for J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek."

Millimeter Magzine: Back On Trek

Millimeter Magazine recently posted a really nice article about the making of "Star Trek," with an emphasis on the cinematography, visual effects design, and the digital intermediate color timing process. As part of a discussion about the photographic style of the film, director J.J. Abrams, cinematographer Dan Mindel and visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett talked about the use of lens flares in the film. As a sequence supervisor at Industrial Light & Magic, one of my duties on "Star Trek" was to create synthetic lens flare aberrations for our visual effects shots that matched stylistically and technically with the first unit photography.

We used flares in "Star Trek" as a storytelling device in a way that has never been done before. The great thing is that J.J., Roger and I were on the same visual wavelength in terms of how, when and why to create the flaring aberrations in the film. The flares give the film a unique flavor of spontaneity and intensity, paradoxically giving the film a documentary-style grittiness, as well as a fanciful, otherworldly, abstract quality. I'll let them explain:

[The] technique was the strategic plan to build camera lens flares into the photography. For a sci-fi space film—or any film these days—that aesthetic is extremely rare, since filmmakers usually battle to remove flares from their photography, rather than insert them. Abrams’ and Mindel’s obsession with lens flares, however, was part of a strategic vision for the photography. The technique is so prevalent that Abrams jokes he may have designed “a future in which you’ll have to wear shades.”

“I can’t explain it with intellectual reasoning—I can just say it was important to me,” Abrams says. “Even though some people may think we went over the top with flares, I just loved that they made it feel like there was always something spectacular going on off-camera, as well as what was happening on-camera. It reminded me of the feeling I would get watching NASA footage. It might be a distraction to some people, and I apologize to them, but I loved that feeling that this was a more natural future, rather than a [stereotypical sci-fi] shiny future.”

Mindel says the approach required an attitude adjustment on the part of the camera crew. “We have been spending the last 20 to 30 years trying to take flares out,” he says. “Here, we loved the way the anamorphic lenses flare naturally, and we were told to let them happen and we even put them in when they weren’t there. Other space movies have that non-believable aspect of being photographically sterile, and they rarely allow the idiosyncratic nature of light and movement into the arena, which gives you a kind of homogenized movie. We were eager to make sure that did not happen here. We felt a degree of believability comes with the idiosyncrasies that we allowed onto the film—those aberrations on the lenses, flaring, and even a little misframing or accidents. Often, it’s accidents that go on to make up the great pieces of movie art. We felt that by allowing flares in, we would get an organic infringement into the sterile frame—adding a bit of imperfection, a degree of reality.

“We developed an interesting, low-tech technique for it. We had two guys with flashlights flaring the lens constantly. There is a real expertise to it. The hardest thing about the technique was how to keep the lamp operators out of frame since they had to play very close to the lens. The trickery comes from knowing how to flare the lens and hide behind the flare."

But the flaring technique hardly stopped once the production left the set. Mindel’s camera work served as the inspiration for the creation of artificial lens flares for many bits of hundreds of visual-effects shots. These flares were created using a proprietary system developed at ILM to match the specific aberrations of Mindel’s anamorphic lenses.

ILM Sequence Supervisor Todd Vaziri was responsible for developing the artificial lens-flare software system, which the company dubbed SunSpot. The system essentially combines off-the-shelf software, certain proprietary ILM tools, photographed elements, and several custom paint elements to painstakingly match the flares captured on the negative.

“The technique gives compositors instant, highly realistic anamorphic lens flares for our all-CG shots that are indistinguishable from real, practical flares shots by the first unit,” Guyett says. “We used it to create flares for a variety of purposes such as spotlights on the exterior of the Enterprise, lights on synthetic set extensions, the Vulcan sun, and a dwarf star featured in the film’s prologue.”

The article is available online here (free registration may be required), and in its April 2009 print edition.

Full Credits for "Star Trek"

It looks like the full credits for "Star Trek" are available online at trekmovie.com.  Scroll down to the Industrial Light & Magic section to see the names of the 300 people who worked to create the film's visual effects.

Click here to see the full credits.

Our Director

If you only read one article about director J.J. Abrams and his approach to creating a brand new "Star Trek" film, read this one. Here are some choice excerpts:

LATimes: You know that no matter what you do, you'll get an earful from hardcore fans.

Abrams: The key is to appreciate that there are purists and fans of "Star Trek" who are going to be very vocal if they see things that aren't what what they want. But I can't make this movie for readers of Nacelles Monthly who are only concerned with what the ship's engines look like. They're going to find something they hate no matter what I do. And yet, the movie at its core is not only inspired by what has come before, it's deeply true to what's come before. The bottom line is we have different actors playing these parts and from that point on it's literally not what they've seen before. It will be evident when people see this movie that it is true to what Roddenberry created and what those amazing actors did in the 1960s. At the same time, I think, it's going to blow people's minds because its a completely different experience than what they expect.

...it felt to me that the key to "Star Trek" was to go from the inside-out: Be as true to the characters as possible, be as real and as emotional and as exciting as possible and not be distracted by the specter of all that the "Star Wars" film accomplished.

"Star Trek," directed by J.J. Abrams, featuring visual effects by Industrial Light and Magic, hits theaters on May 8. Watch HD trailers for "Star Trek" at Apple.com.

Los Angeles Times Interview with J.J. Abrams, part 1 and part 2.

Abrams: "It's Amazing"

From Sci Fi Wire:

J.J. Abrams, who directed the upcoming Star Trek reboot movie, addressed the film's new take on starship battles...

Earlier in the evening, screenwriter Roberto Orci described the battles as still maritime-influenced, despite the new, lavish look. Abrams clarified.

"They're big ships, so I'd say that there is a little bit of that, but there's a little bit more flash and fun and action than you've seen before," Abrams said in a group interview. "There are some pretty spectacular visual effects. ILM outdid themselves. It's amazing."

The "Star Trek" Trailer

In case you haven't heard, the new "Star Trek" trailer has been released. To see it in full HD glory, take a peek at "Star Trek" at apple.com. "Star Trek," directed by J.J. Abrams, will be in theaters in May, 2009.

And here are some completely random frames from the trailer, as chosen by the Randomizer 2000(tm) software, featuring ArbitraryBoost 2.0.

Visual Effects Camera Work: "A Fish Called Wanda" and "Mission: Impossible III"

You will undoubtedly hear this bit of advice repeatedly on this blog: the single best education for visual effects artists involves watching non-visual effects films and dissecting and analyzing the creative and technical choices made to achieve believable shots. In this article, I'll concentrate on organic, realistic camera work in live-action films and how photoreal visual effects artists can learn from cinematographers how to compose actors within the frame, and make their camera work feel natural and true to the style of the rest of the film. I'll also show you an example of my work from "Mission: Impossible III," and how I analyzed the film's camerawork to make my effects shot fit into the rest of the film.

One of the basic tenets of photographic camera work involves the framing of actors with appropriate headroom. Traditional Hollywood movies have used the rule of thirds to help guide cameramen into shooting pleasant compositions. Framing an actor's eyes to fit onto a line that is 1/3 of the way from the top edge of the frame is sure-fire way of achieving a 'proper' composition. Using this technique, the actors fill the frame in a pleasing manner with proper headroom; the audience can clearly read the actor's face. Generally speaking, this type of framing of actors' is the standard for Hollywood films. Unless a filmmaker has a stylistic reason for framing his actor differently (to give the shot a different, off-balance emotional feel), you will see this type of framing as the standard.

A shot from "Romancing the Stone" (1984), directed by Robert Zemeckis.

The same shot, with an upper-third overlay. Notice how Michael Douglas' eyes perfectly line up with the upper third of the frame.

Better yet, this kind of framing consistency means that when one shot cuts with another, the audience doesn't need to frantically scan the frame to lock their eyes on what is important: the actor's eyes. Actors' eyes are consistently featured at the upper third of the frame, which leaves the audience only to scan the frame horizontally from shot to shot. It's a subtle way to help guide an audience member through a sequence. Remember, in most cases, traditional Hollywood narrative films need to keep the techniques subordinate to the story. The editing, sound effects, cinematography and set design all need to service the story and characters, rather than call attention to themselves.

Another shot from "Romancing the Stone."

The same shot with an upper-third overlay.

This lesson is extremely valuable to anyone who creates visual effects or animated shots from scratch. Without any live-action footage to use as a basis, it is up to the artist to frame the shot properly. In these cases, it is important for visual effects artists to mimic their live-action counterparts and understand this basic convention of cinematography.

Let's watch this scene from "A Fish Called Wanda," directed by Charles Crichton. Watch how effortlessly we cut from angle to angle in this brilliant sequence, completely devoid of dialogue.

fish from Todd Vaziri Vimeo on Vimeo.

Watch it again, this time with the sound down (as to not distract you from analyzing the visuals), and pay close attention to the compositions, particularly on Michael Palin's close ups. Notice how the camera operator consistently frames its subjects in a pleasing manner, consistently striving for pleasing compositions, not only for actors but props and set pieces (like a gun, a pulley, ropes, and a giant block of concrete).

Notice how the cameraman is constantly reframing his tilt angle to give Palin a pleasant composition within the frame. These shots were photographed with a human being behind the camera, with separate pan and tilt wheels being cranked to frame the shot properly. This lends the shot an organic, hand-created quality, something that is frequently missing from visual effects shots that are 100% synthetic.

Raymond Stella, camera operator, sets up a shot for "Back To The Future Part II." Notice the pan wheel (on the left of the mount) and the tilt wheel (at the rear of the mount).

Why is there sometimes a discrepancy between the feel of real camera moves and synthetic moves? Why do purely synthetic visual effects shots sometimes stand out from ordinary non-effects shots? There are two primary reasons: purely synthetic camera compositions are not framed properly, and the camera's pan/tilt movement is frequently robotic.

As we just discussed, professional cinematographers have the tenets of composition in their DNA; on the other hand, very few digital artists have a photographic background, so it is important for these artists to have a solid foundation of knowledge when it comes to these concepts. Proper framing of subject is something any digital artist can learn.

A more difficult and subtle technique to learn, however, is the skill of adding the organic pan and tilt adjustments to a shot. Rather than pan and tilt wheels being 'performed' in real time on a set, synthetic camera moves are programmed using motion curves on a computer. By default, these curves are exquisitely perfect with either linear perfection, or computer-created acceleration and deceleration slopes. And, if the artist doesn't go in and 'mess up' those curves, they will end up creating a camera move that is sterile and robotic.

Antiseptic, inorganic camera moves are not deal-breakers, but they subconsciously take the viewer out of the experience. A visual effects shot with crystal-clean camera movement, within the context of non-effects shots, is disruptive to the viewing experience. An audience becomes conditioned to the natural, organic nature of a film's camera movement, which makes the visual effects shot stick out, even if that visual effects shot looks completely photoreal and convincing. This is one of those situations in visual effects that, when noticed, causes audiences to say, "That shot feels fake. I don't know why it looks fake, but there's definitely something fake about it."

How can shots with robotic camera moves slip through the cracks? How can visual effects supervisors allow this kind of camera animation get through to the big screen, given all of the hard work and constant reviewing that the shot gets during production? The answer is simple - the vast majority of the time, a visual effects shot, while in production, is viewed hundreds of times on a loop, without any context. The shot just plays over and over at an artist's desk, in dailies and in client reviews. Yes, the shot is cut into a sequence (both on the effects house's side, and on the client's side), but the vast majority of the time, the shot is being analyzed and critiqued in a vacuum. And in a vacuum, the camera move might look just fine. In fact, having an overly-smooth camera move in an effects might actually increase the chances of a shot getting approved. Subconsciously, the artists want their work to be seen, and seen clearly (not only for reasons of vanity, but also from a story point of view), and keeping the camera moves uncomplicated certainly helps the readability of the shot. Adding organic tweaks and twitches to the camera move may be correct and more realistic in context, but it may actually decrease the readability of the shot. Personally, my artistic sensibility is to err on the side of naturalism over readability. Our job as visual effects artists is to make shots that feel as spontaneous and organic as possible, as if the action is truly happening right in front of our eyes; creating organic camera moves is part of that process.

Here's another section of the "Wanda" scene, played back in slow motion with an upper-third horizontal line overlay, so we can better analyze the camera movement.


Notice how the operator is striving to hit the proper eyeline framing. Look at all of the micro movements in the tilt that occur throughout the shot. The operator knows the key marks that Palin will hit, but he doesn't necessarily know precisely when he'll hit those marks. The result is the kind of organic, humanistic camera movement that subtly reminds you that this is a movie made by human beings. These are the kinds of cues that are important to add to synthetic camera moves.

Depending on the shot, the camera operator might miss a moment entirely. Watch this clip from the "Wanda" sequence to see what happens when the operator is a bit behind the action.


For a moment, Palin's eyes are completely off screen. Watching this shot on a loop, one might be surprised that a shot like this would actually make it into the movie. In fact, this is one of those "I would never be able to get away with that kind of move in visual effects" moments. No visual effects supervisor or director would approve an effects shot with that kind of camera move in their shot-- they would complain that the move is far too wild, and we lose focus on what's important: Palin's horrified reaction to what he has just done. However, within the context of the rest of the scene, we 'get it,' and Palin's eyes briefly leaving frame just adds to the emotional shock and absurd comedy of the scene.

Of course, every cinematographer and camera operator has a different style. One cannot study the camera style of a single film and expect to understand the vocabulary of camera movements. "A Fish Called Wanda" was classically shot; in creating this character-driven comedy, the filmmakers made a conscious decision to allow the actors to move within the frame, shoot relatively static, and not call attention to the filmmaking process by keeping the camera moves unobtrusive. On the other hand, a modern action film like "Mission: Impossible III" contains a visual style quite different.

Director J.J. Abrams and cinematographer Dan Mindel created a film whose camera movement was essentially a character in the film. Rather than allowing the camerawork to be invisible and unobtrusive, the camerawork in "MI3" does some heavy lifting; the frenetic nature of the camera style adds to the chaos and unpredictability of the action sequences. Rather than letting the actors work within a static frame, the camera takes us along for the ride and interacts with the characters and the action. When Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is running down the Chesapeake Bay bridge, the camera is running right along with him, trying to keep up, mirroring the emotions of the characters. This style is sometimes called cinema verite, or documentary-style filmmaking, where the camera is an active participant in the action, rather than objectively and coldly recording the choreography.

I was sequence supervisor of the visual effects for the bridge attack sequence for "MI3" at Industrial Light & Magic. To ensure that our visual effects shots fit seamlessly into the rest of the film, we had to pay close attention to the style of camerawork created by Mindel and camera operator Colin Anderson. Here is a portion of the bridge attack sequence, which is entirely comprised of first unit camera work. (Although there are a few ILM shots in this clip, we didn't alter the camerawork in any way.)

Notice the style of camera movement in the clip, contrasted with the "Wanda" clip. The "MI3" camera is constantly pulsing and breathing, mimicking Hunt's point of view. It's a moment of chaos, and the characters are trying to react to this chaos, and so is the camera. In this clip, the camera is constantly searching, readjusting, sometimes losing 'proper' framing. There are a couple of micro-crash zooms in the clip, as well, which is something one would typically see in a documentary. This is exactly the sequence I studied to help create the camera move for one of our big effects shots of the sequence-- a shot that I composited, and that would require a synthetic camera move.

The final two shots of the above clip were very important to me, since they had a very similar tone and feel to my shot, with similar action and camera choreography. The style in which Mindel and Anderson photographed those two shots would be my inspiration for the camera move for "be064," the production code for the shot of Hunt getting blown forward by the shockwave of the truck explosion behind him.

Because of the staggering complexity of the stuntwork, special effects, and ultimately the visual effects work, the base background plates were photographed as smoothly as possible, rather than 'performed' as the rest of the movie was photographed. Visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett needed to make sure that we captured pristine photography of the elaborate stunt that the actor, himself, would be performing, along with the amazing practical special effects explosion.

Here are the base photographic plates for the shot, as featured in the "MI3" 2-disc DVD special edition:

view on Vimeo
Because the focus of this article is visual effects camera work, I will not be able to dive into the massive complexities of this particular shot. Hopefully, I'll be able to talk about the specific challenges of this effects shot in a future article.

As you can plainly see, the base photographic plates for be064 were shot without panning or tilting, slightly wider than necessary, and captured with two cameras with spherical lenses (I would later merge these plates into one large, wide anamorphic plate). I also built my composite with this smooth camera move, without any frenetic camera moves. Once my smooth pre-composite was in good shape, I would add the camera moves in the 2D composite.

Abrams had some very specific camera direction for key moments in the shot. At the head of the shot, he wanted to be tight on Hunt (similar to the framing of the second to last shot of the first "MI3" clip.) Then, just before the missile hits the truck, he wanted a crash zoom out, to reveal a wider view of the action. Then, after the explosion occurs, he wanted the 'operator' to pan/tilt and zoom into the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that whizzes right over Hunt's head. After the flyby, Abrams wanted me to bring the camera back to our hero, still reeling from the shock of the explosion.

Needless to say, that's a lot of choreography for a pretty short shot. To add to the complexity, I would need to add an explosive camera shake to the shot (in reaction to the massive explosion behind Hunt).

Here is the shot as it appeared in the film:

watch on Vimeo

Here were my specific ideas for the camera moves for the shot:

• I was simulating the look of a handheld camera operator sitting atop a dolly, which gives us the smooth movement backwards with all of the energy of handheld.
• Because of the handheld nature of the shot, I made sure to maintain generally 'proper' framing, but also keep it active and chaotic, and allow Hunt's head to break frame from time to time.
• At the head of the shot, when we're still zoomed in tight on Hunt, I made sure to make the camera bobble realistically amplified, which is what you would see in a real-life camera shake with a long lens. Because the field of view is so tiny, even small camera bumps are seen as giant waves of movement. Of course, after the crash zoom out, I made sure to diminish the intensity of the camera bumps.
• On the crash zoom out, I made sure that the zoom and the pan/tilt readjustments that I would make post-zoom were not simultaneous. In real life, the operator zooms out, and then needs to make a split-second decision on framing. It's subtle, but it's there.


• On the explosive camera shake, I had to juggle two challenges which were at odds with one another. I had to make sure that the camera shake did not distort the image to a degree that we would somehow miss the important point of the shot - that the actor is doing his own stunt. This was a very important emotional beat to the shot; I didn't want the audience to think that I was tricking them, or hiding something with an over-the-top camera shake (which audiences, sadly, see all the time). I also had to make sure that the shake was appropriate for a giant explosion that was strong enough to blow an actor off of his feet, smashing into a parked car with such velocity that it shatters its rear window. If anything, I erred on the side of preserving the readability of the shot. Besides, all of the other effects I added (the dust shockwave, manually animating the briefcase across the ground, etc.) helped sell the intensity of the explosion.
• After Hunt hits the car, I wanted to tilt down with his body to achieve a better composition, but notice how I am just a bit late on the tilt. Keeping the tilt just a beat late gives the shot a bit of authenticity, as if the cameraman was operating the camera live, and didn't know exactly where his body would be at any particular time.

• On the UAV flyby, I tried to mimic a camera operator who could see the UAV out of the corner of his eye, and just barely was able to frame for the fast moving jet. And, if you look carefully, we never really get a good composition of the UAV at all, which was fine with us, since the UAV's flyby was an accent to the shot, not the main driving force of the shot.
• Finally, on the pan/tilt back to Hunt and the burning truck, I wanted to impart the energy of a camera operator who carefully rests the camera on his original framing, doing a bit of work to get the proper framing.

Ultimately, the biggest challenge for me was animating a camera shake for the explosion that was big enough to logically fit with the action (a human being blown off his feet), and yet not obscure the action and the big selling point of the shot, which is that Tom Cruise performed his own stunt. Abrams wanted the audience to truly feel what Agent Hunt was going through, to see the anguish on his face, and see what happens to his body after this amazing event.

Integral to this whole process was creating an organic, naturalistic camera move that complemented the rest of the film, and helped sell the spontaneity and reality of the situation.

Out of the Fog

Just who are these people?

As you may have guessed from the relatively scant number of posts on FXRant over the past few months, I've been knee-deep in work. After seven hard months, I've finally completed a huge project for which I'm extremely proud. Unfortunately, we all have to wait eight long months to talk about it.

The good news is that I'm taking some time off before starting a new project, and in the meantime I'll be prepping some really cool articles to publish. So sit tight-- good stuff is coming soon. I received a lot of great, positive feedback from the "Dark Knight"/"Shining" articles, so look forward to more articles in that vein. We'll hand out some more Camera Shake Citations, and induct shots into the Depth Of Field Hall Of Shame (an upcoming feature), talk about how Movie Marketing is Hard, and much more.

And on a completely unrelated topic, here are two interesting articles about J.J. Abrams' upcoming film, "Star Trek," coming to theaters in May 2009.

"Star Trek:" New Movie, New Vision
Director J.J. Abrams has set a course to make the Enterprise cool again; here's the inside scoop on his surprising, idealistic odyssey, which may end up with Kirk and Co. driving next summer's box office juggernaut

Entertainment Weekly's "Star Trek" Photo Gallery

Playing With Expectations

I love filmmakers who don't feel the need to sink their film to the lowest common denominator; filmmakers who, even within the context of a blockbuster-type film, give their audience a bit of credit for their intelligence. These writers and directors accept the fact that they are working within a framework of expectations - not simply the expectations of the traditional Hollywood narrative structure, but genre-specific elements for which audiences have become accustomed.

Of particular interest to me are little phrases and lines that you fully expect to hear coming from characters' mouths that don't happen onscreen. The filmmaker knows you're expecting it, and takes that expectation and turns it into something more interesting.

What am I talking about? Here are three basic examples.

The first is from the prologue of "Casino Royale," Martin Campbell's brilliant 2006 reboot of the James Bond franchise.


Let's exclusively examine the dialogue for a moment.

Dryden: If M was so sure I was bent, she'd have sent a double-oh. Benefits of being section chief. I'd know if anyone had been promoted to double-oh status, wouldn't I? Your file shows no kills, and it takes...
James Bond: Two. [cuts to Bond fighting Dryden's contact]
Dryden: Shame. We barely got to know each other. [Dryden pulls the trigger, but no bullet is fired]
Bond: I know where you keep your gun. I suppose that's something.
Dryden: True. How did he die?
James Bond: Your contact? Not well.
Dryden: Made you feel it, did he? Well, you needn't worry. The second is... [Bond shoots Dryden]
James Bond: Yes... considerably.

Firstly, admire the incredible efficiency of this dialogue. There are so few words, and yet a complicated story is being told on several levels, and nearly every line advances the story and gives us new information about these characters. Both characters understand what's going on-- these fellas are smart. Director Campbell and writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis are assuming that the audience is smart enough to realize that these characters are smart. They both know what each other is scheming. Bond is finishing Dryden's sentences. Dryden realizes Bond is there to kill him. Bond knows that Dryden knows that Bond is there to kill him (why else would he have surreptitiously disarmed Dryden?).

After Dryden shows some compassion for Bond ("Made you feel it, did he?"), he gives cold comfort to Bond, intending to tell him that his second kill would be easier. But Bond, just as he finished Dryden's sentence for him earlier, cuts him off with a bullet. The audience didn't need to hear Dryden say the full line: "The second is easier." Bond didn't need to hear it, either. We all knew it was coming. And the authors of the film gave us enough credit, rewarding us for actually paying attention to the dialogue (with a suprising, intense and explosive reaction from Bond, cutting off Dryden's dialogue, and shooting him dead), and not giving us a cliched, cheesy, needlessly excessive line of dialogue. For this kind of sly writing to appear in a Bond film, a film series that virtually pioneered the 'talking villain' cliche, this is especially refreshing. (For a description of Roger Ebert's 'The Fallacy of the Talking Killer," read his review of "Licence to Kill.") On another level, by literally cutting off the villain's cliched line, the filmmakers are slyly telling us that this is not your ordinary James Bond film, that they will be literally cutting off the obvious cliches of the genre.

The audience is further rewarded with Bond's post-shooting response of, simply, "Yes. Considerably." How easy could it have been for Bond to respond with "... easier? Yes. It is considerably easier." In this elegant and efficient way, we see Bond emerging as a double-oh, evolving from an inexperienced agent who actually felt some emotion during his first kill to a cold-blooded, emotionless weapon. All within just a few minutes of screen time, and with only a few lines of dialogue.

As an aside, notice the ultra-fast flash frames and whip pan that occurs as Bond ultimately shoots Dryden. A few frames of a family photo on Dryden's desk appear for a split second, almost subconsciously giving the audience a sense of Dryden's humanity, just as he's being shot dead. Once again, this is a remarkable feat for a Bond film; most Bond films are quick to paint their villains as one-note, two-dimensional cutouts.

Another example comes from J.J. Abrams' "Mission: Impossible III," also from 2006. Please note: the clip and discussion below contain spoilers for the film. Skip to the "Ratatouille" section if you haven't yet seen "MI3."


Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman), just as we saw in the amazing and disorientating prologue to the film, has a gun to Julia's head (Michelle Monaghan). Agent Hunt (Tom Cruise) is doing all he can to convince Davian not to pull the trigger, while tied to a chair across from them. At a certain point, he realizes that Davian cannot be won over. Hunt's tone immediately changes from frenetic and panicked into an almost calm, solemness, as if he is resigned that her fate has already been sealed. "No," he whispers. "No." Davian finishes his countdown, "Ten," and pulls the trigger.

The look of resignation and Hunt's sad, whispered "No," speaks volumes. We get to feel the complex emotions going on inside Hunt, where all optimism is lost, and, even before the shot is fired, Hunt is already mourning the loss of his wife. Not only is this a good example of intelligent writing, but also of an extraordinarily nuanced performance by Cruise.

The camera lingers on Hunt's face of disbelief after Davian pulls the trigger. He's thinking, 'why is this happening? I just retrieved the Rabbit's Foot for Davian... why was he asking me where it is?' But without a word, he simply stares off. Behind him, Davian retreats to another room, talking with a mysterious person. The camera remains on Hunt, but we see the men in the background and we hear whispers. The mystery man enters the room. We cut to Hunt's near-POV, a closeup of his dead 'wife.' Then, Agent Musgrave (Billy Crudup) interrupts his gaze - for a moment, he's out of focus (since we were focused on Hunt's wife), but he slowly becomes sharp, and we realize that Musgrave has been working with Davian the whole time. He stares at us, we're staring at him... Hunt says nothing, but we're all thinking, "How could this be? How could this be?!"

Answering an unasked question, Musgrave finally says, "It's complicated."

We really didn't need to hear Hunt ask, "Why?" or "How?" It was implied, and instead of a completely predictable dialog between characters, we get the almost jolting answer to a question we were all thinking.

And, if the reader may indulge me, watch how carefully this scene is crafted. Director Abrams doesn't just cut to Musgrave sitting down, quickly rack focusing on him, and have him say his line. This is a big moment in the movie, and the timing needs to be just right to convey the magnitude of this moment-- the reveal of the big betrayal.

For one, offscreen, Musgrave throws a chair down, then calmly sits, blocking our view. For several beats, he's out of focus, visually mimicking Hunt's disorientation. Slowly we come to realize that it's Musgrave, and slowly he becomes in focus. Allowing this moment to soak in, another few beats pass before he says his line. This is about drawing out the suspense, putting the audience in Hunt's shoes. ("MI3" is, essentially, a film that follows Hunt's point-of-view for the duration of the entire film. I'll hopefully be writing about POV films at a future time.)

But the nice touch that I most appreciate about this scene is in regards to the camera movement. Just after Davian fires, we have a wide two-shot of Hunt and his wife, where the camera is to Hunt's left. We cut to an extreme closeup of Hunt's bewildered face, while the camera slowly dollys right to left, including a moment where Hunt's wife's head blocks the entire view of the camera. We continue dollying to reveal the men behind Hunt. As the camera settles, we realize that Hunt's view of the world is changing, and his disorientation and befuddlement is going to take another hit, when Musgrave is revealed to be a traitor. The rest of the scene between Hunt and Musgrave occurs with a shot-reverse-shot sequence with the camera stationed on Hunt's right side.

What happened here? The camera crossed the 180 degree line. To establish a sense of orientation and understanding of a scene, particularly a scene with two characters talking to each other, the camera needs to stay on one side of the imaginary line that is created between the two characters. The camera, even within shot-reverse-shot sequences, needs to stay consistently on a single side, so that the scene is grounded for the viewer. The result: the audience is constantly oriented and understands the action.

If the camera moves to the other side of that line, especially in a cut, the audience is immediately disoriented. "Our hero has just spent the entire scene talking to a character to the left... and now our hero is on the right? Wait, what happened?" This can be used for dramatic effect (for example, Ang Lee's "Hulk" used this device often, frequently cutting to cameras on either side of the 180 degree line, to create a constant sense of uneasiness), but in traditional Hollywood narrative filmmaking, this practice is frowned upon.

However, if you literally show the camera breaking the line in an uninterrupted shot, you can set up a new orientation of the scene properly. Plus, emotionally, the break of the line causes the viewer to realize that something is changing, something is different, something is disorienting, which is exactly the kind of emotion director Abrams was trying to evoke for this scene in "MI3." In our case, the camera slowly dollys across the 180 degree line in an uninterrupted shot, subtly giving the audience an extra, almost subconscious level of disorientation.

Here is a good illustration of the 180 degree rule, in a YouTube video created by Moviemaking Techniques:


And here's another YouTube video, explaining the same concepts in a different way.

Let's get back to writing. Here's a clip from Brad Bird's "Ratatouille," and look for two things: a moment where the camera answers a question that a character asks, and a moment where a character doesn't get to finish his thought.


Emile doesn't need to complete his entire thought - long before the lightning struck, we knew what he was going to say. But the gag comes from the fact that the setup is really subtle. Remy is obsessing about cooking his cheese and mushroom, while Emile looks around nervously. In the deep background, we barely see flashes of lightning, with some eventual soft thunder behind it. The joke is that the storm arrived at their location so quickly, Emile couldn't even finish his thought. It's a quick, basic physical gag of the movie, and screenwriter/director Brad Bird takes what he can get out of it, then quickly moves on.

Imagine how, say, the lazy screenwriters of any Dreamworks animated film would have staged this type of scene. First a wide shot of the deliberately approaching storm. Then, some pop-culture-laced riffs between two animated characters who look exactly like their celebrity voice counterparts. One of them says, "Hey, maybe we should get off this roof, dawg! Let's go shopping at Old Wavy while sipping a Coral Cola! " And then ZAP! they get struck by lightning, and 'hilarity' ensues.

The "Casino Royale," "MI3" and "Ratatouille" clips are examples of intelligent screenwriters playing with the expectations of a clever audience. Of course, this technique of toying with cliches and turning them into something more interesting only works in the hands of truly innovative filmmakers. Here's an example of the technique falling flat, from Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns."


Yeah... it doesn't really work here. In a film filled with land mines, this is a small firecracker. The entire film is so hopelessly lost and devoid of purpose or heart, and this scene is illustrative of that fact. The ploy of illustrating Luthor's expectation of Lane's line "Superman will never let you get away with this!" is overplayed, and hammed up to such an extent that its power is lost.

Are there any other cinematic examples of this phenomenon that you can think of? Where filmmakers assume the audience knows a line or cliche that is coming, and then they turn that cliche on its head and deliver something more interesting?

1-18-08

Apple is now hosting the teaser for the J.J. Abrams-produced film, simply known as "1-18-08."

Watch the trailer here.

Intriguing

So, did anyone else see the mystery J.J. Abrams trailer?

From Yahoo: "Transformers" audiences get peek at new disaster pic

Update: view the trailer here.