Shot vs. Snatch

An interesting article sent to me by a friend about the nature of the shot vs. the snatch.

I pretty much agree with the article in its entirety on the subject.

For me one of the defining aspects of the shot, vs. the snatch, is that for shots to work effectively directors need to be conscious of not only their frame composition, but their mise en scene as well.

I think strong mise en scene (camera com\position, movement, lighting AND set dec) has given away to a strong focus on set dec and lighting effects. I remember watching some behind the scenes crap for VAN HELSING a couple years ago and watching Hugh Jackman stumble around a gigantic sound stage with half a dozen cameras following his every move. I was disappointed by that, because it showed that clearly the mise en scene was incidental to whatever the actor was doing.

Now VAN HELSING was a crap action movie and can’t really be expected to live by the mantra of the ‘shot’, but for me I thought it was an extraordinarily lazy move on the part of the director and it showed a lack of respect for the medium he was working in.

A modern director who I find is really effective at making shots look like snatches is Spielberg. But it’s all a lie. You might think he’s letting the set dec run the scene, but even his throwaway shots are all carefully composed and constructed (MINORITY REPORT, WAR OF THE WORLDS) The defining aspect what makes a snatch is not the length of time it’s on screen, but whether it serves to add something more to the story beyond just driving the narrative forward.
What I like about the shot is that, when used properly, you can capture really great performances with a single take. I love watching old comedies where two actors run a scene from beginning to end in one go. They’ve studied the HELL out of the dialogue, they know where all the comic beats are and they really take the time to refine their performances before it even gets to post.

Again, when I watch behind the scenes stuff these days it seems that most performers are lucky to spit out a single line before someone screws up and they have to do it all again. Only they never do. They never run a scene through from beginning to end. They’ve got so many cameras going that they take the scene one line at a time and as long as they’ve got each line on tape somewhere they can cut up the scene so that it makes narrative sense. This might be why I’ve gone off improv-comedies in recent years, because it’s mostly about assembling the funny from wildly unrelated material.

The shot gave us one of my most vivid movie memories ever, the slow realization that creeps over Jack Nicholson’s face at the end ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST as he begins to understand whats happening to his life inside an insane asylum.

Tarantino definitely knows the power of capturing a changing emotional resonance in a single setup. The first scene in Basterds was powerful becuase you got to watch the tension and emotion creep over the farmer’s face during his interrogation.