CONTINUITY: FOR REAL OR FOR REEL?

View the clips: for 56k, DSL or on campus

Here's the deal: why do we tend to judge or assess film reality/continuity
by our standards of perceived reality? Film by its very nature resembles
reality; leaving CG out of the equation for the moment, the filmic image may
be considered a re-presentation of that which appeared before the camera
during recording. The screen image is of the concrete, showing a certain
part of spatial and temporal elements that we easily recognize and identify
with. But film has an advantage over our perceived reality; it may tamper in
ways we cannot with time and space.

One of the fundamental elements of cinema is its, or the filmmaker's,
ability to fragment the world or an action within it into smaller pieces
than the whole. When we cut up reality into small bits, shots, fragments of
the whole, we tend to arrange them in such a way that they mimic to a
greater or lesser degree our experience of time and space. In doing so, the
syntax of film (its ordering of shots, its grammar) asks that attention be
paid to issues of continuity both cinematic and real. At its basic level,
this syntax (at least I argue that this is the case) asks that shots be
ordered so that there emerges from the string of shots a certain pattern.
This pattern helps the reader follow the text and anticipate future moves or
cuts. Conventionally we say that film must follow continuity of screen
direction and continuity of real action.

We hold in film to these certain conventions, sometimes called rules though
rarely the real thing (rules, that is), by which actions are portrayed on
screen. A single action is often broken into parts, say starting with a
wider shot, then moving in on the action to elaborate it and continuing to
fragment that single action of several shots. By fragmenting reality, we
have the opportunity to manipulate real time and real space for filmic
emphasis. We may compress the amount of time it really takes to get from
point A to point B or to accomplish task C. Or we may do just the opposite,
namely through a series of shots, expand or elongate the time it takes to do
these things. In other words, through fragmentation we may make time
elastic. Similarly we may apply fragmentation to space. But for the moment,
I'm restricting my argument to time and motion through space, or screen
direction.

It is often stated with no uncertainty that film must retain continuity of
screen direction. This means that if a body or subject or thing is moving in
a particular direction (say from screen right to left) that this screen
direction must be continued from shot to shot until the action or movement
across the screen among various fragmented shots is complete - in other
words, through the entire action until arrival at the destination.
Otherwise, the argument goes, audiences will be confused.

There is also something known as the axis or director's line. The camera
usually stays on one side of it or the other. By breaking the axis, you
change screen direction even if the action's direction doesn't change in
reality. If you get up from your desk to open the door and I were to film it
from your right side and the door was before you, your screen direction
would be left to right. If I were to your left side (breaking the axis from
the previous camera point of view), then I would record the movement from
right to left.

In reality you would move on a continuous track from either point of view in
a single direction. But only if the camera were fixed abitrarily in space.

So this is the experiment or variation on a theme (sort
Bach-invention-like). Filming a simple action, in my case, someone reaching
for a bottle of water and taking a swallow and putting the bottle back, we
vary two things: the camera position vis a vis the subject and the axis, and
which hand reaches for and holds the bottle.

To follow the convention, we stay to the person's left side and she uses her
right hand. This is the standard, if you will. We fragment the phrase into
four simple close-ups. Reaching, reverse picking up, reverse swallowing,
reverse returning the bottle. Variation 1 is to keep to the same side but
change hands so that alternate shots have alternating hands. This means that
in shot one, she reaches with the right hand but picks the bottle up with
the left, etc. Variation 2 is to keep the hand constant (right only) but
break the axis so that every other shot changes screen direction (first
moving right to left, then left to right, etc.). Variation 3, which happens
to be my favorite, is to change hands and break the axis. So shots 1 and 3
are from her left side with her right hand, while shots 2 and 4 are from her
right side with her left hand. Strange indeed. In this instance we tamper
with both real (on camera) continuity, namely which hand is on the bottle;
and, filmic continuity, namely which side of the axis are we on (screen
direction. What's fascinating here is that while we are breaking the axis we
retain the relationship between hand and camera in that the hand, regardless
of the camera position on one side of the axis or the other, is always
looking the same. Here, the hand (left or right) is always facing the camera
with palm toward the camera. So while we break the axis we keep the graphic
element constant.

Of value? Yes and no. This experiment should indicate that convention is
only a suggestion of what film ought to be, not what it is fundamentally.
And as we veer from portraying reality in film by manipulating carefully
certain variables, we may in fact increase film's impact on the audience.

So how's that for a confusing argument. This is what I think about a lot.
Film as a language that has its own syntax, grammar. This allows for
elegance, beauty, in the filmic discourse.

In summary then we have the following clips:

1. The entire action in a single take.
2. Fragmentation following the convention of screen direction and real
action.
3. Fragmentation that holds constant screen direction (all shots from left
side of the axis) but changes hands.
4. Fragmentation that breaks the axis at each cut (creating opposing rather
than continuous motion) but keeps the hand constant.
5. Fragmentation that both breaks the axis (as in 4) and changes the hand
(as in 3).

Please feel free to also investigate how I assembled the cut. When did I use
full exits/entrances? Partial? Contained?

How did I use angle (height of the camera in relation to the subject of the
shot) to help smooth the cutting?

And feel free to do a test of your own. Maybe we can post it here for
comments.