The post I should’ve written about The Hunger Games
On screen, when two characters or objects exist in relationship to each other, an imaginary axis between them constitutes the 180º line or line of action. In order to maintain geographic continuity and consistent screen direction in film, it is standard practice for the camera to stay one side of this line or axis.
For example, recall the scene where Katniss gives the Mockingjay pin to Prim. The whistle of the Capitol’s train startles the Everdeen women from their preparations. Katniss sits down across from Prim and, along with the reassurance that “as long as you have it, nothing bad will happen to you,” Katniss hands it over and wraps her sister’s fingers around the pin.
Standard film practice would have the line of action drawn between the sisters; Katniss on screen right facing Prim on screen left. When the pin is handed over, the pin would be passed from Katniss’s hand emerging from screen right handing it over to screen left. Yet, in the film during this moment, the camera jumps the line. Viewers see Katniss’s hand emerge from screen left while passing the pin to Prim’s open hand on screen right. This jump reverses screen direction during the gifting of the pin and the proffering of comfort.
[Director Gary] Ross is aware of that the film must allow audiences an understanding of the filmic space, or geography, in which the characters exist. Yet, Ross and his editing team are interested in selectively breaking the rules that provide clarity between the relationships and actions of the characters. By crossing the axis of action, the film formally disorients viewers during moments of significance. Specifically, it would appear that Ross crosses the 180-line whenever Katniss has a poignant moment with someone she cares about.
I initially thought the axis-jumping signified Ross’s commitment to the Michael Bay School of Editing Is Hard I Don’t Wanna, but Robert Chang’s analysis is damn compelling. My only problem with the article is that I wish I’d written it first.
There’s one scene in Hanna that I’ve been curious about since the moment I saw it, where the 180-degree line is violated. (Hanna is talking with the other girl in a tent at night, they’re both lying on their side facing each other, but framed such that both of their heads are on the left side of the screen facing the camera in their respective shots.) Coming as it did in a quiet, static scene, it’s the most immersion-disturbing departure from the 180-degree rule that I can recall, and as such I have no idea why it’s there. To suggest that Hanna is identifying with the other girl and imagining a new identity for herself, I suppose, but I found it so disrupting of my attention that the effect was destroyed.
Watching so much Japanese cinema, I see the violation so much I don’t even see it. What is this “disorienting?” Sound racist.
Ozu has a hilarious meta-scene in Equinox Flower, in which a young lady stands up, is followed as she walks around the outside of the house, and sits in the same spot, with the camera now 180 degrees different.
You know how to establish “filmic space?” Show some freaking space around the characters. Avoid one shots and close two-shots. Show the room, the area, give them some context.
I thought that Donald Richie had an explanation of the difference in sight lines in Japanese cinema that was related to Kabuki drama and the way things are framed differently. His vocabulary is different, but I think can be translated into the way Scott discusses this. I’ll try and find where Richie talks about it and give a better reference.
I thought Gary Ross overdid the hand-held camera work, jump cuts and shaky inserts in the first section of the film (a little goes a long way). It pays to be selective, but this moment would be one of those times. It’s interesting reading Ross’ comments on his approach.