In praise of the master shot

Today's Hockey Rodent (no permalink) talks about how hockey is, generally, best covered in the wide shot:

The line of Petr Nedved centering Jan Hlavac and Radek Dvorak scored at moments which were very easy to predict and it wasn't because they scored more than ninety times that season.

It was because they scored their goals almost universally by motion - dizzying the opposition to the point that one of them would find himself totally free to receive a pass and whip it home.

My belabored point here is that the appreciation for that kind of play requires a wide angle perspective of the attacking zone.

Heck, appreciation for any odd-man rush demands a lofty perspective.

I post this not only because I agree with the Rodent, which I do, but also because in comedy I also love the wide, or master, shot. Not to be dogmatic about it -- you need closeups in comedy more than in hockey -- but great comic actors are often reactors and I like to see the whole situation.

Considering it some more, I realize I'm thinking more about scenes with two people. The really big master with a lot of people in a room can get diffuse, but this generally isn't the case in a two-shot. And while, in an emotional scene, you get a lot of information from that tight close-up, you're usually not going for the same effect in comedy.

I guess all I'm complaining about is that thing you see, mostly in movies, where it's single/single/single/single. Even in dramatic scenes you start to lose the effect the two characters are having on each other.

And yes, I am aware that this rule of thumb can be broken by a fine director, which I could never be. It's just a prejudice, that's all. Let's just agree that crazy camera angles haven't saved hockey and leave it at that.

1 comment:

llq said...

I agree with many points. But in some areas, I feel we need to be more aggressive. Just my opinion. Love ya. quinceanera dresses buy louboutin shoes. Hot Sale