180 Degree Line Rule

Not a problem. By us debating the rule and addressing certain issues lurkers can read over this and learn things which is the true nature of this thread...to teach about this important rule and give all sides. That and the constant talking keeps the thread active and thus allows more people an oppurtunity to read it.

 

I like what The 5 C's book said. If you wanna cross the line, actually do it during the shot. That way the audience sees it happen and knows the switch is taking place. Simple as that.

 

Zap is hip.

And the line can move during a scene, when the actors move, or when a new actor arrives in the scene.

So I'm sure alot of people saying the break the rule all the time really aren't, they are just moving the line.

It no biggie.

It just makes sense.

Sauja

 

actually do it during the shot

That's what bullet time is REALLY good for. Of course, overusing such a technique gets really irritating.

-Spiff

 

But you can easily do it during a conversation for example. #1 on left #2 on right. Shot from #1's shoulder looking towards #2.

Then just go from that position and go around the back side of #1 and now #1 is on the right and #2 is on the left. Simple and they audience understands.

 

So what happened in FOTR when Gandalf says, "Take them to the bridge!" And points, quite obviously, UP!

Then they all proceed to run down stairs.

What the hell line was broken on that one? The orientation went right out the window on that scene.

 

I would have to completely disagree with you on the grammar thing. If you say something which is not grammatically correct but are still understood by your listener, you are still incorrect.

No. Period. End of story.

Language is a living, breathing thing. An evolving entity. Does the grammar not match reality (and with reality I don't mean just one guy saying something 'wrong', I mean a whole set of people, i.e. a subculture etc. using a certain turn-o-phrase-quite-pleasi'n) it isn't wrong - the rule is wrong.

Trying to codify language as grammar is by definition hunting a moving target. Eventually, the Grammar *will* be wrong by *everybodys* definition, it's just a matter of time.

Reality defines Grammar - not the other way around. Period.

I know TEACHERS pretend it's the other way around. They have to, to keep anarchy out of the classroom and teach young rebellious children to speak understandable. Regardless, they are technically and undisputably and factually wrong.

It's funny, I used to be a language fascist when I was younger, and verbally slapped peoples fingers every time they made a grammar "mistake". I have since grown up, and would love a long talk with many of my old language teachers in school. *grin*

The rules of grammar exist, not to make talking easier, but to provide an uniform communication system for everybody.

Remove "not" and "but" in that sentence and it's correct.

If a person says "I is the goodest student.", I know what they mean but they still sound like an ignorant clod for saying it like that.

And if they say "To Obi-Wan you listen"? Mighty ignorant sound they do, not?

They are incorrect, not the rules.

In a single instance, yes, I could argue they are "off the norm". "Wrong"? No. "Off standard"? Yes.

Who would read a novel by a person who doesnt follow the simple rules of grammar?

Quite a lot of books are written with intentionally broken grammar, in street slang, and the like.

Same for film- who wants to see a film where the language of film is messed up and confused.

Yeah, who would want to see a film where one of the main characters all backwards talked, hmm?

Its the difference between a beginner and a master.

Yes. The beginner needs the rules as crutches. The master does not.

Thats why I now, with a fantastic knoweledge of grammar, lovingly break it whencever I feeleth like ith.

/Z

 

The MORE kinetic your scene is (combat, moving camera), the LESS this matters, coz the viewer is in a kinetic frame of mind.....

I sort of agree with this.

You are correct in that it matters less because the character is allowed to be on one side, then the other a few seconds later, however the thing you need to mention is you must show this change.

For a fight the characters can shift the line for you, as opposed to the other way around.

Let's say person A is fighting person B. The Camera is moving around, and keeping A fixed to the right and B to the left. Suddenly A does a move and jumps to the left side of the screen. Voila, the line has shifted. This can be more complex for a fight, but don't do it unless you know how. However, this always happens in a fight.

Last weekend I rented Equilibrium, and I found that they also broke this rule. I didn't notice it the first time I watched it, but then the second time I noticed the 180 degree rule and wondered how they were able to fool me.

I went on to watching it some more. It turns out that they fooled me because they were able to shift the line so seemlesly. I remember one scene where the main character is interrogating a woman. They are talking and she is to the right and he's to the left. Suddenly it's a quick cut to a shot where now the woman is on the left and he is on the right. I pondered for a while, and I figured it out.

Each shot they would shift the line. It would ALWAYS be a wide shot fo both characters when they did this.

The woman was on the right, and the man on the left, and they kept to this rule like they would normally, but suddenly the camera was behind the man, at an angle that still would keep this by keeping the woman slightly to the right.

But this is how they shifted, because by doing this it's almost as if there are two lines. The original line that connects the two characters, and a new perpindicular line. With this perpindicular line they could shift to the other side without confusing the audience.

I think they also do this throughout the film by the use of simalar techniques, and in these cases it would cut in between an action, such as a punch or a swing of a sword while shifting lines, so that the audience can connect one with the other and not be confused of what's going on or who's where.

At least I THINK this is how they did it. Anyone can help me out by looking at the film and figuring this out. I'm not sure because I never tested this out yet for myself.

 

See, this is why they say "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

What you're talking about is "crossing the line of action".

Suppose you show a car travelling along the road, from screen left to screen right. Now, if you cross the road, and show the same car travelling in the same direction along the road, but this time from screen right to screen left, it will look as if the car turned around and is going in the opposite direction.

The action that you're depicting is the movement of the car, the line of action lies along the road, and you crossed it.

Now suppose that the two rear passengers are hanging out of the windows and are carrying out some bit of business. You can show what the right hand rear passenger is doing in the first shot, and then you can cross over the road and show what the left hand passenger is doing in the next shot.

Because the action that you're depicting is now the behaviour of the two rear passengers, the road is no longer the line of action, so you can cross it with impunity.

In many shots, there will be no particular line of action, so attempting to adhere rigidly to this "180 degree rule" will be unnecessarily restricting.

 

I was editing PwNN at the time I watched Equilibrium, and specifically in the interrogation scene I noticed it. The scene worked however because the breaks occured in POV shots like Zap suggested. The only distinguishing feature aside from the actors was the door, and it was very clear who was where. I don't have quite a good enough memory of the scene to know if they actually flipped through the middle of the room or not... but I don't think they did.

Another movie that toys with breaking the line is Hulk. I noticed it in quite a number of scenes.

-Spiff

 

MasterZap
Yes. Period. End of story. Quite frankly, your analogies are getting weaker and weaker. Since neither of us is going to convince the other, there is little point in continuing.

Break grammar rules whenever you feel like it. Speak in Ebonics. Speak like a hillbilly. Speak however you want. Still doesnt change that fact that rules exist, whether you like it or not.
Break film rules when ever you feel like it. Break societal rules and commit murder whenever you feel like. Nobody is stopping you. Just don't expect to be taken seriously when you do. If you want to talk like Yoda, go ahead. I'm sure that works in whatever alternate universe you're living in.

I suppose you have attained all the knowledge you need in life and have become a "master". Good for you! I on the other hand am always trying to learn something new. I guess I will always have that "crutch" you speak of, as I would not possibly master everything as you clearly have. I've only been around for 30 yrs, so I haven't learned everything quite yet.

 

In MasterZap's defence he has said nothing about being a master of all that is film. He is merely sharing his knowledge and experience in a friendly manner. Take it as harsh criticism, but I assure you its not that. He is simply imparting his knowledge to those that don't know and giving everyone and educated guess. Its apparent from his posts that he knows what he is talking about. So perhaps there is more wisdom there then you care to admit.

 

"180 rule"? What the heck is that?

//dumb look

-Chris

 

Don't you love the sound of sarcasm in the morning? Or evening in my case.

My single greatest accomplishment was having Chris Hanel Grace my thread.

 

My single greatest accomplishment was having Chris Hanel Grace my thread.

"And to top that, I'll have to learn to wipe my own butt!"

(jk Chris)

~Neszis~

 

Well, I didn't mean to imply that he said he was a master of film, merely his implication that he was a master of something. His exact quote was:

. The beginner needs the rules as crutches. The master does not. Thats why I now, with a fantastic knoweledge of grammar, lovingly break it whencever I feeleth like ith."

I guess I presumed his idea that rules are "crutches" applied to many fields including film. He may have merely meant grammar. Either way, from his statement; I gathered his belief that he is a "master" of something. Film was just one of the many examples I included. Didnt mean to misquote anyone.

 

ok, here's my take on things.

Crossing the line is generally bad (unless done the way Zap's explained). I ALWAYS try to stick to this, but it depends on what you're doing.

A lot of stuff I do at work, you HAVE TO stick to the "rule" as it's paramount for continuity.

however, if you're creating a chaotic scene or "artistic" film or if fits with the film, do it.

a great example of when NOT to break the rule is this:

I was doing a documentary series that (obviously) involved a lot of interviews. the camera man was basically left to his own devices whilst the director interviewed the people. when it came to doing the reverse shots, the interviewee wasn't necessarily always there. the "professional" camera man shot the wrong way and crossed the line.

we had to flip about 20-30 shots over the 6 part series due to a crap cameraman. this wasn't always a problem unless there was something obvious in the background (fire exit signs for example). then we'd have to track them and mask them out if we could, otherwise we'd have to reshoot pickups and fake the location.

anyway,

Nick "Shorty" Long

P.S. It REALLY annoys me when people who think they "know" filmmaking cross the line when it looks bad. on amateur stuff, i can handle it, but i'll always make a point of explaining the rule and why it looks wrong if i comment on it.

 

Excuse a novice for chipping in, but I just wanted to lend an example.

I think Entry #9 of the coreography competition is a good example of breaking the 180 degree rule. In Zap's words, I found it very jarring.

 

Earlier someone mentioned how Peter Jackson breaks the rule with the Gollum scene. Actually what he does is brilliantly use an audience's unconscious knowledge of the 180 rule. The first shot Gollum displays the 2 personalities as Jackson moves the camera across Gollum. We see a physical change in Gollum. Next Jackson cuts across the axis and intercuts as if Gollum/Smeagol are 2 people. They are also positioned within the frame as if they are talking to each other but since he has established the line with movement the scene works. Without the camera movement the scene would not work since the audience would take a few moments to get oriented.

A lot of people here are saying you can cross the line & it will work but I have yet to see a fan film that does so for a good reason. So far every time I have seen someone do this it looks sloppy and amateurish. In some cases that's fine considering the age & experience of the younger filmmakers but it seems some are arguing the point to cover up mistakes.

The same thing holds true for jump cuts & continuity errors. You can use them to your advantage, if you know what you are doing. However the majority of the time they look like mistakes & draw attention to poor craftsmanship.

 

"Without the camera movement the scene would not work since the audience would take a few moments to get oriented."

I dunno about that. For a stage production of Jekyll and Hyde (The musical!) I played the title roles, and I don't think anyone in the audience had any trouble picking out when I was one character or the other: Alot of the power of the Gollum scene was based on the animation and the voice-acting.

 

No but the humour and impact of the scene was enhanced, if not carried by the camera movements/cuts that resulted in a schizophrenic conversation.

 

Yes. Period. End of story. Quite frankly, your analogies are getting weaker and weaker. Since neither of us is going to convince the other, there is little point in continuing.

Break grammar rules whenever you feel like it. Speak in Ebonics. Speak like a hillbilly. Speak however you want. Still doesnt change that fact that rules exist, whether you like it or not.

Explain to me why you do not speak in 17:th century Old English. Afterall, those were RULES of grammar, weren't they?

As for me being a "master" of anything, it's of having a sense of nudge-wink-humor

/Z

 

Just remember it's a rule, not a law. And rules were meant to be broken.

 

[beats dead horse]

Rules can be broken after they are understood, not before. You have to walk before you can run. Thus the rule is presented to those that don't know it so they can learn it.

[/beats dead horse]

 

Yeah, but I think it does have some relevance, the 180 degree rule isn't something that's set in stone and has to be followed 100% of the time. No ones going to arrest you if you break the rule a few times (done well, not by accident.) plus it sounded cool.