Red pill me on 180 degree rule.
It's helpful
>>86810215
It's a bullshit folk-theory with no research backing it up (like most of these "rules").
>>86810215
It means you only have to paint a wall instead of a whole room
>>86810215
Shitty remnant of theater, I'll put the camera wherever the fuck I want
It's just a basic guideline. If a director wants to break a rule to the benefit of the film they are free to do so.
It's good if you don't want the other film crew standing in the background of your shot.
Its jarring visually when characters flip relative positions in screen space, unless they are seen moving positions. When you flip the axis its basically *teleports behind you*
>>86812655
Why did you delete this post twice?
>>86812687
I didn't.
>>86812687
delet this
>>86812632
This shot doesnt break 180 rule
>>86810215
They broke the rule in the first scene in Moonlight. Thats how fast I knew it would be overrated trash of low cinematic value.
>>86812966
it does
>>86810215
Red pill doesn't mean the same as spoonfeed, you faggot.
>>86812966
Are you blind?
>>86813482
It doesnt the characters dont switch positions in screen space, bateman even preserves a slight left screen offset
>>86812966
>180 degree rule
>camera on the right of Bale
>goes beyond 180 degrees to be on the right of Eckhart
>>86812632
No wonder his movies are so fucking confusing when you can't even be sure where two sitting characters are in relation to each other.
>>86812616
>they are free to do so.
It's a good idea to have some sort of reason for doing this though.
It's not like there are movie police but there are general guidelines for how to convey information on screen for a reason.
Die Hard in russia has a particularly retarded violation of this rule in the elongated chase sequence where the camera placement is constantly flipped so it looks like bruce willis is driving in fucking circles and back tracking making an otherwise OK car chase a confusing muddled mess that makes you constantly question what the fuck is actually happening.
>>86811506
>>86811522
>>86812518
Idiots like these don't understand why it's a "rule", most likely because they are underage retards who have never even picked up a camera.
It's sad that on a board dedicated to Television & Film so many don't fucking understand something so basic.
>>86812685
Is right. It breaks the shot continuity and is jarring for the audience. In most cases when the "rule" is broken the characters will no longer look like they are talking to each other.
>>86812616
Brings up a good point too. Some filmmakers have been known to break the rule intentionally precisely for the effect. But only few have successfully pulled it off. Kubrick comes to mind.
>>86810215
So basically you point the camera and the set you built and not at the crew and the director
That makes sense, in my opinion
>>86813334
Dude, you really know your kino, wow bro!
>>86815707
That's just cuz you're used to it, dumbass. Somebody who grew up without this rule would find it totally natural.
>>86815837
No, the rule is based on basic human logic and perception.
Even if you show it to some isolated african tribe they would feel the difference.
When a person sits and watches a conversation they watch it from one side, looking back and forth at who's talking. Obviously they don't move around and crouch down and stuff like different camera angles would imply but the brain can only tolerate so much deviation from IRL experience, the 180 rule is a guideline for how far you can go with it. Like >>86815623 said you can break it if you want, but like any rule you need to know exactly why you're doing it. For this rule breaking it is confusing, so you may want to break it in order to intentionally confuse the viewer.
>>86815707
>you're idiots for not following this rule!
>I-it's ok when Kubrick d-does it!
>>86812632
Close, but no cigar.
This is the sequence in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfcemNhlqyA
Admittedly it's not an easy shot, which is why I guess people like you assumed it was breaking the 180 rule, because it revolves around a round table and multiple talking heads.
The astute viewer would notice that the 180 degree rule is not actually broken. They move the camera around exactly for the purposes of orientating the audience. That's I guess why people like you have trouble with it, assuming of course you're not just some memeing nolan hater.
>So anon, what did you think of Kubrick's deliberate subversion of the 180 rule in The Shining to unsettle the audience?
>>86815958
negro the only reason it exist is because cast and crew would be visible if the camera was on the other side
>>86815707
This is why, if you become a director, you'll forever be mediocre and your work will never last. You cling so hopelessly to these imagined rules and can't operate without them.
>>86817207
delet
>>86817059
I was on you're side the whole time pal, but I wasn't brave enough to speak up.
>>86817207
can you source me on this kino
>>86812632
The real problem with moving the camera more than 180 degrees is that it reverses the direction characters are facing. It's not particularly important in a shot reverse shot round table discussion scene.