1
00:00:01,310 --> 00:00:03,699
Hi my name is Tony and
this is Every Frame a Painting
2
00:00:03,699 --> 00:00:07,700
So this video was supposed to be done
for Mother's Day but that didn't happen
3
00:00:07,700 --> 00:00:12,590
Sorry ma. Anyways today's film is
Wolf Children directed by Mamoru Hosoda.
4
00:00:12,590 --> 00:00:15,929
This is a really lovely little film and
5
00:00:15,929 --> 00:00:19,189
it won the Japanese Academy Award for
Best Animated Film two years ago.
6
00:00:19,189 --> 00:00:23,380
If you haven't seen it, please do
but my video will provide no spoilers
7
00:00:23,380 --> 00:00:26,840
so you can enjoy this without having
seen Wolf Children.
8
00:00:26,840 --> 00:00:30,680
My subject today is a single shot from
the film right here.
9
00:00:30,680 --> 00:00:32,810
It's a lateral tracking shot
lasting 57 seconds
10
00:00:32,810 --> 00:00:35,350
and it follows the two
children, Ame and Yuki
11
00:00:35,350 --> 00:00:38,340
from first grade the fourth grade
without any cuts.
12
00:00:38,340 --> 00:00:41,760
We see Ame as a loner in first grade
while his sister Yuki
13
00:00:41,760 --> 00:00:45,449
adjusts to life in school. We see
him bullied, we see her reaction,
14
00:00:45,449 --> 00:00:49,360
we see her find a place in the classroom
while he starts to ditch class.
15
00:00:49,360 --> 00:00:53,540
That's really it. So why do I think this
shot is actually kinda amazing?
16
00:00:53,540 --> 00:00:56,940
This might sound like a weird thing to
say but I've never really understood how
17
00:00:56,940 --> 00:00:59,680
to use the lateral tracking shot.
18
00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:03,199
I've seen other directors use it,
sometimes beautifully, but I've never
19
00:01:03,199 --> 00:01:05,199
figured out how to pull it off myself.
20
00:01:05,199 --> 00:01:08,799
Because when you break it down, the
lateral tracking shot is kinda weird.
21
00:01:08,799 --> 00:01:11,880
It's one of the least
subjective shots in cinema
22
00:01:11,880 --> 00:01:15,670
It's actually one of most objective.
It doesn't suggest any character's POV
23
00:01:15,670 --> 00:01:21,340
It suggests you're an omniscient God
and you're watching. It's very literal.
24
00:01:21,340 --> 00:01:24,340
What you see is what you get,
so what do you use it for?
25
00:01:24,340 --> 00:01:27,929
Most filmmakers use it as a quick
establishing move.
26
00:01:27,929 --> 00:01:31,299
When you wanna start a scene and end in
your master, it's a simple way to go.
27
00:01:31,299 --> 00:01:33,240
--Hey man, if I were to
28
00:01:33,240 --> 00:01:35,300
shave off a nipple, would it be
covered by workmen's comp?
29
00:01:35,300 --> 00:01:39,130
Sadly in the last five years,
this type of shot has just been beaten
30
00:01:39,130 --> 00:01:43,810
into the ground by DSLRs and sliders.
Even good movies shot on DSLR
31
00:01:43,810 --> 00:01:49,280
have slider overkill. So yeah,
we can find a better way to use it.
32
00:01:49,280 --> 00:01:52,710
Well, what else is there? Another place
you see the shot is in war movies.
33
00:01:52,710 --> 00:01:55,990
When you wanna show the vastness
of an army, the lateral tracking shot
will do the trick
34
00:01:55,990 --> 00:02:00,280
It's really the go-to shot
for establishing a camp.
35
00:02:00,280 --> 00:02:04,050
--This whole goddamn war
--Like finding a needle
in a stack of needles
36
00:02:04,050 --> 00:02:07,119
It's also great for running whether it's
people running towards destiny
37
00:02:07,119 --> 00:02:10,119
or towards the woman they love,
even just running to run.
38
00:02:10,119 --> 00:02:12,890
Hell, why not slow-motion?
Or Tom Cruise?
39
00:02:12,890 --> 00:02:16,620
And I don't know why but it also
40
00:02:16,620 --> 00:02:20,580
really popular for supermarkets, maybe
because they're soulless and terrible
41
00:02:20,580 --> 00:02:23,160
like the Safeway near my house.
42
00:02:23,160 --> 00:02:27,750
Godard seems to have done the definitive
"I hate supermarkets" shot in cinema.
43
00:02:27,750 --> 00:02:31,210
And there's a bunch of other one-off
uses by certain filmmakers.
44
00:02:31,210 --> 00:02:34,230
Peter Greenaway uses it to make the
frame feel like a moving painting.
45
00:02:34,230 --> 00:02:38,930
I've seen Park Chan-wook use it for
an amazing fight scene.
46
00:02:38,930 --> 00:02:43,510
I've seen Buster Keaton use it
for physical comedy.
47
00:02:43,510 --> 00:02:47,660
I've seen Scorsese use it for a mass
execution and I also really like this
48
00:02:47,660 --> 00:02:49,120
one-off gag from Toy Story.
49
00:02:53,980 --> 00:02:57,170
Some filmmakers make it
a personal statement.
Stanley Kubrick loved it
50
00:02:57,170 --> 00:03:00,750
because it showed things the way
they were and now how we imagine
them to be.
51
00:03:00,750 --> 00:03:05,760
He used it brilliantly in Paths of Glory
to show the extent of the trenches.
52
00:03:05,760 --> 00:03:09,349
And in The Shining, it's everywhere,
one of the ongoing ways
he builds a sense of dread.
53
00:03:09,349 --> 00:03:13,569
The environment just feels oppressive
when you look at it like this.
54
00:03:13,569 --> 00:03:16,930
Another person who uses it a lot
is Wes Anderson
55
00:03:16,930 --> 00:03:21,390
because it conveys that kinda
dollhouse, flat storybook look he loves.
56
00:03:21,390 --> 00:03:23,549
It's also kinda inherently funny
when you have
57
00:03:23,549 --> 00:03:27,379
bright colors and people moving in
straight lines like this.
58
00:03:27,379 --> 00:03:32,010
But the one thing I rarely see the
lateral tracking shot used for
59
00:03:32,010 --> 00:03:35,040
is intimacy.
It's not really an intimate shot.
60
00:03:35,040 --> 00:03:40,629
No matter what you always seem to end up
at a distance from the characters
61
00:03:40,629 --> 00:03:46,099
and even the greatest filmmakers
know this. So how can you make this shot
62
00:03:46,099 --> 00:03:51,620
which isn't really intimate... intimate.
--Did you get my flowers?
63
00:03:51,620 --> 00:03:56,379
Here's one way by Martin Scorsese
--you didn't get them, I sent them
64
00:03:57,379 --> 00:04:00,079
Track away from the character
65
00:04:00,079 --> 00:04:04,230
--Can I call you again?
It's weird because it's unmotivated
66
00:04:04,230 --> 00:04:05,410
and it's the opposite of what you're
taught to do
67
00:04:05,410 --> 00:04:09,870
but it really works. It feels empty
and sad and lonely, and it makes you
68
00:04:09,870 --> 00:04:13,579
feel bad for Travis Bickle by
removing him from your field of view.
69
00:04:13,579 --> 00:04:17,940
--I tried several times to call her
but after the first call, she wouldn't
70
00:04:17,940 --> 00:04:19,099
come to the phone any longer.
71
00:04:19,099 --> 00:04:22,250
Or here's another.
This is widely considered
72
00:04:22,250 --> 00:04:24,699
one of the greatest shots
in the history of cinema.
73
00:04:24,699 --> 00:04:29,039
The fascinating thing about this shot is
sheer length. It's nine minutes long
74
00:04:29,039 --> 00:04:32,460
of the main character trying to take
this candle from one end to the other.
75
00:04:32,460 --> 00:04:36,310
But since the shot has only one visual
focus and one dramatic goal,
76
00:04:36,310 --> 00:04:39,310
Tarkovsky can let the moment unfold.
We see every step
77
00:04:39,310 --> 00:04:43,260
the character takes, every
failure, every retry.
78
00:04:43,260 --> 00:04:46,080
The shot's length puts you
in a weird meditative trance.
79
00:04:46,080 --> 00:04:48,620
Because it's so simple you can read it
as a symbol or metaphor for
80
00:04:48,620 --> 00:04:52,870
any struggle you could possibly want.
It's a model of simplicity and purity
81
00:04:52,870 --> 00:04:58,470
and then there's this:
82
00:05:05,160 --> 00:05:08,310
I actually think this is the most
emotional use of this camera move
83
00:05:08,310 --> 00:05:09,949
in the last five or ten years.
84
00:05:09,949 --> 00:05:13,750
And to prove it, watch how the
moment plays if I take out the track
85
00:05:13,750 --> 00:05:17,220
and just do a straight cut
or a dissolve
86
00:05:17,220 --> 00:05:23,009
or a push in.
This is a perfect example
where the lateral move
87
00:05:23,009 --> 00:05:26,690
is exactly right. Being further away
from the characters makes this moment
88
00:05:26,690 --> 00:05:30,800
sadder because we can't help them.
Moving left to right implies that time
89
00:05:30,800 --> 00:05:32,410
has passed and we can never go back.
90
00:05:32,410 --> 00:05:35,680
So all that brings us back to
Wolf Children.
91
00:05:35,680 --> 00:05:38,220
Like a few shots on this list,
it's actually a really intimate
92
00:05:38,220 --> 00:05:41,380
little piece. It shows kids growing up
right before your eyes.
93
00:05:41,380 --> 00:05:46,240
But unlike every other shot on this list
it's actually physically impossible.
94
00:05:46,240 --> 00:05:48,490
This isn't a literal shot,
it's figurative
95
00:05:48,490 --> 00:05:51,210
It's really only possible
through the magic of movies
96
00:05:51,210 --> 00:05:55,720
and specifically animation.
It moves back and forth
97
00:05:55,720 --> 00:05:58,259
through time and space
and all it does is
98
00:05:58,259 --> 00:06:00,789
tell the story these kids growing up.
So even if you're like me and
99
00:06:00,789 --> 00:06:03,349
you don't really understand how to use a
lateral tracking shot,
100
00:06:03,349 --> 00:06:06,360
it's great to see that someone out there
clearly does get it
101
00:06:06,360 --> 00:06:09,360
and is pushing forward the visual
grammar in some small concrete way.
102
00:06:09,360 --> 00:06:13,380
By the way, the rest of this film
is really lovely and beautiful and will
103
00:06:13,380 --> 00:06:18,169
probably make you cry at the end.
And call your mom right afterwards.
104
00:06:18,169 --> 00:06:20,530
So go watch it. Happy Mother's Day.