WEBVTT
00:00:01.310 --> 00:00:03.699
Hi my name is Tony and
this is Every Frame a Painting
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
00:00:07.700 --> 00:00:12.590
Sorry ma. Anyways today's film is
Wolf Children directed by Mamoru Hosoda.
00:00:12.590 --> 00:00:15.929
This is a really lovely little film and
00:00:15.929 --> 00:00:19.189
it won the Japanese Academy Award for
Best Animated Film two years ago.
00:00:19.189 --> 00:00:23.380
If you haven't seen it, please do
but my video will provide no spoilers
00:00:23.380 --> 00:00:26.840
so you can enjoy this without having
seen Wolf Children.
00:00:26.840 --> 00:00:30.680
My subject today is a single shot from
the film right here.
00:00:30.680 --> 00:00:32.810
It's a lateral tracking shot
lasting 57 seconds
00:00:32.810 --> 00:00:35.350
and it follows the two
children, Ame and Yuki
00:00:35.350 --> 00:00:38.340
from first grade the fourth grade
without any cuts.
00:00:38.340 --> 00:00:41.760
We see Ame as a loner in first grade
while his sister Yuki
00:00:41.760 --> 00:00:45.449
adjusts to life in school. We see
him bullied, we see her reaction,
00:00:45.449 --> 00:00:49.360
we see her find a place in the classroom
while he starts to ditch class.
00:00:49.360 --> 00:00:53.540
That's really it. So why do I think this
shot is actually kinda amazing?
00:00:53.540 --> 00:00:56.940
This might sound like a weird thing to
say but I've never really understood how
00:00:56.940 --> 00:00:59.680
to use the lateral tracking shot.
00:00:59.680 --> 00:01:03.199
I've seen other directors use it,
sometimes beautifully, but I've never
00:01:03.199 --> 00:01:05.199
figured out how to pull it off myself.
00:01:05.199 --> 00:01:08.799
Because when you break it down, the
lateral tracking shot is kinda weird.
00:01:08.799 --> 00:01:11.880
It's one of the least
subjective shots in cinema
00:01:11.880 --> 00:01:15.670
It's actually one of most objective.
It doesn't suggest any character's POV
00:01:15.670 --> 00:01:21.340
It suggests you're an omniscient God
and you're watching. It's very literal.
00:01:21.340 --> 00:01:24.340
What you see is what you get,
so what do you use it for?
00:01:24.340 --> 00:01:27.929
Most filmmakers use it as a quick
establishing move.
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.
00:01:31.299 --> 00:01:33.240
--Hey man, if I were to
00:01:33.240 --> 00:01:35.300
shave off a nipple, would it be
covered by workmen's comp?
00:01:35.300 --> 00:01:39.130
Sadly in the last five years,
this type of shot has just been beaten
00:01:39.130 --> 00:01:43.810
into the ground by DSLRs and sliders.
Even good movies shot on DSLR
00:01:43.810 --> 00:01:49.280
have slider overkill. So yeah,
we can find a better way to use it.
00:01:49.280 --> 00:01:52.710
Well, what else is there? Another place
you see the shot is in war movies.
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
00:01:55.990 --> 00:02:00.280
It's really the go-to shot
for establishing a camp.
00:02:00.280 --> 00:02:04.050
--This whole goddamn war
--Like finding a needle
in a stack of needles
00:02:04.050 --> 00:02:07.119
It's also great for running whether it's
people running towards destiny
00:02:07.119 --> 00:02:10.119
or towards the woman they love,
even just running to run.
00:02:10.119 --> 00:02:12.890
Hell, why not slow-motion?
Or Tom Cruise?
00:02:12.890 --> 00:02:16.620
And I don't know why but it also
00:02:16.620 --> 00:02:20.580
really popular for supermarkets, maybe
because they're soulless and terrible
00:02:20.580 --> 00:02:23.160
like the Safeway near my house.
00:02:23.160 --> 00:02:27.750
Godard seems to have done the definitive
"I hate supermarkets" shot in cinema.
00:02:27.750 --> 00:02:31.210
And there's a bunch of other one-off
uses by certain filmmakers.
00:02:31.210 --> 00:02:34.230
Peter Greenaway uses it to make the
frame feel like a moving painting.
00:02:34.230 --> 00:02:38.930
I've seen Park Chan-wook use it for
an amazing fight scene.
00:02:38.930 --> 00:02:43.510
I've seen Buster Keaton use it
for physical comedy.
00:02:43.510 --> 00:02:47.660
I've seen Scorsese use it for a mass
execution and I also really like this
00:02:47.660 --> 00:02:49.120
one-off gag from Toy Story.
00:02:53.980 --> 00:02:57.170
Some filmmakers make it
a personal statement.
Stanley Kubrick loved it
00:02:57.170 --> 00:03:00.750
because it showed things the way
they were and now how we imagine
them to be.
00:03:00.750 --> 00:03:05.760
He used it brilliantly in Paths of Glory
to show the extent of the trenches.
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.
00:03:09.349 --> 00:03:13.569
The environment just feels oppressive
when you look at it like this.
00:03:13.569 --> 00:03:16.930
Another person who uses it a lot
is Wes Anderson
00:03:16.930 --> 00:03:21.390
because it conveys that kinda
dollhouse, flat storybook look he loves.
00:03:21.390 --> 00:03:23.549
It's also kinda inherently funny
when you have
00:03:23.549 --> 00:03:27.379
bright colors and people moving in
straight lines like this.
00:03:27.379 --> 00:03:32.010
But the one thing I rarely see the
lateral tracking shot used for
00:03:32.010 --> 00:03:35.040
is intimacy.
It's not really an intimate shot.
00:03:35.040 --> 00:03:40.629
No matter what you always seem to end up
at a distance from the characters
00:03:40.629 --> 00:03:46.099
and even the greatest filmmakers
know this. So how can you make this shot
00:03:46.099 --> 00:03:51.620
which isn't really intimate... intimate.
--Did you get my flowers?
00:03:51.620 --> 00:03:56.379
Here's one way by Martin Scorsese
--you didn't get them, I sent them
00:03:57.379 --> 00:04:00.079
Track away from the character
00:04:00.079 --> 00:04:04.230
--Can I call you again?
It's weird because it's unmotivated
00:04:04.230 --> 00:04:05.410
and it's the opposite of what you're
taught to do
00:04:05.410 --> 00:04:09.870
but it really works. It feels empty
and sad and lonely, and it makes you
00:04:09.870 --> 00:04:13.579
feel bad for Travis Bickle by
removing him from your field of view.
00:04:13.579 --> 00:04:17.940
--I tried several times to call her
but after the first call, she wouldn't
00:04:17.940 --> 00:04:19.099
come to the phone any longer.
00:04:19.099 --> 00:04:22.250
Or here's another.
This is widely considered
00:04:22.250 --> 00:04:24.699
one of the greatest shots
in the history of cinema.
00:04:24.699 --> 00:04:29.039
The fascinating thing about this shot is
sheer length. It's nine minutes long
00:04:29.039 --> 00:04:32.460
of the main character trying to take
this candle from one end to the other.
00:04:32.460 --> 00:04:36.310
But since the shot has only one visual
focus and one dramatic goal,
00:04:36.310 --> 00:04:39.310
Tarkovsky can let the moment unfold.
We see every step
00:04:39.310 --> 00:04:43.260
the character takes, every
failure, every retry.
00:04:43.260 --> 00:04:46.080
The shot's length puts you
in a weird meditative trance.
00:04:46.080 --> 00:04:48.620
Because it's so simple you can read it
as a symbol or metaphor for
00:04:48.620 --> 00:04:52.870
any struggle you could possibly want.
It's a model of simplicity and purity
00:04:52.870 --> 00:04:58.470
and then there's this:
00:05:05.160 --> 00:05:08.310
I actually think this is the most
emotional use of this camera move
00:05:08.310 --> 00:05:09.949
in the last five or ten years.
00:05:09.949 --> 00:05:13.750
And to prove it, watch how the
moment plays if I take out the track
00:05:13.750 --> 00:05:17.220
and just do a straight cut
or a dissolve
00:05:17.220 --> 00:05:23.009
or a push in.
This is a perfect example
where the lateral move
00:05:23.009 --> 00:05:26.690
is exactly right. Being further away
from the characters makes this moment
00:05:26.690 --> 00:05:30.800
sadder because we can't help them.
Moving left to right implies that time
00:05:30.800 --> 00:05:32.410
has passed and we can never go back.
00:05:32.410 --> 00:05:35.680
So all that brings us back to
Wolf Children.
00:05:35.680 --> 00:05:38.220
Like a few shots on this list,
it's actually a really intimate
00:05:38.220 --> 00:05:41.380
little piece. It shows kids growing up
right before your eyes.
00:05:41.380 --> 00:05:46.240
But unlike every other shot on this list
it's actually physically impossible.
00:05:46.240 --> 00:05:48.490
This isn't a literal shot,
it's figurative
00:05:48.490 --> 00:05:51.210
It's really only possible
through the magic of movies
00:05:51.210 --> 00:05:55.720
and specifically animation.
It moves back and forth
00:05:55.720 --> 00:05:58.259
through time and space
and all it does is
00:05:58.259 --> 00:06:00.789
tell the story these kids growing up.
So even if you're like me and
00:06:00.789 --> 00:06:03.349
you don't really understand how to use a
lateral tracking shot,
00:06:03.349 --> 00:06:06.360
it's great to see that someone out there
clearly does get it
00:06:06.360 --> 00:06:09.360
and is pushing forward the visual
grammar in some small concrete way.
00:06:09.360 --> 00:06:13.380
By the way, the rest of this film
is really lovely and beautiful and will
00:06:13.380 --> 00:06:18.169
probably make you cry at the end.
And call your mom right afterwards.
00:06:18.169 --> 00:06:20.530
So go watch it. Happy Mother's Day.