Shot-reverse-shot is given a bad rap as an un-cinematic first refuge of an un-imaginary hack.
In fairness, this is because, in the hands of an un-imaginary hack, it is an un-cinematic first refuge.
But I’ve noticed something lately; people only criticize its use in-and-of-itself when it’s in a movie they dislike. Few would dare criticize Fincher or Scorsese when they use it, for instance. But this isn’t necessarily hypocrisy, as it speaks to a few things; the distinction of basic and properly basic, and that this form is only as good as its content.
Yes, it’s simple and un-imaginary to just cut back and forth between two people saying mundane nonsense. But there’s something human about shot-reverse-shot. If I recall correctly, for a bar conversation in Fight Club, Fincher just wanted to get a ton of film, set up two cameras, and just let these characters talk. This also seems to be what Scorsese goes for in some of his films; just let the characters talk. This allows a freedom for the actors, and thus a freedom in editing. When do you cut from one person to the next? Why do you cut then? When do you cut to the close-up?
There’s a lot that could be said here. But as I’ve been thinking about The Prestige recently (as I’m apt to do), I’d like focus on a few scenes that particularly come to mind when thinking about this form.
https://youtu.be/88_6SQKuTHk?t=38
This is a scene between Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Tesla (David Bowie). They’re having lunch, with Angier trying to convince Tesla to make a machine for him, and Tesla temporarily objecting based on the grounds of obsession. Tesla is an older, wiser man than Angier, and knows how far ambition and obsession can take a man.
This is reflected in the form. Nolan’s most common use of shot-reverse-shot utilizes push-ins as a means of establishing realization or knowledge. Such an example can be found in this scene;
https://youtu.be/7CEUIO8BgV8?t=79
This Inception scene isn’t just an example of the “push-in=understanding” motif, but also its opposite. The scene is consistently pushing in on Cobb, who immediately realizes why he’s here, but Saito starts by objecting to Cobb. As he doesn’t believe him at first, the camera initially pulls away, but the more he believes him, the camera starts pushing in.
This “push-in=understanding” motif is very much happening in this scene in The Prestige, while also reflecting on the different life experiences of the two men. The scene starts with a wider shot of Angier; we see him, the meal he’s about to enjoy on the table, with Alley (Andy Serkis) pouring him some tea. This environment is all new to him, and we’re seeing it for the first time with him.
The reverse shot of Tessla is closer. He knows the environment. He’s presumably had lunch here on countless occasions, with countless cups of tea poured by Alley. But sense of environmental understanding is only a small part of what makes this scene work. The camera is further away from Angier because he has less understanding of this subject, and is closer to Tesla at the start, but it’s still pushing in on the two of them.
Tesla may have more life experience than Angier, and he knows where this obsession will take him, but Angier is still just as motivated. This contrast in experience but similarity in motivation is reflected in the shot-reverse-shot; the contrast in experience is reflected in the different places that the camera starts on both men, while the similarity in motivation is established by the camera ending in the same spot. The shot-reverse-shot establishes both intimacy and psychology.
But my favorite use of shot-reverse-shot in this film is found in the relationship between the twin Bordens (Christian Bale).
I’ve seen it said a few times that Nolan should have made the Borden twins known from the start. That this would have allowed him to explore the drama more effectively, to explore the toll it was taking on their lives. This criticism misses the point of the twist; that it’s a secret is the drama. That we don’t properly see the twins together until the end is the drama. Seeing them keep it a secret and showing the fallout of this secret is the entire point. And this is shown in the film’s use of close-ups on Borden and Fallon (the disguise that one twin would wear when the other was being “himself”).
Throughout the film, we get an occasional medium shot of Fallon (the disguise the twins would wear when they weren’t being themselves).
Unfortunately, while the most important of the three scenes is available on youtube, the two other scenes are not. So you’ll just have to take my word that this is how they happen.
The first scene in question features Borden meeting Fallon to discuss some errands and favors. We get a medium shot of Fallon but a close-up of Borden. We never get a reverse close-up of Fallon. Similarly, after Borden sees Angier’s “The Real Transported Man” and fails to figure out how he does it, we get a medium shot that’s pushing in on him saying “we’re done” to an offscreen Fallon. Fallon gets no reverse shot here. This twin is throwing in the towel, and is in keeping with Nolan’s push-in motif. He’s done with trying to best Angier as a magician.
But the other twin isn’t. Which leads to him falling for Angier’s trap, and puts him on death row. Which leads to a final goodbye between the two twins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g11cH_K2b7M
This scene again works with Nolan’s push-in motif, as the camera pushes in on the Borden on death row. He’s at first speechless, then reflects on how interlinked their lives were, saying “we go alone now.” He then tries to lighten the mood with the elephant in the room, saying “only I don’t have as far to go as you”, followed by the jailer unshackling his chains to take him away.
It’s in this moment, as he’s about to be taken away, that we get the first close-up of Fallon, reacting to the jailer taking his brother away.
What’s interesting about the push-in motif here is that, when the film cuts back to Borden, the camera remains in the same spot as Borden is being walked away. It’s not pulling away, it’s staying where he wants to be. Where he’s being taken away from.
Much can be said about the toll their secret took on Sarah, Olivia, and Jess. Certainly, the toll it took on them is the priority; they were unwilling victims. But the self-inflicted toll still remains. This is the only true moment of shot-reverse-shot between the two, the only reverse close-up we get of Fallon, and the only moment of conversational intimacy between them.
And it happens as they’re saying good-bye forever.
It’s through these few shots that an entire arc is redefined in a mournful, absolutely devastating manner. The intimacy of shot-reverse-shot here reflects a lifelong denied intimacy, a denied brotherhood, a denied full life.
And it’s all reflected through a moment of supposed cinematic un-imagination.
I, of course, completely understand that there are un-imaginative uses of shot-reverse-shot. I just wanted to take this time to reflect on at least some of its potential, some of its possibility, and some of its value.
devilsadvocritic 