The Axis of Action (or The 180° Rule) @ A Script Supervisor is expected to understand the basic theories of editing so that s/he may communicate any possible cutting obstacles to the director. One of the most important skills to have is knowledge at all times of the exact location that elusive “axis’, the imaginary 180 degree line which, if crossed (some believe) may lead to mayhem in the cutting room! In your role as script supervisor you might hear a director say, "you let me know when we're crossing the axis because | don't always pay attention to that stuff", or a DOP warn “don't you ever bother me with axis stuff - | know what Im doing!" Axis discussions can potentially be a source of great consternation and debate on the set partly because they are more flexible than theory books let us believe. Since script supervisors are traditionally “the keepers of the line” (which makes sense since part of our job is helping to ensure the cutting will go as smoothly as possible), we must understand this rule so well that we also have enough vision to understand when we can safely let go of the rules and still have a successful edit. There are many ways to verbalize what “the axis’ is, | have attached articles from some directing textbooks to give you some other explanations of this rule. The axis can be defined as an invisible line between established points of reference (normally two or more performers or physical landmarks) which helps to orient the viewer as to the physical geography of a given scene. This line becomes “established” by either a master shot showing the physical relationship between People in the scene or by one character's eyeline in relation to another character or object. It is important to understand that this “line” is not solid but more like an elastic which may change at any point in the scene with the movement of a character, of the camera or with an edit to an alternate scene before cutting back to the present location. The axis is directly related to the notion of “screen direction” in that it is one of the devices used to uphold a logical and continuous screen direction ina film. Before we go deeper into the technical aspects of this rule, we should understand the reasoning behind the rule in the first place. Over the past century, cinema developed from the single shot to a whole sophisticated language involving all aspects of visuat storytelling including lenses, camera movement and editing footage shot from different angles. Over time, filmmakers discovered that isolated close-ups and medium shots as well as other non-Master coverage cut more seamlessly when the eyelines were complimentary to one another. That is, if in the Master Shot Character A was on the left of frame and Character B was on the right, then in Character A's closeup if he looked left to right it would cut smoothly AND it would appear that A was talking to B. Character Bs closeup should be oriented so that he is looking right to left of frame to achieve a smooth connection (unless, of course, Character B is not meant to be looking at Aatall). Some directors do not shoot masters, so in that case the eyeline of one character talking to another character is what establishes the axis. If you were to do an overhead drawing of Character A, Character B and the film camera, you could draw a dotted line between them, which would be the invisible "axis". Draw in the camera position of the master and you can see that anyfuture camera positions should be from the same side of that line to achieve consistent eyeline/screen direction. if during the dialogue, Character A moves, that invisible line will move with him. Therefore, from that point in the dialogue forward, you should be able to put the camera on the same side of that NEW line and stilt maintain a good axis for cutting. ® ho ee characte A moves A pt.o Axis, iS Oo Gg ee HELSING If, on the other hand, the two characters remain in the same positions but the CAMERA moves to the other axis, the audience has already been re-oriented and the NEW axis is established when the camera crosses to the other side. This means that at that point in the dialogue, any coverage of that dialogue should be on the other side of the line if the moving shot is meant to be used in whole or in part. fos ere @----©® @---©® @®--® we es Conerce FOR 1 2 Coreeie, Loe AL Cove ACTER, Duane He SHOT he, Dimvoove BoE fe Gamer male, Games wneves To OTHER Tike Car CRA mee Soe OF whe AMS, Clearly, the script supervisor has to know WHEN either the camera or the characters moved during the dialogue (je: on what line or even on what word) so that when coverage is being discussed, s/he will know what the correct axis for that point in the scene is. Consider also how screen direction helps to orient the viewer: if Character A walks left to right in the master, or if he left the frame of his closeup walking left to right, ideally he should be walking left to right into the next shot if it is a direct cut. That way, the cut will seem continuous and there won't be a momentary mental disruption to the viewer. Note that when | give these screen directions and eyeline notes (left to right or right to left), | am talking about in relation to the filmed frame. You can physically draw the film frame if you can't picture it in your head. | eaters lel bo right ian 7% BO ae 4 4h tn mastee eS The examples | have given you have been the simplest, with only two players in the scene. Of course, the same principles apply if there are 3 or 20 people being covered in a scene. In a three-person scene where actors are set up ina triangular formation, for example, consider that there is an axis between CharacterA and B and A and C which is correct to the master but specific to these two characters (in other words, there is an axis tine between each character). In a triangular formation it is harder to consider one single line than it is to consider ‘two individual lines which will still translate correctly to the master for cutting. co: NEC O-® [Or -©)- — pes 4 Some. Cav C@aGe, moAsTeR_ Oph ons .- ‘The book "Grammar of the Film Language” by Daniel Arijon illustrates how the axis is applied in a multitude of multi-player and moving camera scenarios and | highly recommend it for the beginning script supervisor who wants to master the axis. Normally (though not always) the goal of the filmmaker is to create the illusion for the viewer that what happens on screen is reality. The grammar of this cinematic language generally serves to help create and maintain this illusion, and “the axis’, in helping to maintain a logical screen direction, certainly serves that purpose. Knowing the reason for the axis can help you visualize if it would be problematic to cross it. For example, if the sequence is not meant to make “logical” sense (as in a frenetic fight scene or music video) or if the filmmaker is certain the existing coverage gives the audience enough information to anchor them in the spatial reality of the scene, the director might choose to cross the axis on purpose. However, if you are doing a dialogue scene between two or more characters whereby you are cutting back and forth and you want to keep your audience engaged in the conversation, you probably WON'T want to cross the axis at all when creating the coverage for this scene. There are times in such scenes where the director or DOP will devise a specialty Wide Master or Wide Reverse Shot in addition to the regular coverage which crosses the axis but shows the geography of the room. That is totally acceptable so long as the close-ups remain on a Consistent axis in relation to each other. This is because once the editor cuts into the conversation, chances are slim that s/he would cut back out to an establishing wide shot. Even if they did, it is not as jarring to see a wide shot including all the players which fs an axis cross than it is to cut to a close or medium shot where people are looking the wrong way. One typically recurring situation like that is dinner table dialogue. Usually the master will have some people with their backs to camera and it is not always possible to play the master axis in all the coverage. One solution is to use a “circular” coverage model.. make all the looks in the closeups complimentary to each other, deciding on where the master will be from to determine most of the coverage then splitting everyone's eyelines to each other for the dialogue. One simple illustration of this appears on the next page.ne 2 © ap ate JE @ 4 @ Ss . © \@ Ane > dQ pane ® o pee --© eC 6 Foyt Pm seg Prse i Qe Another recurring type of coverage which is an axis cross is called the 180 degree reverse. This is normally a wide shot which specifically crosses the axis (or, in fact, is right “on the line” and points the camera in the opposite direction) to reveal the rest of the room, often to feature the art direction or to tell more of the story visually by revealing another element in the room. This is often a useful and important kind of shot, but know that the correct axis for the coverage will be determined by which direction will be used the majority of the time. And there is no such thing as a closeup intercutting with another closeup that is a "180 degree reverse" - that's just another way of saying “it's an axis cross” (unless the characters are looking right into the camera lens which is almost never done without a specific dramatic purpose). Sometimes beginning DOP's get confused by this because direct reverses are fairly standard in wider coverage. Ifyou are unsure what side of the axis a certain piece of coverage should be ‘on, ask the director what shot s/he thinks they will be cutting from. If they have a pretty good idea of what that is, that will answer the question of where the correct camera position for the new piece of coverage will be. Sometimes, when people are unsure what they might be cutting from, they shoot one or more coverage angles “both ways" (one take per eyeline or one take per screen direction if it is a case of a character leaving frame). This option may not always be available due to time and budget, of course. For every setup, the continuity notes should contain a record of the eyelines, entrance/exit directions, camera move directions and either a drawing of the film frame and/or an overhead drawing of the scene so that any axis questions can be answered quickly at any time during the shoot. What if the goal of the filmmaker is NOT to keep the audience enraptured by an illusion of reality, but rather to jar, disturb or disrupt the audience's perception? Experimental filmmakers often use devices such as crossing the axis and jump cuts to achieve this and it works for the same reason that upholding the axis works: because filmmakers are engaged in willfully manipulating audience perception to achieve a specific result. There are many reasons a filmmaker may want to intentionally cross the axis: experimentation, distraction, creating an overall unconventional visuat style, or to depict a character's disturbed emotional state. The point is that the filmmaker should always be aware of how and why theyare manipulating the axis and that the script supervisor (and, of course, the DOP) should have the training required to help the filmmaker achieve that end. The notion of how much to let go of the rules has some degree of subjectivity involved in it and you must remember that no matter how wrong you feel the director or DOP is in choosing “what side of the line” to take a shot from, once you have stated your case in an informed, polite manner it is ultimately the director's movie and they have the final say in the matter. If you are concerned that anything may have to be re-shot due to an axis cross at a later date and you don't want to be named as the one who erred, all you can do is make a note to the editor on your continuity notes (ie: "we are crossing the axis on purpose here as per director and/or DOP"). If you or the director or DOP realize that the axis was crossed BY ACCIDENT in the course of a shooting day or later, you have a few options. The director can either decide to reshoot the particular shot(s) that crossed the line, s/he can choose to live with the error and a potentially confusing edit, s/he can order that the film be “flipped” in post production (which will reverse the entire image and therefore affect background and any hairlines or wardrobe items that are not parted in the middle), or s/he can come up with what my editing professor lovingly referred to as a “buffalo shot". That is, a shot that works with the scene but is not directly related to the axis cross; it is a cutaway and could take the form of an ECU Insert or a wide shot of another angle or location meant to “distract” from the error. The term “buffalo shot” came out of Westerns where if there was a sequence where the “cowboys” were supposed to be charging left to right at the "Indians", who were in turn supposed to be charging right to left, and one of the screen directions was incorrect, the editor could cut to a herd of buffalo running towards the camera over a hill! As a script supervisor | have seen the axis manipulated in many ways, sometimes to the enhancement and sometimes to the detriment of the picture. Over time | get more of a sense of what will work and so will you. It is useful to shoot your own footage on digital video, break the rules on purpose and try to edit them together yourself to see why some choices work better. if you are on a TV series take into account the “look” or visual style of the overall show. Is the axis crossed often for effect (as in Homicide or Traders) or is it rare? When in doubt, Propose a “safety” coverage shot on the correct axis if possible. If you can visualize a cutting problem, whether it relates to axis or not, always state your case clearly and politely, and try to help the director visualize specifically why a certain cut may be a problem. And remember, it’s the director's movie (or the producer's, in the case of television) - they have the final say in any discussion of coverage and you are there to support, help and respect them. © 2001 Daniela Saioni - do not reprint without permission of the author