Category: Intro Video

Watching the scene, “Women” from Scent of a Woman, without audio, I noticed how close the camera stays to Al Pacino’s face. It switches to the young man’s face a few times but mostly it lingers on Pacino, capturing every wrinkle (especially the forehead), movement and shake, and subtle facial expression. The lighting is warm and natural, shining on the left side of his face softly while the right side has a slight shadow, adding a sense of depth and realism.

I’m not sure if this was intentional, but the camera angle felt slightly below eye level when focusing on Pacino which made him appear larger and more dominant, giving his character a seemingly confident personality, almost like he’s a teacher lecturing the world about women. When it cuts to the young man, the camera is at his eye level or rather, trying to be above? The young man’s head was mostly tilting down most of the time, making him look smaller and more passive, like a quiet student listening to a teacher. Overall, there are only a few cuts between these two characters which keeps the focus tight and intimate. It felt like the camera wanted us to stay with Pacino’s words and expressions rather than get distracted by anything else.

Listening without watching, Al Pacino’s voice felt rough and deep yet it had a calm tone to it, showing both his age, wisdom, and rough life experience. He speaks at a steady pace with short pauses, especially before words like “tits” or “legs” which added emphasis and drew the listener in. The way he speaks and his phrasing sound almost poetic… like he is reciting a love poem rather than casual talk. It makes for a strange love poem but somehow it fits him. There’s no background music in this scene, just purely dialogue with that slight ambient background plane noise which added realism and more focus to his words. You can hear slight movements like shifting in the seat and the glass he’s holding and even fabric creasing as he moves which enhances the scene without being too distracting. The younger man doesn’t have any lines here and this audio isolation made me realize how Pacino dominated this conversation with just his words, tone, and pauses.

Watching it fully with both visuals and audio combined, I noticed how Al Pacino’s words and expressions fit together so perfectly. Before, when I only listened to it, I thought he sounded calm and poetic but then seeing his facial expressions at the same time made it even clearer how serious but also slightly playful he is. When he talks about hair, lips, breasts, and legs, he doesn’t say it with an awkward laugh or anything. Instead, his face looks calm and thoughtful almost like he’s reciting a memory or something sacred to him. I haven’t watched this movie before, but that’s the sort of vibe I’m taking from this scene. His eyes don’t seem like they are focused on anything specific, more like just following where his head turns, and when he turns his head slightly, it makes his words feel more dramatic since his attention and thoughts are on his words. His small smirk when he says “passport to heaven” adds a sense of humor but also confidence like he knows exactly what he’s saying and doesn’t care what others think. One thing I noticed that I didn’t see before was how he uses his hands while talking, only ever so briefly, but it does appear. He slightly moves his glass and gestures gently as if he’s trying to paint something or convey something through the air with his words. When he says “Are you listening to me, son?” he leans in just a bit, making it feel more personal like he’s trying to pass down wisdom from his own life experiences. The younger man just sits there quietly and seeing his face while listening to Pacino makes it feel like he’s absorbing every single word. He barely moves and his slightly lowered head adds to the feeling that he is a student and Pacino is the teacher. I also noticed how the camera barely cuts away from Pacino when he’s speaking these lines. The focus stays tight on him, showing his emotions with every slight eyebrow raise or mouth twitch. The few cuts to the younger man almost felt like reminders to the audience that someone else is there but he doesn’t really hold the power in this moment. Pacino does. The lighting makes Pacino’s face look warm and a bit tired which I think matches his rough voice and shows his age and life experience. Another thing I realized while watching it with both senses was the pacing. The pauses between his words felt longer when watching and listening together. His breathing, the small seat noises, and the sound of the glass moving create a realism that made me feel like I was sitting right across from him. 

Ebert talks about “intrinsic weighting” and how placement can create its own meaning. Pacino is on the right side, giving him a more powerful and dominant feeling while the young man is on the left, making him look less powerful. The low angle on Pacino enhances him which makes him appear strong and confident while the straight eye-level or high angle on the young man makes him look like he’s listening and learning. Ebert said movement to the right seems more favorable, but even though they aren’t moving here, Pacino’s placement still gives him that sense of power and strong calm. Watching it with one sense muted each time showed me how camera placement, angles, and sound work together to build a character’s presence. Without sound, I noticed the angles. Without visuals, I noticed the power in his pacing. Together, it creates a scene that feels deep and confident just like his character.

I read Roger Ebert’s “How to Read a Movie” and it showed me how to look at movies differently. I never really thought about how just pausing a movie could show you so much. He talked about how his students would call out “stop” during a movie and they’d all sit there and think about that one frame, kind of like how sports teams analyze a game frame by frame to find out what went right or wrong. I think this method works because it gives you time to actually see the details you’d normally miss when everything is moving so fast. You notice the little details like the shadows, where people stand, and how their eyes look, as those small things can tell you what a character is feeling or thinking without them saying anything. But I think this method might not always work for everyone because some people just want to feel the movie as it flows instead of stopping it all the time. For them, it might ruin the emotional build up of a scene. Well, normally you’d watch a film without pausing first before rewatching it to make your analysis. He also talked about how people on the right side of the screen feel more positive while people on the left side feel more negative. This seemed like a really foreign concept to me because I never noticed it before but I can see why it works. The connection I could make is that we read things left to right so when someone moves to the right it feels like progress or hope. If they move to the left it feels like going back or something sad. But I also feel like this might not always work depending on what culture you’re in. Like if you grew up reading right to left (the Arabic language for example) maybe it feels different. Still, it’s fascinating how directors use these small techniques to essentially guide how we feel about a scene without us even noticing we’re feeling this way because of it.

The two videos I watched taught me different cinema techniques. One of the videos I watched was “Hitchcock loves Bikinis.” I liked how simple it was but still made a big point. Basically, the video showed how putting two clips together can completely change how you see someone. Like when shown man looking at a mother with a baby, then back at him smiling, you think he’s a nice old man. But when the middle clip was changed to a girl in a bikini, suddenly he’s dirty. With the power of editing using cinematographic techniques, it can change what an audience thinks about a character without changing anything about the character themselves. I think that’s something fun to see when I’m trying to use it in my own projects. Just experimenting with seeing how switching out just a single clip can make a whole different meaning in filmmaking.

Another video I watched was “Tarantino // From Below.” It showed so many scenes where Tarantino filmed his characters from below looking up at them. It made them look super powerful and intimidating. Just seeing how from this perspective, it makes the viewer feel small compared to the character. Like the character is towering over you and it gives them that strong, dominant vibe. I think these techniques matter because it shows how movies aren’t just about telling stories with words and the props that are physically there, but also it’s about making the viewers FEEL something just by how you place a camera or what clips you decide to put together. Overall, I learned that reading movies is about looking deeper and seeing the choices that directors make to essentially guide your emotions without you even noticing.