Scene Dissection: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 - Forest Run
Realism, as usual, is simply a fig leaf for doing what you want. Virtually any technique can be justified as realistic according to some conception of what’s important in the scene. If you shoot the action cogently, with all the moves evident, that’s realistic because it shows you what’s “really” happening. If you shoot it awkwardly, that presentation is “realistically” reflecting what a participant perceives or feels. If you shoot it as “chaos” (another description that Nobles applies to the Expendables action scenes)—well, action feels chaotic when you’re in it, right?
Forget the realist alibi. What do you want your sequence to do to the viewer? Do you want it to pass along an impression of bustle and flurry? Or do you want to make the viewer wince, recoil, even mildly reenact the movements of the players?
– David Bordwell, “Bond vs. Chan: Jackie shows how it’s done”
I watched Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 a little less than a year ago and still remember how much I absolutely abhorred David Yates’ directing choice in the famous chase scene where Harry, Ron and Hermione run from a group of snatchers.
Even after slowing down the scene to 0.1x its original speed, I still found this gritty-oriented action sequence incomprehensible; even in a last attempt to look at stills from the sequence, I still couldn’t figure out what exactly was going on. If Yates was attempting to convey the realism of being confused, disoriented without any sense of spacial coherence by making key characters as visually obscure as throw away bad guys, then he succeeded with flying colors, all notwithstanding the consistent breaking of the 180º line of axis. By using the now grossly overused hand-held camera technique without properly establishing each shot and cut in the sequence, Yates succeeded in creating one of the worst action sequences I’ve seen in recent cinema.
Before beginning the breakdown of what exactly is bad about Yates’ directing choice, here’s a brief review about the 180º line of axis.
The idea behind the 180º line of axis (represented by the black line in the picture above) is that you have a consistent visual understanding of where objects are relative to one another. In this above diagram (which is an aerial POV) according to where the camera is currently placed, subject 2 would be on the left and subject 1 would be on the right. While you could call it a ‘rule,’ you don’t necessarily have to abide by it; however, by crossing this invisible axis, or by going past the 180º line (represented by the dashed green line, where subject 2 would now be considered on the right and subject 1 on the left) you do risk creating visual befuddlement for the viewers.
For instance, in this above diagram, the camera is placed so that subject 2 is visually on the left and subject 1 is visually on the right. Even when you change camera position to looking at subject 2 from the POV of subject 1, so long as you haven’t crossed the invisible 180º axis it’s still obvious which subject is on which side of the screen.
When you cross or break the 180º line, subject 2 now seems to be on the right side while subject 1 now seems to be on the left. If you juxtaposed two stills in which the visual orientation is inconsistent (e.g. subject 2 on the left before the cut, and then subject 2 on the right after the cut), it can be visually confusing if you’re not careful.
However, like all artistic ‘rules,’ the 180º line of axis is really a guide for creating visual consistency in cinema. As Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim vs the World, Shaun of the Dead) commented in a /Film interview, you can “bend” the 180º line to an extent as long as it still makes visual sense to an extent.
That said, let’s continue on with what exactly Yates does in this action scene that I have severe issues with. I’m dividing this sequence into different “parts,” mostly based on how it was cut and edited together. Hopefully, by breaking up this action sequence into smaller components, I can illustrate why there are so many visual incongruities that render this scene nearly (if not entirely) incomprehensible. Here’s a link to the video of the actual scene, which I highly recommend watching before reading the rest of this scene dissection (embedding is disabled which is why I’m linking as opposed to having the video right here on the blog).
The basics
#1: You’ll notice that the cinematography is going to be a huge problem in creating a coherent action sequence. With a grey green color palette, Harry, Ron, Hermione and any other character are already going to be difficult to visually differentiate from a grey green forest: since the characters are not wearing clothing that contrasts particularly well with their surroundings (due to the cinematographer’s coloring choice), it’s already going to be difficult to convey a visually coherent action sequence if everybody running looks like each other from far away.
Cut 1: The Intro
#2: Here are our three protagonists, Ron, Hermione and Harry from left to right respectively
#3: Each arrow indicates where each of them is headed. Relative to the camera position in the previous still, Harry would be traveling towards the camera (up) while Ron would be traveling away from it (down) and Hermione would be traveling left.
#4: Snatcher 1 approaches, and Harry (in the background looks a different direction…
#5: Harry sees three more snatchers.
#6: Here’s a reaction shot to establish Harry’s comprehension of the situation.
#7: Now cut to this guy who’s playing with Hermione’s lost scarf…
#8: And now we have a visual establishment of whom Hermione sees.
#9: In this crucial establishing shot, there are a total of six snatchers who. I’m a bit confused as to Harry and Ron’s placement in this scene (it seems that both Ron and Harry would have seen five snatchers instead of two and three respectively?). Ron and Hermione are still poised to begin sprinting while Harry has already taken off (you can see his foot in the bottom right of the still; it’s difficult to see since I forgot to circle it, but you can see what I mean by why this action sequence is already in trouble when you have a difficult time visually differentiating characters from their environment) Edit: sorry that’s not Harry’s foot, it’s just a backpack.
#10: We see Harry turning for to run… (editing mistake: in the previous still we already saw Harry’s foot breaking into a run) Edit: please see previous still for edit comments.
#11: The snatchers look for a bit before taking off for a sprint. I forgot again to circle the snatchers but again, to emphasize why the cinematography already shot this action sequence in the foot before it’s even begun – how difficult is it to differentiate the background snatchers from their background?
Part 2: Hand-held camera begins
#12: We first begin with Harry, who’s running from left to right of the still, and thus establishes the direction of movement in this part of the forest run. Already we’ve run into a grave mistake: there’s no establishing shot that shows where our heroes are in relationship to the snatchers. Without the establishing shot, I find myself asking the subsequence questions…
#13: Since this shot of Ron follows Harry, are we to assume that Ron is following Harry?
#14: Ron turns around, indicating that there’s someone behind him… but who?
#15: Since the previous still is followed by this still of a snatcher, are we to assume that Ron is looking at this snatcher?
#16: Now that we’re back on Ron, is this supposed to confirm that the previous still of the snatcher confirms whom Ron was looking at?
#17: Now we get to see Hermione, but we’re not sure where she is in relationship to Harry or Ron. The direction of movement is still left to right according to the 180º line of axis, but as you can see it’s being strained quite a bit here.
#18: Now that we cut to this particular snatcher who’s got Hermione’s scarf, are we to assume he’s chasing her in particular?
#19: But wait… is the snatcher with the scarf actually chasing Ron? Also, who is this guy who’s obscuring the foreground? Where’s Hermione?
Part 3: The first crane shot
#20: Finally, establishing shot! The box indicates the position of our heroes in the beginning of this cut…
#21: Without the box, can you see where the characters are? Also, who threw that curse?
#22: According to this still, Harry is in the front, Hermione is second, and Ron is the slowest of the trio.
#23: This still confirms that Ron is indeed the slowest of the trio.
#23: So quite obviously the snatcher with the scarf is not the closest to the trio at this point as was otherwise indicated in a previous shot (still #19). So who is this snatcher who’s closest to Ron? Was it the snatcher who was obscuring the foreground in a previous still?
Part 4: First time we see a spell being cast up close
#24: Is this the same snatcher we saw in still #23? What is his position relative to the Potter trio?
#25
#26: Again, what was the relative position of the spell caster to Harry’s position? Again, based on still #22, let’s assume that Harry is still in the front of the race.
Part 5: Is it a different curse caster or the same?
#27: Is this the same spell caster as seen in still #24? The tree in the foreground is obscuring what we should be focusing on.
#28: Let’s assume this is the same spell caster as seen in still #24 based solely on how he does look like the same person. Still, I shouldn’t be questioning this to begin with.
#29: Based on this still, it seems that Harry is still in the front, Ron is still last and Hermione is still in the center. Again, how far away was the spell cast?
Part 6: Who’s chasing Hermione?
#30: So now the focus is on Hermione, and the direction of movement is again left to right of the still.
#31: Since this is the next still, are we to assume that these two are focused on chasing Hermione?
Part 7: Bending the 180º line
#32: We have our second establishing shot, as well as the first very evident ‘bending’ (or even breaking) of the 180º line of axis. The box again indicates where our characters at the beginning of this crane shot.
#33: The direction of movement is first from left to right…
#34: What is the relative position of Harry, Ron and Hermione? Also, note that the direction of movement is starting to bend…
#35: Ok, so it looks like Hermione is last now. I’m not sure when Ron passed her (since he was last in still #29). Also note that the direction of movement is now from right to left, which is directly a result of the crane shot used in this part of the action sequence.
#36: Who’s who? Also, where’s the sixth snatcher?
#37: Ok now I see six snatchers… but again, who’s chasing who? Or are they just running and going for whoever they can?
Part 8: Who’s chasing who again, and who is that?
#38: When did Hermione suddenly sprint from behind to in front of Harry? Also, where’s Ron?
#39: The direction of movement is now left to right again. The 180º line of axis has been crossed once more.
#40: In this still you can guess that it’s Harry, but in real time you’d be hard pressed to say who it is immediately. Maybe the editing of this blurred still in conjunction with still #39 is supposed to make us assume that it’s Harry?
#41: This is actually the first time we get a close up of one of the snatcher’s faces during the running sequence. Since it follows immediately after the shot of Harry in stills #39 and #40, are we supposed to assume he’s following Harry?
#42: Again, who did this? Was it the snatcher in the previous still? The direction of movement is still left to right.
#43: Here’s a reaction of shot of Ron looking back to who casted the spell. The tree in the foreground is again obscuring the visual clarity of this still.
#44: I really have no idea who this is.
Part 9: 180º line crossed, and are you chasing Hermione or Ron?
#45: This part of the action sequence begins by crossing the 180º line of axis relative to the previous part (part 8). The direction of movement is now right to left.
#46: Since she’s the first person we see close up in this part of the sequence, are we to assume she’s in the front of the trio? Also, where are Ron and Harry?
#47: Who is this person in the background? If Hermione is in the front, is he trying to cut her off? Or is there someone in front of her that he’s actively pursuing?
#48: Since this still of the snatcher with the scarf follows the stills of Hermione running, are we to assume he’s chasing her?
#49: Take a moment to see how poorly this still is composed.
#50: Since this still of Ron running follows the still of the snatcher of the scarf, what are we to assume Ron’s relative position is? That is, is he in front or behind Hermione, and who exactly is chasing him?
Part 10: Ron gets caught, but how?
#51: Who is this snatcher chasing?
#52: Is that circled bit an actual person or is it a snatcher running? This is too blurry to tell.
#53: Is this the same person that I circled in the previous still, still #52? If so, who is he chasing?
#54: Is this the wand of the same guy in still #53? Let’s assume yes, but since it’s already visually difficult to differentiate who’s who, that wand could really belong to anybody.
#55: Whose feet are those, and what is that in the foreground? This still is just creating more confusion in this already bumpy hand-held camera fest.
#56: Now we have three snatchers running. Are they the same snatchers from stills #51 through #53? And who are they chasing?
#57: Was this snatcher in the previous still, still #56?
#58
#59
#60: Since we get a reaction shot of Ron turning around, let’s assume that the snatcher in stills #57 through 59 is who he’s looking at. Also, I still don’t know where he is relative to Harry or Hermione – is he first, middle, last, or completely separated?
#61
#62
#63: Is this the same snatcher who cast the previous spell that missed Ron? It’s hard to tell, quite honestly: everything is so blurry.
#64
#65: Let’s consider for a moment that this vine thing is a spell cast out as seen in the previous still, still #64. The reaction shot of Ron getting caught starts here, but the quick cutting in the next stills makes this even more difficult to comprehend what is going on between Ron, the spell, and the snatcher who cast the spell.
#66
#67
#68: This cut is far too short. Had Yates taken a few more seconds to allow the audience to see Ron’s current plight, it would have made for a more comprehensible action sequence; that is, we would have had more time to take in the fact that Ron just got caught. Also, I still find myself asking how many snatchers were chasing him, and before he fell down what was his position relative to Harry, Hermione, and his pursuing snatchers.
Part 11: Beyond incomprehensible
Here begins what I consider the worst part of this entire forest run. It is messy, blurry, and beyond all things an assault to visual coherence.
#69: Who is this?
#70: Take another moment to consider how poorly this still and the previous still are composed.
#71: Is this the same guy (snatcher?) from stills #69 and 70?
#72: From this POV, the direction of movement is right to left.
#73: This still immediately crosses the 180º line of axis since the direction of movement is suddenly left to right. Also, what’s the relative position between Harry and that snatcher who climbed on top of the fallen tree?
#74: Is the snatcher on running on top pulling out his wand, or are there more snatchers pursuing Harry?
#75: Is this snatcher the same as the snatcher running on top, or is he different? After squinting at stills for awhile, I’m going to assume he’s a different snatcher than the one we see in #69 and 70, but that’s me making the best of assumptions.
#76: Is the circled person Harry or the other snatcher from the previous still, still #75? Also, whose POV is this, the snatcher running on top? Note, too, that the direction of movement is suddenly right to left again, which means that the 180º line of axis has again been crossed in the same part of this action sequence.
#77: It’s times like these that I completely give up on trying to make sense of anything.
#78: I don’t know for sure who this is – is it snatcher in stills #69 and 70, or is it the snatcher in still #75? Or is it another snatcher? I have no idea because I still can’t see his face.
#79: No really, who are you?
#80: Here we have Harry traveling towards the camera…
#81: Whose feet are these? Maybe we’re supposed to assume their Harry’s since the previous still consists of Harry, but in reality they could be anyone’s lower appendages. The direction of movement is approximately right to left still at this point.
#82: Are the feet in still #81 that of Harry’s or this guy’s? Of course he’s climbing on top of the trees (presumably because we’re looking up again) but really, who’s to say whose feet are whose at this point? The direction of movement is still right to left…
#83: Seriously, who casted this spell? The direction of movement is towards the camera…
#84: After looking at stills for a long time, I assume it’s Harry but the cutting is so fast it doesn’t give us sufficient time to confirm this assumption.
#85: Let’s assume that this snatcher is chasing Harry since this still follows the previous still immediately. I still don’t know how many snatchers are chasing Harry, and I’m not sure if this snatcher is on the ground or climbing trees.
#86: Who’s who? That’s beyond me.
#87: Were you in the previous still?
#88: I’ll assume this subject is Harry since he ducks once the spell is cast, but again we’ve got serious visual obscurity.
#89: Juxtaposed to the previous still, we can assume that still #88 is that of Harry.
#90: Alas, the direction of movement is now left to right! The 180º line of axis has been crossed again.
#91: Is this snatcher on the ground or on top of the trees? What’s his position relative to that of Harry?
#92: He jumps downwards…
#93: We cut to Harry (?) running forward…
#94: Presumably, snatcher from still #92 is dropping down… (continuity error: where’s his cap?)
#95: Harry falls, but we can’t truly confirm the identity of the snatcher who just fell.
#96
#97
#98
#99: The direction of movement is now right to left again, thus the 180º line of axis is broken once more. Also – hey look he’s got his hat back!
#100: Direction of movement is right to left. In this entire part of the overall actin sequence, the 180º line of axis has been crossed 4 times and I still don’t know how many snatchers were chasing Harry.
Part 12: Bending and Breaking the 180º line again
#101: Relative to the previous still, still #100, the direction of movement has changed from left to right, which means that the 180º line has been crossed again. Now, in this cut with Hermione as the main focus, you’ll see how Yates manages to bend and eventually break the 180º line of axis…
#102
#103: The bending of the 180º line…
#104: Now the direction is right to left.
#105: We’ve got two guys chasing her, which is nice to see established considering how we didn’t know how many snatchers were chasing Ron and Harry previously.
#106
#107: The new established direction of movement is now right to left, the complete opposite of how this part of the action sequence began.
#108: Presumably that circled bit in the still is a person, but Yates doesn’t linger long enough for us to completely determine if it’s a person or a log.
Part 13: The only part that’s done well
#109: This last part is the only part of the action sequence that’s done well. We begin with the relative positions of Hermione and Harry established – front and second, respectively. Direction of movement is left to right.
#110: Cut to Hermione, who begins halting to a stop as we see a figure in the distant foreground. Direction of movement is still left to right.
#111: We get a nice moment where Hermione is taking in this new revelation…
#112: She turns around looking distressed, confirming our suspicions that they’ve been cut off by a snatcher.
#113: Since Harry’s direction of movement is still left to right, it becomes obvious that juxtaposed to the previous still, Hermione was looking directly at him.
#114: We cut back to Hermione now pointing her wand at Harry. We can still see the snatcher in the background, and his relative position to that of Hermione’s is now well established.
#115: This is a very well composed because we see all three characters – Harry, Hermione and the snatcher – in one frame, and it gives us a moment to comprehend their relative positions to one another. The direction of movement is still left to right (even though Harry does fall back), meaning the 180º line of axis is still consistent since still #109.
#116: And there you have it!
…
You may wonder why I asked so many questions in many of the stills, questions that may seem self-evident at first. I ask these questions not to be redundant, but to highlight what a director with a good sense of action would ask when shooting and editing together an action sequence. A well-directed action sequence would leave little if anything for the audience to question: ideally, it should at least allow the audience to observe without inducing a headache or confusion.
My assessment of Yates’ action direction is not absolute nor perfect. However, I believe it is enough to convey why the ‘gritty realism’ argument really isn’t an excuse for creating such visual inconsistencies nor why quick cutting doesn’t create sense of coherent movement or intensity that you would hope an action sequence would convey. Film is largely a visual medium, and if your audience can’t even comprehend what’s going on while the projection rolls, then that’s just bad filmmaking, period.
Alas, Mr. Radcliffe, I’m afraid your running was indeed wasted due to poor directing and editing.
Recommend Reading and Videos
- Bond vs Chan: Jackie shows how it’s done – by David Bordwell, via his blog Observations on Film Art. Doctor Bordwell is one of the premiere experts on film theory, and along with his wife Kirstin Thompson is at the forefront of formalistic studies in film. I highly recommend article to anyone; it is especially enlightening and will likely change how you come to critique and appreciate action sequences.
- In the Cut, Part 1: Shots in the Dark (Knight) – by Jim Emerson. This is the first of his three part video series of action sequences at Press Play. Emerson is extremely articulate in his critique of Nolan’s 2008 film, and I believe his analysis is not only enlightening but an essential example of how to dissect film.
- Scene Dissection: Thirds and 180º Rule (Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood, Episode 15) – this article I wrote over a year ago also explains the 180º degree ‘rule.’ In this one, I explain how you can improve the composition of a still by accounting for the 180º line of axis and by splitting a frame into thirds.
