Shot flow in Who Framed Roger Rabbit

I remember seeing Who Framed Roger Rabbit and being excited by the Daffy/Donald piano duel. It was just about my favorite part of the movie. I was also as frustrated by the sequence as I was excited. Here it is:

[ Javascript required to view QuickTime movie, please turn it on and refresh this page ]

I was excited because it featured the early, lunatic version of Daffy (before he became an annoying jerk) blowing poor Donald off the screen (well, at least figuratively, since Donald is the one who uses the cannon).

I grew up loving the Warner’s characters and being bored by the Disney shorts, so it was great to see this pairing play out just the way I expected. I loved the sequence, but I recall have the thought at the time, “I wish I could see that again in slow motion, because I missed most of it.” Frankly, that is not a thought anyone in the audience should be having about the action on the screen. I felt like I was just catching glimpses of wonderful animation, despite having a good seat in the theater and trying hard to soak it all in. I still had to strain to follow the action when I watched it later on videotape, despite seeing it on a much smaller screen compared to a theater, and despite being able to replay it repeatedly.

In retrospect, it’s easy to see why this sequence was so frustrating. Just about every rule of good camera work, shot composition, staging, and hooking up shots was violated repeatedly. The result is that the sequence simply doesn’t read. I have to guess that not enough care was taken in setting up and shooting the live-action plates, and once that was done the animators were stuck and had to animate their scenes without regard for how each shot would work as part of the whole. What’s ironic, though, is that the primarily live-action shots that precede the animated duel follow all those rules, and are perfectly easy to follow.

This will be a long post, so I’m going to break it into two parts. In this first part, I’ll break down the mostly live-action section featuring Eddie Valiant leading into the piano duel. In part two I’ll analyze why I think the animated portion featuring the ducks is so frustrating.

Here’s Valiant, re-entering the world of toons. The first screen-grab is near the end of a long tracking shot. The camera has kept Eddie (seen from behind) pretty much centered, and now he moves aside to reveal the room and the stage. It’s a nice establishing shot, and cuts to a 3/4 front shot of our gumshoe’s skeptical reaction:

eddie1.jpg
eddie2.jpg
eddie3.jpg
eddie4.jpg
eddie5.jpg

Now we see what Eddie sees — the exuberant guy in the front row motivating a pan by indicating where we should look:
rr003.jpg
rr004.jpg
rr005.jpg
Look closely at the above shot. It’s nicely framed, and for about the only time in the entire sequence to come the white piano makes a nice backdrop for Daffy. The background is a little busy, especially all that dreadful, eye-catching neon, and Donald’s black tux tends to blend into his black piano, but it’s a clear, simply-staged shot.
The next 10 panels represent the subsequent six shots (I show the first and last frame where there’s some movement in the shot). Note how the action continues to be well centered, with Eddie’s head movements motivating cuts and pans. Nice, straightforward film storytelling.
rr007.jpg
rr008.jpg
rr009.jpg
rr010.jpg
rr011.jpg
rr012.jpg
rr013.jpg
rr014.jpg
rr015.jpg
rr016.jpg

Any confusion yet? No, not a bit. Now, however, the film starts to focus on the ducks, and in just the two shots below some problems crop up. The first shot (three screen-grabs) repeats a previous simple setup. This would be fine, except the camera is unnecessarily far away, making the complicated, super-fast action hard to read:
rr017.jpg
rr018.jpg
rr019.jpg
rr020.jpg
Check out our first cut on animation between the last two panels above. These show the last frame of one shot and the first frame of the next. Note we’ve subtly violated the 180 degree rule (in the first shot the white piano is to screen right, and now it’s to the left of the black piano). Crossing the 180 degree line is almost always disorienting, and here, where the two backgrounds have absolutely nothing in common, it’s a disaster. Further, much of the screen is also now taken up by the complex guts of the piano. Detail tends to draw our eye. That’s the opposite of what we want to happen here.

We also now see that, from this perspective, the white piano is blindingly white. Our eye tends to be attracted to the brightest thing on the screen. It’s so bright that instead of making a nice background for our characters, it overwhelms them, turning them into little murky blobs. All the lamps on the audience tables also make highlights that are distracting.

And all those diagonal lines, drawing the eye every which way. This would be bad enough, but it’s made worse because our characters silhouettes are so dramatically different from the previous shot (plus the characters are tiny in both shots), that it barely feels like part of the same continuity. Continuing with the same shot where we left off:
rr021.jpg
The above would be a great pose, except it flashes by too fast for us to perceive, and the two figures blend into each other, making a bizarre silhouette.

rr022.jpg
Now we get a taste for what a poor choice a shiny black piano is for a prop. Daffy’s body disappears, and random highlights dominate the composition. Daffy’s and Donald’s faces are shoved to the periphery of the screen, so who the hell knows where to look?

rr023.jpg
Now the characters virtually disappear.

rr024.jpg
Here Donald’s hands make a tangent with the top of the screen, so it looks like he’s trying to push his way out of the composition!

rr025.jpg
Finally things settle down and Donald stays in one place long enough for us to ‘read’ what he’s doing, though he’s still competing for attention with the blazing white piano, which is far whiter than either his feathers or his eyes. Or are we supposed to be focused on Daffy’s murky flapping mouth at the bottom of the scene, delivering the famous “Thith means war”? I guess given that the two characters are consigned to the periphery of the screen space, it’s hard to say.

The following screen-grabs represent the beginning and end frames of the remaining live-action shots (with an occasional extra frame to show the action within a scene), up to the point the duck’s piano duel begins in earnest. We see again that, safely back in the live-action arena, the compositions and camera work settle down and follow the rules. Everything reads. The shot flow is effortless. I don’t need to use little yellow circles to represent where the viewers eye is from cut to cut, because it’s all so clear.
rr026.jpg
rr027.jpg
rr028.jpg
rr029.jpg
rr030.jpg
rr031.jpg
rr032.jpg
rr034.jpg
rr035.jpg
rr036.jpg
rr037.jpg
rr038.jpg
rr039.jpg
rr040.jpg
rr041.jpg
rr042.jpg
rr043.jpg
rr044.jpg
rr045.jpg
rr046.jpg
rr047.jpg
rr048.jpg
rr049.jpg
rr050.jpg
rr051.jpg
rr052.jpg
rr053.jpg
rr054.jpg
rr055.jpg

Despite relatively murky lighting and a somewhat distracting backgrounds, everything Valiant and Acme do is clear, and the shots hook up and flow along. In the next post, we’ll see how that doesn’t happen in the animated shots that follow. The unfortunate result is that some fine animation gets put into a blender and switched to puree.

10 Responses to “Shot flow in Who Framed Roger Rabbit”

  1. Joel Brinkerhoff Says:

    You have nailed it. Until you pulled this apart I didn’t understand why I had trouble following this sequence.

  2. Max Ward Says:

    It would definitely be hard to plan this scene while filming.

    The film crew, who weren’t animators, probably couldn’t picture what this would all look like in animation, and probably thought animators could work around all their errors since they work a frame at a time. Plus, it’s sort of a throw away scene, but it could have been a lot more memorable if the scene had better composition.

    Great observation, though!

  3. Kevin Says:

    Max, I’m not sure why you call the sequence with Daffy and Donald a “throw away.” It seemed to me to be one of the animation set-pieces of the film, and clearly took a ton of planning.

    Regarding the film crew’s inability to plan for animation, that didn’t seem to be the case overall for the rest of the film. That, for me, makes the terrible camera set-ups and compositions of this section all the more inexplicable.

  4. Maciek Gliwa Says:

    Great post Kevin. Thanks again for doing this! I would love to see that sequence on a huge cinema screen. I am sure that the problem would be much much bigger. I also think that the first part of the “problematic” shot is somehow clear because the action is very clear at the end of the previous shot (when donald grabs Daffy’s head), so I guess our imagination fixes the issue and we know what’s going on. I think the biggest problem is that we can’t see Daffy when he says “this means war”, first time I totally missed it. Great post!

    -Maciek

  5. Andy Holden Says:

    Hey Kevin, great post and really insightful. I never picked up on any of this when I watched that film before.

    it’s a shame really because when I look at the shots I think I can see what they were trying to do, but as you said it seems to have not worked that well (such as the shot where Donald flings Daffy , I think they were trying to use the ‘triangle’ made by the piano, but like you said, there’s too much working against it for it to work)

    on the live-action shots at the beginning I don’t understand why Eddie’s head suddenly crosses from screen right to screen left before and after the cut of the long shot of Daffy and Donald? the only idea I can think of why Zemeckis would do this would be to suggest there’s still some of the ‘old’ Eddie in there after all

    Andy.

  6. Kevin Says:

    Hi Mac! Yes, you’re spot on about the shot where Donald throws Daffy into the piano. Thanks.

    Hey Andy, how’s it going? Regarding the changes of Eddie’s head angle before and after the panning shot of the ducks — remember that was a pan shot. Before that shot, Eddie looks slightly to his left, at the guy doing the pointing. Then the camera pans to the right (in effect mimicking Valiant’s unseen head turn) to see the ducks. When the camera cuts back to Valiant, he’s looking slightly to the right of where he was looking before the cut, which fits exactly with the camera pan.

  7. Andy Holden Says:

    hey Kevin (things are going great in class 5, thanks for asking :-)

    the shots I meant was between rr012 and rr014 as you’ve got them numbered on the jpegs, once we’ve established that Eddie looks away from the bar and back to the stage, just before he walks down to where Marvin is sat.

    sorry my bad, I should have been a bit clearer there :-(

  8. Kevin Says:

    Ah, I see which section you mean, Andy. I think this is the kind of ‘mismatch’ that is so subtle that the audience doesn’t feel it as a change. The reason for the shift is in the first part of the sequence, Valiant takes a couple of steps to his right, and then looks at the bar to his right. Therefore, when the camera is facing him it’s slightly to his left. After the long shot of the ducks on the stage, Valiant comes down the stairs and interacts with Acme, who will be on his left. In order for those shots to be well staged, the camera now needs to be slightly to Valiant’s right.

    The important thing is that this shift in camera position is fairly subtle (in rr012 and rr014, they’re both essentially front-on close-ups), and the shift is disguised by the cut away to the stage.

    Glad class 5 is going well. Maybe I’ll see you next term!

  9. David Martinez - Character Animator » Shot flow in Who Framed Roger Rabbit Says:

    […] sure to read it because it’s good stuff!! Click HERE to read the whole article […]

  10. Andy Norton Says:

    Why did I knew you were going to mention the 180 degree rule when analysising this sequence.
    This is some excellent theory, which brings me back to my sixth form days, doing Media Studies… but this is more useful than textual analysis was.
    I hope to check out part two soon.

Leave a Reply

The animation and animation-related musings of Kevin Koch