Martin Scorsese- Color Of Money Question

[belovedmonster]

this seems like abit of a waste of a topic since i just had this one question...

but i watched the color of money recently and at the start it has the visual thing that intrigued me, and i have no idea what it was sposed to represent...

basicly at the start of the movie in the bar/pool place when ever someone talks to Fast Eddie Felson played Paul Newman the one single camera would pan to the person talking to him and then pan back, it doesnt sound much written down but visualy it stands out, especialy when theres 2 people talking to him at the same time and the camera is panning to one, back to Eddie for a split second and then panning fast to the other guy while he says his line and then back to Eddie and so on.

I just wondered what the significance of this was? Its obviously putting Eddie at the center of things, but in what way? Its driving me mad when i think about it becos i cant work out what its sposed to symbolise. Am i looking for something more complicated than there is?

[Alex]

I have no concrete ideas, but I'll take a guess. It's symbolic of gambling, the quick panning could represent cards as they are being dealt around the table.

[belovedmonster]

but the movie about pool not cards [img]confused.gif[/img]

[Alex]

Pool, cards, gambling, feels like an "ilk" to me.

Maybe the panning is a metaphor of the "break".

[SoulJacker]

lol

A valiant recovery.

[belovedmonster]

its not the sorta thing that is visually stunning, its pretty jarring actually, having the one single camera being thrown left to right nonstop to cover the dialogue. Which to be suggests its represents something!

[Alex]

I do think that pooling and gambling are a cordial pair. Whether it's pool ball, or cards being dealt, there is a back and forth rhythm to it.

It's also possible that they didn't want to bring a camera crane into the spot. Shooting it the way they did may have meant less camera set-ups.

Bottom line is if it's a real casino, the casino does not want to inconvenience it's customers.

[Dirty Cricket]

or maybe...it doesn't represent anything and it is just a cool shot?

[titaniumdoughnut]

i havn't seen the movie you are talking about, but i did a very similar technique for a scene i shot a while ago in which someone was being mobbed by reporters as he left a crime scene.

when they surrounded him i had the camera whip over to a reporter asking a question and then whip back to the detective as he started to answer only to whip on to the next person who began talking over him. it worked beautifully imo.

it created a fast, panicked, rapid fire, sort of feel. maybe this is what the director had in mind in your case? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[belovedmonster]

rapid fire maybe... the others no, he was just sat in a bar talking to people so there was no panicing. Tho thinking back i dont think it was pacing enough to be rapid fire, it went on for a good few minutes and it was only when the second person started to talk to him that it became particuly rapid...

thinking about it, it wasnt just when other people talked to him... i think there was a bit where he looked to the other end of the bar and the camera went from a mid close up of him, panned round to his POV and then panned back again.