Maybe because it is the easiest way to convey emotion?
Maybe, maybe not. Not really the answer I’m looking for.
Unless one wants to track the history and evolution of the close-up in film history (giving a general outline if not a decent length analysis) then they can just ignore the first question. I would rather avoid one sentence responses. It strikes me as sort of lazy…
If, however, it is the easiest that doesn’t answer the question about it being the most effective. Is it, Mr. Torres?
As an editor I’ll tell you that it is the easiest (laziest) choice- Cut to a C/UP- when trying to convey emotion.
It also may be related to issues dealt with by Deleuze about the face…
It is easier in several aspects, as it requires less from the actors and less from the photographers. Just like any kind of shallow focus, it is much easier to light and shoot than a medium shot or a shot with a deep field of focus.
Also, sadly, I think that film today is very influenced by television, when it should be the other way around, and a lot of films and filmmakers are taking their stylistic cues from television, which goes very heavy on close-ups for the exact reasons that that I just mentioned-lack of quality actors and technicians to execute medium and long shots, and a lack of budget to light and set up longer shots with deep focus.
A lot of filmmakers are addicted to the close-up because the visionary tradition which dominates hollywood and hollywood-influenced films demands that the viewer be given ample time to see into a character’s soul and understand who the are inside. In this way of thinking and understanding the eyes are the window to the soul so the camera is obsessed with the face. Filmmaker’s like Yang, Cassavetes, etc. understand that if we have any soul it is not hidden within the depths of our being but expressed through our actions, hence they will pull back and stress the subtler movements of our bodies, including the face, often creating truth in the juxtaposition of more than one body within the frame.
I would not go so far as to declare the close-up is the least effective method of conveying emotion, but it is somewhat problematic in that it isolates a specific moment in time, where film is (allegedly) meant to capture some sequence of movement that elicits a response unknown to still photography or portraiture. While the visage of any individual can be seen as the epitome of human emotion, it is often their other idiosyncrasies that allude to a deeper personality or sense of character – such as their posture, their mannerisms, et cetera. The idea of the eyes being the window to the soul is deceptive in so far as that humans themselves are able to manipulate their expression, while the way they conduct themselves as a whole is much more telling and difficult to alter on a consistent basis.
Very intriguing question, thank you for the thought-provoking post.
deux cents mille
“We acquire life experience through movies. Because I work constantly in films, I’ve begun to realize that when a film is projected on a screen, that’s another way for an animal to detect its environment. Just like a wild animal in the jungle, in nature. When you present something about the living creatures which we call ‘humans,’ there’s much more information that the viewer can sense when they see the whole, rather than just the parts. In other words close-ups are the least effective mode of expression because they only give you facial expression, whereas any subtle movement — in the hand, in the body, in your posture, or in the way that a person walks — gives more information to the viewer than just the facial.”
~ Edward Yang (a quote from an interview with indiewire after his win for best director at Cannes in 2000)
The more I think about this quote the more I think it’s right in most situations. Nothing is an absolute, obviously (the work of Ingmar Bergman, for example, would be absolutely diminished almost to nothing without his understanding of the human face, and where to use a close-up). But, I think as a general rule we give much too much credit to the face as a means of conveying emotion and don’t realize the potential of the body. The burgeoning romance portrayed in A Brighter Summer Day, for example, is one of the most bittersweet things ever filmed and done completely without a close-up on either actor’s face.
Why then has the close-up become the chief means of conveying the emotion of a character in narrative film? Is it indeed the most or the least effective means of expression?