#woke up with enough energy for extensive analysis and I'm not letting it go to waste

[whatsagirltoblogabout]

Sometimes I'll be trying to analyze the power dynamics of a scene by looking at blocking and camera height, only to get distracted by the framing and pretty colours. And that's okay.

See below for a sneak peek at my notes for the "thank you" analysis essay (no promises that I'll ever finish and post it, but I have been working on it):

I'm making the executive decision to ignore the foreground/reflection elements of Peter’s coverage, because that would also involve editing choices and that opens up too many variables for something that isn’t even directly related to the analysis at hand. The fact that there isn’t a single reflection-less shot of Jennings’ face, denoting his duplicity (as well as the brightly-coloured reflections probably referencing the distraction tactics employed in politics), is more of a fun fact than a relevant one.

(There’s also a reflection when Dylan pokes his head in, but it disappears in the shot of Peter walking through the door. I have to conclude that this was a deliberate choice to indicate Dylan’s deceit in pretending he doesn’t know Peter.)

Back to the power dynamics, it appears that everyone’s shot at a low angle, thought the degree varies. This does seem to be a pretty common theme in WC cinematography. Jennings goes from moderately low angle, same as Peter, to just slightly lower than his eyeline when he sits down. It’s a physically logical change, and maintains that while he's putting himself in a physically inferior position, he has not actually lost power in this exchange.

Conclusion: filmmaking techniques do not appear to be relevant to this particular analysis. The blocking is of interest, however it is not pertinent enough to the purpose of “thank you” as an opening line; it can be easily folded into a general summary of the scene’s tactics.