The doors and windows have frames despite the difference in perimeter, such as the windows of the car, train, and plane. These are sources through which we perceive a wide range of dense pictures. Our eyes recognize many of them while ignore many others.
The frames in cinema, television, and computers vary in content and frames. In the past, the cinema didn't rely heavily on the big close up.
| If framing is like highlighting one side of something, is it about concealing other things outside the frame? (Al Jazeera)
Framing would pause on the chest due to the screen size in cinema halls.
With televisions and their relatively small screens, directing relied on the big close up as a tool to get closer to the faces of actors and eventually to the hearts of people. Yet, the television topics varied from Western, comedy, historical, police, and documentary which have urged directors to put them in frames. Directors had come up with regulations and techniques that are current to this date.
Did directors inspire those angles, standards, and measures in forming their pictures directly from life? Or do the frames of sketches and micro-photography have indirect impact on the creation of these multiple photography models.
The early perimeter of sketches on stones had extended along the dimensions of the mountains, but the dimensions of family photos in the age of photography were round.
Thus, what was the distance between the first ray in Ibn Al Haytham's room and the lenses today? What are the dimensions of the portrait of Ibn Al Haytham and the portraits of the directors of this century? What is the link between the frames of iconic sketches in the Book of Songs for Abulfaraj and the frame of the religious icon in the Orthodox model? Does the person see himself/herself within the frame of their morning mirror similar to the way they see others in the frame of the documentary film? Would a blind by birth realize our pictures, or does their mentality have a frame that can include all these imaginations?
The mother tongue
Does the viewer's sight interact with pictures according to his relationship with his mother tongue? Or does understanding the picture is something innate that has nothing to do with the direction of writing? This relationship may have no impact in understanding the content of these pictures.
The customs officer doesn't see travelers as wayfarers; rather, they focus on their movements contrary to the way dentists look at our daily smiles.
So the frame is an issue of cinematography, philosophy, and psychology at the same time. It is the mould that we chose to keep the beauty and force of our thoughts.
If the edges of the frame give objects weight just because they ignore certain aspects. Is this ignorance enough to give the objects presence? Or does the natural presence of something require to be placed in a certain frame? We don't shoot what our sight prefers, but we shoot to better see what comes within our sight. Framing is like placing life under the microscope and gives face more preference. It is about reading the features of the face and its personality similar to reading the personality of passing by people from their jog or walk as in the science of physiognomy.
Nonetheless, the frame is a multi-dimensional window. In the early days of cinema, framing was done through filming life in a fixed camera. Is the use of different types of lenses while filming is similar to the use of different fonts by a calligrapher? Is the big close up on the face is just to enlarge it or to get closer to it?
Does the documentary film with focus on life need to abandon the precise feature frame to maintain integrity? Or does it need to grab the attention of viewers and direct them to the non-visual aspects in the film at first glance?
If framing is like highlighting one side of something, is it about concealing other things outside the frame?
Adults and children are different when it comes to seeing things due to the difference in the angles of visionary. The interest and interpretation of the same picture also differ between them and according to their cognitive skills and sensitivity. In this regard, was the verse of Al Mutanabi that says, "Significant people view things contrary to the way insignificant people do" a focus on our relativity in reading things? Or was that a classification to the levels of understanding for people?
The poet and cinema
Do poets have the same level of precision of frames in cinema? Elia Abu Madi says, "Some people see the thorns in flowers and fail to see the dew crown atop" Did he describe pessimism that some of us have or was he discussing our topic i.e. within and outside the frame. Besides, do the soundtrack and the voice of the narrator add a mental frame to the frame of the picture?
When we see a shot of an elderly accompanied with a musical lute segment for Marcel Khalifa, does this shot purport the concept of aging? Or does it urge us to visualize the shape of the lute or the political commitment of the musician? Or do all of that form a multi-layered picture according to our musical culture at the same time?
A selfish person doesn't see outside the frame of his/her picture. So does the look of ants at the surrounding sands better that a satellite image of the desert?
|Does the viewer's sight interact with pictures according to his relationship with his mother tongue? (Al Jazeera)|
When we think about the accumulated images of our life in our memory, we realize that they are classified within a frame that we have no control over its frame. Our memory is strongly related to our social, political, psychological reality, the use of these photographs in our life is done through this door.
Cinema has two shots that are equally long but placed in two different frames that are seemingly different. The big close up has more psychological impact than the long close up; therefore, the television uses this parameter excessively. In the scale of close ups, the big close up has a long term impact that always reaches the viewers.
*Algerian director from France