Tonight is the longest and darkest night of the year: Winter solstice. And I thought we might all need a little light in the darkness of this cold winter. So, here comes a post filled with sunshine and happiness for you all.
Analyzing promotional material of an ongoing TV show is obviously a fool’s errand. But since I actually am a fool, I’ll valiantly stick my neck out and do it, anyway.
No, but seriously…The clue is in the word itself: ‘promotional’.
Material like this exists to tease any potential viewers and whet their appetite, making sure they switch on their TV sets again come the next season. And since spoilers have to be avoided at all costs, all of it tends to be rather misleading, which, in turn, means that any attempt at an analysis will quickly turn either into a wild-goose chase or a giant waste of time.
Well, I can’t actually think of a better thing to do in the run-up to the holidays than to hunt geese, and I endeavour to waste as much of your time as possible on this little blog anyway, so…here we go!
A lot of you have been asking me to take a closer look at the season three sneak peek scene of ‘Young Royals’, which was released about two months ago, and I have finally caved in to the pressure and watched the thing.
So, since I have now actually broken my own vows of ‘season-three celibacy’ and won’t go into the new season a complete viewing virgin (and it’s all your fault, guys, not mine, okay?!), allow me to drop a few pages with my thoughts on you. (If you’re confused as to what sneak peek I’m actually talking about, I mean this one here entitled ‘First Look Clip’ and released by Netflix Nordic.)
Before we start discussing it, though, let me issue a quick (and very stern!) disclaimer this time: What I’m going to give you in the text below is just my two cents, as they say. Teaser scenes, sneak peeks and the like are famously misleading!
They might not be as deceptive as actual trailers tend to be (because trailers usually cover all their tracks by hiding any potential spoilers and reveals in the way they’re cut and by suggesting connections where there are none through the way shots are edited together to create their own fake trailer narrative), but teaser scenes like the one we’re going to analyze below can still be pretty misleading.
Even a sneak peek scene can be cut down by the editing department in ways that don’t reflect the actual scene in the season. And even more importantly, with a teaser scene like that, we never know what the context actually is. Film analysis is all about context! But when it comes to sneak peeks like that, we don’t even get the shots immediately preceding and following the scene in question, let alone the entire scenes right before and thereafter.
So, when we approach a teaser scene like the one we’re going to discuss below, we have to keep all these caveats in mind. Anything I say below will operate under the assumption that they’ve shown us this scene in good faith, that the scene hasn’t been deliberately butchered by the editor, that there are no ‘fake-outs’, in short: that what we see is what we get…In other words, that’s one big caveat!)
I can also tell you right now that we’re not going to talk about colour in this post (because I saw a few commenters ask about the colours the two main protagonists are wearing in that teaser scene).
Colour is probably the most misunderstood concept in film analysis (bar none).
And here’s the reason why:
Viewers will see a protagonist wearing a green t-shirt, for example, and will instantly be tempted to claim, “I know for a fact that green is the colour of hope, so this shot clearly tells us the character is hopeful and confident here.”
Or, “The character is wearing white here, and since I know that white represents purity and innocence, this definitely tells us something about the character.”
This is unequivocally the wrong way to approach the concept of colour in any TV show or movie. It’s not how film analysis is done or should ever be done.
The reality is that, on screen, any colour can symbolically represent anything (!), and each and every single show or movie has to be analyzed as its own separate universe in that respect.
When you approach a film or a television series, you should never just assume that a colour carries the symbolic meaning you know from the (actual, real) universe we all inhabit. The universe around you is real. The universe on screen is fictional. It was created by someone. And you don’t know what personal preferences the filmmakers in question have when it comes to colour; you don’t know what associations and connotations their mind has cooked up for whatever reason.
If a filmmaker feels that black is the best colour to represent purity and innocence in their story, they will use it in this way. If they feel neon pink would be a good fit for death and mourning, that’s what they’re going to go with. Their colour scheme doesn’t have to work the way it does out here in the real world!
The symbolism of colour within the story itself will then basically operate in a closed loop: i.e. there will be a scene or several scenes disclosing (in whatever subtle or overt way) the meaning of said colour in that specific fictional universe, and then the show or movie will start to refer to itself and keep referring to itself throughout the whole story, showing us said colour with that specific meaning in scene after scene.
So, am I saying black can never represent death, white can never symbolize innocence and green will never be hope on screen?
No, of course not.
I’m just saying: Be careful; things don’t always have to work the way they do in real life. Instead of just making guesses based on real-world knowledge, try to examine the ‘text’ itself.
If you base a guess on your real-life experience, you can hit the bull’s eye…but you can also be way, way off.
Am I saying the viewers who have assigned meaning to the colours royal blue and purple (that Wilhelm and Simon can be seen wearing so often) are wrong when they claim the colours were picked specifically for their royal connotations?
No, I’m not. (As a matter of fact, I have an inkling that they might be spot on about it.)
So, I’m not saying they’re wrong. I’m just making a point about how this approach is not a very good or useful one. You can go right a couple of times, but you can also end up on the wrong track the next time you watch a show or film if you just base your colour analysis on an assumption derived from your real-world knowledge.
It’s better to approach colour through a ‘text-immanent’ analysis, scene by scene, shot by shot, and specifically in the context of all the other subtextual elements each and every one of those scenes and shots contains. (Which is, frankly, a pain.)
Because (at least in theory) the rule says: On screen, any colour can represent absolutely anything! It doesn’t have to reflect the way these colours are usually used in our universe, i.e. in the real world – although it can, of course, reflect that. What a colour means in a fictional universe is determined by the filmmakers of that particular show or movie you’re watching and nobody else.
Making a guess based on real-world knowledge and getting it right is akin to being asked to solve a complicated mathematical equation, deciding the answer should be 2.5 (or whatever) and getting it right because you got lucky.
Just because you got the result right doesn’t mean you’ve solved the equation at all.
We can go into the concept of colour in more depth in some future post if you want.
But just in case you’re still in school and have a paper on, say, literature or art analysis due, I would like to point out that the method I described above is a good way to approach symbolism in general: The thing you’re looking at (be it a colour, a word, a music choice or some prop, etc.) can have the meaning you would usually associate with it in the real world, but it doesn’t have to. It can mean absolutely anything. So, make your literature teacher happy and do a proper text analysis first. (Hey there, I know you’re reading this, too. This was my little gift sentence for you.)
Think of a seemingly universal symbol like the Christian cross, for example. You might think it’s meaning is fixed and absolutely unambiguous, but that’s actually not true, is it?
Think of all the ways in which it can be used on screen: Sure, it can be a symbolic visualization of Christianity as a faith. But that’s by far not the only thing it can be!
A cross can symbolize grief and mourning (think of graveyards, postcards, etc.).
It can also mean oppressive traditionalism.
In the right context (say a period piece about Nazi Germany or the early Soviet Union), it could be a sign of resistance (when you’re being shown the story of a persecuted priest organizing a clandestine resistance group, for example).
In other contexts it might symbolize sacrifice or love…
The possibilities are really endless.
On ‘Young Royals’ it most likely represents naïveté/naïve adoration, as we have discussed already, hinting at the idea that Wilhelm is ignorant of some key facts about Simon’s backstory. Naïve adoration isn’t a bad thing per se (at least not at first), but ultimately it’s not a good thing either; it’s not what a mature and healthy relationship should be built on.
(By the way, I’m writing all of these long paragraphs because I still see this approach a lot in the comment section. (Again, I’m so sorry I can’t reply to each and every single comment.) Just know that basing the analysis of symbolism (colours, flowers, symbols, props, etc.) on real-world knowledge is risky. The gold standard is to try and examine all the text-immanent (!) evidence, i.e. link it up with all the other symbolism you’ve already worked out within the text itself, see how the text keeps referring back to itself in a closed loop and then go from there.)
So, that’s basically the reason why we’re going to ignore the colour choices in the teaser for now. (Although we can talk about colour in general and the way it’s used on screen at some point later on this little blog. Because again: Colour is probably the most misunderstood concept in film analysis, bar none!)
Here’s the other big thing in the sneak peek scene we’re going to ignore for now: The mirror!
Simon is standing in front of a mirror at the very beginning of the scene.
The reason why we’re going to ignore it is that we have no way of knowing what this scene’s twin (‘mirrored’) scene or situation is at this point, and I hate to just speculate.
One thing is certain, though: That mirror is very important!
This show is nothing but obvious when it comes to the way it works with the mirrors in its subtext. (As a matter of fact, I have difficulty even remembering another show that gives its audience such obvious and unsubtle hints about the way it works with symbolic mirroring.)
We can be absolutely certain this scene is mirroring another scene or situation, and I’m sure we will find it eventually and uncover a wealth of new information just based on that.
But for now, I’m going to exercise some self-restraint: We don’t know. I would hate to speculate, so we’re not going to do that. We will ignore the obvious reflective, glassy elephant in the room.
So, what, pray, are we going to talk about today, I can practically hear you sigh.
Well, it’s something a lot of you have noticed and asked me about: the fact that the brief scene repeatedly breaks the 180-degree rule (i.e. the way the camera ‘jumps the line’ several times over the course of just a few minutes).
If you don’t know (or don’t remember) what the 180-degree rule in cinematography is, here’s a brief definition, as it was quite a long time ago that we discussed this topic:
Since a camera doesn’t have to be stationary, it could theoretically move around a subject (or several subjects) in a 360-degree circle, but it rarely ever does!
Usually, the camera (marked as ‘initial camera position’ in the image below) will stay on one side of an imaginary line running through the subjects (A and B) in the frame. This line is usually referred to as the ‘line of action’, the ‘180-degree line’ or just ‘the line’, for short.
This means that the camera will move anywhere along that 180-degree semicircle when it shoots the two subjects A and B, but it will usually not cross the line and consequently avoid the other half of the circle. This way subject A will always appear on the left side of the frame and subject B will always be on the right side of the frame. (This is the case even when the camera cuts back and forth between the subjects in a shot-reverse-shot sequence: The camera does move but only along that 180-degree semicircle.)
That’s the 180-degree rule.
Crossing the line of action, on the other hand, constitutes a deliberate violation of that rule.
For that, the camera has to be physically moved in space and will then occupy the position marked as ‘subsequent camera position’ in the image above. Now subject A appears on the right side of the frame and subject B on the left side of the frame. The camera now moves along the other half of the circle.
In cinematography, this move is called ‘breaking the 180-degree rule’ or ‘crossing the line of action’ or simply ‘jumping the line’, and when it’s done, it’s usually done for a reason. It’s always an intentional choice; it’s supposed to communicate something, provoke a certain effect or carry symbolic meaning.
As long as the camera doesn’t cross the line, the audience experiences a subconscious sense of security in where in the room the camera is situated (and the camera is, after all, the eye of the audience into the scene).
If the camera jumps the line, on the other hand, this disrupts the spatial continuity of the scene. To the audience, this can often feel very confusing and even disorienting, which is why it’s virtually never done without reason.
Now, some of you eagle-eyed fans have, of course, noticed that the teaser scene features not just one but several such moments: The camera crosses the line of action several times in the space of a few minutes, which is obviously highly unusual.
And from what I can see, as soon as the sneak peek came out, people immediately started to speculate why that may be the case.
The last time we had talked about this phenomenon, we had done so in the context of our discussion of Wilhelm’s erotic dream at the beginning of the season opener of season two. (In that dream scene, the camera jumps the line every time the scene shifts between the two different planes of reality: the dream world and Wilhelm in the actual waking world, i.e. as he’s lying in bed fast asleep.)
This is probably the reason why some of you immediately started to speculate whether the season three teaser scene might be a dream, as well.
Personally, I don’t think this is the case (although who can say with a hundred percent certainty; after all, this is promotional material, cf. my disclaimer with the caveat above). I think that what we’re shown here is an actual, real scene, not a dream.
For two reasons:
Because Wilhelm’s erotic dream scene in episode one of season two broke the 180-degree rule specifically to differentiate between dream and reality, not just as a non-specific blanket statement on all of it being a dream.
Because the 180-degree rule can be broken for a myriad of different reasons. There is simply no rule according to which a camera crossing the line of action automatically turns a scene into a dream.
When a filmmaker breaks the 180-degree rule, they are using a tool in the cinematography toolbox. This tool can be used to achieve all sorts of different effects on screen. Its function isn’t just to make the audience doubt the veracity of the scene being shown to them. It can mean so many other things, as well…A tool can be used in different ways, after all.
Think of it as a pair of pliers: You can use your pliers to pry stubborn nails out of a board. You could also remove old wires from a wall with them. You could use them as a makeshift nutcracker. You could even perform some mediaeval dentistry with them, that I can’t even think about without feeling physically ill. And if you’ve ever been dumb, drunk, young or a poor university student (and which of us wasn’t at least one of those things at some point), you might have once used your pliers and a screw as a corkscrew in order to open a wine bottle at some party or other – all to the loud cheers of your mates rooting either for you or for the bottle to win.
That’s the whole purpose of a tool: You can use it to achieve really different (and sometimes spectacularly splashy) effects.
The 180-degree rule works in the same way: While ‘Young Royals’ cleverly jumps the line during that dream scene at the beginning of season two to denote a shift between dream and reality, this is by far not the only way one can use this cinematic trick.
Films have been breaking and bending the 180-degree rule towards different ends since forever.
The infamous interrogation scene in Christopher Nolan’s 2008 film ‘The Dark Knight’ breaks the 180-degree rule in an unobtrusive, yet very effective way: At first Batman can be seen trying to interrogate the captured and seemingly completely deranged Joker (played by the phenomenal Heath Ledger, whose acting was just off-the-charts brilliant throughout this whole movie). The camera notably stays on one side of the line in the interrogation room at first. Then the camera starts to jump the line, and the insanity is cranked up to eleven. The effect created by this camera trick is really disorienting, and as a viewer, you’re suddenly not sure who’s interrogating who anymore. The size of the claustrophobic interrogation room with its artificial lighting is difficult to gauge as it is. The added camera shenanigans just compound the effect and create a truly disturbing atmosphere. (Check out the whole scene here.)
But this scary mood isn’t by far the only effect a filmmaker can achieve by breaking the 180-degree rule:
Sometimes a camera will just jump the line to show you that a power shift has happened between the characters in a scene.
Sometimes it will happen simply when the topic of conversation suddenly changes; a new topic of conversation is introduced and the visual perspective on the scene changes.
Sometimes it occurs just as one of the characters has had an epiphany, having worked out something they’ve been puzzling over.
Sometimes it’s done simply to refresh the eye of the viewer, as it might add some visual variety to an otherwise long, drawn-out scene.
It’s often done so unobtrusively that it goes over the heads of most viewers; they don’t notice it consciously, but most likely pick up on it subconsciously. If you were to ask them what they just saw, they’d probably reply that there was a sudden mood shift in the dialogue or that the tone of the scene abruptly changed for some inexplicable reason, without actually being able to put the finger on it.
It was Hitchcock who famously formulated the idea that the camera shouldn’t just act as a neutral observer of the scene it is capturing for the audience. (He derisively called shots filmed in this way ‘photographs of people talking’.)
Instead, the camera has to be a participant, nay, a storyteller, leading the viewers into and throughout the scene (in a subtle and almost underhanded way) and manipulating their eye, creating and further influencing the viewers’ thought processes as they watch the scene – all without the viewers even realizing what is being done to them.
Bar scenes serve as a good example of this. They are so common in all sorts of movies and shows, and yet you’ve probably never noticed the fact that they often break the 180-degree rule to great effect:
At first we usually get a shot of the two protagonists from behind; they’re sitting on their respective barstools, leaning on the counter itself. We see them introduce themselves to each other in some way, and as they start to talk to each other, we cut back and forth between their faces in a shot-reverse-shot pattern. But the camera technically always stays behind the characters, with the bar itself serving as the line of action.
Then the camera suddenly crosses the line, jumping behind the counter, so we suddenly see the scene from the point of view of the bartender. This is a neat little trick because this way we can get really close shots of the two characters’ faces (after all, characters tend to face forward more than they face each other when sitting at a bar like that). The tone of the scene can shift this way, too: The characters have passed the first getting-to-know-each-other phase and know (and potentially trust) each other more now, which is reflected in the closer shots of their faces and the change in perspective in the scene.
This is a very typical setup for a bar scene like this, and yet it usually goes completely unnoticed by the audience.
Horror movies are also known for breaking the 180-degree rule. As I mentioned above: If you jump across the line of action, this creates confusion in the audience as spatial continuity is disrupted. The disorientation this causes feeds into the general sense of fear and paranoia you’re supposed to experience while watching something of this genre.
Crime mysteries or political thrillers can likewise bend or break the 180-degree rule at important junctions of the story to create strange alienation effects in the audience.
The iconic opening scene of Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 film ‘Inglourious Basterds’, a true masterpiece of cinematography (and not just because it breaks the 180-degree rule several times), uses this important cinematic tool for a different reason: When the camera crosses the line of action here, it basically narrates dramatic shifts in the scene, dividing it into different tonal segments.
So, in essence, the way the camera keeps crossing the line of action in this scene is reminiscent of the way a written text is subdivided into different paragraphs.
The SS-Colonel Hans Landa (played by a hair-raisingly magnificent Christoph Waltz here) is questioning a dairy farmer in his farmhouse about a Jewish family he suspects the farmer is hiding. The camera crosses the line of action whenever the dialogue shifts between the official business (the interrogation of the farmer) and the seemingly more amicable part of the conversation (the ostensibly lighthearted, yet actually utterly horrifying anecdotes the SS-Colonel is sharing with the farmer). Throughout the scene, we, the audience, understand that the SS-Colonel actually knows perfectly well that there’s a Jewish family hidden in the house and even where they’re hidden exactly. It’s the way the camera frames that conversation by jumping back and forth across the line (and by showing us shots underneath the floorboards where the Jews are, in fact, hiding) that guides our eye and eventually leads us to the shocking realization that the SS-Colonel knows everything.
(The whole scene is actually quite long. So, here is the last part of it with the final ‘jump’ across the line of action, where the SS-Colonel finally turns the tables on the farmer – fittingly while sitting at an actual table. The whole opening scene is really worth checking out, though, and not just because of the way it bends and breaks the 180-degree rule. If you’ve been around when we discussed the compositional ‘Rule of Thirds’ on this little blog or when we delved into Hitchcock’s rule/the rule of hierarchical proportion, I guarantee you that you will enjoy this timeless masterpiece of cinematography a great deal.)
So, what I want you to take away from this long introduction is: When a film or show breaks the 180-degree rule, it usually does so on purpose to create a specific effect. But the reasons why it does so can be manifold.
Now, let’s talk about that sneak peek scene we were given of season three of ‘Young Royals’.
(And I’m just going to mention that big caveat once again here: We don’t know if that scene was butchered in editing. Are there lines missing from it? Or even entire chunks of dialogue? If that is the case, then there would actually be an explanation for the way the camera keeps jumping across the line in it: editing. Although this would still mean that there’s a surprisingly large amount of such ‘jumps’ in the scene.
In any case…we’re going to approach this scene with the premise in mind that there were no cuts, that the scene will appear in season three exactly as it’s shown in the sneak peek. Quite the caveat, I know. But what can you do…)
Now, if you watch this sneak preview scene, you will, of course, realize immediately that we’re not watching a horror movie or a crime mystery series here.
This is a lovely and heartwarming scene that’s defined by the sense of intimacy you can practically feel in the dialogue between the two protagonists.
The soundtrack alone with its dreamy impressionist piano figures should make it very clear that we’re not dealing with something dark here where you would even need any cinematic tricks to disorient, alienate or disturb the audience.
So, why does the camera keep jumping across the line in that scene? And why so often?
I told you before that, in film analysis, it’s actually quite useful to ask more than just the question, “Why?”
Often you also need to ask the question, “Why not?”
I.e. you need to imagine what a scene would look like if the element you’re questioning weren’t there.
In other words, just imagine the exact opposite of what you’re seeing.
Imagine what the scene would look like if it had been filmed ‘straight’, i.e. without any 180-degree shenanigans, with the camera staying on one side of the room in a very classic setup, but with the dialogue playing out in exactly the same way.
What would you get?
I think it’s important to keep in mind that what we’re seeing here is essentially a flirting scene; it’s very tentative and bashful, but it’s flirting nonetheless.
The Crown Prince is navigating a (literal) space he knows very well; he has grown up at this castle. Sometime in the future, he’ll also become the Lord of the Manor here, so to speak; he’ll even become the King of the entire nation that’s centred around this highly symbolic place. The other character in the scene is a working-class boy, technically Wilhelm’s future subject, a boy coming from a very humble background at that. Simon is new to this place, a guest.
The dialogue makes sure he doesn’t come across as frightened, intimidated or overly impressed by his surroundings, but the difference in status between these two characters is still palpable because it’s highlighted by the space that Wilhelm inhabits and Simon is just visiting.
And as a filmmaker, that’s not an impression you would like your viewers to take away from this scene, right? That’s not the impression you want to give them – even just subliminally…
This is a scene in which the Crown Prince will flirt with his guest and essentially sweet-talk him into having sex (which is clearly what is being implied in the dialogue here). So, would you really want the audience to get a feeling that these two characters are on unequal footing?
Behold, the future King of the country is graciously offering this poor serf an audience with his body!
Yikes!
That’s not the message you’d want to convey here, right?
So, you have to make sure that both the dialogue and the acting in that scene show us a Wilhelm who doesn’t come across as condescending and a Simon who doesn’t seem to be too intimidated by his surroundings.
But the room, the whole space around them, that Baroque boudoir-like setting tells a story of its own. (Filming locations are important. They are symbolically meaningful, remember? We’ve discussed this!)
And as we’ve stated above (and as Hitchcock so wisely formulated all those decades ago): The camera has a part to play in this story, as well.
So, how can the camera ensure we don’t read this scene as one in which the future Head of State condescends to some lowly commoner?
A huge part of the charm of the whole ‘Young Royals’ romantic storyline is owing to the fact that these two boys perceive each other as equals, as Simon and Wille, just two boys who ended up in the same class at the same school, and that they fall in love with each other precisely in this context. There is no hierarchy between these two (very important, by the way, when you consider the fact that this sneak peek scene is essentially supposed to be read as a prelude to sex).
Those of you who’ve been following this little blog a bit longer know that the show takes great pains to avoid the impression of any imbalance of power between them. (We’ve discussed the way the show’s creators play with Hitchcock’s rule/the rule of hierarchical scale, remember?)
But if these two boys love and encounter each other as equals despite their massive difference in status, how do you make sure the viewers still understand that while the scene itself is set at a flipping royal castle of all places?
This is a space that breathes not just privilege but specifically privilege of a kind that only a handful of people around the world get to enjoy. This space is exclusive beyond our comprehension.
But then, at the same time, as a filmmaker, you also really want to hint at a sex scene at that castle (because, well, ultimately this is a subversive story, and a same-sex intimacy scene, even if it’s just an implied one, at a symbolic centre of representative power is subversive in and of itself).
So, you want to imply the sex scene at the castle; you really need the castle for that. But you also want the castle to…sort of ‘recede’ into the background. You want that castle and all its wealth and splendour to play no role in the encounter between these two teenagers who are quite charmingly just head over heels in love with each other as the two human beings that they are.
You want this specific location, but you also don’t want the location to become too important or oppressive. You want it, but you also want it to become irrelevant. Quite the conundrum there, right?
Oh, hang on…wasn’t there a way to make the space recede and even vanish from the audience’s mind?
What did we say above?
Breaking the 180-degree rule and jumping the line of action disorients the audience, pulls the viewers out of the space they thought they inhabited.
Which is exactly what happens in that scene if you watch it closely.
The way the camera keeps jumping back and forth across the line makes it very hard to keep track of the characters’ surroundings. It’s like none of that pompous grandeur even matters anymore.
What’s more: Since, as a viewer, you’re already losing your sense of space in that scene, your eyes are automatically searching for something in the frame to anchor themselves on. And that’s the protagonists’ faces!
Note how (without you even realizing how that happened exactly) you’re suddenly so much more focused on the characters’ facial expressions once the flirting truly begins and the 180-degree rule is broken. That’s because your eye is fixating on the one thing that’s still anchoring you to what’s happening in the frame the moment the camera starts to cross the line of action.
The space (i.e. the whole imposing palace around the characters) seems to recede into the background, and suddenly all that matters anymore is the intimate dialogue between these two people.
You get the strangely weightless feeling that they could be virtually anywhere, in a Keatsian meadow in some magical fairytale forest somewhere or on that lakeshore back at Hillerska (for entirely metaphorical reasons). The whole sequence of shots with the camera jumping across the line makes it look as if there were just these two people in the world: Wilhelm and Simon.
Gone are the crystal chandeliers and the damask curtains, gone are the other royals, all the castle employees and PR teams that are undoubtedly lurking in some other wing of the palace. It’s like nobody else exists anymore. It’s like space itself has suddenly dissolved.
If you watch the teaser from the very beginning, you will also notice another way in which this effect is achieved (and actually heightened even further):
The scene starts with a medium shot of Wilhelm strolling into the room that organically transforms into a medium close-up with the camera moving with him and then reframing. The composition is very balanced; Wilhelm is fondly watching Simon. That first shot reveals quite a bit of their surroundings already, and it’s instantly clear that we’re inside the castle.
The next shot gives us even more of those surroundings: It’s a medium long shot of Simon in front of the mirror. This means we’re actually somewhat further away from Simon, so we can take in a lot of the room here (the windows, the exquisite materials of the elegantly draped threefold curtains, the ornate gilded mirror itself, etc.). We are clearly in one of the most exclusive buildings in the entire country, this shot tells us. Far, far away from the spaces inhabited by us ordinary mortals, largely inaccessible to the plebs (i.e. you and I).
But we get even more of those surroundings in a second:
After another brief medium close-up of Wilhelm (a reverse tracking shot as he slowly walks up to Simon), we get an actual long shot (!), which shows us not just the full length of the two characters’ bodies in the frame but really showcases the extravagant interior of the room around them. We can see every little detail of the splendour and majesty of the castle Wilhelm has grown up in. (If my eyes don’t deceive me, we even get a little glimpse of the lake behind the window, which we never got to see as long as Wilhelm was shown at the palace sans Simon in season one and two – at least not through a window and not bathed in such bright and warm sunlight, cf. the ‘water’ metaphor for this, of course.)
We are in an actual flipping castle, these three shots tell us. Look at all the bling here. And the shot sizes that were picked for this part of the scene work beautifully to get this message across.
Once the two characters move up closer to each other, we start to get far smaller shot sizes and more tightly composed frames, and that’s also when all the jumping back and forth across the line of action starts.
Just look at how close we suddenly are to their faces: No long shots and medium long shots anymore at that point! Only close-ups and medium close-ups! It’s as if the space around them suddenly stopped to matter.
So, the shot sizes here actually convey the same message as the ‘jumps’ across the line of action: Their surroundings seem to recede into the background.
Visually, we are told that this castle isn’t really relevant when it comes to the relationship these two characters have. Wilhelm’s royal status, his role as future King, Simon’s modest background, none of this seems to matter anymore. They’re just two teenagers in love who are flirting with each other with half-bashful, half-radiant smiles on their faces. That’s it.
And the two things (the ‘jumps’ across the line of action and the tight shot sizes) coincide. So, we know this is not accidental. We, the audience, are slightly disoriented in space (in a pleasant, dizzy kind of way, though, not in a frightening way – as if we just had a bit of a buzz going on after a glass of good champagne), so that we try to anchor ourselves by keeping our eyes on the characters’ faces. And we’re more inclined to look at their faces anyway! Because the camera has come so much closer to the characters (just compare this to the earlier medium long shot of Simon in front of the mirror or the long shot of the two boys in the room). The entire room around them seems to have vanished at this point.
There’s actually a third way in which the effect is heightened even further, and, yes, this scene uses it at the exact same moment, as well:
If you’re interested in photography, you might know about depth of field. A frame can have a deep depth of field (i.e. the background is just as sharp as any object or subject in the foreground) or a shallow depth of field (i.e. the background is blurry and out of focus).
If you watch the shot sequence in question (the one with the ‘jumps’ across the line of action), you will realize that the background in all the frames is really blurry: This is what’s called a shallow depth of field in photography. Only their faces are in focus. This is usually done to visually isolate subjects from their surroundings, and it works beautifully here.
(If you’re in any doubt as to what I mean, compare the fuzziness of the curtains in some of these close-ups – you can barely make them out anymore – with the earlier crisp sharpness in the long shot where you could practically count each thread of their exquisite material. What a difference a lens makes!)
I don’t want to bore you with any of the technicalities, but yes, a camera person can work some lens magic (basically) and make sure you get a very deep depth of field even in a sequence of shots such as this one. As a director, you could get the background and their faces in focus at the same time – if you so wished. But that’s notably not what was done here.
The room around them recedes even further into the background precisely because it’s suddenly so blurry. These two people are all that matters in the frame, the cinematography is telling us here; to each other, they’re everything in the world that matters at that moment.
What you can see is that the moment the camera starts to repeatedly break the 180-degree rule, it starts to simultaneously do at least two other things, as well. In short, the camera uses three different methods at the same time to make the space around the two subjects vanish:
It breaks the 180-degree rule (and not just once, but several times), disorienting us slightly by disrupting our sense of spatial continuity.
It picks far smaller shot sizes, so we’re really close to the characters.
It chooses a shallow depth of field to make sure the background (that imposing room at the castle) is blurry and out of focus, thus separating the characters from their surroundings.
All three choices essentially do achieve the same thing: They all serve to isolate the characters from the space around them and make said space become irrelevant.
Three different methods – same effect. Which makes me think this isn’t a coincidence.
Add to that the dialogue, the acting choices and even the lowered voices of the actors, and you arrive at this very intimate atmosphere that permeates that whole sequence of shots.
The shots are all rather lovely executed, as well. A handheld camera, a lot of fluidity in its movements, nothing is static, all of it supports this general dreamy mood.
And then, there’s, of course, the music.
I mean, you’re getting these major Debussy-just-smoked-his-first-joint vibes here too, right?
Lovely, dreamy tinkering on the keyboard there, Matti Bye.
There’s actually one other interesting moment that supports our theory that the ‘jumps’ across the 180-degree line are largely just supposed to make the room around them disappear in order to condense the scene into this very intimate and slightly dizzy little bubble of dreaminess:
We’ve noted above that we go from two rather wide shot sizes (a medium long shot of Simon in front of the mirror and a long shot of the two boys in the room) to far smaller shot sizes once we get to the sequence where the camera starts to cross the line of action.
This means that, at first, the shots specifically draw attention to the space around the characters (the extravagant room at the palace), just to then give us a starker contrast once the space virtually disappears in that ‘flirting sequence’ later on.
Well, did you notice what happens right after the long shot of the two boys in the room?
The dialogue specifically draws attention to the space around them, as well.
Wilhelm says, “I can’t believe that you are here.”
And Simon replies, “Me neither.”
These lines were obviously included to focus the audience’s (our) attention on the room around them: ‘They are finally both at the freaking castle; can you believe it?!’ the dialogue practically screams here.
And to make sure we really pay attention to that room, both characters actually look around rather conspicuously at that moment, gazing at the gilded candle holders and majestic doors, taking it all in.
It’s clear both from the lines they’re saying here and from their raised heads, from their gazes around, that the filmmakers are actually specifically pointing out the characters’ surroundings to us: Look where they are! They’re at the castle. Where Wilhelm grew up. Where Wilhelm is a prince, and Simon’s just a guest, a commoner. Where the difference in status between them is clearer and more conspicuous than in any other filming location on this show.
Look at it! Really look at it! Take it in!
Because now…
…we’re going to make it disappear: All of it. The room. The castle. And even time and space in general. Their entire difference in status. All of it.
We’re going to create a bubble just for the two of them with a few cinematic magic tricks. Just watch this.
And then we get our sequence of shots in which the camera keeps jumping across the line of action…
One last note before we wrap this up:
Did you notice what happens right after the two characters have looked around and specifically drawn our attention to the filming location? It’s right before the camera starts to break the 180-degree rule and that little bubble of intimacy is created:
Simon gently touches the lapel of Wilhelm’s jacket!
It’s notably his left lapel.
Those who know…know. There’s a metaphor hidden in here that the show keeps using. (We’ve discussed this recently, didn’t we?)
Simon is metaphorically touching Wilhelm’s heart. (Well, it would have looked a bit weird if Simon had decided to touch Wilhelm’s ear at that moment. The left lapel gives us a much less contrived alternative for the heart metaphor in this scenario.)
So, Simon very unobtrusively touches Wilhelm’s left lapel (his heart!), and if you’re not consciously looking out for the symbolism here, you probably won’t pick up on it.
And this is Simon’s line that runs over this lovely little gesture: “I just wish it wasn’t for this reason.”
Are we to understand that the ‘reason’ why they’ve been summoned and are currently at the castle is…the question of what’s in Wilhelm’s heart? I think that’s exactly what the shot suggests. I mean, I haven’t seen season three, so I can only guess here, but I fail to come up with another explanation for this: It seems they are at the castle to discuss Wilhelm’s love life (or most likely what the public will be allowed to see of said love life; perhaps it’s NDA-signing time…who knows).
On that note…
(Yeah, yeah, I said ‘last note’ above, but you know me; I just can’t shut up. So, here comes my final note before we wrap this up. Really. I promise.)
Wilhelm specifically mentions his dream now!
We do know that the dream Wilhelm has in episode one of season two isn’t just an erotic or romantic dream, it is a symbolically meaningful dream (as is usually the case in films and TV shows!).
This dream scene showcases at least three different metaphors: the ‘ear’ metaphor, the ‘nose’ metaphor, and the ‘neck’ metaphor (we’ve discussed this).
Of those three, the ‘neck’ metaphor is undoubtedly the most important one. After all, it’s featured right at the very centre of the sequence of shots that make up the dream itself. It’s also shown in a very peculiar context: Wilhelm is shown to be touching his own (!) neck.
We know the ‘neck’ on ‘Young Royals’ represents the voice – not just literally the voice coming out of a person’s throat, but also figuratively the voice a character has to raise when they have to speak out. (That’s why, throughout the seasons, we get all those shots of Wilhelm throwing back his head and exposing his neck: It usually happens in contexts where Wilhelm is tongue-tied and just can’t find the right words to express himself or can’t find it in himself to raise his voice in the face of serious opposition from the Court.)
We have seen that the shot of Wilhelm cautiously, yet inquisitively tapping his own neck in his erotic dream in episode one of season two most likely alludes to the fact that the character himself suspects (deep down in his subconscious) that he has to find his voice! He’s touching his neck, searching for his voice, “Hello, voice! Where are you? Are you in there?” This notably happens in a shot that shows us Wilhelm still asleep (i.e. we have a character here who has to wake up, figuratively speaking).
Now, in the season three sneak peek scene, we get a reference to that very dream!
That’s certainly not a coincidence.
The dream in season two wasn’t just an erotic dream; it was centred around the idea that Wilhelm has to find his own voice to resist his upbringing and speak out, to break his chains, so to speak.
Now, we get a reference to that very dream.
On the surface of the text, this lovely sneak peek scene just hints at the fact that sex is about to happen. (It’s really not subtle when it comes to that.) So, we know what is being implied here but most likely won’t be shown on screen.
(Unless, of course, this whole sneak peek ends in a fake-out with them being interrupted in a moment by say, the pizza guy, ringing the door bell. And yes, when I say ‘pizza guy’, I mean Jan-Olof. Again, those who know…know.)
So, on the surface of the text, we’re just being told that Wilhelm and Simon are now about to get up to…whatever they’re going to get up to. (I’m sure two teenage boys don’t need an instruction manual for that.)
But the subtext here points to a deeper message: This is also about Wilhelm’s voice!
Now, you might argue, “Hasn’t Wilhelm finally found and raised his voice in the season finale of season two? Hasn’t he given that speech in front of the nation’s media and shocked them all? What else is there to say?”
Well, I’m sure everyone who’s watched this show has noticed that Wilhelm’s statement of denial in season one, the statement in which he officially denied being one of the boys in the leaked sex video, essentially contained two basic messages, that can be boiled down thusly:
It wasn’t me in the video.
I’m not ready to pursue any serious, emotional relationships at this time.
And as I’ve pointed out before, in his speech at the end of season two, Wilhelm only took back one of those statements: 1).
He said, “It was me in the video.”
And yes, he said some other things about the fact that traditions have to be re-evaluated, scrapped, kept or adapted, according to their usefulness in our modern times – all of which are very nuanced and mature things to say for a sixteen-year-old. He hinted at the fact that the video showed an intimate moment to the public that he hadn’t wanted to share with anyone. And he even specifically referred to Simon by name, stating that he was in the video with Simon.
And yet…he never took back that second part of his statement of denial: the one concerning his lacking readiness for any serious, committed, emotional relationships.
(He also notably never fingered the Royal Family or the Court, didn’t tell all about how they pressured him and forced him to lie on camera. I’m sure you’ve all noticed that, as well.)
In any case, the big question about Wilhelm’s readiness to pursue any emotional relationships has so far been left unanswered – at least, in public.
So, there’s still something left that he needs to find his voice for.
I’m still waiting for that other shoe to drop in any case. It’s most definitely one of the questions (if not the question!) Wilhelm has to answer in season three.
Wilhelm has to publicly show that he is not only ready for serious emotional relationships but that he’s, in fact, been in one for quite a while already.
On this show, Wilhelm is a capital-R Romantic hero. Being able to express his emotions openly is what his whole character arc is all about. So, he has to take that second part of his statement of denial back, as well.
And he will need to find his voice for that, too.
So, do we think it’s a coincidence that the dialogue in the sneak peek scene directly refers to that erotic dream in season two that was actually metaphorically all about Wilhelm searching for his own voice in his dream?
The sneak peek scene is presumably one taken from the very beginning of season three (perhaps even from episode one).
So, we do get a call back not just to that erotic dream itself, but specifically to its core message: Wilhelm, where is your voice? Try to find it!
And in that sneak peek scene, Wilhelm suggests (in a bashful tone of voice) to show Simon what his dream was all about.
The surface of the text just says: Wilhelm is suggesting here that he’s going to be intimate with Simon in his room now the way he dreamt about it in his dream.
But the subtext tells us something else, as well: Wilhelm will start to show Simon what an actual, real, serious emotional relationship with him will be like.
And Wilhelm seems to be hinting at the fact that he will need his voice later on in the season in order to tell the whole world about the fact that he is in love and who he is in a relationship with.
This happens literally a fraction of a second after Simon touches Wilhelm’s heart (metaphorically: his left lapel) while saying, “I just wish it wasn’t for this reason.”
They were (most likely) summoned to discuss something to do with the official image of the Crown Prince’s love life, and yet Wilhelm hints at the fact that he actually wants to show Simon something else.
He wants to show him what his dream was all about: finding his own voice.
That’s the idea this whole teaser introduces us to, the idea season three will ultimately be built around: Wilhelm has to be able to show the world that he is in love.
~fin~
P.S. Over the holidays, I’m going to play the three-countries-in-three-weeks game because I am apparently insane. But fear not…while I’m travelling, this little blog won’t lie dormant. I have a few things lined up for you (they’re all medium length, so not quite as long as that absurdly long post about Rosh and Ayub recently, but still…I’m incapable of writing really short things, apparently).
Come January we will return to the familiar long-post territory.
What to expect in 2024?
I’ve still got a couple of metaphors to address (these will be long posts!). One of these metaphors I’m particularly excited about.
We will continue with Part 9, Part 10, etc. of the character post series.
And then, we’ve, of course, got a horse to groom – or rather to analyze…
So, I think there’s still some interesting and enlightening stuff left to discuss come January.
I wish you all happy holidays and all the best!
Yours,
tvmicroscope
Awww thank you for this little gem on the solstice. I'm done with work for the year and a sweet little read is just what I needed to start the holiday break. I hope your travels are safe, warm, and shared with loved ones.
Aww, this post is like a warm hug. (Well except for the disturbing Dark NIght and Inglorious Bastards clips -- that absurdly large pipe that the Nazi officer casually pulls out of his pocket! Ha! Now I may need to watch that beautifully filmed but disturbing film for the symbolism. And may I ask why a 1944 French farmer speaks English? The most unrealistic aspect of WWII films (!!), but I know, I know, it is not the real world). Anyway, the jump the line filming technique was beautifully and tenderly executed, almost like a fuzzy blanket was wrapping around Wille and Simon. Thank you for this, very much hoping Wilile finds his voice. I see my (incessant) Rousseau request on the list for 2024! Santa was good to me. 🥰 Have a wonderful holiday -- laptop always nearby. 💜 We appreciate you gifting us these beautiful articles.