Movement across frames

Where there is no character or object movement across frames, but a shot sequence is produced by editing, then it is extremely common to conceal an edit in classical cinema by cutting on action. This is where the editor, for instance, will cut on a character's movement (such as lifting a cup) and the common movement of the character in each shot is used to help conceal, and smooth, the edit.

In The Searchers the movement of Aaron to open the homestead door for the "reverend" is used to motivate the change in point of view.

Adrian Miles: Hypertext syntagmas: cinematic narration with links

Download ebooks on http://www.frenchtheory.com/

See that post with different algorithms in metabole

See the journal French Metablog with today different posts

Rules of movement

To aid in the seamlessness of editing a sequence of action together several basic rules of movement, frame entry, and frame exiting, were developed by classical Hollywood cinema.

Where a moving body exits a frame, and the next shot is to show them again, then the following conditions are to be followed:

where a figure has left the frame in shot A, they can be shown already present in shot B.
where a figure remains in shot A, they must enter frame during shot B.

These rules only apply to those shot sequences where a character, or other moving object, is to be shown moving across the sequence produced by the edit, where there is to be a change of shot but no movement across the frame, movement is regularly co-opted to motivate the edit.
Such rules of movement can be seen in Written on the Wind, though it helps if you use the movie controller. Where this is not followed a jump cut results, and while uncommon prior to the French New Wave film movement of the 1960s, it, like crossing the line, does not appear to significantly compromise intelligibility.

Adrian Miles: Hypertext syntagmas: cinematic narration with links A performative hypertext presented by Journal of Digital Information

Download ebooks on http://www.frenchtheory.com/
See that post with different algorithms in metabole
See the journal French Metablog with today different posts

Screen movement

In an effort to maintain constancy of movement and screen direction various rules were articulated for narrative cinema.

These are preserved today in most sporting telecasts, and are a common feature in all film making. Very schematically, if a character (or car or other moving object) leaves screen left, then it must enter in the next shot from the right hand side of the frame but continue moving screen left. The reverse is also true.

Additionally, if there is movement towards and past the camera, say to the right (so since they have moved towards and past the camera the moving object would exit in the lower right of frame), then the next shot requires that the figure enters from the lower left of the frame - in effect the camera crosses the axis of direction. These concerns about screen direction are used in combination with those that apply to movement across shots.

In these examples constancy of direction is directed towards readerly intelligibility - an assumption being that this consistency will aid the viewer. However it is widely accepted theoretically that the major import of such a practice is as much to conceal the presence of the edit as it is to enhance readerly comprehension.
This constancy is evident in the rescue sequence in Keaton's Our Hospitality, though is broken where the boat plummets over the waterfall.

Adrian Miles: Hypertext syntagmas: cinematic narration with links

A performative hypertext presented by Journal of Digital Information

Download ebooks on http://www.frenchtheory.com/
See that post with different algorithms in metabole
See the journal French Metablog with today different posts

Human being as a moving process

Heidegger doesn't believe that we "have possibilities", as if possibilities were somehow things that might or might not happen.

Possibilities are not occurrences for Heidegger. Rather, human being is possibility. Existence, for Heidegger, means to be thrown into possibility all the time. The existential concept of possibility sees human being as a primal openness, as a moving process, in its very Being. Abstracting static essences from that openness may be our human tendency, but basing our metaphysical, epistemological, and logical theories on that abstracting is fundamentally misguided. We cannot grasp our being; we can never grasp "it". Trying to grasp it, to get it, heaven help us most especially trying to keep it!, is like trying to carry water in our hands.

Being is not a thing to grasp or keep. It is a movement, and it is a movement that Heidegger calls thrown projection.

Download ebooks on http://www.frenchtheory.com/

See that post with different algorithms in metabole

See the journal French Metablog with today different posts