For example, when you are shooting a conversation, you shoot over the shoulder at the right angles to convey the two characters are facing each other. If you screwed up it would look like they are facing the wrong direction and wouldn't make sense. This just being one example.
So my question is, has a filmmaker ever used one of these mistakes on purpose as an actual part of the story?
It's probably not what you're asking about, but:
In "The Shining," when Jack first goes to the Overlook Hotel to meet his employer, he walks through the lobby and into the middle of the building. Yet when he enters Ullman's office, it has a window to the outside. It couldn't happen based on the layout of the building. But I believe Kubrick used this "fundamental mistake" (and several others throughout the film) to unsettle the viewer subconsciously.
Kubrick breaks the 180° rule, too, which is even more directly related to the OP.
the one that shocks me that I never noticed is during the tour of Overlook, they look at the walk-in freezer, and the exterior changes completely as well as how the door hinges
During the dinner scene in A Clockwork Orange, the level of wine in Alex's glass varies from shot to shot, and it was claimed that this was intended to create a disorienting feeling. I think it's more likely that the insane perfectionist in Kubrick couldn't stand it when this flub was noticed and just had to provide a reasonable explanation.
That's just my thought on that movie, it might be true as far as The Shining goes.
That's a good one
JJ Abrams' use of the lens flare as a purposeful artistic choice?
Jar Jar Abrams
Somewhere in Hollywood, Dan Mindel is wiping the sweat from his brow having allowed Abrams to take yet another bullet for him.
Your audience can't see the flaws in the movie if they're blind.
Nearly every joke in Black Dynamite is a plot device since each actor is playing both a fictional actor and a role (Michael Jai White as Ferrante Jones starring as Black Dynamite).
I love when Bullhorn has that fight scene where he accidently slaps the henchman . You see the henchman get pissed for a few seconds before the movie jump cuts to a completely different actor in the old henchman's costume!
All-Star Running Back Ferrante Jones
Sarcastically, I'm in charge
Honey bunny’s line delivery in pulp fiction … the change from the opening sequence to the final sequence is to show that we are watching the scene with a different character as protagonist (ie Jules instead of Ringo)
Or it’s just an editing mistake …
The scene in Minority report where Tom Cruise’s character goes to kill a man he thinks murdered his son shatters this rule:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5M4QWD0U8-A
I think it might be the worst edited scene I’ve ever seen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_La_Mancha
A documentary about the disastrous failure of Terry Gilliam's Don Quixote movie. The fundamental mistake was: selection of filming location.
Lots of spoof movies. Frank Drebin walking round the set wall instead of through the door being a classic example.
The really notable one I can think of is the Hannibal TV series, the two main characters are infatuated with each other and as one of them begins to lose track of who he is, they will cross the line so they're both facing the same direction. It's a handful of shots spread over the entire series, but it's really quite brilliant.
Satoshi Kon crosses the line to explain it in Paprika, it's part of an extended dream sequence. There are a bunch of filming jokes and intentional 'mistakes' in Day for Knight, a Truffaut film about filmmaking, my favourite is the director having terrible problems filming with a cat and when you see the final edit of the scene, it's just a different cat.
It's rare to do it on purpose, breaking fundamental film grammar usually just looks like a mistake. You've got to be very good.
There are movies where a conversation is shot with an object or person prominently in the foreground sort of blocking part of the scene, but it is meant to illustrate the division between the two characters talking. The one that pops into my mind is Eraserhead, where there is a plumbing pipe in the middle of the shot.
Although not a comedy per se, in Planet Terror there is a scene of two characters embracing and about to have sex, then the film overheats and melts, a missing reel card pops up, then it skips to the house completely on fire. That is probably the hardest I have ver laughed at a horror movie.
Jodie Fosters The Brave one has a scene of her and a character having an intense conversation sitting next to each other but never looking at each other. At the end of the scene it's revealed theres a big mirror in front of them and they were making eye contact with each other through the mirror.
Not so much a mistake the movie turned on its head but I felt it sort of works for the question
I'm not sure how you could use something like that as a part of the plot, but breaking those "rules" has been done a lot.
The camera breaks the 180 degree rule at the end of American Beauty as Lester changes his mind.
You also have Ozu's entire filmography. He would consistently break the 180 degree rule, have characters speak directly into the camera, ignore continuity if it meant getting a better looking shot.
I can’t remember the details but in Parasite there’s a moment when they’re in the car and character says “crossing the line” and just at that point the camera literally jumps the line and breaks the 180 degree rule
ingloriousbaxter3 t1_jacemag wrote
I'm interested in seeing the answers to this one. I'm having a hard time thinking of any that aren't comedy.
I know Death Proof used some intentional "mistakes" to make it look like an older exploitation film