The Quietly Great Richard Linklater in Before Sunset & Before Midnight

"Memory is a wonderful thing if you don't have to deal with the past." - Before Sunset

"I assure you, that guy you vaguely remember, the sweet romantic one that you met on a train? That is me." - Before Midnight

"I don't want to live a boring life where two people own each other, where two people are institutionalized in a box that others created because that is a bunch of stifling bullshit!" - Before Midnight

Before Midnight

Richard Linklater isn't the most ostentatious auteur of his generation. His camera movements aren't as alluring as Alejandro Iñárritu's nor are they as defiant as David Fincher's. However, Linklater's lack of "style" doesn't make him any less of an auteur. In fact, despite his "low-key" style, Linklater is a formidable talent behind the camera that frankly hasn't gotten the recognition that he deserves.

Today we'll look at Before Sunset and Before Midnight. These two pictures are filled to the brim with Linklater's brilliant directorial choices. Of course, the writing and the acting deserve just as much praise. But those are topics for another day.

Before we dive in, if you haven't seen the Before trilogy yet, I strongly urge you to see it before you continue reading. I'm glad you're visiting my desolate blog, but the post will resonate with you much more after you've seen the films. 

Moment 1: "Women pretend things like that."

Frame 1

Scene Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUbgKkn9qFw

We're just gonna focus on one tiny aspect of what makes this scene so great: the camera angle for the medium shots. By "camera angle," I mean whether the camera is looking at Jesse at an angle or Celine at an angle. In the still above, we're seeing Celine at an angle. (I don't know if "camera angle" is the proper term; I hardly took any film classes in college. So we'll just stick to "camera angle.") The medium shots are where both Jesse and Celine are in one frame like the one above.

Here're some "details" you need to know: as two 23-year-olds, Jesse and Celine meet on a train and spend one night together in Vienna the year of 1994. They instantly connect both emotionally and intellectually. But the morning after, they are forced to say goodbye as Jesse has to go back to the states and Celine back to Paris. But not without promising each other that they'd meet again in Vienna exactly six months later.

Unfortunately, Celine is unable to make it due to her grandmother passing away unexpectedly. But fearing they might burn out their feelings, they never exchanged any contact information. So their night in Vienna ends up as nothing more than a forgone possibility. A possibility of delicate yet a bit delirious love that they could've shared. 

Jesse, undeterred, writes a novel inspired by that one night in Vienna. And in 2003, nine years after their night in Vienna, Jesse and Celine meet again when Celine comes to Jesse's book signing in Paris. But now they're both in a relationship with someone else. For the first half of Before Sunset, Jesse and Celine wander around a distant possibility that their old feelings might still linger. But we see in the boat scene -- the scene right before the car scene above -- that both Jesse and Celine were never able to move on and old feelings do linger.

That said, Jesse and Celine are in very different places. Jesse still believes in the possibility of delicate yet slightly delirious love between them. What holds him back is the fear that Celine might no longer feel the same. Celine too believes in that possibility. But unlike Jesse, Celine is convinced that Jesse sees her as nothing more than a fond memory. And it hurts her so much that Jesse has closed the door on them by marrying someone else when in fact Jesse was simply trying to survive his yearning for her. 

All this sets up a dramatic and beautiful dynamic for the car scene. Jesse is reaching out and desperately wants to find out how Celine truly feels about him. Celine on the other hand has her guards up and wants to get closure and just move on, lashing out at Jesse in the process.

(I got into a lot of the backstory and the characters' head space. But it's because emotional context is so crucial to how Richard Linklater directs.)

The writing of the scene as anyone can see is so full of emotions. Now a director who doesn't own film as a visual medium would choose just one spot for the medium shot. And that medium shot will be used solely to establish the scene (show where the characters are and who's on which side). For the rest of the scene, we would see an series of shot-reverse-shots (where you revert back and forth between a shot that shows one character's face) that barely holds together. What a way to kill off the drama with the camera!

(Note: shot-reverse-shots can be extremely powerful if used at the right moment with the right timing. There are other elements that make for a great shot-reverse-shot such as lighting and blocking, but none is as pivotal as the editing. As I mentioned in my Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom post, even one hundredth of a second can make a difference.)

Linklater, with his trademark sensibilities, dramatizes the scene by throwing in medium shots between the close ups as either one of the characters reaches out, fends off, or exposes their wounds. He lets the drama resonate and fill up the entire set (the car). The medium shot also gives each word and action of the character context: the other character. Placed into a visible context, the drama cannot be but palpable. Lastly, when both Jesse and Celine are in the frame, Linklater is "doubling" the drama by presenting the audience two "equal" perspectives; not only are we feeling Jesse speaking to Celine, we're also feeling Celine listening to Jesse. 

Of course, this "doubling" only works when applied at the right moments and the right places in a dialogue. It can easily backfire and cut down the drama in "half" if used without acute judgment. But this is a topic for another day. There's a reason why I set out to focus only on the camera angle of the medium shots. 

So, what about the angles for the medium shots? I've repeatedly written on this blog that directing is about applying the right emphasis. What that right emphasis is depends on the directorial objective of the scene. In this car scene, Linklater's choice of emphasis boils down to perspective: is it Jesse's or Celine's perspective that should receive the spotlight for maximum dramatic impact? In other words, if Celine is telling Jesse something, which side of the coin -- Celine's emotions as she speaks or Jesse's emotions as he listens -- that should be the focus? 

Our scene starts with Celine professing to Jesse that she never recovered from that one night in Vienna where true love seemed possible: "I don't believe in anything that relates to love ... in a way, I put all my romanticism into that one night and I was never able to feel all this again." This a huge revelation for both the audience and Jesse. But Linklater has the camera facing Jesse at an angle and empathizing with Celine instead (Frame 2).

Frame 2

What this angle achieves is nudge the audience towards identifying more with Celine than with Jesse; the smaller the angle, the more "open" a character feels. So we gravitate towards "participating" in the dialogue from Celine's perspective. (This doesn't mean the audience will always side more with the character with less angle. Many other factors -- lighting, focus, composition, etc -- are at play as well.)

Now why would Linklater set us up towards empathizing more with Celine in this moment when her revelation is a huge deal to Jesse? He's been yearning to hear those words ever since their unrealized reunion in Vienna. And we as the audience have also been hoping for Celine to say those words. Shouldn't the audience be hearing Celine's admission with Jesse -- that is, with the camera showing Celine at an angle? 

It's because for the film as a whole to have greater dramatic impact, the audience needs to see Celine ache for Jesse just as much as Jesse aches for Celine. Then, not only are we rooting for Jesse to get Celine, but we're also rooting for Celine to get Jesse. We need two matching desires. 

We learn at the very beginning of the movie that Jesse wrote a novel out of his yearning for Celine. So we know even though Jesse is married that he still wants to reconnect with Celine. But we never really get to see Celine's point of view. It's heavily hinted that she missed him, but we never learn just how much she missed him until this very scene. In other words, the "big reveal" in our scene is not only a big moment for Jesse but also for Celine; she's finally opening up and being fully vulnerable.

Showing Celine at a minimal angle works to establish Celine's yearning for Jesse as separate from Jesse's yearning for her. Had the camera angle been reversed like in Frame 1, we would have felt glad with Jesse that Celine was aching for Jesse instead of feeling Celine's heartache with her. Linklater is having us pull for each of our protagonists to get the other. 

In addition, the camera angle syncs with Celine's words and actions. Minimal horizontal angle (how much the camera is to the side) can feel very personal. (Look at the still below from Ingmar Bergman's Cries and Whispers and compare the feel you get from the two characters with contrasting angles). Essentially, Linklater is killing two birds with one stone here. Blocking a scene is often like solving a Rubik's cube that way; when the three sides of the cube are solved, so are the other three sides. Needless to say, there are always trade offs that you can never escape. But that's besides the point.

Cries and Whispers

Another moment where Linklater's brilliance shines through comes at 2:16 of the linked clip, which is right after Celine breaks to Jesse that she does indeed remember their night in Vienna to every detail. Previously, she was pretending to not remember that they had sex. This hurt Jesse. It made Jesse doubt if he meant to her just as much she meant to him. In fact, Celine's lie was what prompted Jesse to become reserved about his feelings for her. Up to Celine's revelation, Jesse admits to Celine that he aches for what they could have had. But he never reveals that he still wants her. After her revelation however, Jesse shows Celine that he in fact still does (comes after the clip). In other words, the focus during Celine's revelation should be on Jesse. And behold Frame 3:

Frame 3

Moment 2: "Hey, can I ask you a question?"

Frame 4

Scene link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zUo3Qr-r4o

How can a director make the audience be the character as opposed to being with the character or just observing the character? Does a close up do the trick? Should the character's face show? Should the shot have a shallow depth of field? The answer is, as usual, it depends on the context. 

In Before Midnight, Jesse and Celine have been together for nine years since the ending scene in Before Sunset. Throughout the movie, we learn that Celine thinks their relationship isn't perfect enough whereas Jesse feels their relationship is "perfect" enough. They're both sensitive and emotionally attuned. But Celine constantly battles her doubts -- whether she loves him enough, he loves her enough, and if they are the right person for each other. Jesse on the other hand doesn't doubt their love. What he doubts is their ability to sustain that love. In this clip, we see Celine wondering if their love is perfect enough: "If we're meeting for the first time today on a train, would you find me attractive? Would you start talking to me? Would you ask me to get off the train with you?"

Needless to say, this is a very intimate moment for Celine where a director would want the audience to be Celine. To that end, many directors would cut to a close up from a medium shot as Celine asks the question. But few directors would cut to an over-the-shoulder shot (it is exactly what it sounds like) of Jesse as opposed to Celine (Frame 5). 

Frame 5: "... would you find me attractive?"

Now why would Linklater cut to a shot of Jesse instead of Celine? His decision almost seems "counter-intuitive." Celine is the one talking. Not only that, she's also asking a personal and intimate question. The focus should be on her, not Jesse -- that is, Celine's face is the one we should be seeing. The reason behind this "counter-intuitive" choice is that Linklater wants us to be Celine and ask Jesse the question with her instead of being with Celine when she asks Jesse the question.

David Fincher once said, "I have a philosophy about the two extremes of filmmaking. The first is the 'Kubrick way,' where you're at the end of an alley in which four guys are kicking the shit out of a wino. Hopefully, the audience members will know that such a scenario is morally wrong, even though it's not presented as if the viewer is the one being beaten up; it's more as if you're witnessing an event. Inversely, there's the 'Spielberg way,' where you're dropped into the middle of the action and you're going to live the experience vicariously - not only through what's happening, but through the emotional flow of what people are saying. It's a much more involved style."

That's a very well-put observation. But for our purposes, we need to go a bit further. More specifically, there's a fine line between being the character and being with the character. One style isn't necessarily better than the other. But great directors, when they want to, are capable of making the audience become the characters. And that's what Linklater does here. (I would argue what sets an auteur apart from a great director is the ability to seamlessly weave the three styles of shooting a character: being the character, being with the character, and observing the character. Note: a shot can be of more than one style at once.)

Because Celine is the one speaking before the cut, we key into Celine in the medium shot. (The audience doesn't always key into the character that was speaking last. But it is directed and acted that way here. This entry is getting way too long for an explanation. So just trust me on this.) As a result, even when we see Jesse's face after the cut, we don't lose sight of Celine's perspective in favor of Jesse's. Showing Jesse's face over Celine's shoulder in fact reinforces her perspective; we're seeing what she's seeing as she asks Jesse a question. In any war or action movie, doesn't it feel like we are the sniper when we get to see what he's seeing through the telescope? It's the same thing. 

A reverse over-the-shoulder shot -- a shot of Celine's face over Jesse's shoulder -- on the other hand would have less effective at reinforcing Celine's perspective. Since we were already keyed into Celine and looking at her face before the cut, showing her face would have been akin to -- albeit in much lower degree -- beating a dead horse. Linklater had already established the moment as Celine's in the medium shot. Why waste a close up on her to establish that again when instead you could further bring the audience into her shoes by showing who she is asking the question to over her shoulder? 

Cutting to an over-the-shoulder shot of Celine would have also made us listen to her and ask the question with her instead of solely doing the latter. Even though we're keyed into Celine and feel as though we're asking the question with her, seeing her face signals to our subconscious that we're listening to her. 

But the magic is not yet complete. We're with Celine when she asks Jesse the question but we're not asking Jesse the question as Celine. The cut that happens mid-question is what gets us there. 

In the medium shot before Linklater cuts to the over-the-shoulder shot, we hear Celine saying up to "Hey, can I ask you a question? If we're meeting..." Linklater then cuts to the over-the-shoulder shot with Celine continuing, "... for the first time today on a train ..." Because Linklater cuts while Celine is asking the question and she continues after the cut, we hold off from picking up Jesse's perspective. Celine had our full attention right before the cut, and because she didn't finish asking the question, our attention is still on Celine after the cut in the over-the-shoulder shot -- that is, we remain as Celine after the cut until she's finished asking the question. 

If cutting to an over-the-shoulder shot of Jesse reinforced Celine's perspective independent of Jesse's, then the cut mid-question emphasizes Celine's over Jesse's. 

We just delved into seven seconds worth of Richard Linklater's craftsmanship in Before Midnight. And we can see that seven seconds is sometimes all an auteur needs to "show off" his artistry. 

Below is a video showing Jesse and Celine's evolving relationship from Before Sunrise to Before Midnight. They're probably my favorite on-screen couple. Do I think they're a perfect pair? No. Do I think each of them could find someone who would love them more? Yes. But would they be able to feel that love as much as each other's? I wouldn't bet on it.