You are right, and I didn’t mean to imply that a push-in was the only way to make a good arc. A push-in does increase the size of things already on the screen, but a pull-out, allows new elements to enter the frame, as you point out. I think bringing new elements into the frame, however, is also a sort of increase. I agree with you, both can work well, but an analysis of how each of these choices function as visual storytelling, helps us design the most effective shots.

An example of an effective pull-out is shown in this episode, where the Andy character enters his cell for the first time.

Thank you for bringing up Bresson. He’s the author of so many ideas that turn fundamental principles inside out. As usual, the exceptions are what make navigating rules a rich and complex endeavor.

Thanks for the insight. - Tw

Thanks for the show on time-based composition. I liked it. However, I have two concerns. Your “rules” for good arcs included the idea of a shot that increases and I don’t fully agree with that. Pushing in over time is not necessarily a better good-arc element over pulling out. A pull out can reveal, even as it diminishes, and this can induce tremendous development and arc. Both can work well I think. Secondly, your own theories of why the Shawshank sequence works so well includes the use of angles that vary widely. I like your other theories, but this one does not particularly add to the sequence, I don’t think, in terms of delivering increased time-based composition values. The angles are there and so difficult to assess if they were not there, but one could cite Robert Bresson’s “A Man Escaped”, another prison film, which uses extremely limited views throughout the film with great success for maintaining interest in the time-based development. Well-planned moving shots or well-planned motionless shots each contribute time-based compositional values to grip viewers and unfurl story.

Anyway, I appreciate your work and effort. Thanks.