Well maybe fun is the wrong word, but I have lots of fun watching thrillers, so if thrillers are fun for me, can they be fun for others? My reason for doing so, is that the audience is going to wonder if the cop is going to in there in time, before they destroy all the evidence and escape out the back yard, which the cop cannot legally go into as of yet. So that is the reason why I wanted to show both simultaneously to see both timings converge.

Have you checked if this is correct? Following in hot pursuit is usually different to doing a search after the event and getting back up is to ensure that they don't escape out the back and having safety in numbers.

Oh well I talked with a cop and went through the scene, and wrote it to his specifications so I thought it was all good based on what he said.

Sometimes bending the rules works better dramatically, it shows if they're someone who follows the rules or will push them as far as possible. The latter is not unusual in dramas.

Oh well I talked with a cop and went through the scene, and wrote it to his specifications so I thought it was all good based on what he said.
1. You are always taking directions from people who have no filmmaking knowledge. “He told me...” or “I was told...”. You’re the writer/director, you should be the one deciding how to tell your story.

2. 99% of all movies both people are not shown at the same time and it seems to work. Either we hear the conversation and observe the effect it has on the receiving party or we can’t hear what being said, which invites the audience to speculate what’s being said. You seem to have a habit of trying to show and tell everything which eliminates any intrigue.

3. Split screen is often distracting and confusing. We don’t experience the world this way. You haven’t given any compelling reason to use it other than it’s just another cinematic device you want to throw in.

At every opportunity you are trying to insert unusual cinematic devices that call attention to themselves. You’re more concerned trying to show off how unique you are than simply telling a story well. This heavy handed approach is what one would expect from a film student.

1. You are always taking directions from people who have no filmmaking knowledge. “He told me...” or “I was told...”. You’re the writer/director, you should be the one deciding how to tell your story.

2. 99% of all movies both people are not shown at the same time and it seems to work. Either we hear the conversation and observe the effect it has on the receiving party or we can’t hear what being said, which invites the audience to speculate what’s being said. You seem to have a habit of trying to show and tell everything which eliminates any intrigue.

3. Split screen is often distracting and confusing. We don’t experience the world this way. You haven’t given any compelling reason to use it other than it’s just another cinematic device you want to throw in.

At every opportunity you are trying to insert unusual cinematic devices that call attention to themselves. You’re more concerned trying to show off how unique you are than simply telling a story well. This heavy handed approach is what one would expect from a film student.

Oh okay thanks. To address those points:

1. I thought I should do police research when writing unless I should not then...

2. How was I shown everything exactly? The conversation is only being heard through the cop's radio. You do not see the other people. So how was I therefore, showing too much?

3. Even though people do not experience the world that way, it's a movie. Does a movie have to be portrayed exactly how people experience the world? I didn't intend to show off, I was just trying to find the best way to tell that section of the story. I don't have to do it, but it just seems strange, cause I didn't think I was breaking any cinematic rules by doing so.

I thought I should do police research when writing unless I should not then..

That is NOT what was said Ryan - you really must get the hang of reading what people say.

You do research - but you seem to lack a filter - taking in information and analysing what it tells you.

Of course a real police input is handy - but you are not making a documentary. It's drama. Many movies take on consultants from specific industries that will feature, and they often get really angry because their viewpoints are often ignored. You make a movie about special forces, so you talk to special forces people - then go off and make a movie and dropping all the boring stuff and focussing on the shoot up at the end.

You take everything as black or white - never any grey, and this is throttling you.

Writers research the world they're creating, why would you even think for a second they wouldn't?

Know your world is one of the tenets of writing.

Oh okay, I can see that. I guess the reason why I may be more black and white is because the audience feedback seems to me. The audience feels that either something is right or wrong, with no grey area it seems, so maybe that's why I see things black and white more.

I did actually did write think about writing it, that maybe the cop decides to go in without having the most probable cause cause he felt people may be in danger, but I was told that if he did that he would be fired, and no one is going to believe he would risk his job like that, and not be be fired after, so I wrote it so he doesn't. But I can change it back then.

I must have missed where you laid out how you are using split screen...something about a police conversation over the radio. But that's not really important, all I do know split screen is almost never used. I'm sure you could dig up two or three outliers out of the ten of thousands of movies but what would be the point? Split screen isn't necessary but this is a recurring thing with you trying break convention when you haven't even make one successful feature film. Its pointless arguing with you because once you get something in your head it's impossible to dissuade you. Is it possible to use split screen? Yes. Is in necessary or appropriate? Most likely not.

Doing research is fine, but movies almost never follow what happens in real life, especially when it comes to action-crime genre. The general audience does not know or care about real police procedure.

It's amazing that out of all the countless approaches to telling a story you latch on to one that everyone here can agree that is bad. This coming from a group of individuals who rarely agree on anything.

Oh okay thanks, that's true I don't have to follow proper procedure. However, the audience is aware of the 4th amendment and a search and arrest not holding up, if the amendment is broken, aren't they? Will an audience accept a world with no 4th amendment or a very changed one?

I was not using the split screen to show a conversation but to show the timing of the villains covering up evidence, to how long it would take for the cop to get the go ahead to search and enter.

Sorry if I was coming off as stubborn, it's just I keep being told on here to come up with my own ways of shooting the movie and that that's my job as a director. So I come up with an idea of how to shoot this scene, and then I am told it's wrong.

But if I should come up with my own ways of portraying the scene, then shouldn't I own them therefore?

Is anyone outside Canada won't know the 4th amendment, plus characters in films and TV don't always follow the rules. Therefore you have to know if your character bends the rules and if so, how far will they go?

It's entirely up to you how you shoot a scene.

As Kubrick would ask "It might be real, but is it interesting?"

Oh okay, but shouldn't I market the film to audiences in the US too, if that is where the story is set? I could set it in Canada, I just thought maybe an American setting would be more popular with an American audience.

But Canada has a forth amendment equivalent though too.

And I don't have to use the split screen, I just thought it would be better for the timing for this section. I can reconsider, and ask the DP for input as well, after I find one.

Oh okay thanks, that's true I don't have to follow proper procedure. However, the audience is aware of the 4th amendment and a search and arrest not holding up, if the amendment is broken, aren't they? Will an audience accept a world with no 4th amendment or a very changed one?

I was not using the split screen to show a conversation but to show the timing of the villains covering up evidence, to how long it would take for the cop to get the go ahead to search and enter.

Sorry if I was coming off as stubborn, it's just I keep being told on here to come up with my own ways of shooting the movie and that that's my job as a director. So I come up with an idea of how to shoot this scene, and then I am told it's wrong.

But if I should come up with my own ways of portraying the scene, then shouldn't I own them therefore?
You shouldn't be spending your time on odd cinematic things like split screen or concerning yourself with the 4th amendment. You should be crafting interesting characters and plots that explore things that engage the audience. The plot and subject is often secondary to the characters in them. People love and cherish Sherlock Homes without having to know the rules of English law.

Oh okay, it's just I thought that the characters and plot are already created and the next order of business was to storyboard and do the shotlist, then a DP and crew, then casting, and then work with the cast on the characters as well. Unless that's not a good order to do things? Or at what point should I do the storyboard and shot list then?

As for audiences not caring about legal things, what happens though, when people read your script and they say this is not how the police would legally behave. Does that mean that some readers care about the law still and I should do research therefore and rewrite it, or no?

I've lost it, I think. What exactly is going on side by side, that is crucial enough to split the viewer's attention?

I've heard of the 5th amendment. That's the one where the cops ask the question and the other side "take the 5th" - which without researching I presume is something about not incriminating yourself? I've never heard of the 4th, or the 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

Ryan - you ask us a question and we give an honest opinion.We do tell you to come up with different ways to solve your problems, but when you come up with ones we know won't work, are you asking us to pat you on the back and say - "brilliant, Ryan, that will work splendidly" or just tell you the truth? If you come up with a good idea, we'd be very pleased for you.

Is your actual script in need of all this cleverness? Surely if the words are good, then they don't need tricks. I rather like the sequential location change when people use radios or phones. The totally technically ridiculous scene in the first Die Hard, where John talks to the Police officer. Just cuts that move from the top of the building to outside. A simple conversation, and two actors talking to nobody, put together in the edit. I suspect somebody simply read in the lines from the actor not in the shot and it works rather well. They could have used a split screen, and cost or actor considerations didn't apply - it would have been confusing and unnecessary.

You need a very good script. You need to then create the pictures that go with it and then you present this to the good actors and competent crew for shooting. A mistake in any of these components will wreck it.

Oh okay thanks. The thing that is going on side by side, is the cop looking for probable cause to get in, or waiting on permission vs. on the other side, the villains trying to clean up all their evidence in time and escape out the back. I felt that if I show the timings of these two side by side, it would make it more of an entertaining unfold.

No, I am not trying to ask for a pat on the back of course. I am just wondering what am I doing wrong. Am I doing something different wrong on a case by case basis, or is their a route core problem in my way of planning on a scene perhaps that is prevalent in all my scene plannings?

[QUOTE=Ryan Elder;1956844 As for audiences not caring about legal things, what happens though, when people read your script and they say this is not how the police would legally behave. Does that mean that some readers care about the law still and I should do research therefore and rewrite it, or no?[/QUOTE]

Do you actually believe that all cops follow all the legal requirements? Unfortunately, history of full of cases where they don't and some of the best fiction is about stories in which they don't. You should know the standard procedures, but you should also know enough about your world to follow those cases where they don't follow them.

Oh well it's just I was told that the cop would be fired for breaking the rules like that, and the audience would expect that.

Now I know I was told not to compare to other movies, but if I do, and you watch Dirty Harry and Lethal Weapon, those protagonists are breaking the rules all the time though. However, I was told that those characters are more emotionally invested in the crime stories at that point, where as mine is just a cop on patrol who got a call, and he is not personally invested yet, since this is early on and an inciting incident, if that's a valid point?

If you say "I was told" to justify every misunderstanding, you will never learn. Next time somebody tells you something, before accepting it as gospel, try some research, and if you find it valid opinion, take it on board. Many times, however, you'll find people have told you things that are wrong, or maybe they just were misunderstood. You misunderstand so much of what is said to you.

If the cop does everything above board, won't this be terrible dull? Your life experience seems so limited. Have you never taken chances, looked at potential risk and ignored it, or done what your gut says is correct, but the rules say is not? Have you never taken a stand, or acted on your heart? People follow rules, unless there is a reason not to.

Would a police officer intent on putting a murderer away who they were 100% convinced was guilty ignore a piece of contrary evidence that they knew defence counsel would use to get them off? Sounds like the premise for a screenplay. An honest policeman who if he does the right thing, would set a murderer free? Or should he simply turn a blind eye to the new evidence and let natural justice put the guy away for life? If you have to be scrupulously accurate, it will be due, dull, dull. Where's the drama, the conflict, the resolution?

Throw away the rule book, make new ones up, or be a bit radical - I suspect this just isn't you.

Okay thanks. I'll do that.

There is also another scene where I want to have a character testify in a hearing, and I want another character to see what she is saying, and then get an idea to move onto the next plot point.

However, hearings like this are often not open to the public for anyone to just come in and watch. So if I write it so that this one is, would the audience be bothered by it?

As for the split screen, I just feel that when people tell me not to do something, I need a reason. But when reasons are said like it's unnecessary, or drawing attention to itself, or that is now how people view the world, those just seem like vague explanations, and if I shouldn't do it, I just feel I need a more more specific reason, rather than a vague one, if that makes sense?

I wouldn't worry about it, one feature film had a lawyer doing the case in an English court, which would be done by a barrister (a lawyer who presents the case in court), they amalgamated these roles into a single part. The film is based on a true story.

That's a lot more noticeable to a member of the British public and people aware of the UK legal system than your outsider being at a hearing, especially since you say it can sometimes happen. As they say, don't learn your history from watching feature films.

Oh okay. It's just I don't want the to have to fill the whole courtroom with extras and only want the characters that matter to the plot to be there. So as long as the audience buys that he is there, and no one else, etc. I can try to keep thinking on how to do that...

Aaaagh!! You're doing it again. You're making decisions about what is best, based on what is best for a no budget production. We argue about the cinematographic elements and angles, and grip kit when your scene has been written to allow you to do it with LESS realism because you can't pay for actors. You won't make video compromises but accept scen/set/cast ones?

This is just ridiculous. If you want quality but cannot afford it, then scrap ideas for a big movie with minimal unrealistic scenes because you need to depopulate it, and write a story that only has a small cast throughout. You are trying to convince yourself you can make quality products without content!!

Your split screen idea makes sense now - it's cheap.

You don't need to fill an entire court room, just pack the areas around the characters with extras, use longer lenses to narrow the angle of view if need be or mostly have walls/ceiling in the background by lowering the camera height,

Don't have a wide shot of the court room, just show the exterior of the building and cut to the scene.

Keep the scene short and to the point, not rambling.dialogue.

Again, do more shorts, this is the stuff you learn by making them

Aaaagh!! You're doing it again. You're making decisions about what is best, based on what is best for a no budget production. We argue about the cinematographic elements and angles, and grip kit when your scene has been written to allow you to do it with LESS realism because you can't pay for actors. You won't make video compromises but accept scen/set/cast ones?

This is just ridiculous. If you want quality but cannot afford it, then scrap ideas for a big movie with minimal unrealistic scenes because you need to depopulate it, and write a story that only has a small cast throughout. You are trying to convince yourself you can make quality products without content!!

Your split screen idea makes sense now - it's cheap.

Oh okay, but shouldn't I be trying to come up with ways to make the story cheaper to shoot, with less actors? Isn't that good though? Since the character I want to hear the testimony is a cop, I could have him flash his badge to get in, to listen in compared to the general public, if the audience will buy that...

You don't need to fill an entire court room, just pack the areas around the characters with extras, use longer lenses to narrow the angle of view if need be or mostly have walls/ceiling in the background by lowering the camera height,

Don't have a wide shot of the court room, just show the exterior of the building and cut to the scene.

Keep the scene short and to the point, not rambling.dialogue.

Again, do more shorts, this is the stuff you learn by making them

Well I don't have to show a wide of the courtroom necessarily, it's just in past projects, if I didn't show establishing shots, than I was told it was strange, and people asked where are the establishing shots. So if I don't show them, I feel it coudl be confusing or jarring, like it was in past projects, where I didn't show wides.

The exterior of the court is the establishing shot. you don't need to see a wide shot of the whole court room, the audience knows where we are. Court rooms usually have furniture that reveal peoples roles eg witness stand, dock, judges sear and desk etc, so you can see the key relationships. without showing the entire court room. At the most, you can use the front of the court, that's the interesting part.

We know the character is a cop, so the audience will assume he can access the court, unless he's going to be a witness in the case.

Oh okay thanks, as long as the audience will buy that a cop has special privileges for accessing a court hearing that is not open to the public, especially if that cop is not even part of the case and just wants to listen in.

It'll work if it's been already established that he has some interest the case, even if he's not on it. However, he has to be there for a reason, if only meeting a fellow cop on the case for a drink after work.

The film "Hidden Figures" shows how historical reality and a feature film can differ, so don't get obsessive about minor details in telling a story in a dramatic film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Figures

Yeah there is a reason why the cop has an interest in the case, it's just that the audience might think why is the judge letting him set in if he has nothing to do with it, and why doesn't the judge tell him to get out, this isn't a public hearing, etc.

You're over thinking this, insiders get into places that the public can't. The judge may know the cop from a previous case, who knows. If the audience start thinking that you've got problems with your script, not with him being there.

Oh okay thanks. Do you think maybe I overthink a lot of things, as it was pointed out before that I am overthinking things sometimes?

You're overthinking the wrong things.

Oh okay, I can try to work on that. Am I doing something particular that I mistaken the wrong things for right maybe?

Look, dude, all this stuff you obsess over with judges and public hearings and minor details like that...if I were watching not only would I not call you out on it, I wouldnt even think about it. I assume much of the viewing public would feel the same.

You know much legal stuff is inaccurate in courtroom scenes in every movie and tv show? How much police procedure is wrong in most CSI shows and police procedurals? A LOT.

Yeah, cops and lawyers are gonna know youre wrong. Guess what? Most people arent cops and lawyers.

A good litmus test for whether something needs overthinking is whether the GENERAL PUBLIC will know when its wrong.

You can have a gunshot blow people across the room cause it “seems” right even though (I think, I dont know crap about guns) its totally unrealistic. But if you show a gun shooting out beef tacos instead of bullets, thats gonna raise some eyebrows cause everyone knows guns dont shoot beef tacos.


Since your next questions is “okay thanks, but how do I know what the general public will know about?”, that comes down to common sense and if you cant reason that out on your own I dont think I can help you. A good hint is that if someone does not do a job or participate in activity, they are not going to know the deep details about those things. So if most people are not X or dont do X, they arent going to know the details of what X entails.

Thats why they still get away with scenes of people “enhancing” grainy low res footage til you can count a perps nose hairs, when anyone who uses photoshop knows its impossible...CAUSE MOST FOLKS DONT USE PHOTOSHOP.

Oh okay, it's just that when I show my work before, other people spot all these little details and it may be a problem that I don't even think about before.

So I thought maybe I was therefore, under-analyzing, rather than over.

What Josh said times a million. No one cares about these rules and legal stuff you obsess over. Your protagonist can do whatever is in his character. You have a habit of painting yourself into a corner.

Time travel isn’t possible now i’ve ruined your Time Wine movie. No I haven’t no cares that time travel isn’t possible!

When you look or listen to something you decide extremely quickly of you like it or you don't. Even if you hate it, there's hope it gets better. At some point, disappointment sets in. Did you really pay to see this rubbish, or even you get cross at the time you wasted, hoping it was going to get better, but it didn't.

It's at this point when you start to analyse the product, whatever it is, and you start to pick holes. In a good movie, or a good recording of music you pay little attention to defects, because they don't really matter. For a long time, I've been interested in communications and it's my pet hate in movies. In the Die Hard movie I mentioned yesterday they have magic radios - ones that only talk to the bad guys when that is important, but can talk to the good guys privately too. Then they can switch between the two. For people that know, they're also the wrong radios for the people using them. That's not important because they move the story on nicely. If, however, the movie had been bad - I'd be using these technical failures very negatively, complaining how inept the producers were to not check these things and sort them. Everyone has a pet subject and spot these kinds of errors.

Police Officers watch movies. They watch P{police TV dramas. They only pick on procedural errors when the programme/movie is bad.

Make a good movie and you suspend disbelief. Make a poor one and everyone will put clips of these bad bits on youtube.

If people are spotting details they're not being sweep up and involved with the story and the characters. Lots of films have things in them that if you thought twice about them you wouldn't believe what's happening on screen, yet they grab the audience.

You seem concerned more about if the cop should be at the hearing, rather than his need to attend the hearing, so far you've given a plot reason for him to be there. However, in story terms that's not good enough, it has to be either good or bad for him in achieving his need to be there.

Oh okay, yeah he has a good reason to be there, it's more about the judges motivation, and why the judge would let him be there, since the judge has no real reason. So I thought it viewers may look to the judge's motivation.

They won't. Won't think about it, won't care, probably furthest thing from their minds unless you have made the most unbelievably boring movie ever. Right up with there with noticing an extra's tie isn't straight. Does that help?

Okay thanks. Well as for not showing an establishing shot, in order to not have to fill the courtroom with other people, I guess the reason I am afraid to do that, in the past, if I try to take shortcuts in budget, like not showing establishing shots, people said they found it jarring though. On here for example, when I posted the short film with the time travel, and I didn't show more establishing shots, I was told it was jarring, so I am feeling risky on doing that therefore.

I havent seen the whole film so I dont know what scene or timecode youre referring to but someone needs to tell you WHY/in what way it was jarring to not show am establishing shot. There are countless movies and shows that cut to new scenes without an establishing shot that no one found jarring so you need to know what specifically is wrong with that in your film

Oh well two sections of the film where I was told it was jarring cause I didn't have establishing shots are at 4:07 and at 8:42:

Timewine H.264 copy - YouTube

I was just told I didn't show an establshing shot of the new location at 4:07 and I didn't show an establishing shot of the reporter at 8:42, when I needed to, if that's true.

Okay, the issue at 4:02 is probably that it's unclear at first that she's watching that other car from a distance...the viewer doesn't put the two things together as related for a few moments. There any number of approaches but it would have been better to see an over the shoulder or similar where she and the car window frame/windshield are blurry in the foreground and we see the other car through her windshield or driver's side window (geography of where the two are in relation to each other is unclear). Or the red car passing by her white car, with her clearly visible looking out through windshield/window. Again, issue is that there's no single shot that ties the two people together. It doesn't have to be an "establishing shot" in the traditional sense of a wide that shows the whole scene, but some kinda shot that shows them together for a moment is probably required.

at 8:42 it's almost the same issue...you see them looking at...something, and then cut newscast full frame. We'd expect to see an OTS shot of them looking at the screen (screen in focus, them blurry in foreground), with the newscast playing, or at the very least a CU of the computer screen with some of the office background visible around it, newscast playing. THEN cut to newscast full frame. This one's not quite as confusing as the other example but still weird as described above.

I wish you'd explain better - why quote random times that are wrong!

The girl walks out of the building, then we see a car, then her in a car - is that a close up of her? No - it's somebody we cannot see driving out of a car park. Then we see her start the car, next is a shot of a car following the first car with unknown driver. We didn't see her pull out and follow, we don't know who the driver is. Just bad editing - it hinders understanding not enhances it.

At the end, we see two people in an office, she moves and watches TV, we then cut to the TV interview. What establishing shot are you talking about? The more I watch the clip, the more strange and random some shots and edits become. If we submitted this for marking, where each shot was considered with relationship to the one before and afterwards, it's going to score badly. Then we'd look at the plot, the acting, the framing, the lighting, the camera control and it's very much a student movie from the first year standard work.

Realistically - so many compromises and shots that should have been shot again, a story that has so many holes it leaks like a seive. Locations and events that make no sense. Worse though is the acting. Do real people behave like this in real life. In America, even with access to guns, do reporters/investigative people really pull guns out and point them like this?

There's no point commenting on this - you are worrying about establishing shots, when the entire thing is totally confusing and leaves the viewer in a kind of limbo.

Are we really to believe somebody invents time travel, and uses it to age wine, rather than playing the stock market to make bazillions in dollars, then you would never have to age a few bottles of wine.

Oh okay thanks. I edited it before that you see her pull out and drive after him, and then I posted it on another site for test viewers. But test viewers told me that I overmake the point and I should just show her start the car and then cut, so I did it that way, according to the test viewers online. This is good to know though, that perhaps the original edit of that was better.

Also, why do I need an OTS shot of a person looking through a windshied, or an OTS shot of a person looking at the screen. There are other movies where a person will look at a screen for example, and you see a close up of the screen. You do not see an OTS shot of them looking. So what do other movies do differently, that you do not need the OTS shot?

I have never broken down anything I shoot into categories for consideration. I stand there and then position things. Over the shoulder shots are news derived, where the real reason was to remove lips to make editing quick and simple. It's rarely a nice shot, so in movies, it just gets jiggled to become a reverse angle, and rarely over the shoulder.

If you give movies to people you don't know, and that includes us, if you ask questions. What weight do you put on the response?

Why are you even asking? If it's because you cannot decide for yourself, then your research will produce complete rubbish, because you have no idea the criteria used in making their opinion to you.

It won't help, but my version of the car follow sequence would have been very different.

Front street shot of the girls car, driver NOT visible.
Internal shot showing her in the car driver's seat.
full frame shot of subject getting into his car.
Girl seeing him get in and starting engine
Subject in a wide angle driving out of parking area onto street.
Frontal shot of girl in follow car moving out to follow

You KNOW who she is waiting for. You see him get in and drive off and you see her following.

Perhaps OTS is not quite the right term then. I mean a shot of whatever it is someone is looking at, with that person partly visible in the foreground in soft focus to show the geographical/physical relationship between the two. So you don't have two shots of things cut together with no clear tie between them.

You asked why those things were jarring, I gave you my specific reasoning. Paul's answer is also right. I'm giving you the simplest fix I can think of rather than reshooting/recutting the whole scene the way Paul suggests. Those two sequences/edits are weird, TO ME, because there is no established geography of where the girl is in relation to the car she's looking at in the first example, and the two people and the video they're watching in the second example.

I'm not going to tear apart the whole thing, just those two, very specific examples of why people probably found them jarring.

There's no point in giving references to other films, that doesn't matter, the real question you need to ask yourself does it work in my film? Is there enough information being provided to the audience for them to follow what's happening without having to think rather than emote?

When getting feedback, you need to decide if it's valid and if it's correct or partly correct or something else is misleading the person giving the feedback and needs to be changed, It's not a literal process you have to analysis the feedback You even have to do this with executive producers and sometimes you have to ignore some points or just tighten shots by a few frames, because they can .be wrong or a very slight adjustment covers it.

The shot with the other car looks like a wide shot on the street, it doesn't look like it's from a car because we don't know the girl is in a car. At leash showing part of the car in the foreground like part of the steering wheel, top of the dashboard on the foreground looking though the windscreen shows that it's a POV of the girl in the drivers seat.