Driving scene montage. . . west to east. . . but. . .

[Julio Quintana]

Not sure how the predominant driver's side shot, closer to the face of 88 yr woman, would appear - with regards to aesthetic (detail, face geometry on a wider lens) and the context of the story. Switching sides issue depends on the cut as well and what is being intercut. I'd go with passenger side as main and check how to bath the interior with more light.

This is a good point. I tend to shoot with wide lenses, but if you want to shoot with a longer lens, shooting through the driver's window will be very limiting.

 

[Marc Wielage]

These are not processed shots. This is a real woman driving a real car. I'm not sure I can get enough light into the car to avoid blowing the highlights up.

Power windows (that is, in a color-correction program, not on a car door) can provide a little extra fill and control the light in and around the driver and passenger's face. There's hardly a car shot I do where I don't have to dodge the faces a little bit. (Hey! A pun! Car... Dodge...)

They've been shooting car scenes for about 100 years, and it's not that hard to figure out how to get a little fill going from the floor or the roof of the car. Nowadays, with LCD panels, I would think this is a lot easier and more practical than it used to be. I see a lot of this stuff where it gets overdone, particularly on night shots, but I understand the director's inclination to go a little too bright rather than too dark.

Flopping the shot to compensate for a 180° rule problem is kind of a last-ditch solution, because it'll reverse the steering wheel, the grill, and all that other stuff. It's a big headache. On the other hand, Jim Cameron flopped the big shot on the truck stunt in Terminator 2 and got away with it... though sharp-eyed viewers noted a background street sign that is visibly reversed.

I honestly think if you're just trying to see faces in a wide shot and/or an aerial view, this is solvable just by decent lighting and exposure. I just dealt with a shot like this on a project tonight, and it was entirely done in natural light. I had some tracking windows to finesse the exposure a bit, but the DP gave me enough to use that the end result looked fine.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

You can eliminate any problems with the 180 rule simply by having transitional shots in between which are at an angle that allows that move. In the first place, your "line" can simply be through her ears. i.e. parallel to the plane of her face. In that case, you can shot from slightly in front of her on either side of the car or from the direct front (hood). Ideally, you'll probably put a "hood" shot in between the other two unless you are doing it for a particular effect. You also probably go to a "hood" shot before moving to the back seat. If you do "cross the line" on purpose in this fashion, I think it is best to stay there fro while and not keep jumping back.

A different issue to consider as far as direction goes, is the implicit "feeling" given by the direction the actor is heading on the screen. Movements from right to left create more negative tension as that seems to be "going against the grain" while movements across the screen from left to right seem more positive and settled.

In any case the cuts should be made judiciously as a constant movement across the screen and across the line can be a distraction. You obviously need to end up doing what is in service to the story. A lot of jumping around will feel unsettled; that may be what you want. Meanwhile, consistency in camera angle may make the viewer feel at peace with the consistency and constant move "forward."