One

You know that scene that's in every film and television programme? You know the one.

I see it at least once a day. All pre-watershed programmes are required to include it once in every episode. Post-watershed: twice.

The BBFC refuses to classify any film that lacks this scene. In fact, if you don't include the scene, what you've made is not technically a film.

It's that scene, right, where two characters have an important event coming up the next day, such as an exam or a job interview or a sham funeral, and they are trying to decide whether or not to drink some alcohol. They decide against it, because becoming inebriated will hinder their ability to deal with said important event.

But then one of the characters suggests they just have one drink. Just ONE. Just ONE drink. Just ONE drink and then they'll have an early night. ONE drink - they repeat it - just ONE drink. "OK - well, we'll just have ONE drink," says one of the characters. Just one.

The camera shows their full bottle of alcoholic drink. But then it cuts, usually with one of those video wipes that looks like a clock going round (to let the viewer know that time has passed), to later on in the evening. It's the same shot, but now the bottle is empty!

EMPTY!

They've drunk the whole thing! Remember they were only going to have one? That was the plan.

But obviously, they got carried away and drank the whole bottle. That's more than one drink. And remember - that was the original intention. ONE drink. They even repeated it to hammer the point home. They were going to just have ONE drink. But that empty bottle signifies that they have exceeded that.

Classic.

You know that scene, right? It's a classic scene. A trope.

You see, the director (or writer or editor or runner with initiative) has decided to make that joke with the cut. They go from the full bottle to the empty bottle, and the audience will get it. There's no need to explain it. You could have one of the characters say "Oh dear. We meant to only have one drink, but we've had more than that".

But that's unnecessary. The edit is all the explanation you need.

Your expectations have been built up (THEY INTEND TO HAVE A SINGLE DRINK), and with a single dissolve, your expectations have been confounded (THEY HAVE BROKEN THEIR VOW).

That's proper film-making.

You might not even realise that you're being played in that way. But you are.

The great thing about any film-making technique is you can mess around with it. As people become more media-savvy, sometimes you can play on their knowledge of the form.

I'd like to do some variations of the full bottle/empty bottle - one drink/many drinks device.

Like, for example the bottle is half-full to begin with. "Let's have one drink," they say. ONE drink.

Then you cut to later on, and the bottle is full.

How did that happen?! Did they pour some more liquid into that bottle? Did they finish the original bottle, drink half of another bottle, and then place it on exactly the same spot as the original bottle? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE?!

That's proper film-making. That's the sort of thing Quentin Tarantino would do.

Or - a slightly different version - you start on the full bottle of drink. They agree to have one drink. Just ONE. Cut to later on, and the bottle is still full, but contains a different coloured drink.

So maybe it starts with red wine, and when you cut back to the red wine bottle, it's full of Lilt.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE?!

Proper film-making. That's the sort of thing David Lynch would do.

Or how about, you start with the full bottle, they agree to have one drink (just ONE), you cut to later on and the bottle is still there, and is one drink's worth of liquid less full. So, you think they've stuck to their promise. But THEN it's revealed that whilst they only had one drink from that bottle, they supplemented that with many other different kinds of drink. Maybe they started with red wine and moved on to spirits. Or cans of lager.

They'd still struggle to pull of that whole funeral hoax or pass their SATs.

You've been confounded when you thought you'd been the opposite of that (profounded).

Or, right, maybe you start with a full bottle, they agree to have a single drink (and make these intentions known to the audience), and then we dissolve through time, but this time we go EARLIER in time. It's a flashback to when the bottle was forged, or when the table didn't have a bottle on it. It wouldn't really impact on the important event our characters are to attend - that's hundreds of years in the future - but would certainly be interesting, wouldn't it?

It's the sort of thing Sergio Leone would do. If he was alive and had significantly reduced the scope of his creative vision.

The possibilities are endless. But I can't go through them all.

But I can go through loads of them.

Some alternates:

• Full bottle - they decide to have MANY drinks - time cut - they've only had one
• Full bottle - they decide to have ONE drink - time cut - there's an eyeball in the drink
• Drawing of a bottle - they decide to have ONE drink - time cut - they realise they can't drink a picture
• Full gravy boat - they decide to have ONE portion of gravy - time cut - they've had all of the gravy
• Full bottle - they decide to have UNO drink - time cut - they're Spanish

The list goes on. In my head, it goes on.

Next time you see this scene (which will probably be in about fifteen minutes), see whether they've gone for the basic version (which is absolutely fine and admirable) or if they've gone for something out of left-field.

And if they have, raise a glass to their ingenuity. But only one - you have that trial in the morning. Just one.

ONE.

Definitely ONE.

It's what Roman Polanski would do.