A Language Re(de)fined
After watching the film "12 Angry Men" a couple weeks ago, I was reminded of a theory Sean had that has stuck with me. He mentioned one time (and please correct me if I'm wrong, Sean) that if you took these old "tacky" black and white movies and just edited them to be a bit faster for today's audiences, they would still be very accessible to the modern viewer. (This obviously won't work with some movies that were already very poor at the time.)
"12 Angry Men" is a perfect example. It's only flaw is that the film language is faster now. The acting is great, the setting, lighting, etc are all great, but we understand all the cutting cues much faster than when it was brand new. It's like how language changes. If you read an old book sometimes the only problem is with it's redundancy. It takes a while to make a small point. The other problem with old books can be its terms, which change over time. I think this is less of an issue with film, because the terms are largely visual, and almost never change.
Last week the New York Times published an adapted excerpt of Steven Johnson's new book: "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter." In his article Mr. Johnson deals with exactly what Sean was talking about, how these dialogue and editing cues have just gotten tighter and less conspicuous. Although I don't believe it's making anyone smarter, it's just changing. (As for the "new" necessity to pick up tiny plot details, did Mr. Johnson take into consideration a labyrinthine film noir like "The Big Sleep" or my favorite, "Out of The Past"?)
As for color, I'm not sure if color is more acceptable now than b/w. Although I'd like to think given the right circumstance they are equals, but color certainly gives a lot more information on the screen than b/w, and modern b/w has to compensate. "Sin City" is a great example of a modern film that uses b/w cinematography just as well as any all-color movie.
"Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" are two fantastic examples tightening up an old popular genre, the serial, and making it relevant to the modern viewer. I'm not sure if Mr. Lucas set out to change our movie-going experience, but he did set out to take the old outdated serial he enjoyed as a kid and update it. To do that he had to not only edit tighter, but he also had make the film's world more accessible. All of the model work couldn't be in long shot, they had to act like vehicles in modern movies by having a dramatic spatial relationship to the viewer. For example, moving ships closer and farther away from the camera with a wide angle lens. In the film, definitions for strange things should be taken for granted, as in real life. Cut out the fluff (like exposition on how a lightsaber works) and get to the point. By paying special attention to the clarity of drama in the way the story was told, he kept the film in the exact spirit of the old story-style. It drew the attention closer to the drama that was always there, and in turn updated the movie-going experience.
So I suppose in conclusion: there are some great ideas out there that just happen to be told in an older language.
"12 Angry Men" is a perfect example. It's only flaw is that the film language is faster now. The acting is great, the setting, lighting, etc are all great, but we understand all the cutting cues much faster than when it was brand new. It's like how language changes. If you read an old book sometimes the only problem is with it's redundancy. It takes a while to make a small point. The other problem with old books can be its terms, which change over time. I think this is less of an issue with film, because the terms are largely visual, and almost never change.
Last week the New York Times published an adapted excerpt of Steven Johnson's new book: "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter." In his article Mr. Johnson deals with exactly what Sean was talking about, how these dialogue and editing cues have just gotten tighter and less conspicuous. Although I don't believe it's making anyone smarter, it's just changing. (As for the "new" necessity to pick up tiny plot details, did Mr. Johnson take into consideration a labyrinthine film noir like "The Big Sleep" or my favorite, "Out of The Past"?)
As for color, I'm not sure if color is more acceptable now than b/w. Although I'd like to think given the right circumstance they are equals, but color certainly gives a lot more information on the screen than b/w, and modern b/w has to compensate. "Sin City" is a great example of a modern film that uses b/w cinematography just as well as any all-color movie.
"Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" are two fantastic examples tightening up an old popular genre, the serial, and making it relevant to the modern viewer. I'm not sure if Mr. Lucas set out to change our movie-going experience, but he did set out to take the old outdated serial he enjoyed as a kid and update it. To do that he had to not only edit tighter, but he also had make the film's world more accessible. All of the model work couldn't be in long shot, they had to act like vehicles in modern movies by having a dramatic spatial relationship to the viewer. For example, moving ships closer and farther away from the camera with a wide angle lens. In the film, definitions for strange things should be taken for granted, as in real life. Cut out the fluff (like exposition on how a lightsaber works) and get to the point. By paying special attention to the clarity of drama in the way the story was told, he kept the film in the exact spirit of the old story-style. It drew the attention closer to the drama that was always there, and in turn updated the movie-going experience.
So I suppose in conclusion: there are some great ideas out there that just happen to be told in an older language.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home