You seen that Honest Trailers video for Breaking Bad?* While, on the whole, a pretty positive endorsement for the show (along with it being a funny, well-observed video), there is a jab about a seemingly pointless family kitchen scene without dialogue. Whether they're digging at the show itself or satirizing viewers who watch it merely to see Walter do the next "awesome" thing is left to the perspective of the viewer, but it nonetheless raises interesting questions about pacing and the subjective discourse about what is "necessary" or "padding" in a piece of film or television.
Film is a visual medium. As such, I would argue there are more movies with intelligent scripts than there are intelligent movies. To deny the medium you're working in its true potential by focusing on the writing and performances is, in my view, is a waste. To illustrate the problem I have with this narrative (and often, as a result, quite literal) tunnel-vision, I'll cite a couple of unquestioningly canonised "classics": Network and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance**. Network is an excellent thesis, a good radio play and, in my opinion, a weak piece of film-making. The cinematography is more or less "get the actors in shot"; the imagery (aside from the closing studio camera montage) is secondary and the dialogue is witty, incisive and more-or-less completely devoid of any natural chemistry. It looks great on the page, it'd sound great as a (slightly hectoring) lecture, but the characters never react to each other: they just wait for a monologue to finish so they can start their own. It is, in a respect, over-written.
Exposition. There's a high probability you're thinking of talking when I say that. But, I would argue that a great film-maker would see what they can portray visually instead of relying on the script. Imagine if, instead of that penetrating (and entirely visual) scene involving the acknowledgement of Michael's place as the new head of the Corleone family - his all-to-comfortable posture; the half-closed door standing between him and the unsettled, anxious Kay; the simple gesture of the kiss that tells you exactly what's happening without needing to say shit - the end of the Godfather went like this:
[SCENE: ROOM. MICHAEL AND KAY ARE STANDING IN IT]
KAY: I thought you said you weren't like them! Did you kill all those people? Are you the new Don? I CAN'T take this anymore, Michael. I'm frightened of you now! I feel foolish for thinking you could have been different! What happens now? Is this the end?
[Michael waits patiently for her to finish, for some reason]
MICHAEL: DON'T ASK ME ABOUT MY BUSINESS. But since you have, I will cover each question respectively. With regards to me not being like my family... etc.***
So many complex emotions going on in that scene, and its such an important part of the story, but Coppola's skill ensures that no dialogue is necessary to convey them fully.
Film is not the only audio-visual medium, of course: theatre can suffer equally from Radio Play-itis. While not a font of knowledge on the subject, I have had enough exposure to the acknowledged core Shakespeare plays to say that The Man (for He is unquestionethedethded) was unparalleled in his ability to colourfully and concisely phrase fundamental human questions. It is, to be blindingly obvious, "endlessly quotable", but... but... was he not a greater writer of the written word than a stage-director? There's a lot of talking in Shakespeare's plays (Duuuuh!) ... but think about it: he tends to be remembered as a writer that stirs the imagination, rather than a playwright who conjures it. People talk about the cinematography of Citizen Kane (as well, I feel, they should). Comparable time is not afforded Shakespeare's stage directions, however*. Whether this represents a flaw, a popular oversight or me talking crap is left to your judgement. Despite the plays themselves being a standby of the theatre world, for many non-academic appreciators (myself included): its all about the words.
To return to that "filler" family scene from Breaking Bad: is it really filler? In order to judge this we must ascertain if it has any character or narrative function in the story. I would argue that it has both. Even with no verbal content, a new viewer would likely pick up the tension in the scene and, from merely the "eye-acting" and body language of the characters, whose role is which in the unspoken argument. The placing of it at the kitchen table - the most domestic and mundane of settings - is particularly pertinent when one considers the role of "family" in Walt's life, and the way that dynamic evolves throughout the series. In short: it may be subtle, but it's far from pointless.
Speaking of eyeballs (and clumsily trying to come full circle here), the still at the top of this post is, as you may already be aware, from Sergio Leone's The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. There are, I would argue, few more "visual" directors of the post-silent era. The fact that he could barely speak a word of English (and yet directed dialogue in English), likely spurred his concentration on tableaux and long gazes between characters over extensive verbal duelling. Scenes can go for 15 minutes without a word being spoken. The much-lauded "silent" introduction to Once Upon The Time in a West - a wonderful example of "pure" film-making in which not only do the main characters say nothing, there's no music either - works because the characters are explained through what they do, how they react to circumstances and how they hold themselves. Yet I include the still from the Good, the Bad... to actually show the "long silent exchange" theory he usually applies with unparalleled skill, well... not really working that well. Now, I love that film. I love his careful pacing... but I would argue that the length of the hushed "Mexican standoff" pictured is largely unnecessary partly because it has just one function: tension. No character development, no narrative thrust, just "when are they gonna shoot?". The music is GLORIOUS, and it seems likely (as was Leone's wont) that he wished for the pre-composed score to run its course entirely before the scene cut. However, for all the majesty of the score, after a couple of minutes the well of tension begins to run dry and you are left with no real kinesis. The exception, I feel, that proves the rule.
*If you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDqGAUvWKkU
**Basically has the same "stageyness" (or is that "booky"?) issues as Network. Which is weird coming from such a visually confident director as John Ford. Still worth watching, mind.
***copyright Christopher Nolan.
****Oh, except 'EXITS PURSUED BY BEAR', Which is pretty funny.
No comments:
Post a Comment