f
Why we like or dislike a film may rarely be in step with our conscious rationale of why. Art is an odd spell and few of us know which of its words make us fall into a slumber and which snap us back to reality. The tiniest things can make all the difference - even a pink sweater instead of red...
We talk about liking the plot, the ideas, the look, the atmosphere, the music, the characters, the acting and all the combinations of the above. It is easier to quantify, understand and communicate these bigger and more obvious components of a film, and much harder to pin down the smaller parts that give each film its unique fingerprint.
We must struggle, too, with the idea that films may be made out of different components but that they categorically do not work on us in that way. These components cannot be fully separated once they have been put together.
One of the elements least (consciously) acknowledged when we look over our experience of a film is what we could call the work's 'musicality'. Yes, we may talk about a film being too long or too short, or about it moving too slowly or too quickly, but little else besides.
So what are we discussing when it comes to tempo, rhythm, length and timing?
Shot length / Placement of Cut
Is the shot too short or too long? In a film that sets its heartbeat at 40 a shot that lasts for a few minutes may be perfect. One such is a mesmerising journey on a train at the beginning of Tie Xi Qu: West of the Tracks.
One shouldn't underestimate the difference that a fraction of a second can make. Intrigue can flip to boredom at a moment's notice.
Is the movement of the camera or movement within the frame demanding a cut? Is the action inappropriately truncated? Has an emotional arc, or a developing ambience been betrayed?
Scene length
Is the scene too short or too long? There will come a point where a scene will outstay its welcome or, on the other hand, stop when we wish it hadn't. This may only be felt as a barely perceptible twinge.
The pace/build of action and plot progression
Is the story being served properly? Is it being allowed to breathe the right air? Is it ahead of itself or behind? Is too much said too early or too late? Is there enough in the film to sustain the time given to it?
What is the mix of quickness and slowness? Is it too programmatic, episodic or set to one particular rhythm?
Time spent on each part of the story or each geographical location
Is too much emphasis placed on certain plot strands?
Let the Right One In, having established the core of the story as the relationship between the two youngsters and courted our interest with its flourishing, wastes a surfeit of time on Eli's quest for blood.
Timing of reactions to actions / Timing of Edits
We must bear in mind that actors aren't actually 'reacting' to what is news to the characters.
Let us take Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as an example. On multiple occasions people act and react a split second too early or too late, whether through the fault of the acting or of the editing. We are instinctively alarmed by the unnatural.
These are only brief thoughts, a polite pointing in the direction of something camouflaged. The right thing at the right time can produce magic; the right thing at the wrong time, discordance; wrong thing at the wrong time, ruin.
All of these elements form part of an overarching mother rhythm and length. Have we spent enough time extracting the juice of the story - exploring implications, feeling emotions, sensing surroundings...?
It is a mistake to think of a film as having one body with one unchanging rhythm. It changes itself and it changes as we change in response. It is constantly adapting itself to serve the story. You cannot think of a film as being in four-four time or six-eight.
This is not pro the metrics of cinema, which are intriguing as tools to map cinema's mechanical evolution, but of limited use in explaining our idiosyncratic thoughts or sensations. Such-and-such a technique can never guarantee such-and-such an effect. We can say that something made us feel in a certain way but there are no universal conclusions to be drawn.
It is for each of us to feel and, in any way we can, explain our individual responses.
It is useful, nevertheless, to be aware of what may have an influence on the viewer. We should try and engage with the musical in film, that which flits between the scientific, the personal and the philosophical
This musical nature will make or break a film in spite, often, of everything else within it.
Yet another thoughtful and intricate post that certainly poses a structured explanation of what might attract a person to a particular film. As always there is no easy delineation, and in fact as you expertly document its a combination of aspects.
ReplyDeleteThank you Sam.
ReplyDeleteThere's often so much more to a film than what we give credit for. Of course few reviews spend much time expounding on things that cannot be grasped or explained.
I don’t think the microcosms of filmmaking including, but not exclusive to, the finer colors and temperates and the beat-by-beat editorial flow can every be fully anatomized in any clear categorical way. Of course, that shouldn’t stop one from merely expressing how a certain scene, shot, frame or “moment” in general affected them, good or bad. Having viewed different cuts of Michael Mann’s Manhunter, the scene where Graham revisits the Leeds house during a rainstorm is chimed differently but ever-so-slightly with the last shot.
ReplyDeleteOne version has Graham mind-tripping himself into the killer’s thoughts and feelings as he approaches the bed of the mother and father victims, seeing the wife, Mrs. Leeds, with shimmering optics: “I see myself accepted and loved, in the silver mirrors of your eyes.” -- which then cuts to an extreme close-up of Graham, backlit with a kind of dreamy white glow, and the only sound heard is the outside rain. In Mann’s later cut the sequence is almost identical, save for that last close-up shot of Graham, where instead of raindrops, the soundtrack kicks in with ‘Strong As I Am’ (by the Prime Movers) which overlaps into the following scene where Dolarhyde is waiting in his parked van outside the blind girl’s apartment. It’s only a miniscule, split-second difference in musical editing, but none-the-less shifts the cumulative affect of the scene. The first version, without the music overlay, is the better version, in my opinion; Graham’s close-up matched only with the ambient sound of the rain was more haunting and strangely isolated to its own realm. But I can only wonder how many people, who’ve seen both versions, were ever aware of the difference to begin with.
I am curious to hear what shots or reaction shots from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull were edited in poor sync. I’ve seen that film numerous times and noticed nothing of the sort.
Cannon,
ReplyDelete"I don’t think the microcosms of filmmaking including, but not exclusive to, the finer colors and temperates and the beat-by-beat editorial flow can every be fully anatomized in any clear categorical way. Of course, that shouldn’t stop one from merely expressing how a certain scene, shot, frame or “moment” in general affected them, good or bad."
Precisely. That is what I was trying to say here. I was setting out, in a fairly cursory way, those things that may have an influence.
That is interesting regarding Manhunter. I haven't seen it for a long time and can't remember that particular scene.
"I am curious to hear what shots or reaction shots from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull were edited in poor sync. I’ve seen that film numerous times and noticed nothing of the sort."
There's a scene in the Area 51 hangar where Spalko takes out her sword and sticks it to Indiana's throat. The action takes too long over two shots to be surprising and for Jones to react as shocked and discomfited as he does.
Another moment is when the two Russian heavies come up to Mutt and Jones in the diner. Mutt puts a knife on the table and Jones begins to say (slowly) something about "bringing a knife...[long pause waiting for Russians to brandish guns]...to a gunfight". It's too long. You can see the join. This example is less about the editing between shots and more just about the timing of dialogue and action.
There are other instances which I can't remember off the top of my head. Things like this set the film back. As I said, we all see things in different ways. If it's natural for you, then there's no problem.