Most recent public comments by Vitaliy Dmukhovskyy https://nowcomment.com/users/24066 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640612 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640612 Reading the novel absolutely adds an extra layer of insight into the film, and story itself. It makes it easier to follow. At the same time, the stylistic elements of the film (split screen), help to convey the stylistic elements that Faulkner was writing with. Still, I believe there is a more effective way of representing Faulkner's multi-faceted style than with split screens. Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:53:22 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640610 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640610 The split screen was probably also a way to keep the run time down to standards. Although I also believe that this film could have been made in standard run time and better than the way Franco made it, his use of split screen did help in some way. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:37:26 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640609 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640609 Writing is half autobiography and half fiction. Part of the reason Faulkner wrote what he wrote was because of these formative experiences. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:23:34 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640600 Is it a good idea to create a film that takes multiple viewings? There are novels, Faulkner's included, that make the reader need to read through them twice to gain an understanding of the plot and the events that happen. There are also films that have this quality. I believe that using split screen as a way to merit the quality of requiring more than one view is an amateur way to do it. Simply because this isn't about trying to notice the truth the second time around, but about trying to notice what the hell is going on in both screens. Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:01:19 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640598 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640598 It is a very honorable way to show respect to the original creator by including his personal assets in the film. In a way, assets mean nothing, but at the same time, they are remnants of the people that have left us. Faulkner's home was important to him, and that's why including it is a great sentiment to the author. Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:12:20 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636187 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636187 It's a given that if two different things are going on at the same time, and even not at the same time but still at the same time, we have to look at least twice as hard to figure out what's going on. Fri, 09 Dec 2016 22:32:55 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635517 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635517 Shreya I too can see how this movie was more of Franco's little passion project rather than something he intended for lots of people to see. And I also agree when you say that the original text is too unorthodox and complex to be turned into a film. I want the film to work, it just seems like a great idea to have such a novel made into a film. But the execution just wasn't there. The split screen is impossible to watch, because it's impossible to multitask. You end up getting frustrated because of that sometimes. And the acting is subpar for what these great actors are capable of. James Franco's character I swear sometimes looks like he's trying not to laugh when something serious happens. The film just feels lifeless somehow, and I think acting and the split screens were a part of that undesired effect. Fri, 09 Dec 2016 04:03:31 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635516 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635516 The point is to shift center of focus from one point, or better say one character to another, and to develop multiple points of view, essentially a complex web of interactions. This goal aims to shed objective truths about human nature in fictitious settings and stories. Thu, 08 Dec 2016 23:30:43 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635514 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635514 Have you ever seen Yasujirō Ozu's Tokyo Story? There's 6 or 7 important characters in it, all of which Ozu develops fully and with emotionally honest sensibilities. The whole crux of the film relies on the viewer seeing these character's multiple perspectives and the complex human dynamics in the context of being a family. Ozu accomplishes this effortlessly and beautifully, and without using any split screens. The run time for the film is about the same, but the extent to which Ozu manages to capture that which Franco strove to capture, varies immensely. Oh and Ozu doesn't move the camera at all (he does one single time); compared to Franco's never-endingly shaky camera, and at many times just poor framing, I can only see his adaptation as an insult to the original masterpiece Faulkner wrote. Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:01:19 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635513 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635513 From what I've noticed in other movies that use split screen moderately (if only once at all), is it works best if used more as a suspense, reflection, or stylistic tool . Take In The Mood for Love and Requiem for Dream as examples. In The Mood for Love uses split screen once or twice to show the husband smoking with his head held in his hands, while his wife is somewhere else making a phone call to the man she is having an affair with. Throughout the film we never see the wife's face, and in fact she is a completely negligible character in the film. The split screen works with this effectively because it only develops one point in the story, and that is that the wife is a cheater, and the husband is worried and not sure what to think. Because there's only one thing going on, we can actually pay attention to the juxtaposition, and because the two scenes being juxtaposed have minimal action, we are able to reflect properly to the circumstances that both characters are in. That in itself is a more effective way of developing character with split screens. Requiem for a Dream uses the split screen in two ways. One of the ways is similar to In The Mood for Love; we have one character locked behind a door peering through the peephole on one side of the frame, and another character trying to talk the other to come out. The split screen lasts for a minute and there is no action in it beside for the character talking to each other. The character locked behind the door looks worried and afraid the entire time, which builds suspense to the commanding tone of the other character. The other way it is used is in the montage scenes of the different characters taking drugs. This works extremely well as a stylistic choice. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09rIoDx-Tts) Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:01:19 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635512 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635512 Yes it very much is an attempt to imitate Faulkner's complex technique of showing multiple perspectives. However I agree with the critic when he/she writes that "Like Franco's other directorial efforts, it ends up coming across as an academic art object, somewhere between a graduate thesis and video installation. ". The split screen stuff is pretentious unless used moderately. Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:01:19 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635507 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635507 James Franco probably tried specifically to utilize split screen in order to convey different perspectives and emotions -- essentially character depths. But I think that he failed in his intentions. You can't keep a majority of a movie on split screen especially if you then also want to disrupt the continuity of time in the the story. I think that it only manages to work in rare split seconds when my mind, after scrambling to hold the different perspectives together, manages to finally get hold of the continuity. Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:01:19 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635497 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=635497 Faulkner was known for incorporating multiple viewpoints in his novels, something that the realists like Tolstoy and Chekhov were practicing a few decades before Faulkner's time. What makes writing with multiple viewpoints in mind so full of merit, is that it is in effect an honest approach to providing insight into the characters and their actions. The crappiest people can do good things, the most righteous of people can do bad things. Fri, 09 Dec 2016 04:22:57 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=635494 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=635494 Yeah the voice over and use of flashbacks aren't there but there are other elements that come together to make The Big Sleep essentially a film noir. Femme fatale as you pointed out is one. Another is a complicated and far fetched plot. A couple of others are an urban setting, a cynical detective, poetic dialogue, and my favorite, lots of drinking and smoking. Roger Ebert once very comedically wrote that "everybody in film noir is always smoking, as if to say, "On top of everything else, I've been assigned to get through three packs today." The best smoking movie of all time is "Out of the Past," in which Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas smoke furiously at each other. At one point, Mitchum enters a room, Douglas extends a pack and says, "Cigarette?" and Mitchum, holding up his hand, says, "Smoking."" Fri, 09 Dec 2016 04:22:27 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=635381 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=635381 Especially because her character was not part of the original story, and because the studio wanted a woman in the movie because it would increase the amount of people going to watch the movie, Crawford's initial character was one that was assembled with a remissive attitude. Fri, 09 Dec 2016 04:21:08 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=635358 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=635358 I can't believe I messed that up. Still though, wouldn't having the British be heroes as well be a way to play on the sentiments of the country? The British and Americans are allies after all, both diplomatically and during time of war. And, Bogart is the star hero, he is the one to savor the applause at the end. The dynamic of everyone being heroes but our American is the star hero should certainly be a clever way to play on the sentiments of the audience. Fri, 09 Dec 2016 04:20:20 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=635356 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=635356 I am aware that film theory was already quite advanced at this moment in time. Looking at Dr.Caligari, The Passion of Joan of Arc, a Fritz Lang or Murnau film easily make this apparent. Also, this is the same moment in time that Eisenstein wrote about editing and film. I have also heard about the criticism against talkies, coming from both critics and renowned directors such as Chaplin. I guess it wasn't film theory that I was considering but the scope and sensibilities under which the American directors were working during the 30s. And that scope consists mostly of romances, comedies, and children's films. Fri, 09 Dec 2016 04:17:45 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634718 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634718 It's interesting to consider whether not having a romance would make a noir film fail. David Fincher's Se7en, Coen brothers's Fargo, and Refn's Drive are all arguably film noir without a femme fatale. All the the other standards apply (for instance a cool and cynical protagonist, beside Fargo at least). It is also interesting to consider other film noir that does have a love interest. Take Le Samourai with Alain Delon in role of the cool detective. The love interest is a girl working at a club where Alain assassinated the owner of the club. She was called as a witness to the crime, and spares Alain of being guilty. This all happens in the first 30 minutes. We don't hear or see her again after this until the very end. The entire second act happens with eyes all on Alain. And in the second act all we do is watch how Alain goes about his life. Yet, the second act is extremely entertaining and interesting to watch, regardless of the little plot that is developed. Wed, 07 Dec 2016 22:18:38 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634703 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634703 "every time you see it you can get a different meaning or catch something you didn't see before", is a perfect way to describe the effect the movie has on future viewings. The fact is that there is no answer, and so every time you rewatch it, hoping that you will find a new detail that will help you understand what's going in, you end up coming to a dead end. But reaching that dead end isn't as bad as it sounds, because you still manage to pick up on subtleties that weren't noticeable before, but help add a new dimension to the story. Wed, 07 Dec 2016 21:53:38 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634680 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634680 As Dude Lebowski once said, "This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head. Luckily I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, limber." Wed, 07 Dec 2016 20:51:20 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634678 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634678 Linguistic wisdom in the context of GuanXing's comment is essentially synonymous to wit. However, there also another point to the wit, and that it is subtle. There are no explicit moments where you can imagine a laugh track being put in. It is all very much in how invested the viewer is in the character. This is why the things they say come off as wise; they fit perfectly to the characters personalities and sense of humor, and because of this it is not phony dialogue, but instead something along the lines of subtle wise wit (not in a philosophical or moral sense). Wed, 07 Dec 2016 23:14:19 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634677 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634677 The suspense in The Big Sleep is built off of the conflict between characters, particularly between Bogart and Bacall. Conflict in this case isn't necessarily a battle of good vs. evil, but of the two coming together vs. not coming together. Kind of like in The Cherry Orchard by Chekhov, the plot is meaningless and happens off stage most of the time without us paying attention because, quite simply, we are too preoccupied with watching what is presently on screen. It is a mystery in and of itself because we have hints thrown at us all the time, but to only shortly after have our attention is thrown in the other direction (Bogart and Bacall's direction). We keep trying to figure it out, but we never will. Wed, 07 Dec 2016 20:36:13 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634676 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634676 The Long Goodbye, directed by Altman, is one of my favorite movies. Marlowe, played by Elliott Gould, is just as cynical, cool, and humorous as the one Bogart plays in The Big Sleep. There are some differences; for one Elliott Gould is not as seductive as the version of Marlowe played by Bogart is. Still, the core characteristics of Marlowe are there and they very much are an important part in giving these movies a noir feel. The Long Goodbye isn't your typical detective film noir, but that's because Altman has a different palate and vision, especially during the time he made it (the early 70s). Wed, 07 Dec 2016 20:29:23 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634675 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634675 It very much is unusual to watch something that is convoluted and appealing. It happens to work with The Big Sleep because of its genre, film noir, which works with other elements to make the story appealing without having a clear and legible plot. Wed, 07 Dec 2016 20:14:11 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634424 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=634424 Wed, 07 Dec 2016 14:40:01 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=634396 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=634396 The obligation of censorship is to restriction any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order of society. Wed, 07 Dec 2016 14:08:29 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=634374 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=634374 The true meaning of a novel or story can be grasped by a film without including miscellaneous details. What matters is the important symbols, conflicts, character motivations and personalities, and the right settings for all of these things to come alive. We deduce a meaning with these characters from their actions and interactions. By adding miscellaneous details you do manage to complement the world of the story -- you season it -- but the central drama which is the focus of the story will still be unchanged. There are some directors however that make films with minute attention to details. Stanley Kubrick is possibly the most famous example. David Fincher and Buster Keaton also. Wed, 07 Dec 2016 13:35:23 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=634365 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=634365 Looking back I see how deeper is a poor word choice to describe what I'm thinking. I did not mean to bring in the artistic merit of novels in comparison to films. I meant something more along the lines of descriptive, and in-depth. The extent to which either medium can convey a theme is something dependant on the creators that work with those mediums. Wed, 07 Dec 2016 13:19:50 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634061 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634061 The more heroes the better. If you have a whole cast of people that do heroic things, but still manage to maintain dramatic tension and focus on the main characters, the you've accomplished something that is very much important to accomplish during a period of war in the country. By showing three Americans as heroes you play on the sentiments of the country. It's a brilliant move by Hawks to do so, because then with this film he could advance his position as a director for future projects (many of which moved away from any war sentiments). Fri, 09 Dec 2016 04:20:20 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634060 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634060 How advanced was film and film theory back then? Obviously not as advanced as when the French came along and the realists like Bergman came onto the scene. It is almost a given that the romances in movies during this time period would be introduced in some coincidental or kitch way because the people who watched the movies really didn't really watch these movies with a critical eye. People who watch movies still don't apply a critical eye, but that's beside the point. The idea that a movie has the potential to represent pure truth was a concept not so much paid attention to during this time. This is also why any continuity errors in setting could be neglected. Fri, 09 Dec 2016 04:17:45 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634059 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634059 I mean, what can you expect? This was Faulkner's first film adaptation of his own original story. That's why it was different from the "general run of cinematic works", and also why at times it may have seemed that some scenes were too lengthy. The genius of Faulkner is evident in literature, where themes and characters can be developed with minute attention to detail, but in film that same minute attention to detail has to be transposed in order to fit the rules of theater, which is not easy without changing the original drama, themes, and nature of characters and the way they are developed. Tue, 06 Dec 2016 23:02:13 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634057 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634057 I feel that it was more than just fitting in. She wanted to not have to struggle to fit in, she wanted to from the start to be treated as an equal amongst her co-stars before even putting in the effort to portraying her character as one that is in the same league and of the same capability as her male counterparts. By changing the dialogue, you change the dimensions of the character. She wanted the face-value dimensions of her character (dialogue, quirks) equal in respect to those that her co-stars had. Wed, 07 Dec 2016 03:37:16 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634056 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634056 Given that America had just come back from the First World War, war movies were all the rave and all the more relevant to the spectrum of members in the audience. Movies are an escape to fantasy and dreams. This is one of the reasons why war movies were popular during this time; this also one of the reasons why you need to have a beautiful love interest to captivate and romanticize the situation of reality, which needed a moral and emotional boost. Wed, 07 Dec 2016 03:36:33 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634053 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634053 You're right flashbacks are supposed to give information that would not else be introduced logically in present time. At the same time, during this period of filmmaking, the amount of importance put on characters is less than the drama of the plot and conflicts. By having stars be the characters, the development of characters was allowed to be more lenient, because regardless people would be interested in the character (because they're played by stars everyone knew and loved). Wed, 07 Dec 2016 03:33:37 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634052 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=634052 I agree with you Thonny. Without getting into specifics, the simple matter of fact is that having Faulkner write in flashbacks would result in Hawks having to do more preparation in addition to the preparation for getting all of the important dramatic elements of the story right. Either way, the flashback was unnecessary in this particular story because it could only be used as exposition of information (about characters), and all the important information was already given in the beginning of the film. Tue, 06 Dec 2016 21:52:17 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=628776 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=628776 An otherwise flat character becomes a rich and captivating one through Tommy Lee Jones's performance. Why focus on Tommy Lee Jones's character? Two things: One, the character of Snopes in itself has the potential (if not arguably already is) of being the most interesting character in the story. If one can't relate to the setting and time period of Faulkner's story, they at least can surely relate and grasp the personification of evil that is Snopes. This makes him more interesting than the other characters who are quite withdrawn. Now if you add Tommy Lee into the mix, you get the second reason why the script focuses on his character -- that is, making the palpability of Snopes's evil more pronounced, which makes watching the movie more interesting. I believe this predicament is relatable to Fight Club and Tyler Durden. Sat, 03 Dec 2016 05:09:23 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=628767 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=628767 Faulkner actually lived in that house from 1930s until his death in 1972. His writing were inspired by the stories surrounding his house; stories of local Indians, runaway slaves, old colonels and spinsters. He incorporated the history of his own location into his own memories of the traditional south. Wed, 07 Dec 2016 16:35:33 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620986 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620986 I feel that Faulkner is one of those creative people that when inspired by a specific idea, they will obsessively work towards realizing it. This is why those two months of writing Pylon were done in urgency. And, taking into account Faulkner's huge output of writing, he might have needed a break from writing Absalom, Absalom! in order to return back to it after a period of time with a fresh and subjective view of what had written already. Thu, 08 Dec 2016 17:59:51 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620975 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620975 "A story trying to tell a story". This reminds me of the late Hunter Thompson and the way his books, particularly Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, unfold. And they unfold with a journalist going someplace to report on an event, but then has his personal experience become the main story. Sat, 19 Nov 2016 03:51:39 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620953 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620953 "Cowley's description, including his mention of the "quick, sharp, condensed" action is as applicable to a shooting script." This claim makes sense seeing as how both play and film are fundamentally theater. The specific characters traits, and those sharp and condensed actions possibly were intended to complement each characters' personality. I can understand the criticism that critics would have had in complaining about character development because reading about the reporter flapping his coat, or Jiggs bouncing as he walked, would take away a certain kind of seriousness and would devolve characters to being imagined as almost 2-dimensional cartoons. However, when adapted to play or script, our imagination does not need to merely rest its interpretation on these characters' specific traits, because we can see the body language of the character, which is supplementary to these traits. Sat, 19 Nov 2016 03:52:34 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=600169 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=600169 What Bogard might be getting at is that he's not one of those typical white collar guys, he's outside of this culture, and in a sense also outside of society. Moreover, this is clearly sarcasm, and his sarcasm is hinting at that he isn't the type to get fazed by people's comments or disrespect. Fri, 21 Oct 2016 05:45:38 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=600052 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=600052 He's always cool and composed. He responds with straight to the point lines that have a bit of a sarcastic element to them (which in a way is charismatic). He is also pragmatic and a man of action -- he likes dealing with issues using the gun he has in his hand and the gun in his mouth. All at the same time he is kind of lonely but totally stone faced about it (and everything else), which makes him seem mysterious. Fri, 21 Oct 2016 05:43:07 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=600035 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=600035 The movie grounds itself in the characters, the wittiness, hard-boiledness, and the love between Bogard and Bacall. To substitute the lack of a coherent plot, the attention is rather diverted to the interactions between the characters. To maximize this way of shooting a movie requires an extensive amount of dialogue. And the dialogue in The Big Sleep might just be the best part about this movie. Fri, 21 Oct 2016 05:40:39 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56416?scroll_to=588098 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56416?scroll_to=588098 In the movie "In the Mood for love", two characters who show hints at wanting a romance also live next door to each other. Although the door are adjacent to each other, the facing doorways to Bogart's and Bacall's rooms use the same effect. That is, physically setting up the notions that these two characters are going to have a romance. At the same time, it physically sets up chance run ins between the characters, which all in all come in to help move the plot forward. Fri, 07 Oct 2016 03:41:21 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56416?scroll_to=588083 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56416?scroll_to=588083 Throughout the film, Bogart's collar is always messy, his clothes always a bit crumpled, and half the time he has his captain's hat on. Meanwhile, all of the other men in the movie (beside Brennan) have pristine, fully suited up attires. Likewise, Lauren Bacall wears very nice suits and dresses, and silky nightgowns. Clearly the distinction between classes and history of these characters can be seen through their costume design. Sat, 08 Oct 2016 05:23:02 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56416?scroll_to=588081 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56416?scroll_to=588081 The use of music builds on the romance at times, and at other times stresses the drama and violence. For example is the scene where Humphrey Bogart sits in the cafe and the piano man starts a duet with Lauren Bacall. She sings a romantic song about longing and even looks at Bogart through the corner of her eyes at times when singing. This piece of music is both entertaining and symbolic, which is why it works well. Same goes for the scenes where people are running around shooting; the music is filled with blaring trumpets that intensify the scene. Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:01:18 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=574866 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=574866 I feel that Watts is taking a stab at the naivety of the then MPPDA President, Will H. Hays. Paraphrasing more or less, Watts is saying that film censorship is there so that the esteemed Mr.Hays isn't devastated when he sees reality unfold on screen. It is crucial that Mr.Hays's fine-tuned morals and ethics be protected because he is a sensitive man. My inference is that many people didn't see a need for, or were not happy by the introduction of film censorship. . Fri, 16 Sep 2016 05:37:45 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=574832 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=574832 Films and novels both tell stories. However, novels tell detailed stories while films tells stories with chunks trimmed off. It's unavoidable: the essence of a film or play demands to get to the heart of the drama, conflict, and character motivations/changes. On the other hand, an author of a novel has the ability to expand on and illustrate the inner thoughts and outside expressions that characters have, and do it with more fluidity, clarity, and detail than a film (also in less time). In the case of Temple Drake, this wasn't only this reason that might have made Bruce Kawin criticize the film's sophistication. It was also the explicit content of the novel, which simply had to be left out, and filled in with sexual symbolism, which hardly has any depth but to state the matter of fact. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 00:00:44 -0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=569786 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=569786 The original story simply didn't call for flashbacks. All of the exposition for characters was done through dialogue and action. Same goes for the film adaptation; there was no need to bring exposition through a flashback. Bogard didn't know Diana before he showed up trying to buy the house, so the flashback would have had to be about their personal lives. That's lame, especially since we get to know the most essential details of their lives in the first 20 minutes. If Hawks didn't insist on it, Faulker might have had the idea to write a flashback, but then he would have had to change around the story in order to squeeze it in. This would have either impeded on the story, or would have predisposed Hawks to having another element to include. In his situation then he would have probably skipped over the flashback if it was written, because he would first, as director, need to have a total understanding and vision from the basics of the story. If at that point Hawks envisioned a flashback happening, then he would have included it. He's no amateur. Fri, 09 Sep 2016 03:25:14 -0700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=569782 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=569782 "Turn About" begins and almost immediately sets up the bedrock of the film: the love conflict between Diana, Bogard, and Hope. This is the conflict that drives the story. However, having this conflict alone would result in a flat story. Because the love triangle conflict is set up so early, there is room in the film to explore the character's inner conflicts. This is done with Bogard dying a quarter ways into the film. Once he is out of the picture, the spotlight is on the emotions and thoughts of Diana and, to a lesser extent, Hope. At this time we are also introduced to Ronnie who helps add another dimension to the conflict. Then suddenly Bogard comes back from the dead and the love triangle conflict continues at face-value, but now with more transparency into the inner conflicts of the characters. Thu, 08 Sep 2016 20:31:52 -0700