> deep-focus/deep staging requires far MORE directorial control than would be the case with analytical editing.

 

 

this is a fascinating turn in the conversation – for i think it leads to questions about different kinds of directors . . . hitchcock’s directorial control – of which he was zealous and for which he was famous/notorious – required that actors be treated like cattle, and that only through his putting the pieces together would the meaning emerge [classic kuleshow --- there are many instances in which the actors themselves did not know what a specific required gesture was supposed to represent or mean]

 

the kind of control henry alludes to in his comment thus has to include control over the actors – or more faith in them [something of which hitchcock had virtually none]

 

mike

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Henry M. Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 12:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FILM-PHILOSOPHY] Depth of field - the very elementary question -- ADDENDUM

 

One might also add the aspect of restraint. It is precisely through restraint that BEST YEARS achieves the biggest and most effective tear-jerk effects, and precisely because they do not seem to be contrived (through editing), but seem to impose themselves naturally. Having said this, deep-focus/deep staging requires far MORE directorial control than would be the case with analytical editing.

 

H

 

 

 

 

> Exactly, in preserving the spatio-temporal dimensions of quotidien

> experience it is both more subtle and more realistic.

>

> See also the marriage ceremony at the end of The Best Years of Our Lives.

>

> Richard

>

> On Tue, January 25, 2011 13:54, Frank, Michael wrote:

>> everything said so far seems to me right on target, but it leaves out one

>> characteristic of staging in deep space that i think may have been

>> overlooked, or maybe just so taken for granted that it's not been

>> articulated . . . note, for example, that henry taylor, discussing one

>> scene in *Best Years of Our Lives* says that it's "poignant moment which

>> could not have achieved quite the same effect if the scene had been

>> divided up into separate shots." . . . but he doesn't explain WHY

>> presenting this material via editing would be less poignant . . . and

>> this is a question that i think andre bazin addresses . . . the argument

>> is that when the scene is staged in deep space [using deep focus

>> cinematography] it replicates real human perception in which the viewer

>> has to search out the salient details of a mise-en-scene, and avoids the

>> excessive rhetorical push - the elbow in the ribs , as it were - of the

>> director saying, "hey, notice this"  - - - and that when that directorial

>> intrusion on our discovery of meaning is avoided, the result is - let's

>> say - better

>>

>>

>>

 

--

Film-Philosophy

After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to

To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]

Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html

For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list

--

Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/

Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/

Contact: [log in to unmask]

--

-- Film-Philosophy After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list -- Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/ Contact: [log in to unmask] --