Superficial Aspects of Cinema Aesthetics

[Lino]

And I love, love, love the animated opening credits by Terry Gilliam for Cry of the Banshee:

[jon]

well, i guess credits also belong in this superficial category. My favorite credit sequences that i can remember would be...

-Eyes Wide Shut
-Full Metal Jacket
-well...probably most Kubrick
-Royal Tenenbaums and Life Aquatic
-hmf, i guess these two guys are good at ending/credit-ing a film

mostly it has to do with the last cut and the credit music, Life Aquatic brings it a step further though. dont know how superficial these are, but whatever

[Gordon]

Leaving aside opening credits for a moment, another triviality in movies is telephone conversations. What is the best way to present a telephone conversation? The split-screen technique, used in many films of the 70s (esp. on TV) is a definite no-no, as far as I am concerned, unless the story and general techniques employed throughout are goofy. Cutting between characters is also strange, as that never happens in any other type of scene where the characters have vast distance between them - it may be thousands of miles - and spatial logic is important in Cinema, I feel. How could the viewer be in two sperate locations at the time? No other medium attempts this, but that is part of the power of Cinema, though filmmakers shouldn't abuse its power. If the protagonist is calling someone who hasn't been established previously then how is their location established? I came to the conclusion that it is probably best, generally speaking, to just concentrate on the protagonist, with both he/she and us hearing the other voice - as in the protagonist is not seeing the person they are callling - and then, perhaps at the end of the conversation cut to the other person, if only to clarify who is was, leaving no doubt or confusion. The phone call at the end of The Conversation is magificent - many other directors would have cut away to Harrison Ford, but that would have deflated the denoument - it's just presented as a disembodied voice, like a ghost, which will haunt Harry for a long time to come, maybe the rest of his days.

I am a man of few distrac...

[Mr Sausage]

Cutting between characters is also strange, as that never happens in any other type of scene where the characters have vast distance between them - it may be thousands of miles - and spatial logic is important in Cinema, I feel. How could the viewer be in two sperate locations at the time?

I don't think spatial logic is violated in every instance. You say that cross cutting never happens in any other type of scene where characters are separated by distance, which makes doing it in this instance strange. Fair enough. Yet you've overlooked that the exact function of a telephone is to bridge distance between two people, hence implying that creating a spatial connection through crosscutting is a perfectly logical way to depict that distance bridged by the telephone. An imaginative director and editor can be very expressive with this technique.

Concerning good splitscreen phone conversations, I'm thinking of the scene in Donen's Indiscreet, where Bergman and Grant are talking to each other over telephone while each lie in their separate hotel beds. By matching eyelines, and not showing the empty side of each double bed, the splitscreen gives the sense that the two are in fact lying in the same bed together having this conversation when indeed they are not in the same room. It is a sly and evocative use of the technique to suggest a spatial connection that compliments the telephone connection.

As for your last question, I'm not sure I understand it. The viewer, or rather their perspective is wherever the director wishes them to be. In crosscut telephone conversations, unless split screens are used, the viewer is not in two different places at once because we never see two actions happen simultaneously; we see one side, then we see another, each sequentially, and each happening at a different moment in time. But as I said earlier, our perspective is wherever the director wishes, and part of the magic of cinema is being able to see things happen simultaneously in different locations and accept it. For example, would you consider Murnau's Nosferatu to be jarring in its violation of spatial logic? When Orlock attacks Hutter his actions are crosscut with those of Hutter's wife miles away, to the point that it seems as though Orlock can hear and see her. This is obviously implying some mystical or supernatural connection between the characters (both indeed having "mixed" blood with Hutter, and both competing for his soul). Even more simply, when Orlock sails for Bremen the progress of his ship is crosscut with Hutter's travels on horseback, both I would assume taking place at the same time. Yet this spatial connection never seems unduly strange.

I guess I would say that crosscutting can imply, to the human mind, a simultaneity of action, so we accept the trope of connected space that crosscutting creates since it has an equivalent (and literal) temporal connection.

[Gregor Samsa]

Here it is:

Thanks for that. Few films have made suburbia look so menacing.

[Andre Jurieu]

One of my pet-peeves with how phone conversations are sometimes portrayed in films is when we only see one end of the conversation and for some reason the individual on the phone doesn't pause long enough to allow any normal person to respond to what he/she is saying. Thus it's more of a monologue. Don't really know if that has to do with aesthetics, but it's definitely superficial.

[zedz]

One of my pet-peeves with how phone conversations are sometimes portrayed in films is when we only see one end of the conversation and for some reason the individual on the phone doesn't pause long enough to allow any normal person to respond to what he/she is saying. Thus it's more of a monologue. Don't really know if that has to do with aesthetics, but it's definitely superficial.

Now that's petty, but I think I can outdo you. My pet hate is conversations in cars. Chances are that whenever one is depicted, the driver will turn to the passenger for 'meaningful', and often prolonged, eye contact, instead of keeping his or her eyes on the damn road! Have the filmmakers never noticed that actual drivers have no problem conducting normal conversations without risking their life?

[Steven H]

This might be *the* most superficial, but there's always a part of me that is seriously irritated by too much crying in a movie. I always start thinking "oh, I wonder how that actor gets themselves to cry" and then I'm completely taken out of the film. And then sometimes the crying goes on way too long (see the lesser Cassavettes' The Notebook) which is extremely distracting, or worse, everyone in the theatre starts crying and then, wonder of wonders, I get to go home and read a messageboard where everyone cries.

See? Wasn't that terribly superficial? And sad - for crying out loud! (what a great english phrase, one of the few crying related things I can't tire of).

[Mr Sausage]

As long as we're airing our personal (and superficial) hates: I can't stand it when a character, while saying something 'profound,' looks away from his interlocuter and begins staring at some point out of view--and to top it off no one seems to wonder just what he's now looking at. If someone I was talking to suddenly turned and began to obsessively stare at something else, I'd miss everything they were saying because I'd be too busy trying to figure out just what they're looking at. Takes me right out of the movie.

On the other hand, no one looks at one another in Gertrude, and I love that movie.

[Michael Kerpan]

As long as we're airing our personal (and superficial) hates: I can't stand it when a character, while saying something 'profound,' looks away from his interlocuter and begins staring at some point out of view--and to top it off no one seems to wonder just what he's now looking at. If someone I was talking to suddenly turned and began to obsessively stare at something else, I'd miss everything they were saying because I'd be too busy trying to figure out just what they're looking at. Takes me right out of the movie..

In Kurosawa's "Idiot", when Masayuki Mori first sees Setsuko Hara, he seems to be staring right through her -- she is a bit non-plussed and actually does look back over her shoulder to try to figure what on earth has transfixed Mori (not realizing that it is her -- who he has seen in a portrait already). ;~}

[Fletch F. Fletch]

One of my pet-peeves with how phone conversations are sometimes portrayed in films is when we only see one end of the conversation and for some reason the individual on the phone doesn't pause long enough to allow any normal person to respond to what he/she is saying. Thus it's more of a monologue. Don't really know if that has to do with aesthetics, but it's definitely superficial.

Now that's petty, but I think I can outdo you. My pet hate is conversations in cars. Chances are that whenever one is depicted, the driver will turn to the passenger for 'meaningful', and often prolonged, eye contact, instead of keeping his or her eyes on the damn road! Have the filmmakers never noticed that actual drivers have no problem conducting normal conversations without risking their life?

My petty pet peeve is people in movies or TV shows talking while eating. Everytime someone start yapping with their mouths full I want to punch 'em in the throat. Argh! It is minor but annoying as hell.

As for filming phone conversations, I like how Michael Mann did it in The Insider. There were tons of phone conversations in that movie and I think that the cross-cutting technique he employed was very effective.

[Mr Sausage]

As long as we're airing our personal (and superficial) hates: I can't stand it when a character, while saying something 'profound,' looks away from his interlocuter and begins staring at some point out of view--and to top it off no one seems to wonder just what he's now looking at. If someone I was talking to suddenly turned and began to obsessively stare at something else, I'd miss everything they were saying because I'd be too busy trying to figure out just what they're looking at. Takes me right out of the movie..

In Kurosawa's "Idiot", when Masayuki Mori first sees Setsuko Hara, he seems to be staring right through her -- she is a bit non-plussed and actually does look back over her shoulder to try to figure what on earth has transfixed Mori (not realizing that it is her -- who he has seen in a portrait already). ;~}

I love Kurosawa.

[Michael Kerpan]

I love Kurosawa.

Well -- I love MOST Kurosawa. ;~}
But to return to the superficiality topic -- I'm glad I don't have to actually try to _read_ the extremely calligraphic credits that Kurosawa uses on some of his films.

;~}

[Greathinker]

My pet peeve: I dislike it when a character curiously gets out of a car, to go up to a house or what have you, and then leaves the car door open. No one in real life does this-- I can only reason that it's some kind of stupid directorial cue to keep you engaged

[colinr0380]

One of my pet-peeves with how phone conversations are sometimes portrayed in films is when we only see one end of the conversation and for some reason the individual on the phone doesn't pause long enough to allow any normal person to respond to what he/she is saying. Thus it's more of a monologue. Don't really know if that has to do with aesthetics, but it's definitely superficial.

My phone conversation peeve is when people just hang up on someone without saying 'Goodbye' or anything else that symbolises that the conversation has ended. I know they are in a film and wanting to keep the action moving but it is very rude!

Have the filmmakers never noticed that actual drivers have no problem conducting normal conversations without risking their life?

I agee with that, especially now I'm belatedly learning to drive and can barely control a car when I'm fully focused on the road!

As long as we're airing our personal (and superficial) hates: I can't stand it when a character, while saying something 'profound,' looks away from his interlocuter and begins staring at some point out of view--and to top it off no one seems to wonder just what he's now looking at. If someone I was talking to suddenly turned and began to obsessively stare at something else, I'd miss everything they were saying because I'd be too busy trying to figure out just what they're looking at. Takes me right out of the movie.

Is that just before they go into a flashback? Reminds me of the Simpsons where Homer is staring into space and Barney just keeps saying "Homer? Homer?" to him!

In Kurosawa's "Idiot", when Masayuki Mori first sees Setsuko Hara, he seems to be staring right through her -- she is a bit non-plussed and actually does look back over her shoulder to try to figure what on earth has transfixed Mori

Yes, he wouldn't make a very good butler! (although on the other hand perhaps he'd be a very good one since he wouldn't need to ask a new arrivals name - he'd know it already!)

My pet peeve: I dislike it when a character curiously gets out of a car, to go up to a house or what have you, and then leaves the car door open. No one in real life does this-- I can only reason that it's some kind of stupid directorial cue to keep you engaged

What you don't see is that a moment after they cut the shot a car slams into the open door, snapping it off its hinges! It happens every time someone leaves a car door open in a film!

[Antoine Doinel]

My pet peeve: People going to the bathroom in a film. I hate watching a character take a piss in a toilet with the amplified sound of their urine hitting the toilet water. Bothers me every time.

[flyonthewall2983]

I'm not a huge fan of the way Tarantino avoids product placement, I.E. fake breakfast cereals and other food.

[Nadsat]

My pet peeve: People going to the bathroom in a film. I hate watching a character take a piss in a toilet with the amplified sound of their urine hitting the toilet water. Bothers me every time.

Agree, there was a scene in Almodóvars latest movie, "Volver", that he showed Penelope Cruz take a leak in the bathroom. A scene that I found not necessary to show at all.

[colinr0380]

My pet peeve: People going to the bathroom in a film. I hate watching a character take a piss in a toilet with the amplified sound of their urine hitting the toilet water. Bothers me every time.

But what about the scene in The Naked Gun?

[portnoy]

My pet peeve: People going to the bathroom in a film. I hate watching a character take a piss in a toilet with the amplified sound of their urine hitting the toilet water. Bothers me every time.

Agree, there was a scene in Almodóvars latest movie, "Volver", that he showed Penelope Cruz take a leak in the bathroom. A scene that I found not necessary to show at all.

I don't think it's entirely out of keeping with his treatment of Cruz throughout the film - juxtaposing her glamorous features with jarring/lurid elements within the same frame (e.g. that over-head shot at the sink, which elicited cheers from a small pocket of the audience I saw it with). a lot of the film explores the dichotomy of the village/the city, and the ahem... 'earthier' qualities of the former buttressed against the vibrancy of the latter.

[Lino]

My personal pet hate, movie-wise, is lighting. I just hate it when someone lights a lamp or a candle and suddenly the whole room lits up! God! It just takes me right out of the movie.

[Gregory]

Similar to that is the problem of botched day for night scenes that come out looking like mid-afternoon. I noticed a bad instance of this in Lang's Tiger of Eschnapur.

[Gordon]

Dr Sausage, you articulated thoughts that I had wrestled with in regard to the issues I raised, but I wasn't so keen to get deeply into the subject. If the supernatural is introduced, then we'll have to take that on accordingly, but generally speaking, telephone conversation is movies can be clumsy affairs - especially in older movies. I haven't seen Indiscreet, but Coppola used an interesting approach in Tucker, where, if I remember correctly, the wall behind a pay-phone is 'disolved' or removed to reveal the caller; similar techniques are employed throughout John Sayles' magnificent 1995 film, Lone Star, where the backgroud of the present dissolves into the past seamlessly. This is a very powerful device that is seldom used, but on Lone Star it elevates an already powerful drama to unexpected heights.

Though it isn't a topic related to Cinema, I must still point out that I view Time in a wholey different way to the accepted model, or explanation and I view the concept of connected temporality differently. As the 18th Century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant explains, 'Time' is merely a function and concept of the human mind and has no foundation in the phenomenal world. Martin Heidegger would later take the argument much further, to disconcerting and paradoxical conclusions. I don't think that it is possible to hold two simultaneously occurring events in mind at the same time - though that, as you say, is the magic of Cinema! I am willing to be proved wrong, but I believe that it is impossible to prove a priori that two unconnected events are occurring at the same time within the present. Idealist Philosophy (George Berkeley, David Hume, Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer being the most interesting and Schopenhauer relates his ideas to aesthetics, art the most and to memorable degrees) has a lot in common with the art of Cinema, but it's not worth investigating for that reason alone.

Quality thread!

[Gordon]

This might be *the* most superficial, but there's always a part of me that is seriously irritated by too much crying in a movie. I always start thinking "oh, I wonder how that actor gets themselves to cry" and then I'm completely taken out of the film.

To be more precise: sobbing is what it irritating, both in films and in real life. Of course, it is sometimes fully justified, but there are times when one becomes suspicious of such hysteria among women. Babies crying in films is something I cannot abide and in real life it can be intolerable, but then, perhaps it is due punishment for our own earlymost years of disruption. One is puzzled, however, over sneezing fits.

[Cinesimilitude]

My pet peeve: People going to the bathroom in a film. I hate watching a character take a piss in a toilet with the amplified sound of their urine hitting the toilet water. Bothers me every time.

What about Robert Downey Jr. pssing on the corpse in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang? It was hilarious, and set up some great lines.

I have to say that my favorite way of dealing with a phone conversation at this point is when you have it one sided, but you can hear both people talking, only to cut to the other person shortly after to reveal someone else listening to the conversation or something that changes the tone of the conversation completely. Like a bad guy forcing a friend to give up the good guy's location. It's also really good when the person is moving around with the phone, IE. Every John Cusack movie ever. Give that man a room and a phone and he makes magic.