Figure 16.2
Authentic storyshowirig
Voiceover Narration (nearly) disables the drama of an entire Sequence in The Joy Luck Club. [Figure 16.3] Beginning with the Husband Arrives at the Baby’s Birthday Celebration With His Mistress scene, it ‘runs’ through the Mother Bathes the Baby scene.
Figure 16.3
Showing In Pictures; Telling in Subtitles and Voice Over: Show and Tell and Tell
The Voice Over ‘explains’ the psychologically vengeful reasoning behind the mother’s terrible deed… before the act! Screen the Mother Bathes the Baby scene with the audio on mute. Even with the loss of the bath water’s drip-drip, the scene is simple; it is (near) perfection!
HINT: Without the voiceover ‘telling,’ the scene becomes a wonderful example of the paradoxical bond between Thinking and Feeling!
Dra-ma: noun. A series of events involving conflicting forces.
TIP & HINT: The ‘process’ of storytelling should not be the ‘force’ in conflict.
Can there ever be voiceover narration that works; that does augment storyshowing? According to Chapter 13 there must be!
In the thesis film Life Before Me, the young man — his name is Wilson — falls from the roof. [Figure 16.4] On his way down — in Voiceover Narration — he begins ‘telling’ his story…
Figure 16.4
“I couldn’t believe I actually fell off. I simply lost my balance and now I was falling. I just couldn’t believe it.
And, in a weird way I can’t remember ever thinking so clearly…”
The Context in Life Before Me provides a numinous opportunity for the voice over. The story is presented in flashbacks that, at times, return the audience to the ‘still’ falling Wilson. Seeing as no one can fall from the roof of a city building, and live to tell us his story, Wilson’s voice over — an absolute impossibility in real life — is movie magic that ‘pulls in’ the audience. A worthy ‘fix’ was also accomplished: All of the voice over was dropped back — from a little to a lot — so that it would come after the audience could take pleasure, and information, from the images.
Consider film’s more customary use of the human voice: Dialogue.
There are bits and pieces [of dialogue] that require deletion: Words, lines, phrases, or passages appear in the screenplay to serve as — what might be deemed — Convincing Material; or as cues for reading clarity, and actor inflection.
Convincing material helps the screenwriter ‘create’ the veritability of characters — to convince the writer, and reader — on paper: The ‘scripted people’ do exist! Convincing material often survives into the dailies, and ‘appears’ in two forms:
1. Profuse use of First Names.
2. Extensive Personal Exposition.
In ‘real life’ people seldom address each other by name while they speak, especially when there are only two people. In film, people (nearly) never utter a line without including the other character’s first name. You can delete most of them… perhaps all!
For a good example — it goes without Showing — of ‘name calling’ that went from script to dailies to finished film, watch Dr. Frank and His Brother Harlan — Harlan, That’s Harlan — in a Bar scene from Novocaine. The film also contains unnecessary and ‘wounding’ Voiceover Narration.
Convincing material ‘heard’ as personal exposition exists as (long) passages in which a character ‘tells’ us about personal history, or experience. We do not need to know a character’s place (and time) of birth, nor which kindergarten he attended, in order to believe he is ‘real.’
TIP: Most especially, it’s a good idea to delete (or greatly reduce) exposition of personal experience that the audience would rather be seeing than hearing; or, that has little (or nothing) to do with the immediate needs of the story.
Examples of the above can be found throughout The Spitfire Grill.
Cues depict a character’s impressions or emotions. They are often followed by a phrase that works better without the cue:
CUE
PHRASE
“I’m getting nervous.
We should have heard from him by now!”
Delete the Cue. Keep the Phrase.
Cues usually take an audience ‘out’ of emotional engagement with the moment; they are a form of detrimental tell and tell.
Historian Henry Adams described Thomas Jefferson’s intelligence as “intellectual sensuousness.” Good dialogue editing — good editing of all material — creates a kind of Cognitive Emotion in the audience. It brightly links Thinking and Feeling: Thinking becomes an authentic sixth sense. This seeming contradiction to chapter 13 is not.
HINT: Mother Bathes the Baby scene, from The Joy Luck Club, without its Voice Over!
An entire audience’s Sensual Thinking will — astonishingly — ‘Match-Up’: “She wouldn’t hurt the baby. No! She’s not going to hurt the baby…”
In a ‘test’ I initiated in an Introduction to Film course, I played two scenes for students over a three-year period. Discussions, after each of the screenings, verified identical Thinking and Feeling, or cognitive emotions, in the students:
1. The Rape scene from The Virgin Spring.
Karin is stopped as she tries to leave the ‘picnic.’ She is attacked and raped. Crying in gasps and squeaking sobs, she moves away [Figure 16.5] from her attackers. The ‘mute’ brother clubs her across the head.
Figure 16.5
During the interval between the rape and murder every student terrifyingly reflected: “At least they didn’t kill her.”
2. The Bus Accident scene from The Sweet Hereafter.
The school bus skids off the road. It crashes the guard rail; rolls down an embankment, and still upright, onto a frozen river. [Figure 16.6] The ice begins to break; the bus disappears.
Figure 16.6
During the interval between the school bus’ slide onto the frozen river, and its sinking below the ice, every student shockingly reflected: “At least the bus hasn’t rolled over.”
In “Cutting Emotional Attachments” I mentioned the paradox created by the number of cuts passing before the eyes of the audience. The intercutting concept promoted in that chapter relates an association between ‘finding’ emotion in the editing and the inconspicuousness of the cuts. Just as a single appearance of MOS (Mit Out Sound) Shots makes for obviousness — remember Someone’s Going Through the Dresser scene? — dialogue, which is played consistently on the speaker, will do the same. The eye and ear will be ‘hit’ at every cut point; each edit symmetrically ‘marked’ for the audience. This happens because of the (more or less) parallel structure of image to dialogue and — most important — because its ‘talking’ snippets are unlikely to craft conversation — actual dialogue — or ‘find’ emotion.
The intercutting paradox is at its best when reactions are the guiding weight in dialogue editing. Reactions also keep us within the good effects of thinking and feeling.
In the dailies, dialogue is often closer to monologue. The actors’ readings might be credible, even vigorous, but incomplete in ‘sought-after’ rhythms. For one thing, actors know their lines and the lines of the other actors — at least the last three words — and usually follow each other’s lines (too) quickly.
TIP: You’ll be surprised how often this is discernible in the dailies: Actors will transfer their gaze to another actor before that actor has begun to speak, anticipating whose turn is next.
HINT: Film acting is not — nor does it require — an impeccable continuum as it (usually) is in theatre.
In many ways the dailies represent a (cinematographic and audio) final dress rehearsal — a trial run. The editor (and director) must then orchestrate, and ‘conduct’ the dailies into an inclusively accomplished performance: Pacing — beats and rhythms — transposition of lines, and deletions.
The essential performance is more easily discovered in the Close-Ups: Master Shots can too easily ‘hide,’ or ‘misrepresent,’ what is vital to the scene, and perform
ance. It is in the Close-Ups that the editor — later the audience — can see the varied, changing, and most subtle expressions in the eyes, lips, and posture of the actor’s face. This allows the editor to ‘see’ that words can beneficially be deleted, while up on the screen their consequence and ‘meaning’ will be unmistakable.
The attentiveness to reactions is the key to unlocking mere monologue, to permit the dialogue to bring about spontaneous, and believable, character to character contact.
A Lost Truck Driver Recognizes Colonel Kotov from Burnt By the Sun.
The driver approaches the car carrying the uniformed Colonel. [Figure 16.7] In editing, several beats were ‘added’ following the driver’s obvious recognition of Kotov — his mouth drops wide open — but, before he can ask if it is Colonel Kotov, a react on on the Colonel expresses his pleasure at being recognized — he laughs in delight!
Figure 16.7
We ‘feel’ the contact!
Frequently there is a need for a Double Reaction: Frank and the Patrolman of the Month Get a Free Lunch scene from Serpico. Frank naively asks for something other than the ‘Special Of The Day.’ We know that he shouldn’t have requested “a roast beef on roll,” [Figure 16.8] because…
Figure 16.8
… of a perfectly timed Double Reaction on Charley; and he is offended!
An inventive ‘discovery’ of a needed reaction can be found in the Frau Mozart Seeks the Aid of Salieri scene from Amadeus. The last of Frau Mozart’s three reactions to Salieri’s demands’ is a ‘re-use’ of an earlier beat. [Figure 16.9] Objecting to Frau Mozart’s addressing him as “Your excellency,” Salieri ‘scolds’ her; assures her of his accessibility; and then identifies himself as a ‘commoner,’ “Just like your husband.” Frau Mozart reacts to each; her third ‘comes’ from the On-Camera — over Salieri’s left shoulder — shot of an earlier reaction to the ‘delegability’ of the Capezzoli di Venere (Nipples Of Venus) treat.
Figure 16.9
“Mmmmm” is deliciously smart
At the School of Visual Arts we use a scene from Law and Order in our editing classes. (We have gone from cutting the exercise on film to ‘cutting’ on a computer.)
INTERIOR. INTERROGATION ROOM. DAY. [Figure 16.10]
Detective Van Buren is interrogating Julia — a young woman claiming to be the victim of a sexual assault.
Figure 16.10
A C lose-Up of Each
JULIA
He grabbed me, stuck his tongue down
my throat.
VAN BUREN
You try to push him away?
JULIA
I tried but he’s bigger than me.
VAN BUREN
All right. After the tongue what
happened?
JULIA
Do I have to do this?
VAN BUREN
He didn’t commit a Class “A” felony
with his tongue Julia….
On paper, the dialogue ‘makes perfect sense’; at the least it doesn’t ‘appear’ overly problematic! During the editing, the actors’ ‘expressions’ can be effectively — emotionally — read, and therefore ‘played’ and attuned. Delete Julia’s last line, “Do I have to do this?” and a powerful beat — spontaneous contact — is created: the result of her embarrassment, and the ‘painful’ questioning. Van
Buren’s last line becomes far more intense, and brings eloquent ambivalence to the audience. They are uncomfortable to ‘eavesdrop,’ but nonetheless eager to hear all the details.
Production procedures provide dailies with repeated lines of dialogue through each of the camera set-ups: There is Identical’ dialogue with each Image.
TIP: Here is an oh-so-simple technique to ‘find’ Performance.
Begin by quickly assembling — in checkerboard fashion — one Close-Up of each character. The first ‘clip’ contains the opening line(s) of dialogue. From then on each and every cut should begin with a character listening (reacting) to the second reading of the very same line — or lines — of dialogue. This second reading is the Off-Camera Dialogue.
Without a single frame of Picture or Sound left out — except Slates — this produces:
JULIA (on Camera): In Sync Dialogue: He grabbed me, stuck his tongue down my throat.
Cut To:
VAN BUREN (on Camera): {OC dialogue} – He grabbed me, stuck his tongue down my throat. In Sync Dialogue: You try to push him away?
Cut To:
JULIA (on Camera): {OC dialogue} – You try to push him away? In Sync Dialogue: I tried but he’s bigger than me.
Cut To:
VAN BUREN (on Camera): {OC dialogue} – I tried but he’s bigger than me. In Sync Dialogue: All right. After the tongue what happened?
Cut To:
JULIA (on Camera): {OC dialogue} – All right. After the tongue what happened? In Sync Dialogue: Do I have to do this?
Cut To:
VAN BUREN (on Camera): {OC dialogue} – Do I have to do this?
In Sync Dialogue: He didn’t commit a Class “A” felony with his tongue, Julia….
Screen (and listen) to the assembly with the doubled lines. This allows for discoveries of deletions in either (or both) dialogue or image; discoveries of advantageous redundancies — you’re hearing the lines twice — and for discoveries of critically needed pauses in Sound, and reactions in Picture — especially when inflections (or topics) change.
HINT: Editors can be too quick to remove redundancies. Be careful! There are some very good ones.
Van Buren’s next to last line begins with “All right.” What if you create an expanded pause — beat — before and after it? Won’t that intensify the apprehension in Julia? The audience?
For a remarkably speedy way to discover how reactions work to link thinking and feeling, eliminate the second, or Off-Camera, dialogue — in the audio only — which will leave (long) pauses on each incoming cut of picture: Each character ‘contemplates’ what has been said by the other. You’ll be able to tell where ‘anticipation’ might be more effective: an interruption in words, or expression(s), in the face — or body.
TIP: You will find that about 30% of the cuts in this simple system will get you surprisingly close to the needed rhythms, provide a quick and credible edit, and — most fundamental and cheerful of all — let you feel the requirements of the scene.
HINT: You might find a need for a ‘better’ take: Nothing reveals the ‘best’ take quicker than an assembly, because it furnishes (an early) context! You’ll be able to ‘see’ where a Master Shot is ‘called for.’ You’ll ‘learn’ that it’s far easier to tell if, where, and why a Master Shot is needed by starting with Close-Ups, than if you work the other way around.
Dede Allen — interviewed by Vincent LoBrutto for his book, Selected Takes: Editors On Editing— recalled the ‘official’ advice from her early days at Columbia Pictures: “Now young lady… you always cut from a master to a closer shot.” Her (now) experienced response: “Well, that’s bullshit.” Ms. Allen goes on to suggest another — more than likely — outcome to a scene, “You sometimes start with a close-up.”
TIP & HINT: I am not pronouncing a solution to every ‘end product.’ I am suggesting you get started by working from Close-Ups. It is simply a practical method for getting to the “feel of it.”
TIP & HINT: You can also ‘work’ MOS (Mit Out Sound) shots — or combinations of Synchronized and MOS shots — with this doubling. Double the actions: Entrances, Exits, and Movements within the scene. It makes for a beat-ready, subtext-ready, and context-ready assemblage.
An example of this practical approach to starting, but a poor choice in finishing: The Sheriff Arrives at the Bus Depot scene(s) from The Trip to Bountiful. [Figure 16.11]
INTERIOR. CAR. NIGHT.
and
INTERIOR. BUS DEPOT. NIGHT.
Figure 16.11
Joined in confusion
The final edit maintains the rough cut’s two openings:
1. A car
(Sheriff) drives up to the bus depot. The car is turned off, and the driver exits the car.
2. A cat sits in front of the (Interior) bus depot door. The ‘someone’ from the car (Sheriff) enters, and picks up the cat.
The ‘join’ only makes sense in an early assembly: An approach that later ‘shows’ choices via possible combinations of the two shots — or a deletion of one.
The two shots easily integrate so as to prevent a start and stop and start. That is, if the Sheriff’s arrival is shown in the Interior Car scene, a cut to the cat in the Interior Bus Depot scene could occur sooner. No need for the car to turn off, or the driver to exit in the ‘Exterior’ Shot. The sounds — engine turn-off; door open, and close — could ‘play’ over the shot of the cat, which could ‘play’ through the Sheriff’s entrance.
The Exterior, INTERIOR CAR scene (Image) could be deleted altogether, and the Sound alone utilized.
HINT: The Sheriff picking up the cat — Physical Life — after he enters the bus depot — Physical Action — is a fine touch. Having the Sheriff toss the cat onto the sleeping Clerk is a Stone Unturned. [Figure 16.12] Why would the Sheriff do such a thing — given the information the Sheriff possesses — finding Mrs. Watts asleep on the bus depot bench?
Figure 16.12
It would help to delete the cat’s shriek
Preserving Reactions — rather than the On-Camera speaker — as the decisive influence in a Dialogue scene, requires an integration of four aspects:
1. Contemplation: The audience ‘reads’ (thinks and feels) a character’s expression(s).
2. Anticipation: The audience ‘understands’ that a character is ‘getting the idea.’
3. Observation: The audience sees the place and the spatial relationship(s) of the characters within the scene setting.
The Eye is Quicker Page 12
