Author Topic: #515: Interstellar / Top 5 Movie Sacrifices  (Read 5080 times)

kubrisawa

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 7
Re: #515: Interstellar / Top 5 Movie Sacrifices
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2014, 10:04:57 PM »
"Show, don't tell" is one of the most poisonous things to happen to film criticism.  It's a fine guideline but should not be taken as gospel.
Especially when 'telling' is fundamental to everything the movie is exploring and expressing.

Perhaps we are getting hung up on semantics and actually agree. From my point of view "Show, don't tell" is a fundamental, widely recognized technique used in the art of story-telling that is a beautiful way of exploring and expressing theme in a story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don't_tell

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: #515: Interstellar / Top 5 Movie Sacrifices
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2014, 11:51:35 PM »
"Show, don't tell" is one of the most poisonous things to happen to film criticism.  It's a fine guideline but should not be taken as gospel.
Especially when 'telling' is fundamental to everything the movie is exploring and expressing.

Perhaps we are getting hung up on semantics and actually agree. From my point of view "Show, don't tell" is a fundamental, widely recognized technique used in the art of story-telling that is a beautiful way of exploring and expressing theme in a story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don't_tell

I hate to be an elitist, but all three are you are wrong for very different reasons. "But Totoro, it's art! No one be wrong!" Well, sure, in a way, that is correct. However, film is a visual medium. If you want to be told a story, read a book? There's a vital scene in Panahi's masterpiece THIS IS NOT A FILM where he questions to the camera, "if you could tell a film, why make it?" And, yes, that's entirely important, because the medium isn't really one of dialogue. It's part of filmmaking, but it's not necessary. I find it quite strange for MartinTeller for saying it's a poisonous part of film criticism - looking at your top ten, they're all quite visually striking films. If you turned off the sound for THE BIG CITY or THE HOLE or even FANNY & ALEXANDER, I bet you could follow each film's plot just by the images alone. And that's not to say that the dialogue or sound is bad or that it doesn't add anything to the film - of course it does, it makes it a richer experience. But every film director and screenwriter knows, fundamentally, that the most powerful aspect of filmmaking are the images. Without strong imagery, your film will ultimately suffer and be forgotten in the grand scheme of cinema history. Just look at the TSPDT list. How many of those films tell more than they show?

TL; DR: If you can't find a way to show it, then you need a rewrite. Otherwise, write a book!
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 11:55:03 PM by Totoro »

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: #515: Interstellar / Top 5 Movie Sacrifices
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2014, 12:04:00 AM »
If you want to be shown a story, look at a painting. Film is an AUDIOvisual medium. Books can't necessarily capture a sparkling verbal interchange. They can come up with clever words, but the performance and intonation of them is often vital. This is why Shakespeare is much better on stage than on paper. No one advocates that filmmakers completely neglect the visual, but to act like the ideal film is a silent film, and any use of dialogue to further the effect is a cheat is a disingenuous take on the art.

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: #515: Interstellar / Top 5 Movie Sacrifices
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2014, 12:17:01 AM »
If you want to be shown a story, look at a painting. Film is an AUDIOvisual medium. Books can't necessarily capture a sparkling verbal interchange. They can come up with clever words, but the performance and intonation of them is often vital. This is why Shakespeare is much better on stage than on paper. No one advocates that filmmakers completely neglect the visual, but to act like the ideal film is a silent film, and any use of dialogue to further the effect is a cheat is a disingenuous take on the art.

Books can't capture a sparkling verbal interchange? "Books can't tell how one performs and what one's intonation?" Totoro said incredulously, under-his-breath.

Shakespeare is better on stage than on paper because he wrote plays, not literature. Like, what? Huh? He didn't even write how one should say his dialogue, that was all directing.

Dialogue should always be considered second to the image, the image is everything. However, that doesn't mean sound isn't important - it most definitely is and is often the most under appreciated aspect of the film, but the films that are remembered, the films that top critics' lists, the ones that stay in our hearts and minds - 99% of the time, they are visually striking films.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: #515: Interstellar / Top 5 Movie Sacrifices
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2014, 12:20:11 AM »
You could probably get things from Fanny and Alexander without the sound, sure. I'm not sure something like Mr. Hulot's Holiday would be anywhere near as good if it were a soundless movie. The audio there is as big a canvass for Tati as the frame is, and in some scenes bigger.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: #515: Interstellar / Top 5 Movie Sacrifices
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2014, 12:29:17 AM »
And, yes, that's entirely important, because the medium isn't really one of dialogue. It's part of filmmaking, but it's not necessary. I find it quite strange for MartinTeller for saying it's a poisonous part of film criticism - looking at your top ten, they're all quite visually striking films. If you turned off the sound for THE BIG CITY or THE HOLE or even FANNY & ALEXANDER, I bet you could follow each film's plot just by the images alone.

What about A Woman Under the Influence, Scenes from a Marriage or Casablanca?  These are movies that do an awful lot of "telling" but are none the worse for it.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: #515: Interstellar / Top 5 Movie Sacrifices
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2014, 12:31:49 AM »
Shakespeare is better on stage than on paper because he wrote plays, not literature. Like, what? Huh? He didn't even write how one should say his dialogue, that was all directing.

Yes, but he operated in words, in exposition, in the audiovisual medium of theatre. Your take on film is like saying that Shakespeare's words are unimportant next to the set design and costuming and blocking of the play. Going with visual primacy (rather than auditory) with film seems just as silly to me as doing it with theatre.

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: #515: Interstellar / Top 5 Movie Sacrifices
« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2014, 02:01:25 AM »
Shakespeare is better on stage than on paper because he wrote plays, not literature. Like, what? Huh? He didn't even write how one should say his dialogue, that was all directing.

Yes, but he operated in words, in exposition, in the audiovisual medium of theatre. Your take on film is like saying that Shakespeare's words are unimportant next to the set design and costuming and blocking of the play. Going with visual primacy (rather than auditory) with film seems just as silly to me as doing it with theatre.

I'm not saying the mediums aren't audiovisual, but any theater director would say that you first need to see the actor before you can hear them. Since there's a 180 line in theater (as there is in film, but that's not important), an actor usually has to cheat out to the audience in order to be heard best. The visual of the actor is still most important, especially back in the days during old theater. You act like spectacle set design, costuming, and blocking is the visual primacy which is completely absurd. And, again, in theater and in acting in general, the most memorable parts of a performance are visual changes in behavior, not the actual dialogue. Subtext is always key to making great performances work. Theater requires the actor to be big to reach out to the person in the farthest row. Visual. Film can change the angle and the distance at any given moment. The actor has to work within the frame, usually opting for far smaller performances than in theater. Subtle changes. Still visual.


Totoro

  • Guest
Re: #515: Interstellar / Top 5 Movie Sacrifices
« Reply #28 on: November 24, 2014, 02:04:53 AM »
And, yes, that's entirely important, because the medium isn't really one of dialogue. It's part of filmmaking, but it's not necessary. I find it quite strange for MartinTeller for saying it's a poisonous part of film criticism - looking at your top ten, they're all quite visually striking films. If you turned off the sound for THE BIG CITY or THE HOLE or even FANNY & ALEXANDER, I bet you could follow each film's plot just by the images alone.

What about A Woman Under the Influence, Scenes from a Marriage or Casablanca?  These are movies that do an awful lot of "telling" but are none the worse for it.

I'd argue that both A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE and CASABLANCA are films that are quite rich with visual language. SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE is wordy, but it's not nearly as wordy as INTERSTELLAR, nor does it tie itself up and trip over its own words. It's still visually powerful, but Bergman's minimalist style here does him little favors for the broader minded viewer.

Adam

  • Administrator
  • Elite Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
    • Filmspotting
Re: #515: Interstellar / Top 5 Movie Sacrifices
« Reply #29 on: November 24, 2014, 09:04:47 PM »
"Show, don't tell" is the art of story-telling. That is why Interstellar is not art and instead is more akin to an after-school TV show.

You restrict yourself by rules someone else tried to instill in you. There are many great works that lean towards the verbal over the visual. The Before Trilogy comes immediately to mind. Makes me think of a scene in Good Will Hunting. One that's verbal storytelling, not visual.

The "Show, don't tell" technique is not limited to visual-only storytelling. Linklater, for example, is a great director that uses a lot of dialog, but uses it so we experience the story rather than having it explained. "Show, don't tell" also applies to plays, which often are mostly dialog. The greatest playwrights have huge amounts of dialog that never explain things...Sam Shepard, Tennessee Williams, Edward Albee, etc.

One thing the script got perfect was TARS. Loved TARS.

I think Nolan IS an awesome visual story teller. I really wanted to love this movie, but I couldn't because of the weak script.
Hmm, pretty much just semantics, but I guess I'd say "show" refers to seeing something, or I'm not sure what you're referring to is "showing, not telling." Sam Shepard is a lot of things -- mysterious, enigmatic, obtuse, indirect, tricky. His plays can show us something when staged, and they can be lyrical and evocative when not, but that's not the same as someone using images or actions vs. words to convey meaning. Complaining that Interstellar isn't more [insert adjective from above] is not the same as complaining that it doesn't show us enough.

And consider me still mystified that there's this much handwringing about explanations in a movie fundamentally about people trying to explain things filled with people who try to explain things for a living.
Follow Filmspotting on Twitter at http://twitter.com/filmspotting

Listen to Filmspotting at https://www.filmspotting.net/ and on Chicago Public Radio (91.5 FM)

 

love