Soderbergh: This grew out of a deisre to find a new way to give
information about the story, about the character. It wasn't desparate act. Me
thinking there has to be better ways to lay things out to people. //less
traditional. You can be more adventures//.
We
had to play around a little bit. I remember some versions were too fragmented.
Dobbs: One of the great clichés of filmmaking
that you hear people say constantly, (Those pseudo-intellectual fuckfaces are
most annoying.) that I don't think it's true at all, unlike novels, in films,
you can't show thinking. It's a comp... It's a total lie. I think movies
are ["]brilliant["] at showing someone thinking. I think what I
particularly encouraged you to do to was to go get more shots and put into
movie
more shots, Terrence Stamp sitting in a
chair, meditative, smoking, thinking, reflecting. You
may not know exactly what he's thinkin. I think you can ["]pretty much["]
infer. It's certainly one of advantages of casting an older actor who
brings a lot of ["]baggage["] with him from previous roles and years.
I
think it's very novelistic to do this kind of fragmentation, people talk about
it as being cinematically stylish. I think it's almost more of a literary
device.
(one of common mistakes, difference between infer and imply, between
infer and refer)
I
believe that this misconception is caused by the belief that Théâtre=Cinéma. Because
of position of camera, movement of camera, and editing, one example close-up, Cinéma
certainly can show "thinking". There are many examples, I can't
retrieve the memories now. I am certain that I can if I am given a trigger.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen