Post by account_disabled on Jan 6, 2024 6:31:05 GMT
Manage connecting scenes In many films it is common practice to use a technique to show episodes that are necessary but not essential to the story . What am I talking about? Try to think of all those films in which there is a boxer or fighter training (not only Rocky , but also Million Dollar Baby , if I remember correctly, as well as Real Steel ). Even in the film The Boy in the Golden Kimono there was the same technique, I think. But we also find it in other films, when there are long and laborious preparations to do something – such as building a weapon ( The Prey , with Tommy Lee Jones and Benicio del Toro), a trap or something else – or when the character has to make a long journey , especially on foot. These are what I called bridging scenes , because they connect two main scenes of the story. We cannot show a stunted violet who in the next scene is all muscles in the ring, just as it would be implausible for a broken-down and rusty robot to find itself shiny and functional in the next scene. Everything in between must be shown to the spectators, to avoid a time leap of days or even months, a leap that implies a gradual transformation of a character, an object or the evolution of an event.
What does cinema – or, rather, the director – use in these cases? A few minutes of film : they are not main scenes, so there is no need to bore the audience by wasting meters of film Little space for the events of the scenes : they are very fast, remember? Very few frames where everything is Special Data reduced to the essentials Managing connecting scenes in narrative The cinema has suggested to us how to do it. Few paragraphs or pages : depending on the length of the novel, but above all on what we have to tell. There is no need to dwell on scenes that both we and the readers know are not important. Useful yes, but not important. They are not scenes that we can avoid, but we have to deal with them in a short space. Summary of facts : keep narrative to a minimum. If our character leaves the house, takes the bus and enters the office, there is no need to describe his every move as if a drone was following him from above all the way.
Colloquiality of dialogues I don't see Italian films anymore, I've said it several times, today's films depress me. But I have seen several films by the greats Totò, Fabrizi, Sordi, Tognazzi, which I always gladly watch again. If you have seen them too – otherwise you have missed out on real Italian cinema, in my opinion – you will have noticed how the characters spoke. They spoke like us. Totò in the Neapolitan dialect, Sordi and Fabrizi in the Roman one, Franco Franchi and Ciccio Ingrassia in the Sicilian one. Carlo Delle Piane spoke in Roman dialect, indeed. Watching, now, almost always American films - even if dubbed - I notice more or less the same thing: the use of jargon when necessary . That is, an approach to colloquial language , even street language at times, to give greater realism to the story.
What does cinema – or, rather, the director – use in these cases? A few minutes of film : they are not main scenes, so there is no need to bore the audience by wasting meters of film Little space for the events of the scenes : they are very fast, remember? Very few frames where everything is Special Data reduced to the essentials Managing connecting scenes in narrative The cinema has suggested to us how to do it. Few paragraphs or pages : depending on the length of the novel, but above all on what we have to tell. There is no need to dwell on scenes that both we and the readers know are not important. Useful yes, but not important. They are not scenes that we can avoid, but we have to deal with them in a short space. Summary of facts : keep narrative to a minimum. If our character leaves the house, takes the bus and enters the office, there is no need to describe his every move as if a drone was following him from above all the way.
Colloquiality of dialogues I don't see Italian films anymore, I've said it several times, today's films depress me. But I have seen several films by the greats Totò, Fabrizi, Sordi, Tognazzi, which I always gladly watch again. If you have seen them too – otherwise you have missed out on real Italian cinema, in my opinion – you will have noticed how the characters spoke. They spoke like us. Totò in the Neapolitan dialect, Sordi and Fabrizi in the Roman one, Franco Franchi and Ciccio Ingrassia in the Sicilian one. Carlo Delle Piane spoke in Roman dialect, indeed. Watching, now, almost always American films - even if dubbed - I notice more or less the same thing: the use of jargon when necessary . That is, an approach to colloquial language , even street language at times, to give greater realism to the story.