Video made from a real interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDB8Q15iUIE
Printable View
Video made from a real interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDB8Q15iUIE
allakkaigaLOda rules ennadA..vaazhga ozhiga. aththOda niruthinga da.Quote:
Originally Posted by MADDY
replace that with action/cut and you have my PoV :-)
btw this is largely a definitional tussle.
I am talking about a script which is written in fair level of detail.
We see from over Saket's shoulder, gun SA's head
Cut to...
SA seeing Saket's thread
smiles
SA: abivAdhayE vishwaamitraaha aagamarshaNa kaushika..
Saket still has gun pointed at him
View moves away from shoulder to show them in profile.
By the time he is done, view shifts to SA's shoulder
If it is not this detailed...what the deuce is screenwriting?
That excerpt, and the complete (detailed) script would seem a whole lot different under Shyam Benegal's or Mani Ratnam's direction.
With the same script...i.e written in that level of detailQuote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
I don't see what difference they'd make.
Thought experiment: consider a director contractually obliged to stick to that level of detail (down to editing/pacing) as the script commands. Then would it really make a difference ?
One thing I can see is par level performance from actors (Barathiraja :lol:). Apart from that, I see limited influence a director can wield.
It is not surprising that directors co-write their films. The way I see it, it is inevitable. They have to.
Apparently Orson Welles (who was from the stage) used to give lighting directions on the first day of shooting Citizen Kane. Then he was told that in cinema, the DoP made those calls. So he politely (atypically) accepted that.
They make a big deal of how he shared the credits page with the DoP.
If asked I'd say: adhu Mankewicz in perundhanmai.
Franz Kafka ezhudhi, adhE Welles direct paNNa 'The Trial' paathuttu vaanga, appuRam theriyin yaar Citizen Kane thillAlangadinnu.
Raasukutti
stone crunch at dinner table
Manorama: ayyo thuppu thuppu
Bagyaraj: spits out the food
Kalyankumar: yen di avanai thuppa sonnE?
Bagyaraj: puLLa kallu kadichadhu kEkkaleengaLA?
KK: nee yEn dA thuppunE?
KB: aathA thuppa sollichu thuppunEn
KK: kallu kadichadhu naanu, neenga thuppikkureengaLaakkum
P_R,
Almost all prolific directors with a consistent signature rewrite/enhance the already written script. Not just visualize it mentally. The worst case is to storyboard it.
Yes, as a thought experiment, Kamal's "Hey! Ram" wouldn't be the same under Benegal/Nihalani/Mani 's (hypothetically assuming they're directing the same script), if you consider their respective style.
Benegal's contemporary adaptation of Mahabharath in Kalyug vis-a-vis Mani's Thalapathi wouldn't be apt. But knowing their respective styles, I see a different "Kalyug" in Mani's vision, and an entirely different film in "Thalapathi".
Well, Kuruthipunal seems a whole lot different from Droh Kaal (I love both films). Ditto UPO v/s A Wednesday.
As Bresson puts it in his Notes p.63,
"Many people are needed in order to make a film, but only one who makes, unmakes, remakes his images and sounds, returning at every second to the initial impression or sensation which brought these to birth and is incomprehensible to the other people."
P_R,
I love "The Trial". Actually, it not only made me appreciate Welles as a maverick filmmaker, but also reassess how his "direction" elevates "Citizen Kane" to the classic it is.
As Ray finishes in his closing para of the introduction chapter in "Our films, their films", "Words are not enough".
Okay. I see that. In fact that is inevitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
If the rewriting is even about stretching the pauses, who looks at whom, who gets to look at what and pacing - that fundamentally changes the film, so it easy to understand why the 'same' script outline can change with directors.
Yes, as a thought experiment, Kamal's "Hey! Ram" wouldn't be the same under Benegal/Nihalani/Mani 's (hypothetically assuming they're directing the same script), if you consider their respective 'style'.
Bresson to fe read in office tomorrow :P
I'm of course oversimplifying it when I use 'style'. :)
This is exactly the kind of example I am looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
What exactly is it that you appreciated about Kane that seemed defnly like Welles' input (as opposed to Mankewicz's) that you inferred after trial.
I've not read the novel but after having watched the movie I could see that I'd've enjoyed the novel. I didn't enjoy the movie - it was a drag.
It is not as if there were not good scenes in it:
The whole assembly line type office ending the day at a stroke
His first entry into the courtroom
His search through the labyrinth to the architect (?) who lives in that wierd nook
But these were few and far between and there was little to sustain my interest in the film. I am sure the novel would have had much much more glue.
So much so that (even without reading the novel) I felt that the scenes that had an effect on me where not the most important ones in the novel but only those which could be made to create the maximum impact on film.
The absurdity of a man in search of his crime - wears out much early in the film. Much easier than (one assumes) Kafka would have wanted it (that is if we are to give a damn what Kafka wanted in the first place !)
Well there are certain things film can do and certain things it can't (atleast to me!).
Coming back, I struggle what it is abt Kane that seemed exclusively and heavily Welles' contribution.
Apparentlty he took up Touch of Evil with the intention of elevating a dud of a script. It wasn't that great for me. I know you have nice things to say about that film (I remember the screenshot of the flashlight you asked in a kweezz once). That was such a throwaway moment and (for me) becomes memorable only when embedded in a 'good' script. Else it hardly sticks and worse, feels gimmicky.
Whenever I get the feeling that the script is weak I get quite uncharitable about the rest of the film. Balance is for trapeze artists.
Notwithstanding the fact that you and I are most likely looking for completely different things in a film, I am interesting in this precise example of your reassessment of Kane after watching Trial.