Steven Soderbergh, whose aesthetic decisions are always interesting even when the results aren't, has decided to play Michael Curtiz in his latest film, The Good German. Soderbergh has reproduced, as closely as possible, the working conditions of the classical studio system, down to the Panavision 32 millimeter wide-angle lens that no one uses anymore. Dave Kehr provides a terrific primer on differences between classical Hollywood style and current filmmaking practice, especially in regard to the single-camera setups of the classical era versus the "coverage" techniques most current directors use. Kehr explains,
If there is a single word that sums up the difference between filmmaking at the middle of the 20th century and the filmmaking of today, it is “coverage.” Derived from television, it refers to the increasingly common practice of using multiple cameras for a scene (just as television would cover a football game) and having the actors run through a complete sequence in a few different registers. The lighting tends to be bright and diffused, without shadows, which makes it easier for the different cameras to capture matching images.
The advantage for directors is that they no longer need to make hard and fast decisions about where the camera will go for a particular scene or how the performances will be pitched. The idea is to pump as much coverage as possible into the editing room, where the final decisions about what goes where will be made.
The danger for a director is that with so much material available, the original vision may be drowned or never really defined; and the sheer amount of exposed film makes it possible for executives to step in (after the director has completed his union-mandated first cut) and rearrange the material to follow the latest market-research reports.
Soderbergh makes the classical era production techniques, with their factory-like efficiencies, seem more artisanal than today's independent studio products. But what else are we supposed to make of Soderbergh's technical costume drama? So George Clooney has to clean up his closed-mouth delivery for the boom mikes and hike his pants above his waist in the name of authenticity. Will the loving recreation of studio-era production techniques make for a meaningful viewing experience? I haven't seen the film yet (I guess my press pass got lost in the mail), so I can't answer that question yet, but the experiment is an interesting one.
Recreating the 1940's, and the film noir look more specifically, is a dicey filmmaking exercise. We've grown used to sleek contemporary actors sauntering through wartime landscapes weighed down by wigs that look like solid material rather than human hair. There's something jarringly inauthentic about the neo-noirs. If the 1950's are our TV decade--even saturated Technicolor images are deployed to recreate the Crest toothpaste innocence of early television--the 1940's are our movie decade. We can't see the decade except through the classical-era features and news reels; maybe we need to dust off the old 32 millimeter lenses to see it clearly.
Posted by: |