Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!msb
From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Should technique be invisible?
Message-ID: <543@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Mar-85 13:40:49 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.543
Posted: Sun Mar 24 13:40:49 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 14:21:02 EST
References: <167@ISM780.UUCP> <4407@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Reply-To: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 40
Summary: Yes

geoff@ISM780.UUCP writes:

> >Well, I don't know about MOST movies.  The point of a film score, like the
> >point of film lighting, and continuity editing etc, is NOT to be noticed.

reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher) replies:

> I find this point of view rather narrow.  Firstly, you've just thrown out
> any film that tries to work on any level other than the naturalistic, as
> such films usually feature noticeable camerawork, editting, scores, etc.

Agreed, but WE don't LIKE that kind of film.  We are not interested in
marking the director for what he can show us he knows how to do.  We assume
that.  It is for what he can do without us noticing.

>  ...Think about how much Marvin
> Hamlisch's arrangements of Scott Joplin's rags contributed to "The Sting". 

No argument there, and I know it was scoring that started this topic.
Which goes to say that what I say is not absolute.  But I have seen far
more movies with excessive scoring and the like than movies like The Sting.

> ...  I would hate to have to defend the statement that
> Hitchcock's editing of the shower scene in "Psycho" was a mistake, or that
> it was not noticeable.  Ditto Eisenstein's brilliant editing in "Potemkin".

I cite both of these as an example for my side.  "Psycho" and "Potemkin" were
indeed brilliantly edited, precisely because the editing was NOT noticeable.

Unless, of course, you were deliberately looking for it.  For instance, if
you went into the movie with the intention of marking it for editing, or if
you were re-viewing it to see just why that scene was so effective.

Compare, for instance, "Plan 9 From Outer Space", where editing is very
noticeable, because the director (Edward D. Wood) had the bad judgement
to shoot different parts of the same scene by day and by night, and to
intercut between them.  Such scenes are still somewhat coherent, you
certainly notice the editing!

Mark Brader