March 2012
Mar 2nd
1,306 notes
Mar 2nd
2,106 notes
Mar 1st
17,625 notes
February 2012
Feb 29th
4,831 notes
Feb 29th
7,691 notes
Feb 29th
1,994 notes
Feb 29th
404 notes
Feb 28th
277 notes
Feb 27th
217 notes
Feb 27th
141 notes
Feb 27th
2,345 notes
Feb 27th
1,287 notes
Feb 27th
1,197 notes
Feb 27th
36 notes
Feb 27th
19 notes
Feb 27th
734 notes
Feb 27th
18,369 notes
Feb 27th
1,340 notes
Feb 27th
1,719 notes
Feb 24th
243 notes
Feb 24th
29 notes
Feb 23rd
74,892 notes
Feb 22nd
49,550 notes
Feb 22nd
402 notes
Feb 21st
460 notes
Feb 20th
288 notes
Feb 20th
876 notes
Feb 20th
18 notes
Feb 20th
188 notes
Feb 20th
74,285 notes
Feb 20th
1,697 notes
Feb 20th
344 notes
Feb 19th
92,017 notes
Feb 18th
1,528 notes
Feb 18th
216 notes
Feb 17th
191 notes
Feb 17th
6,408 notes
Feb 16th
2,066 notes
Feb 16th
14,927 notes
Feb 15th
329 notes
Feb 15th
176 notes
Feb 15th
142,712 notes
Feb 15th
1,862 notes
Feb 15th
167 notes
Feb 15th
5,968 notes
Feb 14th
25 notes
Hitchcock/Truffaut
A.H.: Well, the silent pictures were the purest form of cinema; the only thing they lacked was the sound of people talking and the noises. But this slight imperfection did not warrant the major changes that sound brought in. In other words, since all that was missing was simply natural sound, there was no need to go to the other extreme and completely abandon the technique of the pure motion picture, the way they did when sound came in.
F.T.: I agree. In the final era of silent movies, the great film-makers--in fact, almost the whole of production--had reached something near perfection. The introduction of sound, in a way, jeopardized that perfection. I mean that this was precisely the time when the high screen standards of so many brilliant directors showed up the woeful inadequacy of the others, and the lesser talents were gradually being eliminated from the field. In this sense one might say that mediocrity came back into its own with the advent of sound.
A.H.: I agree absolutely. In my opinion, that's true even today. In many of the films now being made, there is very little cinema: they are mostly what I call 'photographs of people talking.' When we tell a story in cinema, we should resort to dialogue only when it's impossible to do otherwise. I always try first to tell a story in the cinematic way, through a succession of shots and bits of film in between. It seems unfortunate that with the arrival of sound the motion picture, overnight, assumed a theatrical form. The mobility of the camera doesn't alter this fact. Even though the camera may move along the sidewalk, it's still theater. One results of this is the loss of cinematic style, and another is the loss of fantasy. In writing a screenplay, it is essential to separate clearly the dialogue from the visual elements and, whenever possible, to rely more on the visual than on the dialogue. Whichever way you choose to stage the action, your main concern is to hold the audience's full attention. Summing it up, one might say that the screen rectangle must be charged with emotion.
Feb 14th
180 notes
Feb 12th
3 notes
Feb 12th
2 notes
Feb 12th
10 notes