[Mb-civic] NYTimes.com Article: Split Decision

Thu Oct 7 11:33:33 PDT 2004

The article below from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by michael at intrafi.com.

/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

 I HEART HUCKABEES - OPENING IN SELECT CITIES OCTOBER 1

 From David O. Russell, writer and director of THREE KINGS
 and FLIRTING WITH DISASTER comes an existential comedy
 starring Dustin Hoffman, Isabelle Hupert, Jude Law, Jason
 Schwartzman, Lily Tomlin, Mark Wahlberg and Naomi Watts.
 Watch the trailer now at:

 http://www.foxsearchlight.com/huckabees/index_nyt.html

\----------------------------------------------------------/

Split Decision

October 7, 2004
 By DAVID THOMSON 

San Francisco 

In the spin that followed the first presidential debate,
many commentators referred to the "split screen" effect,
when the cameras would show one candidate's reaction as the
other spoke. It was when President Bush was huffing,
blinking and scowling at John Kerry's answers that he
looked most petulant. In the vice-presidential debate on
Tuesday, both speakers appeared to have learned from Mr.
Bush's antics, and so they generally looked at each other
as if they were auditioning for the job of bodyguard. 

But it is vital for viewers to see how the candidates react
to each other's remarks, and the networks were right to
ignore the party rules that restricted what could be shown
during the debates. Still, the networks used different
techniques to break the rules. A true split screen was
employed only by some networks, like ABC and C-Span,
whereas others, like PBS, honored what might be called a
spatial relationship between the two contestants. 

A split screen is two or more separate images put together
in one image, or one screen. Thus it was a split screen on
ABC when similar images of Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry were set
side-by-side with a clear dividing line. But on PBS the
shots were actually what are called two-shots: a single
image in which we see two people at the same time with the
space between them. Such a shot may not accommodate the
full figures, but as the first debate revealed, an
ingenious director with a good camera angle could show one
person speaking, with another (in the background, or to one
side) listening, reacting and generally behaving like a
natural idiot. 

In film studies, and once upon a time in filmmaking, the
two-shot was a staple. Indeed, the shot of two or more
people, not quite full length, but conversing and
interacting, was often called "the American shot" in French
film commentary. That is because it used to be a staple of
good American movie-making. It can be found everywhere in
the films of Howard Hawks, for example, a director whose
work includes "Bringing Up Baby," "His Girl Friday," "To
Have and Have Not," "The Big Sleep" and "Red River," among
others. I could praise him at length. Let me just say here
that he is both "cool" and "neat," and on both accounts
because of his skill with the group shot. 

I realize that we live in an age when many in the news
media, to say nothing of the audience, take it for granted
that film and television require nothing but the close-up.
And I don't want to knock the close-up. It is a splendid
and lovely thing, even when it shows a linebacker spitting
out a few of his own teeth. 

But the two-shot and the group shot teach us another
lesson: that there are spatial relationships in life.
People in conversation look at each other; they listen or
try not to. The variety of body language and posture is
enormous and beautiful, and there was once a way of making
movies that thrived on those bonds. If you care to check
this out, I would recommend just about anything by Jean
Renoir, Kenji Mizoguchi, Max Ophüls, Otto Preminger, Orson
Welles, Yasujiro Ozu - and all of these guys are O.K., too.

I'll go a step further, if I may. There was once a set of
theories on film direction, or mise en scène, that attested
to the aesthetics and the ethics of using spatial
relationships in movies. You can find this spelled out
beautifully in the work of André Bazin. 

I will simplify the matter here, but Bazin (and others)
believed that the cinema (and why not television?) had (or
has?) a natural affinity for showing people together and
people in places so that we understand both better. The
close-up (vital as it may be to storytelling) tends to
emphasize the glamour, drama (or melodrama?) of lone
people; it has the seed of dictatorship in it. The cinema
was based for decades on the notion that all people are
equal, alike but different, and it found glory in the group
shot that allowed us to look from one person to another,
and feel the kinship and the difference. 

I have sometimes heard elections described in the same way.
And it is worth stressing that the effort before the debate
to restrict the way of showing the speakers was a gross
intrusion on a kind of free speech integral to film and the
society that uses it. I congratulate the networks for
ignoring it and for sometimes using two shots in which the
spatial bond trembled with animosity and the two men
involved behaved naturally - i.e., they let us see how much
they dislike each other, and they gave us the opportunity
to look into their inner nature. 

The vice-presidential debate was awkward in its rare
two-shots. Why were the two men sitting down? I'd guess
that many viewers felt that Mr. Cheney's crouch and lowered
glance spoke for themselves. And tomorrow night is the
great test the famous "town hall setting" - a real spatial
arena, with onlookers and questioners sharing the debaters'
space. Watch to see if George Bush isn't as ingratiating
and mobile as Gene Kelly. But pray for directors who know
their cinema, and who can view the town hall with the
comprehensive gaze of a Jean Renoir. 

David Thomson is the author of the forthcoming book "The
Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood." 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/opinion/07thomson.html?ex=1098174013&ei=1&en=bb89ae411b23cc20

---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF

HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales at nytimes.com or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help at nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company