***
Lawrence of Ahhhhhhhhhhhh*yawn*
In a monumental mistake, the Academy awarded seven Oscars to the film Lawrence of Arabia in 1963. I will focus on perhaps the most baffling of these honors--the Oscar for Best Film Editing (though I'll concede that a film as unspeakably awful as this profanes the name of the Academy for winning Best Picture ahead of no less than To Kill a Mockingbird and The Longest Day).
My Thoughts on Editing
The art of film-making challenges one to convey a scene in a time constrained dimension. While there are many various techniques which can be brilliantly used to accomplish this end, and undoubtedly many remain to be invented, there is one technique which must never be used--that is to show an entirely unabbreviated event (which is no technique at all). It is a tricky task to decide what to show and how to show it, what to emphasize and what to slip in subtly. It takes no creative vision to leave nothing out. And it is insulting to an audience to subject them to nearly 4 hours of walking through the desert.
I exaggerate a bit. The film contains brief intervals of action, though the film duration is only 13 minutes short of 4 hours. But I do not exaggerate the inexcusably poor editing. Lawrence can be seen for minutes at a time walking through the sand, and then for a painfully long period the sun is shown shining in the desert. This is repeated often and throughout the film. Showing him walk from the far distance to the foreground, then showing the sun shining hot for minutes at a time--what does this accomplish, except to convince the audience that this miserable film is going nowhere?
Lawrence of Arabia is not the only film which uses, or overuses, this "technique" of long drawn-out scenes that are intended to create some kind of dramatic effect other than yawning. But the honors granted LOA by the Academy make it a prominent target, and sadly a model for inspiration to other filmmakers.
Genius by Contrast
At the other end of the spectrum, consider a film by the great Alfred Hitchcock: Dial M for Murder. As in LOA where the film is set in the same location (the barren desert) for long periods of time, DMFM takes place almost entirely in a single room. Despite these impossible limitations, Hitchcock pulls off a masterpiece which never feels claustrophobic or stuffy. It didn't even occur to me till the end that nearly the whole film took place in the same room of an apartment. Regarding the use of editing, this film accomplishes so much more than the dismal LOA. In the opening minute, without any speaking at all, Hitchcock conveys that the beautiful Grace Kelly keeps the pretense of a devoted wife with a happy life together, while secretly seeing another man who has just returned to town. Hitchcock conveys this important pretext quickly but in a visually stunning manner, and thus we are moved to the film's first conflict without delay. In true Hitchcock fashion, the film hooks you in the middle of the film (or at least not in the first act) with a surprising conflict not initially presented.
Alfred Hitchcock is a creative master who understands his audience. He knows how to optimize the tension at different points with lighting, camera position, sound, and famously for focusing on important recurring objects normally left subtly in the background. The action of a Hitchcock film is so compelling and suspenseful, whereas the action in Lawrence of Arabia seems so meaningless and frustrating simply by the means of presentation. Nevertheless, LOA won 7 Oscars, while DMFM received none.
No comments:
Post a Comment