The technique wouldn't gain proper exposure until the 1960's and 70's when the new batch of more auteuristic directors established their place in the world of
The examples we looked at included:
(500) dAYS OF sUMMER
This movie is the first one we looked at for the split-screen effect and I think it uses it the best among any of the candidates.
The technique is very well incorporated and I think represents a vital part of a relationship like the one represented in the film. It taps into an emotional core that I think hasn't been explored before this film, or since, and yet is one so common and relatable that everyone can probably connect to it. For spit-screen it's also really well balanced and leads the eye well between the two sides, some frames are good enough to still communicate its message clearly even if it was just a still image:
Kill Bill (2003)
I remember this was a very odd technique when I first saw Kill Bill, and it is definitely done more so for homage than to serve the scene. I don't know if it enhances the action, but it adds to the overall stylized aesthetic of the film and is fun and campy so I can't complain.
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
This one was odd, although I haven't seen the film in its entirety so I can't really judge its effectiveness in the film as a whole. I think the scenes with them in bed is more effective than the argument with his mother (grandmother?) though - in that case I feel like it didn't add anything to the scene and it would have been equally effective if traditionally edited. Here it might even serve as more of a distraction if anything, although I am hesitant to make that statement as I don't know what the context is or what the overall tone of the film happens to be.
The End of the World in Four Seasons (1995)
Paul Dressien directed this animated short which is a story told in multiple panels about something that I couldn't quite derive any meaning or narrative through-line from. The Boy Who Saw The Iceberg (2000) is a slightly more interesting film of his which we also had a look at, this one is more simplistic using only two different screens making it much easier to follow. I found myself focusing on one thing at a time in the Seasons short (my eye often drifted to the two dogs whose actions and arc were the most charming), meaning I always felt like I was missing something somewhere else, the Iceberg animation is much more similar to (500) Days in that one half of the screen represents reality and the other is a visualization of the protagonists inner thoughts or in this case feelings.
I thought The Boy Who Saw The Iceberg was very effective to an extent, the beginning and end were well done and I think the ending served as a logical evolution of the base concept. It is the middle, and majority of the run time, that I have a problem with. Not much happens or advances and the concept is grasped and can be appropriately appreciated within the first minute. The extra minutes felt superfluous and were hard to sit through, it could have used more development of either story or theme, more twists and turns if you will, as it is I feel the film should have been severely cut down from its almost 10 minute run time to 2 or 3 minutes.
It's weird that Seasons came before Iceberg, because it seems like a more ambitious undertaking, it is undeniable in my mind that Iceberg is a more cohesive and well made film - clearly from a more experienced filmmaker.
The Black Dog’s Progress (2008)
We didn't actually look at this in class - it was deemed to be too dark. So I had a look at it in my own time:
Again I struggle to focus, I didn't finish it and feel like if I do watch it I will have to pay good attention, an excess of energy I don't currently have. This to me is a negative, I shouldn't have to work for entertainment, at least this one is just 3 minutes long. I understand the appeal, many people like layers as present in this short, but I personally would rather be entertained the first time around and later go back and find all the layers.
One thing I do like is the formation of one complete image, it's interesting and I understand how this is a good method of leading the audiences eye and slowly building upon itself. The spotlight is another technique Vaughn pointed out that is effective in leading the eye, I just don't have the patience now. Maybe later...probably not 😂.
We were asked to find an example of one not discussed in class, I had thought of many examples while watching the film but the video essay at the end (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-SnqRxXESA) used pretty much all the examples I could think of. One example I thought of immediately was:
The Green Hornet (2011)
This is quite a specific example of split-screen in a recent film that has, for some odd reason, stuck around in my head and even though it is one of the few creative strokes in a very generic film, it doesn't really work for the story, is somewhat hard to follow and overall just feels out of place. I think it has reserved itself a place in my memory because of how jarring it was.
This whole thing made me think of the future of this type of technique, which I think now leads into 360 degree video and movies. The way to guide the audiences attention is very different when there is more places that they can look.
In this case we have to look at what other things stay constant, as already displayed somewhat in these multiple screen films, the most important part of leading the viewers eye becomes sound more-so than visuals. I can only imagine that if 360 degree fiction does come into existence that it would be very dialogue driven. A courtroom drama or murder mystery seem like very viable candidates for this kind of format. 360 also completely foregoes theaters, if this is indeed the next medium to take over it will have very interesting effects on our entertainment.
No comments:
Post a Comment