Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Steven Spielberg to remake The Grapes of Wrath


Recommended Posts

For me, Monterey is the perfect weekend getaway. pi,cturesquely situated on some bluffs at theo southern end of thelarge bay of the same name, it is a historic town, from its days as the capital of the Spanish Alta California, to its same role in the succeeding Mexican republic, to its later setting for many of Steinbecks stories, it and the surrounding area are relaxing destinations. Its cool climate has had Hollywood favor it, and especially neighboring Carmel, as a stand in for locales like New Zealand, Merrie olde England, and New England.of course the annual jazz festival is an

 

Edited by: Arturo on Jul 10, 2013 11:59 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Sepia, the whole cinematography in "Kane" was revolutionary, and thus probably the very reason why the argument COULD be made that to remake THIS film would be a very questionable endeavor to undertake for ANY latter day director, because while the story of ANY man told in flashback format has been successfully done many times since, the story of one Charles Foster Kane will ALWAYS be associated with how revolutionary the camera work was of Gregg Toland's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>For me, Monterey is the perfect weekend getaway. pi,cturesquely situated on some bluffs at theo southern end of thelarge bay of the same name,

 

Yes, a very nice and very old historic town.

 

When I lived in San Francisco for 10 years, I spent most of my weekend vacations in the Gold country, along the Nevada border.

Link to post
Share on other sites

re: the "old syle lighting" in Citizen Kane the lighting was considered "revolutionary" at the time.

 

Septone, Yes, that's true, CITIZEN KANE'S visual brilliance was due to Gregg Toland's innovative cinimatography, who's unusual lighting schemes made the movie what it is.

 

FredC would know more about what that entailed since he is up on unusual lighting in B & W movies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>FredC would know more about what that entailed since he is up on unusual lighting in B & W movies.

 

I've mentioned before one of the most unusual lighting in Citizen Kane.

 

It is during the lap-dissolve between the Joseph Cotten scene in the nursing home, where he talks and we see his scene dissolve into a flashback scene.

 

About half-way through the dissolve, the dissolve stops, and we see BOTH scenes, both with Cotten and the flashback. At that time, the lighting technicians darken 1/2 of the Cotten scene and the opposite half of the flashback scene. So we now see a double-exposure, showing Cotten in the nursing home and 1/2 of the flashback scene.

 

After a few seconds, the rest of the Cotten scene goes to black, as the lights are brought up on the other 1/2 of the flashback scene.

 

So, this was a lap-dissolve into a double-exposure, into a full lap-dissolve.

 

I think the term "lap" means an "overlapping" scene dissolves into the next scene, so that both scenes are overlapped in the middle of the dissolve.

 

It is this scene that we see first. Then the dissolve begins, but the lighting goes dark on the right side of this scene, as the right half of the flashback scene fades in and takes the place of the right half of this scene:

 

tumblr_mgsc5yAAKF1rzhmt3o1_500.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I just found the scene on YouTube. This is great.

 

It is actually the bright window scenes of the flashback scene that dissolves into the Joseph Cotten scene, as all the lights are brought down in the Cotten scene, except for the lights that are on him. Watch this, and watch how it ends.

 

Notice that all the background lights have to fade down in the Cotten scene in order for us to be able to see the start of the flashback scene, yet we still see Joseph Cotten, and at the end, we see both scenes as they dissolve back to the original scene, with a long lag time when parts of both scenes are on the screen. I think this was never done before in any film, and I've seen it in only one other film, made maybe in the 1960s.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I just found that sequence on YouTube so you can see what I'm talking about.

 

The ending is a longer dissolve, showing both Cotten on the left, and the flashback on the right, before fully dissolving back into the Cotten scene in the nursing home.

 

A lot of non-film people will probably not notice it as being unusual, but it is unusual because a lap dissolve usually doesen't stop in the middle and show a double-exposure of both scenes. This requires a trick with the lighting of both scenes.

 

A normal lap dissolve involves the overlapping of both scenes, and the first scene begins to fade out, fade to total black, as the next scene fades in, fades in to full brightness.

 

But this scene is special because it beings as a dissolve, yet the first scene never fades to full black right away, Only part of the scene fades to black, leaving Cotten still lit up, so that we see both him and the flashback scene at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How ironic, the same time you posted the Utube post, I was watching the Very Same Scene onTV, it is much much more breath taking on TV then U tube, in fact I played it over & over again, that same scene and now know what you mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I was lucky enough to find a film clip with several normal lap dissolves.

 

This is from OUT OF THE PAST, and the dissolves are used here to denote the passing of time, as Jeff begins his search for Kathie.

 

In the first few scenes, note that one scene dissolves into the next. This is done by overlapping the film for printing, and fading out one scene while at the same time fading in the next scene.

 

These straight and normal lap dissolves will show you why the Welles dissolves were so unusual.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A fade out followed by a fade in can also denote the passage of time, so an editor has to feel which transition is just the right kind to use, a lap dissolve or a fadeout/fadein. It is an art.

 

Go ask lzcutter. She is an editor. She knows. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

>It is unfortunate that the lap dissolves fade in and out so fast. Is it still possible to use this technique today or did it die along with the cinematographer who invented it ?

 

Oh yes, anyone can use this today, and I'm suprized others haven't used it.

 

All one has to do is fade out most of the lights on the first scene, leaving only one person lit. And then fade up the lights on part of the next scene, but leaving dark the area of the screen where the first person in the first scene is located. In this case, the left side of the Joseph Cotten scene. So, the second scene must fade in, while leaving the left side of that scene mainly in darkness for several seconds. Then fade out the left side of the first scene, and it will be entirely gone, while fading up the lights of the left side of the next scene.

 

I think it is done both in the printer, and on the set with the fade down and fade up of the lights.

 

Straight normal lap dissolves are done only in the printer, and they are not done by any tricks in lighting. But the Welles type of scene must use both the technique in the printer AND the trick with the lights on the sets.

 

Note at the end of the Welles scene, it looks to me like the left side of the flashback, the side with Orson Welles at the table, begins to slowly go dark, just before Joseph Cotten begins to fade back in.

 

I've seen this technique used in one other modern film. Maybe from the 1960s, 70s, or 80s. And it MUST have been done by a director who got the idea from Citizen Kane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>Is this the same tecnique that was used in THE LOCKET, where she lifted her veil? I often wondered how they did that shot .

 

If I recall correctly, what they did there is put the camera on the floor, looking up, and she pulled the top of her veil over the top of the lens of the camera, so the camera could see her face as it looked as she was looking down. As if someone lifted up her veil to kiss her.

 

This would work only since she was looking down, which allowed the veil to balloon out, making room for the camera inside it looking up at her face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we will never Really know what happened in THE LOCKET. :|

 

The other shot that I found breathtaking in The Locket was when she was wearing a big black hat with a veil across her face and they did a close up of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was the same house and the same locket, and the mother of the groom was the same mean lady who had accused young Nancy of stealing the locket when she was a child. To make this clear, when the lady gives the locket to Nancy just before the wedding, she says that it had belonged to her own daughter who had died years earlier. The mean woman did not recognize the adult Nancy, and Nancy did not recognize the woman.

 

That childhood experience set up a PTSD reaction in Nancy which manifested itself in a way so that she became a jewelry kleptomaniac as an adult woman. She craved beautiful jewelry, although she didn't remember why.

 

The normal stress of the 3rd marriage, plus her 2nd husband showing up, plus meeting the mean woman again, and receiving the same locket again, AND knocking over the SAME cigarette case again, with the SAME music, caused her to snap and suddenly remember her childhood trauma, and probably suddenly realize that what her 2nd husband had said was true, and she probably then realized she did indeed have the kleptomania problem. All of these memories were flashing through her mind during the veil scene, and all her personalities were coming together into sharp focus for the first time, and all of this led to her final collapse.

 

Whether or not this stuff was psychiatrically accurate or not, doesn't matter, because in the film, this was cinema ART. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that you explain it the way you do, I actually finally Get It ! :)

 

I always knew that the Woman putting on the locket when she was about to get married was the same woman who was the mother of the little girl who put the locket on her when she was little. I did recognize her.

 

Other then that, I was lost :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...