skimpole Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 One problem I had with American Hustle is that the director made clear what we were to think of the characters within the first 90 seconds we saw them (or when we are reintroduced to Bale, Adams and Cooper after the opening scene.) I was wondering if there was a great film where the characters were presented that obviously. You can't include sequels, or series of movies like the Marx Brothers or Astaire/Rogers movies. And the viewer can be assumed to know nothing about the character, even for ones as well known as Dracula or Sherlock Holmes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamradio Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 All movie characters are two-dimensional without the glasses, the exception being.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredCDobbs Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Janet Leigh was always a 3D character, even without the glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 A few more instances of this immediately came to my mind in which recognized "classics" of the cinema(by many people anyway) almost solely contain "two-dimensional characters" in (especially) satirical comedies meant to press more serious points: THE HOSPITAL M*A*S*H NETWORK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownGoesFrazier Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Maybe it's just the photo, but she seems to put Jayne Mansfield to shame. Never realized that she was so well-endowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedya Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 *The Dot and the Line*, of course. {ducking} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 {chuckling} (...and I'm sure somewhere Chuck Jones is chuckling in approval too, Fedya) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownGoesFrazier Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 HER CARDBOARD LOVER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimpole Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 In reply to Dargo, I would say that it takes some time for Peter Finch to lose his marbles in Network. It also takes some time for viewers to realize how crazy General Ripper is and how ineffective Captain Mandrake and President Muffley are in Dr. Strangelove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Hi skimpole. First, while I'll admit Peter Finch's Howard Beale goes through quite a transformation in "Network" and thus fleshes out his character extremely well(and possibly why he won his posthumous Oscar), and Bill Holden and Beatrice Straight(Oscar winner again) roles are also fleshed out nicely both in performance and in the script, I've always thought Faye Dunaway's role as the single-minded ladder-climbing shrew and who is basically the center and story catalyst of the film(and not Finch's Beale) was purposely written by Paddy Chayefsky and purposely acted very two-dimensionally by her because of the Paddy's overriding intent to make his point about television broadcasting. And secondly, while I didn't mention "Dr. Strangelove"(and one of my all-time favorite films) in your thread, Kubrick's black comedy masterpiece is filled with nothing but archetypes, and archetypes are seldom if ever presented as three-dimensional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesJazGuitar Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The first thing that came to mind with this topic was that many, if not most movies feature two-dimensional characters. That only the stars (leads) of the film are more nuanced than that and even this isn't the case in many films (expect maybe complex dramas). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Yep James, and I think this might now especially be true since the great character actors of the studio era are no longer with us, and it seems peripheral characters in modern films are given short-shrift. (...and no Fred, this ISN'T your cue to now start your "Movies were better back in the day" shtick!...WAIT, what am I worried about here?...he's got me on Ignore, doesn't he?!) LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrroberts Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Dargo, check your inbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Okay. Ya know, I forget to look up there at that inbox thingy a lot of times. (...just figured who in their right mind would wanna contact ME?!!!) LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingrat Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Dargo, I think your point about satire usually involving two-dimensional characters is well taken. The other genre that comes to mind is political films like the early Eisenstein films. There are no three-dimensional characters in *Battleship Potemkin*, but the power of the Odessa steps sequence still gets to me, as familiar as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownGoesFrazier Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Don't most comedies have two-dimensional characters, especially the ones for which getting laughs is the be-all and end-all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Well, MAYBE...but not OUR favorite comedy, right ol' buddy?! (..you know, the one about a certain ladder-climbing schlemiel who falls in love with an elevator operator?!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownGoesFrazier Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 But that's not just a comedy. It's the film version of Certs........How 3-dimensional are the characters in AIRPLANE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Ah, I see what you mean. But then again, "Airplane" is a satire. And once again, satires are usually filled with nothing but 2-D types, right?! In other words, I'm sayin' even though SOME comedies might indeed be filled with 2-D types, it doesn't necessarily follow that ALL comedies, be they sending a more serious message or not, contain only or primarily 2-D types. But, if they're NOT sending that "more serious message", then yes, I would agree with you that the tendency in that style comedy is toward the easy laugh by means of the 2-D character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownGoesFrazier Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Ok, I'm calling your bluff. Give me a PURE comedy with fully fleshed out, 3-D (or even 4-D) characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Okay, then right off the top of me wittle head, how about...though I still question your use of the word "pure" here... "When Harry Met Sally" Seems to me both Crystal and Ryan's characters were fully fleshed-out in that one, along with, and surprisingly for a fairly "modern" film, Kirby and Fisher's supporting roles. (...though I'll admit Meathead's Mom only sayin' the line, "I'll have what she's having" really doesn't give her the opportunity to "stretch", now does it?!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownGoesFrazier Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 That is not a pure comedy (which I could say in response to any film you offer)..........You could say that the characters played by Oliver Hardy were fully "fleshed out" characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargo2 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I'm starting to get the impression that your definition of a "pure comedy" is somehow only light in tone and primarily containing elements of slapstick and/or lighthearted banter. And if that's the case, then yeah, every "pure comedy" from many of Chaplin's short films to Bob Hope movies to Will Farrell movies today are primarily filled with 2-D characters. However, once again I question why it seems you would prefer to exclude more, let us say, "sophisticated" comedies such as from directors Preston Sturges, Ernst Lubitsch or say Billy Wilder as "not pure" comedies, and of which often featured characters very well "fleshed-out" and believably "real" and not just "2-D". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts