This was one of the first silent films created in Russia. The movie used only two settings for the entire movie. The second setting was used only for a moment. The film did use some different camera angles. The view through the keyhole into the other room was more than likely a breakthrough of the time. It certainly was a nice change of pace for the viewer. With cameras that can't zoom there's not a whole lot of options for the director.
For silent films, I don't think that the actors in the movie bring a whole lot to the table. Since most of communication is body language, the fact that there is no talking should not be that big of a deal. They were directed to act with more drama than was necessary. For some reason the actors did not seem to act as a normal person in the same situation would have been. This could be because I am not familiar with the nuances of the older culture, but it still seems unrealistic.
One last thing I want to say is that the quotes of the characters displayed between the scenes slowed the movie down a lot; and were more or less unnecessary. Good acting and subsequent scenes would not require text to interrupt the film.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the great challenges of early cinema was trying to determine just how expressive actors need to be in order to convey what's supposed to be happening. I think over time they increasingly began to notice that an understated form of expression can get the ideas across just as clearly (and more effectively) than any set of grimaces.
ReplyDelete