Howard Hawks: The Art of The Close-Up | Film Analysis
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 кві 2016
- A recent trend in a lot of contemporary films is that they seem to be composed almost entirely of close-ups. Does no one else think this is problematic?
Through a close analysis of the opening scene of Howard Hawks' 'Rio Bravo' (1958), and a frankly unfair comparison between the dreadful 1978 version of 'The Big Sleep' and Hawks' 1946 classic, we'll see how a master chooses to use or not use a close-up.
Potential Spoilers. For educational purposes only. Fair Use.
Plimpton! Shoot At Rio Lobo (Behind The Scenes) -
• JOHN WAYNE & HOWARD HA...
Patreon: / takemetoyourcinema
Facebook: / takemetoyourcinema
Twitter: / filmworks88
Instagram: / takemetoyourcinema
Please Like and Subscribe
Totally agree on the overuse of close-ups in modern cinema. Even those blockbusters seem to mainly consists of close-ups. And you proved it via my all-time favourite director. Well done !
Pete Travels Glad you enjoyed.
Howard Hawks would definitely make my list of the top 10 American directors, maybe even top 10 directors of all time.
_tfw you realize 20% of your favorite films are all directed by the same guy_
As an artist of the fine arts, I have always found inspiration in the movies, especially black and white classics such as those of Hawks, Wilder and others of that era. I totally agree with you about the overuse of close-ups. For me the mise-en-scene is lost, which is fundamental to development of the movies character as a whole. The close-up seems to be at times a faulty showcase to highlight an actor's performance which is very prevalent in today's movies. The many clips you showed gave me joy and inspiration for my own work. Thank you for efforts. I have subscribed to you channel and look forward to researching your other offerings.
This is a really good analysis, that teaches us to use the close-up sparingly, and speaks to the power of restrained film making. I'm going to take your advice and watch many of Howard Hawk's films, and see a master at work. Thanks for putting this gem together.
Hey; thanks a lot. Glad you enjoyed it. It's something that I've always been concerned with, so I thought I'd try and put it into words.
Thanks for subscribing looks like your into movies and cinamatic history as well
Also, what is the song at 1:52? It sounds so familiar!
Patrick the Realist 'Close To Me' by The Cure
Arthur Penn's and Mervyn LeRoy's close ups of Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde and Vivien Leigh in Waterloo Bridge are the most beautiful shots of anyone I've ever seen. I believe these men were taken with these women and expressed their love through the lense.
This was a video I had to come back to during Oscar season. The evolution of shot compositions and shot lengths keep me stuck digging for treasure in the past, rather than rushing out to see new movies. I spotted Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in your intro and was curious if you had much to say about it?
SliceOfScott Hey there - thanks for that, it means a that you would revisit.
I love Tinker, Tailor - it’s one of my favourite films of the last ten years, and I’ve seen it many times. I think most impressive on a narrative level. The way it manages to adapt what is fairly dense material, simplifying but not corrupting and it maintains clarity with that narrative material, especially given its nonlinear structure. I especially appreciate how it is able to maintain clarity so that the audience can keep up without resorting overemphasis - without having to be explicit about ‘important narrative information’. It’s a very low key, which I appreciate.
Take Me To Your Cinema Agree with you completely. Le Carre said he was mesmerized by Oldman's performance, but I was mesmerized by the entire film. Your videos should be essential film school material, and I'm thankful you appreciate the film as I did.
Never watched your show before - have you spoken on Edgar Wright, who's pretty much made a career on close-ups? Or what about Ozu, who loved his eye-level close-ups and medium close-ups?
Also, in the Macbeth example, I think there's plenty dissimilar about those two shots. Sure, they're both close-ups, but the first is also a handheld, OTS dialogue scene with both subjects drenched in shadow, backlit by fire. Even if you turned the sound off, there's plenty of visual shorthand going on there to communicate violent, nefarious passion, and that certain things about these characters are being withheld from us.
The other shot is on sticks and depicts a monologue scene. We're facing the subject head-on, and she's lit in a way that lets us see her whole face clearly - it's impossible to miss a moment of her performance. It's also a much colder light.
I won't go on, but while I agree that close-ups are overused and restraint would be nice, I don't think it's fair to say you can't tell the difference in emotional intent between those two shots.
Thanks for the feedback. It's interesting that you mention Wright, as I'm working on a video about this work at the moment - though it's not about his use of close-ups. Ozu, on the other hand, is too large a beast for me to even consider approaching at this time.
In regards to the Macbeth example, I probably agree with you. In retrospect, I could've found a better example with which to make my point. I have a rule that I can't use clips from films I've not seen, and I'd recently been talking about Macbeth, which I didn't like much at all, so it came easily to mind when I needed an example. If I were to do this video again now, I would most definitely find a better example.
Take Me To Your Cinema Yeah, I didn't care too much for Macbeth either. Cotillard was great, and there were moments where they played with text in interesting ways. But yeah, whole thing felt stale and uninspiring.
I appreciate a new interpretation of Shakespeare, and the film took an approach that on paper would seem as though it could be interesting - pitching Macbeth as a returning solider suffering from PTSD - but in practice this change robs the text of much of its complexity. Especially when taken in conjunction with the added prologue, in which the couple bury a child. It felt as if the filmmakers were trying to explain the character's motivation - which is odd, considering no one has had any problem understanding for the other 400 years the story has been around.
But yeah, Cotillard is great - but then, she is in pretty much everything.
PS: Looked this video up because I'm assembling a shot list for my thesis at film school. This really helped settle an important decision - thank you :)
I'm glad to be of assistance. I hope everything goes well with your thesis - I know how stressful they can be. Cheers.
What do you make of Sergio Leone's close-ups?
I share your frustration with over-reliance of close-ups but The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) is a film full of close-ups yet Dreyer pulled it off effectively
Howards Hawks what a underrated director! Just like Billy Wilder. This directors are better the Stanley Kubrick but not famous like Kubrick. What a shame!
Billy Wilder is the best filmmaker that ever lived.
interesting value and one held by David Fincher but tbh it missed the context to which a lot of the great modern films (which you included on the opening montage whilst posing the title question) use close ups so much. Any use of cinematic language should be used in order to give the audience the best experience of the text, and particularly with dramas like BIRDMAN, WHIPLASH, HURT LOCKER, ect. the films are incredibly intimate portraits of drama from internalised places within. To stage and block those stories differently would render them completely different. removing the context from a filmmakers use of cinematic elements when presenting a text renders any technique to be obsolete, even those made by greats like Ford & Hawks, not just modern filmmakers that don't suit our apparent "hot-takes" and personal tastes. really enjoyed the video and throughly love the discussion it creates :)
Very much worth the bother. Thank you. Lose the effing music.