Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 11:06:33 +0000
From: Jay_Craig-AT-BAYLOR.EDU
Subject: Re: continuities




>Now the linkages are
>important: without them the film would not be a global morality play,
>and the things within the individual episodes could not serve as
>global pivot points, or global culminations, or global allegories of
>sorts.  I, for example, see the death of the kid -- this death from an 
>undefinable injury that nobody can help with -- as very much a global image,
>as is the final murder.  These both occur within the _totality_ of
>the episodes.  

I'm not clear on what you mean by "global" pivot points, culminations, 
allegories, images, etc.  Would they be images "produced" by the montage of 
shots, which then bear on their constituent shots?  Give me a little more 
clarification on what you mean by this "global morality play," and how it comes 
about.  Does it just "happen," since it was created in a certain environment 
(i.e., an improvisation heavy, quick editing Altman set), or was it in some way 
"meant"?  And if it was "meant," presumably there was some agency (or agencies) 
using techniques or operations which were likely to lead to such "meaning"?  
What would those be, specifically in this film?

>The continuities _gloss over_
>the cutting, the way the characters gloss over their own cuts. 
>To me, this admission on Altman's part -- "admission" is not the right
>word, but it will have to do -- of complicity in the very processes 
>he is portraying, and the un-heaviness of this admission, is part of
>what makes his moralism resonate.  

Obviously, given the "dispersive" nature of film's narrative population, we 
shouldn't expect the film, as a whole, to conform to, say, the large or small 
form--SAS(') or ASA, respectively.  On the other hand, perhaps Altman merely 
multiplies and alternates these (or maybe some other) forms at the level of the 
"sequence" as a form of montage.  That would be iterative, in some way--montage 
operating upon the wholes released from montage of a lower order.  As for SAS (I 
think the cynicism of ALtman lies, in part, in the fact that the latter 
situation 1) never becomes S' truly, and 2) only serves as the situation for 
another, often unrelated, action), the frequency of the "duel" stands out.  This 
might spring from the dialogue.  Alternatively, it might derive from the way 
Altman directed the acting.  Notice how the actors almost always "face" each 
other while speaking.  That is to say, they are almost always very 
cognizant--almost self-conscious--about 1) the fact that they are speaking, 2) 
what it is that they are saying, and 3) to whom they are speaking.  It's tough 
to avoid that in improvisation; and improvisation was a predominant device.  
There's often some correlation, I think, between the level of self-consciousness 
about improvising and the status of the actor.  It seems that method actors are 
often the most self-conscious, and more directly "face" situations; after all, 
they are in the process of creating and maintaining a "self" with which to 
improvise.  Classical actors' self-consciousness arises usually out of some 
uncertainty about what it is they are to do or say; they simply haven't 
"practised" for the improvisation.  Amateur actors are self-conscious because 
they're afraid; they're not "professional" actors.  However, I think in "Short 
Cuts," the most authentic acting comes from the amateurs Altman uses; people who 
are really playing themselves.  Regardless, I think that "faceing" of actors 
certainly occurs pervasively enough to raise a question as to what role it might 
play to link or disjoin sequences, or to create rhythms, alternations, or 
harmonies in the whole.  Is the duel everywhere in the film?  Does Altman 
disperse the large form along with his actors?  Or does he mix it with something 
else, somehow?

JSC



     --- from list seminar-10-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---