11.07.2015 Views

Buckland-Warren-Puzzle-Films-Complex-Storytelling-Contemporary-Cinema

Buckland-Warren-Puzzle-Films-Complex-Storytelling-Contemporary-Cinema

Buckland-Warren-Puzzle-Films-Complex-Storytelling-Contemporary-Cinema

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

126 Chris Dzialounmoored between a rock (reversibility, achronicity, complexity) and ahard place (irreversibility, chronology, and simplicity). Our popularambiguity over both the positive and negative facets of an increasingly“time-shrinking,” electronic, synchronic existence perhaps becomesincreasingly symptomatized in such films and modes of storytelling.Notes1 This running time is a spatial quality of each medium: one minute of film at24 frames per second is equal to about 90 feet or 27.4 meters of celluloid (93.8feet or 28.6 meters at 25 frames per second), whereas one minute of screenplay(on celluloid) is equal to about 11 inches of paper (210mm for A4-sizedpaper).2 In the film version there are two more temporal titles than in the script, for atotal of 12. One of these titles moves us “forward” six months, from the timeLaroche is arrested in the swamp to the date of his trial. The other title occursnear the end, and serves once more to flash us “forward” three years (fromFAKAHATCHEE THREE YEARS EARLIER [in the script and film] toFLORIDA THREE YEARS LATER [only in the film]), presumably to the “present.”These additional titles remove some “confusion” in one regard, but alsofurther amplify the numbing effect of the many relative (i.e., “n months/yearsearlier/later” as opposed to absolute, i.e., “2001”) temporal titles.3 Cf. Bordwell (1985) for a description of terms adapted from the Russianformalists.4 The “cut to:” is frequently used to announce jarring cuts in screenplay format,in order to mark a formal separation between scenes – and is used in otherplaces in this script by Kaufman.5 Metz (1999) writes “A film is difficult to explain because it is easy to understand.The image impresses itself on us, blocking everything that is not itself”(p. 69).6 The trial actually occurred on Dec. 21, 1994, or less than 6 months “earlier,”according to Orlean’s (1998) book.7 Hurricane Andrew is a major paradox. By the above scheme, it would haveoccurred in the script during 1987 or 1988 (9 years earlier than 1996/1997).This is an anachronism, as Hurricane Andrew actually made landfall in 1992.Unless, of course, the script ends in 2001, and/or the NINE YEARS EARLIERis a global title-card from the approximate year of the film’s production – throwinganother disparate element into the temporal mix.8 With discrete multi-channel sound, and the possibility to choose betweenvarious dialogue tracks on DVDs, this is less true.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!