Writing


On these message boards, I generally follow the old advice "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all." But this film has driven me to break that rule.

Faulkner's attempt at showing sophistication by not writing in complete sentences didn't work for me.

I find myself wanting to yell out the missing words, especially when sentences have no subjects, like Lionel Twain shouting at Sidney Wang in Murder by Death. "HE IS! HE IS blind, not just 'blind!'"

It sounds like Faulkner thought that upper-class Brits never spoke in full sentences, or at least not when acting brave and carefree under stress.

The effect is made even funnier due to the actors making no attempt at appropriate accents -- I know that was SOP in those days, but it still adds to the bizarre sound of it.

Or perhaps Faulkner invented the International Imitation Hemingway Contest long before its actual start in 1977.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Imitation_Hemingway_Competition

I just have to say, "Movie hurts ears. Lack of words annoying."

reply

Yes, I noticed the clipped dialogue and the lack of british accents. I figured that was a sign of the times. In these classic movies everyone's accent and way of speaking seems to fall into a different pattern than what we hear today. They also seem to speak at an accelerated pace.

I notice the same kind of thing when I see old news reel footage and news stories from that time. I have always figured this was done in an attempt to get more dialogue into less time. As time goes by I suppose the screenwriters and newswriters have learned to use fewer words to make their point.

What really stood out to me though is how the issue of sex was dealt with in the movie. It's not something I thought was ever allowed. The word sex, of course, was never used and all references to it were very veiled but for the idea of it to find its way into the popular movies of this era surprises me.

I had always heard stories of what was and was not allowed into movies (and on TV) but lately when I see these older movies and programs I'm noticing they dealt with a far wider range of issues and topics than I would have expected. What's most fascinating is, even though times, values and what's acceptable in our culture has changed a great deal since these movies were made, these movies could be remade today. Naturally some tweaking would be required but, for the most part, a great number of the plots would still work.

reply

I watch movies from this era all the time -- this one went well beyond the clipped and fast-talking style, which I am accustomed to, and generally like. It really distracted me to the point of giving me the giggles, which is hardly the reaction the filmmakers intended!

As for the issue of sex and the frankness in a film from 1933, you may already be aware of this, but, just in case, here's some info. I find this stuff fascinating -- hope you do, too.

Movies from before 1934 were often pretty frank. Among other things, characters broke the law or had sex without being married, with no negative consequences.

In mid-1934, things got stricter, and the rules (which had actually been in the works since 1927, and set down in 1930) were strictly enforced for about two decades.

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code

https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/doherty-hollywood.html

reply

Thanks for this info. I found it interesting and useful. It helps to put things into the proper perspective.

reply

You're welcome!

reply