I loved this movie. Marlon Brando singing, Frankie, that cat number, the 50's charm, whats not to love? But, I found the lack of close ups and medium shots a bit distracting. I could hardly see the character's faces. i had to have it on zoom all the time. it basically had one long shot the whole time.That's my only criticism of this highly entertaining movie
Susan Sarandon on Femac: You've got mail, unlike the prisoners at Guantanamo bay.Get informed!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well, since we're talking about a musical, I'll say that for dance numbers longer shots (both in terms of backing off to show the entire body, and in terms of duration) are generally better. It goes back to the old Fred Astaire philosophy of "Either the camera is going to dance or I'm going to dance. And I'm going to dance."
When I see a lot of cutting and tighter shots in a dance number, it just screams at me that the actor is incapable of performing the dance.
Some of the more visually gifted or innovative directors found ways to deal with close-ups in the very wide formats, often by composing the shot so as to create smaller frames within the larger frame. Mankiewicz made some truly great movies. However, his strength was always the verbal; he was a writer first. Creating innovative visuals by using the camera in unorthodox ways was never his strength.
To the Original Poster's complaint about the lack of closeups in GUYS AND DOLLS:
First of all, a distinctive flaw within the design of CinemaScope lenses caused a horizontal distortion when objects were photographed at very close distances; especially the human face. (Some cameramen of the time referred to this as "the CinemaScope mumps.") If you recall ever watching an early 'Scope picture and noticing that an actor's face looks conspicuously broader than normal in closeups, that's the reason why. Off the top of my head, this applies to THE ROBE, SOME CAME RUNNING, and THE BEST OF EVERYTHING, among many other films from the 1950s and early '60s.
Despite the widely-repeated opinion which PillowRock "buys into" above, Joseph L. Mankiewicz was a sharply visual director. OP Mrs. Krabappel may regret the lack of tight, single-actor closeups in GUYS AND DOLLS, but the majority of its close shots are two-shots of Sister Sarah and Sky, outside the Sav-a-Soul mission but especially in the Havana sequence. The clear intention -- as nowhere else in the movie -- was to enhance the intimacy between two characters in their increasing attraction to each other. (In contrast, the Adelaide/Nathan Detroit scenes use no closeups because that relationship is depicted strictly for comedy.) And in fact, within the closest (and lengthiest) Havana two-shot, the "mumps" effect is somewhat reduced by having Brando facing away from the camera on the left of the screen, as Simmons (on the right) is placed slightly farther from the camera lens ... but even so, her face is still slightly distorted.
Still another possible reason for such few GUYS AND DOLLS close shots may well have been that Mankiewicz (or cinematographer Harry Stradling) wanted to avoid the distraction of "the mumps."
But last, as a hardcore Mankiewicz fan I have to assert that "creating innovative visuals" is hardly the only or even the first requisite for excellent film direction. Apart from JLM having written some of the cleverest dialogue (and most thoughtful and moving monologues) in film history, he also wrote AND directed many brilliant sequences that are free of speech. Consider the excruciatingly suspenseful espionage segments in 5 FINGERS; or Linda Darnell's brilliantly resourceful escape from her deaf/mute captor in NO WAY OUT; or the justly famous concluding shot from ALL ABOUT EVE, which has lost none of its power after 66 years. Mankiewicz directed THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR (his fourth film) or SLEUTH (his last, 1972) without having written their screenplays; yet both of those pictures remain among his best.
No, "using the camera in unorthodox ways" was not a Mankiewicz trademark. But that approach is a crutch for many directors (especially since the 1980s) who lack the basic talent to select the camera placement and the composition to tell the story, rather than relying on disorienting angles, unnecessary camera moves, and quick cuts to keep the viewer's attention.
But since I brought up ALL ABOUT EVE: Just how conventional could it have been for its time when the frame freezes just as Eve reaches for that award? Rather an innovative decision for 1950, no?
Most great films deserve a more appreciative audience than they get.