MovieChat Forums > The Battle of the River Plate Discussion > Why no close-ups?

Why no close-ups?

posted 14 years ago by hobnob53
16 replies | jump to latest

Has anybody noticed the complete absence of close-ups in this film? Michael Powell seemed to have blocked every scene for long or medium shots. Even frames with just one person in them are shot at medium distance, never up close.

This struck me even when I saw the film as a kid, and frankly it's a bit maddening. This is especially so considering that Powell was noted (or should be) for some of the most exquisitely photographed and dramatic close-ups in the history of cinema. Most of his films, such as Edge of the World, 49th Parallel, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, I Know Where I'm Going, A Matter of Life and Death, Black Narcissus, The Red Shoes and of course Peeping Tom rely for much of their impact on timely, beautifully shot close-ups of key players at critical moments. Few directors ever used the technique more tellingly or proficiently. Their total absence in The Battle of the River Plate is as baffling as it is annoying.

The film's pacing and dialogue could have used some punching up as well: these also fell below Powell's and Pressburger's usual standards. No mistake, I'm a fan of the film. But it has some odd, most un-P&P, flaws.

[–] Steve Crook 14 years ago

Why should that be maddening? I'm genuinely curious. Surely it's permissible to use different cinematic styles for different subject matter. This film wasn't really about individuals very much, it was about large groups of people, and ships.

However, I don't think it's their best film. This one and Ill Met by Moonlight both suffer from being based on real events by very brave and daring people. The events as they happened are so unusual and unexpected it didn't leave them any room to add any of the usual P&P touches which, as you say, were more often based on individuals.

As for the dialogue, the Royal Navy has a fine tradition of being laid back and laconic, especially in their communication.

That's why one of my favourite exchanges is on board a badly shot up HMNZS Achilles
Gunnery Officer: Captain, sir.
Capt. Parry: Yes, guns?
Gunnery Officer: We've fired nearly 1200 rounds sir. About one third of the arsenal only remaining.
Capt. Parry: Thank you. Are you all right?
Gunnery Officer: A few new ventilation gaps here, sir. A bit draughty, but otherwise all right.
[Capt. Parry turns to look at gunnery control position full of shell holes]

Steve

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

It's maddening because it's monotonous, and also serves no cinematic point that I can see. Obviously, in photographing the battle, or the broad sweep of action aboard the naval vessels, close-ups would largely be eschewed to accommodate the action. But especially given the slow pace of much of the film, more variety in the camerawork would seem to have been a useful device. As it is, too often I'm practically squinting to see who's saying what. The feeling of constant remoteness from the individuals on screen also doesn't seem in keeping with either good cinema or life aboard ship -- especially among the prisoners.

Besides, why not any close-ups? Does their absence add something to this film? Make it better? Considering that so much of the film is taken up by the relationship between individuals, close-ups of at least some of the key players -- Peter Finch, Bernard Lee, John Gregson, Anthony Qualye (who I thought was very stiff in his performance) and many others -- would seem a positive technique, if employed judiciously.

Believe me, I'm well acquainted with the "laconic" traditions of British naval-speak! Even so, it's not the content of the dialogue as much as it's the pon-der-ous-ly de-lib-er-ate tone in which so much of it is delivered that's the problem (again, Quayle is to me the worst offender here -- though to be fair, at this point in his career he had virtually no experience of film acting; he seems more declarative in his enunciation, very stagey). The P&P who made the war stories 49th Parallel and One of Our Aircraft is Missing, keeping both the dialogue and action moving briskly, seem largely to have lost that ability in this film. The fact that this movie, and Ill Met by Moonlight, are based on actual people and events is frankly no excuse at all. These are, after all, theatrical films, not recordings of the actual events.

By the way, Steve, on my trip over last month I was able to stock up on a few other films available on DVD in the UK but not here -- including I Was Monty's Double, Ice Cold in Alex, Reach for the Sky, The Heroes of Telemark, Dunkirk, Genevieve, The Magic Box and, dare I admit to it, Behemoth the Sea Monster (which is available in the US, but in a longer version and under a different title). I couldn't find One of Our Aircraft is Missing and a couple of others I'd like and know are available. These R2s are currently at my fiancee's place (sorry, I'm kidnapping an English girl across the Atlantic this year), but will in due course be given safe haven here as part of "the library". (Catherine is very understanding, and a film buff!) Anyway, though I'd seen most of these films (except for Reach for the Sky and I Was Monty's Double), it was great to actually be able to get them. Oh, I also couldn't get hold of Ill Met by Moonlight, one P&P I've never seen. Maybe next trip.

[–] Steve Crook 14 years ago

Remember that it was made to be seen on a full sized (VistaVision wide screen) cinema screen, not squashed up into some tiny little TV screen. Even the larger TV screens don't give much of an impression of the panorama of the three British cruisers while they're hunting the seas for their prey or the size of the Graf Spee (USN Salem) as Capt. Dove is winched aboard.

It's a stylistic decision. He went for the sweeping panoramas rather than the close-ups. His style did change quite a lot across all the different films he made. That's one of the many things I love about his work, all of his films are so different, although yes, you can pick out a few common elements. But really the only common element is the superb quality.

Remember as well that this was at the end of their time working together. They remained great friends but they'd done all the work they wanted to do together at that time.

To a certain extent Powell was just having fun with this one. From 49th Parallel onwards they had been Masters of the Universe. With 49P they had the resources of a whole country and half of a continent to play with. With A Canterbury Tale they rebuilt Canterbury Cathedral in the studio. With Black Narcissus they rebuilt the Himalayas! With The Red Shoes and The Tales of Hoffmann they created their own ballet and opera companies. With A Matter of Life and Death they had the whole of this world and the other one to work in. They knew no limits. So when they had a whole Navy to play with, how could they resist?

One of Our Aircraft is Missing is available at http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000FFJVIM/papas-21

Ill Met by Moonlight is available at http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0001E5TLA/papas-21

Steve

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Well, of course, every film is composed for viewing on the big screen, not TV. But even accounting for the size difference in the screens, the characters in TBOTRP are still photographed remotely, from a distance. As I said, I find it monotonous and ultimaetly a bit trying. Funny how I had that impression when I first saw this film, at about the age of 10. Even then some rudimentary cinematic nag was emerging!

Actually, I disagree that Powell had no real common elements, stylistically, in his films. On the contrary, I think his screen compositions all had a great deal in common, in his blocking and photographing of actors and their surroundings. Of course this is a somewhat broad statement but I could pick out a P&P film pretty easily (I like to think) even if I hadn't seen most of them and had little knowledge of the men's backgrounds. Interestingly, I'd probably have the greatest trouble recognizing River Plate as a Powell film, expressly because it is so different in its styling.

But I certainly don't begrudge them making this war drama...even though they neglected to change the helmets worn by the sailors on the Salem -- men wearing very obvious American naval helmets trying to be passed off as Germans. And for that matter, they could have made Lionel Murton (as Mike Fowler, the American radio correspondent) a little less the overtly loud and obnoxious American so typically seen in British films of that era. Even then, not all of us were such jerks! (And resorting to using a Canadian!)

Thank you for the links for the films. I know they're around but simply never saw them on an excursion or two to HMV. But I shall have them one way or the other!!

[–] Steve Crook 14 years ago

The sailors on the Salem wore American helmets, not German ones, because the US Navy didn't want to play ball. They didn't allow their sailors to dress up as Germans. They also didn't allow the film-makers to paint a swastika on the foredeck either.

The character of Mike Fowler was based on a real character, like most of the other characters portrayed in the film. They did their research and it seems that the real Mike Fowler wasn't one of the Americans who refrained from being loud and obnoxious

Steve

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Yes, I've heard about the limited cooperation of the US Navy on this film. Frankly, I don't blame them for demurring at outfitting American sailors with German naval helmets, and certainly not for their refusal to have a swastika painted on the Salem. Barely a decade after the war, and with all the, shall we say, unpleasant connotations such symbols represented, I would expect there to be a lot of opposition to such a request. I'd have refused permission, certainly about the swastika. (Is that why they have that line about the Spee's having a number painted on her bows, as is done in the US Navy -- as a means of explaining away the absence of the swastika and the presence of the number? Or did the G.S. really have such markings?) As to the sailors, they might have tried filming around them somehow. It would have been inconvenient but not impossible. If nothing else, P&P were notoriously imaginative.

I also knew the Fowler character was real (or based on somebody real). Still, even if the real man was such a boor, they could have toned him down a bit for the film. What would he have done -- sued for defamation? Seriously, it's unnecessary, distracting and quickly becomes very tiresome, making him out to be such a one-dimensional clod. Okay, maybe two dimensions -- his closing sequences, describing the Graf Spee's departure and subsequent self-immolation, weren't badly handled.

[–] Steve Crook 14 years ago

The Royal Navy doesn't seem to have minded joining in with whatever The Archers suggested. They just made it into a training exercise for the crew.

The real Graf Spee did use some camouflage techniques. But the scene where Langsdorff is explaining all about that to Capt. Dove is also useful to explain the differences between the Salem and the Graf Spee.

Mike Fowler is deliberately a bit of a comic character in the film. He gives it a bit of light relief. I always like the scene where he's trying to get a line to the American radio stations by bribing the telephonist while his assistant is pulling out the connections she's already made.

Mike: I want NBC, CBC, ABC
Telephonist: Si si si
Mike: I know, the whole alphabet.

Steve

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

I kind of think the RN would have balked at actually painting a swastika on one of its vessels. On the other hand, there is a shot or two of a Nazi flag being run up the ship's staff. I wonder whether this was done aboard the Salem, or on one of the British ships -- or on someone else's. (I'm sure the Argentinians wouldn't have minded lending one of theirs for that purpose, but I guess they weren't involved.)

I like that sequence with the telephone operator, too. I wondered why he included the CBC -- I wasn't aware of any arrangements between the American and Canadian networks. But maybe they pooled their resources for such a faraway posting as Montevideo...especially when their reports are being broadcast from a bar run by Count Dracula. They might go through correspondents kind of fast.

[–] Steve Crook 14 years ago

I'm fairly sure that the Nazi flag was flown on an RN ship. They don't mind such things too much. We don't put any emphasis on desecrating the flag like many other countries do. If someone burns a Union Flag, we just sell them some more to burn

I think they just used CBC in the telephone operator scene because it was another acronym with 'C' in it. They were very good at factual research, but they also allowed themselves a bit of artistic license, especially for a good gag

Steve

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Yes, unfortunately, the ABC network wasn't formed until 1940, by one of the two chains of NBC radio stations that broke away from that company. I guess if he had blurted out CNN or something there would have been serious anachronism issues.

Many Americans are rather touchy about the flag. As a nation of immigrants with no real cultural or other antecedents in common, the sole thing that unites us is our national ideal -- land of the free and all that. So symbols like the flag attain outsized importance compared to some other countries, although let's face it, nationalism takes many forms (flags included) in many places. Still, it would have created a furor had it become known that a U.S. ship had been permitted to allow the Nazi swastika to be flown or painted on it. We had invested $100,000,000,000 and 16,000,000 men in fighting the Nazis (and Japanese), and their mass butchery of millions and horrendous ideologies were, I think, a barrier we could not cross, especially in desecrating an American warship. I'm don't get very exercised about the treatment (good or bad) of the U.S. flag, but as I said before, even I would have agreed with such a belief.

[–] Steve Crook 14 years ago

P&P were usually very good in their research and avoided most anachronisms.

As for the Union flag, as I said most of us don't mind what people do with it. It's only a bit of cloth. See what one of the people in a popular singing group did with it at http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/lanci/brits/spice_girls_823-s.jp g. What would happen if a pop group did something similar with the stars & stripes?

Individual regiments in the army fiercely protect the colours of their regiment. They have all of their battle honours on them and are a rallying point for the troops. The "Trooping the Colour" ceremony in London is based on the old tradition of showing the colours to the troops so that they'll know their own flag.

In the navy it's traditional that if a ship wants to surrender then it "strikes its colours" and hauls down its ensign. Because there's a chance that one might be shot away accidentally, when the Royal Navy goes into battle they fly battle ensigns from every available mast. That's why the lookout comments on the Exeter when she goes into the attack against the Graf Spee. They didn't want anyone to think they were surrendering if a few flags were shot away.

Steve

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Obviously (I thought), my anachronism comment was in jest. They actually did do a pretty good job keeping 1950s cars out of sight in the few shore scenes in River Plate.

Hey, people have used the American flag to decorate clothing, even bikinis, besides putting it on pillows, towels and even dog sweaters (jumpers). It isn't that sort of thing that gets people riled up so much as something like burning it, which is of course generally considered an insult to any country whose flag is burned or otherwise desecrated. Of course, there may be individual nationalistic differences in how overwrought people get about that sort of thing.

I remember an exchange student from the UK in my high school days (my school always had at least one each year), who remarked that he thought the American flag looked like a "real" flag, while the Jack was good for putting on the sides of shopping bags and things like that, but didn't look very "official". We laughed, but I was a bit surprised, especially as I think it looks like it belongs to a "real" country.

In the U.S., as you no doubt know, we have the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Of course, I grew up with it and find myself with occasion to recite it by rote every so often. (Mostly at monthly sessions of my fire department, in which I am a volunteer member -- qualified interior and exterior firefighter, I'll have you know, as well as radio man and ambulance driver. Plus I buy pretzels, Coke and toilet paper for the place.) Anyway, in what I suppose the Republican Party would cite as evidence of disloyalty, I have an inherent aversion to "nationalistic" trappings such as that, especially with its "mass-mind" aspect. A woman who's a close friend of mine, whose father was Hitler's ambassador to Ireland from 1937-1945, who has lived in the U.S. for over 50 years and has been an American citizen for most of that time, confided to me that she too has always been uncomfortable reciting the pledge, reminiscent as it is to her of the admittedly vastly more extreme expression of personal loyalty to you-know-who in Germany in the 30s and 40s, even though she was barely born in that era. (An oath I'm sure Capt. Langsdorf had to take as well.) Like me, she's a political liberal.

Thanks for explaining the lookout's comments re the battle ensign in TBOTRP. As to regimental colors and the like, it's basically the same with the U.S. Army and Navy, though there are differences in styling, handling and some other specifics, and not as ornate and ancient.

[–] Steve Crook 14 years ago

So Americans don't mind it being cut up or worn by dogs, but get annoyed if it's burnt? Some inconsistency there surely?

The British student's views just reflect that we don't put too much importance on the flag. It's just a piece of cloth. The British military's usual view is that it tells their people not to die for their flag - but to make the other bloke die for his!

But don't get me wrong, I'm not mocking. I was aware of the American pledge of allegiance to the flag. It just seems strange to us, or to me. It is sometimes useful to have a non-political head of state who you can make a pledge of allegiance to. Mrs Queen does a bit more than just appear on the banknotes and on the stamps

I thought that Hitler's ambassador to the UK before the war was Joe Kennedy! ( again) He was certainly an Anglophobe and he was also a fan of Hitler's Germany, at least in the early days before the war was officially declared.

Well done for your volunteer work.

Steve

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Inconsistency? Nous? Actually, I think real flag-borne outrage is felt only when there's an outright act of deliberate defilement in a political cause. Obviously lots of protestors around the world see a nation's flag as a convenient symbol to burn in anger over some alleged slight, so such an act must push some people's buttons. Americans seem to be the most common flag-burning targets, but I recall many others (Union Jacks, too) being consigned to some mob's bonfire.

Personally, I prefer having the head of state and head of government in one. Anyway, nowhere do we pledge personal allegiance or an oath to any individual, only to the Constitution, so nothing's personalized, even to a Queen or some quasi-figurehead (no offense to HRH). I'm a minor elected official in New York (basically a town councilman, in a very small village!), and take an oath every two years to support the constitutions of The United States, the State of New York, and the laws of the village. We can't even place a president's image on coins or whatever until he's been dead for a while.

My friend's father was ambassador to Ireland, but yes, old man Kennedy was pretty much of a "sympathizer", to put it obliquely. It was the one big time in his life that Joe guessed wrong in who he picked as a winner, and he paid dearly for it in losing all his public esteem. In some ways it's remarkable his sons (all the family) were able to surmount that obloquy and become successful and respected without him dragging them down. (During the early portion of the 1960 campaign, former President Harry Truman, who didn't like Jack Kennedy, was asked privately if that had anything to do with Kennedy's Catholcism. No, said Truman -- "It's not the Pope I'm worried about, it's the Pop.") Sr. became quite viciously anti-semitic and isolationist even after WWII, and supported Joe McCarthy and other right-wingers, albeit surreptitiously. It's terrible that Joe, Jr., was killed in the war, of course, but as he was the one marked for politics (Jack assumed the mantle afterwards), it's also worth noting that he was the son most like the father and might therefore not have summoned the measure of detachment and independence Jack did to maintain some distance from the old man, and hence not have been as successful in politics, at least not making it to the W.H. By the way, Rose was quite fascistic. All her life (remember she lived 1890-1995) she praised both Chamberlain, arguing he had been absolutely right and badly treated by history and the British public, and Pope Pius XII. (Of course, the King and Queen and the entire Royal Family loved Chamberlain and Munich, and later had to go to great lengths to bury that particular piece of ignominy under the carpet of history.) One final Kennedy story: during the 1960 campaign, JFK and Bobby intervened to get Martin Luther King, Jr., out of prison in Georgia for a sit-in at an Atlanta restaurant. Subsequently, a grateful Rev. King, Sr. ("Daddy King", as he was known) announced that he was switching his allegiance from Nixon -- whom he had endorsed several weeks earlier on religious grounds -- to Kennedy. The endorsement certainly helped JFK, but the irony of it didn't escape him. "Imagine," he told one of his aides, "Martin Luther King having a bigot for a father?" But then he smiled and added, "Of course, we all have fathers, don't we?"

Well, off to dinner. There is a lot on our plate.

Hey, I had to say something to make this post seem, like the Ajax, on target.

[–] Steve Crook 14 years ago

As I said, we don't mind too much when someone burns the Union flag - we just sell them a few more to burn as well

It's always difficult knowing what the best system would be. Our system suits (most of) us and your system suits (most of) you

As well as those other sins, remember that Joe Kennedy was one of the few who pulled out of the stock market before the crash, and then had quite a good career as a bootlegger. But his sons did much better, for the short while they were allowed to do so.

Ah well, back to work tomorrow. I mainly work from home (SW London, near Wimbledon) but tomorrow I have to go into the office for a few meetings with clients and to run some training courses to share the benefit of my wisdom. The trouble is that the office is in north London - over an hour away on the tube. That's why I mainly work from home

Steve

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Old Joe was a business genius, no question. He's the person who arranged the lunch at the famed Oyster Bar in NYC's Grand Central Station in 1928 with David Sarnoff of RCA, where they struck the deal to merge their companies -- Joe owned FBO, a film studio he had cobbled together a few years earlier -- into a new studio that became RKO -- Radio Keith Orpheum, the latter two from a chain of vaudeville houses in the US and Canada acquired to show motion pictures. Kennedy was entitled to a major corporate position but because there were only so many spots open he graciously volunteered to leave the company he had formed altogether, allowing Sarnoff to put his own guy in. He was tiring of Hollywood anyway and needed to concentrate on getting out of the stock market, where he later made a killing after the crash by selling short and buying up good investments at rock bottom prices. When FDR named Joe the first head of the brand new SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates Wall Street, after a fashion) in 1933, and was asked why he chose a known market manipulator, Roosevelt answered, "It takes a crook to nab all those other crooks."

Anyway, we owe him RKO and three decades of some great films (King Kong, Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons, plus Astaire-Rogers and the best films noirs).

My fiancee currently lives in Wivenhoe in Essex, though she's from, well, various places -- Leicester, Sandhurst, London, all over. She once lived near Wimbledon too, I believe. I'm basically retired now, but I always worked out of my home. Pioneers, that's what we are!

See you later, Steve.

And good night, Captain Langsdorff, wherever you are.