MovieChat Forums > The Sum of Us (1995) Discussion > Direct addresses to the camera

Direct addresses to the camera


I've seen this film a bunch of times now and love it in general, but this is the one aspect of it that seems to (sometimes) stick in my craw. In one viewing I'll appreciate it for the deeper insight it provides into Harry's and Jeff's characters; then the next viewing it'll bother me because it doesn't allow me as viewer to be the unperceived observer--gives it the feel of a documentary at times. I just can't seem to make up my mind (obviously) about the use of this device in this film. I'd be very interested to get the responses of others to it.

"Tell you what . . . the truth is . . . sometimes I miss you so much I can hardly stand it." --Jack Twist

reply

I thought it was OK until the father's stroke, when he "breaks out of character" to joke with the audience. It seemed a bit tacky at that point, but otherwise it was refreshing and didn't bother me too much.

reply

The film was based on a play, and in the theatre it's not so uncommon to have a character speak directly to the audience. To do so in the film was audatious. It could have been done in voiceovers, for example. But I think it works in keeping the film light and breezy where it could have been more wrought and heavy.

reply

I just watched in for the first time last night. When Harry first broke the fourth wall I thought "oops" but then realized that it was part of the show. I liked when he talked to the camera after his stroke. Made me realize that even tho' someone may not be able to communicate the way they used to, their mind still works the same and its probably frustrating that folk don't understand them anymore.

I thought it was a great film.

Dum Vivamas Vivamas

reply

It's a very old stage technique. (I think it's called "an aside".) In the right hands it can work, sometimes it's overdone.

Used properly, as I think it was here, it can convey a considerable amount of exposition that might otherwise require huge amounts of additional stage time to establish. It was also used to good effect in "Jeffrey", another movie-from-a-play.

I'd never thought that asides might make some people uncomfortable by reminding them that the people they're watching are aware of an audience.

---
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things,"
Of atoms, stars and nebulæ, of entropy and genes.
---

reply

It made me feel as though I was watching the play. Most times when they break the fourth wall I lose interest in this movie I thought it worked perfectly. The first time after the stoke I nearly fell out of my chair.





I want freedom from unwarranted accusations of sucrose theft and I want it NOW!

reply

in this movie I thought it worked perfectly
Same here. However, I have seen it overdone — almost to the point where they were narrating the story instead of "filling in".
The first time after the stoke I nearly fell out of my chair.
Again, same here! The Dad did such a good job of acting like he'd been paralyzed that when he moved and started speaking I, too, was surprised.

***
Have you noticed that in Shakespeare's plays soothsayers said the sooth, the whole sooth, and nothing but the sooth?
***

reply

I loved it in the beginning but found it disturbing and inappropriate after the father's stroke.

___
I CYF

reply

It took away the realism and the seriousness. If they wanted it to be a stageplay, it should've stayed on the stage and NOT put on film. I honestly did'nt like it after Jacks first speech to the camera. I'll never watch it again.

reply

Sorry you didn't like it.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Perhaps it's because I've seen a number of screenplays adapted from stage plays.

But then:

No two persons ever watch the same movie.

reply

I liked breaking the fourth wall. It made us understand the characters more.

reply