MovieChat Forums > Marcella (2016) Discussion > From the "staring into space" school of ...

From the "staring into space" school of drama


This show epitomizes a symptom that is always a sign of mediocre (or worse) writing. it consistently resorts to the empty tactic of having characters stare into space. They stand on balconies, or at high-rise office windows, or sit in cars, or on couches (always with beers), etc. and stare.

Always accompanied by portentous music, and if glass is involved, with aesthetic reflections beautiful or grim, with striking lighting, bokeh effects, dribbling rain, and so forth. In other words, literal window dressing.

Fast-forward any given episode of Marcella, and you will note an astonishing number of such "scenes." Cumulatively, the season is bloated with them. This recycling of the same behaviour pattern -- no matter which character -- and meaningless variations on the same basic image, takes up a tremendous amount of real estate.

Marcella is so egregious that at a certain point I couldn't ignore the sheer, absurd volume of it. The "spot the space-out" game started to compete with the pleasure of watching for clues related to the murder-mystery, which unfortunately was not super-fascinating to begin with.

I take this symptom, in any show, as a red flag that the writers are, if not hacks, at least uninspired. It's a warning to manage expectations and not get my hopes up. Because I have yet to see a show with a lot of space-staring that turned a corner and became a first-rate drama.

Tension dissipates due to diminishing returns of watching the same pattern, and opportunity for character exploration and possible revelation are denied. Momentum bogs down, and the rhythm becomes repetitive. What's left is mostly empty portent.

The pattern cues you to expect what will happen: a significant event will occur, and soon enough any given character's default response will be to gaze into space. This is especially true of Marcella. This constant echoing makes the characters seem to be made of the same stony material. Most of the time, with few exceptions, their repetoire of emotional expression is staring into short, middle or long distances.

In a character study, the writers' job is to find ways unique to character that can externalize their inner lives. In a drama with inspired writing, characters don't constantly and simply stare at the view. When they do, they are also doing something interesting. For example, they are looking at something specific. Or they are doing something interesting and revealing with their hands, their bodies, or with some object. But neither the writers nor the directors have given these scenes life. They're dead. They sound and look foreboding and intense and deeply felt, but after a dozen repeats or so they just seem like a looped video.

You can see the desperation of the director to make these "scenes" do something without actually finding substance. We get what Billy Wilder called "The Santa Claus shot," meaning a camera positioned in meaningless, ridiculous places (in Wilder's example, inside a fireplace). We get tracking shots behind objects that look like the POV of someone spying in this intimate moment. We get wide-angle depth-focus, telephoto shallow focus, we get rack focus (a face, then reflections over the face)...

The DP strains to find or create interesting optical effects. Then there's the effort of the actors to muster up meaningful facial gestures when they've "played" this moment a dozen times already, essentially required to stand still and, well, emote something. Cue music. Did they block shoot these scenes, spending a day shooting everybody's staring moments?


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

You have really analyzed this show. You are so right about so many things. The one thing that annoys me is when the good guy turns his back on the killer to make a phone call or is otherwise distracted. So stupid, so predictable!

reply

Thank you. I think they wasted much potential, including Anna Friel's talent. It's in the writing.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

The premise - a detective with a mental illness who is not only discovering whodunnit but her own involvement in the crime, and therefore covering her tracks along the way - is a good one with lots of potential. Stories with potentially engrossing ideas but with mediocre execution that severly limit their potential are particularly disappointing.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

To each his own. I found it to be an excellent and involving show. I doubt most viewers are analyzing the mise-en-scene like a film student. The acting is excellent and the plot, though strained at times, commands your attention throughout. Friel is dynamite in this.

Greatly looking forward to season 2.

reply

Devaluing someone's "own" because it's not a majority view isn't in the spirit of "to each their own." You depict close attention as an abberation, not the norm, implying irrelevance.

The fact that most people aren't particularly enthusiastic and curious about the art is no slight on those who are. To my mind, paying close attention shows respect for the creative team, not to mention respects one's own capacity to see.

I always start with how I feel. I'm interested in why, in what might have caused those feelings. The only way to find out is to look at the story. Mis en scene is created to have an effect. So it's reasonable to look at it to see how it might have contributed to my experience.

To say "excellent and involving" is simply an expression of pleasure, with the same value as its equivalent opposite, "it sucked." Whether a final judgment is pleasure or displeasure isn't nearly as interesting to me as why someone feels the way they do. Although I might disagree with someone's conclusion, with certain people what they say about a drama can be perceptive and very much worth reading.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

I really appreciate your analysis. It was very well thought out written down in a manner that makes others possibly rethink why or why not they liked this show. You obviously have personal standards when it come to your film/tv viewing.

reply

Beautifully put, sir. I wanted to like the show but it was simply cringeworthy to watch.
Plotholes, bad writing, maniacs in every direction, subplots, unrealistic assumptions...in short, a mess.

reply

To each his/her own. I appreciate the OP putting a lot into the analysis of the show but it's oversimplification to say it's the "staring into space" school of drama. Some might instead say things like "subtle" or "understated". The show is deliciously dark, even harsher in tone than comparable shows like "Luther". I appreciate a show that doesn't try to make its characters likeable, but instead presents them as flawed and self-destructive.

I was riveted by it and look forward to the arrival of season 2.



"This is dead air, Barry....dead air."

reply

Yeah, to each his/her own. I wouldn't say it's "oversimplification" to talk about the embarrassing bad writing of this show. One example for all, what happens to the Moroccan brother, witness of Marcella's presence at the crime scene...we never know...If it's meant to be revealed in the 2nd season, as some people here suggest (based on what?), it's even more embarrassing.
The show has some very good things going on, like the dark ambience (as you rightly said) and the premises of an internally conflicted/mentally unstable female cop is very interesting, but it gets, unfortunately very badly developed.
The fact that she is allowed to work the case in which her husband's lover gets murdered, it's so unrealistic and naive, unless of course, British detectives are the stupidest policemen on earth (they might be...who knows ?)...
Not too mention the many subplots, from gay raging lovers to a self-asphixiated polish immigrant blackmailing his contract/killer landlord...
Sorry, but it's messy, at best. I really wanted to like it but I couldn't shake the idea that everytime they want to insert "mystery" and pathos to a scene, Marcella has a fit of "black hole" memory. The trick gets old pretty fast.
Too bad. As I said before, the premises to make an amazing show were all there. They just missed them, for the most part.

reply

Yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the flaws you mentioned are relatively minor and I forgave them because the other elements of the show and the acting are so captivating. For some, the oversights might be a big deal but not for me. The show received a lot of critical acclaim (not that that's always a hallmark indicator)....89% overall on Rotten Tomatoes....just sayin'.



"This is dead air, Barry....dead air."

reply

Mind you, I watched the whole thing because I found captivating things about it too. But overall, it disappointed me, a lot. Anyway...agree to disagree. Cheers mate.

reply

Well said! Cheers to you as well...


"This is dead air, Barry....dead air."

reply

I thought I was alone. I really wanted to like it but I'd was messy AF!

reply