The convention of doubling back on the point of view to show different aspects of the same scene?

Hitchcock, sort of - he used it a bit in The Trouble With Harry. Brian DePalma has used it a couple of times and critics seem to think of him as a poor man's Hitch. Blow Out uses it as does 1966's Blow Up.

Even The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence used it, but in a flashback scenario...and I think I know which French film you're refering to, though it's name escapes me. I see Jean Paul Belmando as the lead...but I could be brain farting...and if Orson Welles never used it, I would be surprised, although I can't think of a specific movie of his which used it - maybe The Third Man in a flashback...the original Italian Job?

I do think that QT's use of it is the best example of How to do it - the editing and timing are as close to perfect as one could hope. Seamless, continuity between actor placement and camera shots - magnificient!

One "convention" that jumped out at me was the way he used long, slow shots of someone going here or there but unlike most shots of these kind which feel like padding, he keeps it interesting and even builds tension, and he does it at least 4 times in Jackie.

I would be willing to bet that we'd have to go back to a silent movie to find the origin of that sort of back-and-forth POV gag. Be fun to find the first instance of it...

by MedfordTim on 03/14/2010 06:12:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's been done many times, but this QT thing  always reminds me of a scene that is very similar. To present a scene from different viewpoints was done so often that it is nearly a cliche, but  it is rare that three versions directly follow each other. Also the passing of the money seems to be important to the scene I remember.
I have do agree though that Quentin does it brilliantly.
About that convention with the long shot: That has been done brilliantly by Brian DePalma in Snake Eyes. That opening scene is fantastic, even though it consists of 8 shots, it looks like one.

I take DePalma over Hitchcock every day, Hitchvcock is quite dated, especially some stuff like the shower scene in Psycho.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/15/2010 03:51:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I will never forget coming out of the theater as a 9 year old after watching The Birds and seeing what seemed like a thousand birds on the telephone lines overhead. Brrrr!

I wasn't trying to disparage DePalma; I can't remember any of his I haven't liked, just pointing out what his major detractors usually point to. If I had a complaint, it would be that he does too many remakes for my taste. I'd like to see more things springing from his well rather than another reinterpretation. 

I wasn't thinking so much of the sustained long view like the beginning of Goodfellas, more like the huge number of B movies who have a long shot of someone walking or driving that really doesn't advance the story or add anything other than running time.

I agree that the shower scene is dated, but it opened the door for so much since - it really was a watershed moment in getting movies back from the censor board. Remember, he wasn't known as the master of horror, rather the master of suspense. That's one thing dating doesn't remove when it's done right.

by MedfordTim on 03/15/2010 12:39:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hitchcock just doesn't appeal to me, because his suspence was once original, but he created so many standarts, that his movies seem like a collection of cliches (which they obviously aren't, it's not his fault that everybody ripped his ideas) and a little slow.

Plus, he is maybe too much of a pervert for me.
Ever seen The Pervert's Guide to Cinema?
When Zisek talked about flowers and David Lynch I had to laugh really hard.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/16/2010 01:56:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]