Garret Cooper quotes Heath saying, “The look, joins form of expression- the composition of the images and their disposition in relation to one another—and form of content- the definition of the action of the film in the movement of looks, exchanges, objects seen and son on… One wonders how the look can mediate a relationship to which it is itself a part.”
In class we watched a short film where Alfred Hitchcock described how it is through editing that the audience understands certain emotions. For example, in one shot there is a mother and child playing in the grass and in the next shot is an old man smiling; the audience would therefore perceive the old man as an almost grandfather type figure. In the next shot there is a young woman lying in the grass wearing a bikini and in the next shot is the same old man smiling; however, in this case the audience reads the expression of the old man as creepy. I believe Heath’s concept of ‘the look’ narrated an entire scene without cuts is exemplified in love stories such as, Sleepless in Seattle There are certain scenes where a glance from either Meg Ryan or Tom Hanks expressed the entire emotion of that one scene without edits or cuts.
For example, in multiple scenes where Meg Ryan is listening to the radio, the camera remains on her face, since she is reacting to a radio. Even though sometimes the camera cut to Tom Hanks character, it is not the combination of shots that create this love narrative. It is clear through her countenance that Meg Ryan is sympathetic to Tom Hanks and at the same time hesitant about her own engagement to Bill Pullman.
Another example is when Meg Ryan flies to Seattle and sees Tom Hanks playing with his son. Yes, there were edits back and forth from Ryan’s face to Hanks however they were not essential to the narrative. Ryan’s face without the editing made it clear that she was witnessing something she should not be but at the same time wanting to be a part of whatever she was witnessing.
For me however, it is the last scene in the film that epitomizes the importance of the look in the narrative of a film. Cooper says, “ Sleepless in Seattle joins Sam and Annie’s look first across the limits of the frame, then within them in a long-shot that tracks with Sam as he walks towards Annie to frame the couple at last in medium two-shot. But it is not difficult to locate other ways of putting together the same sort of sequence. Because the look itself is the common denominator in any number of different ways of framing it.” Though there is no set look for love but the gaze that is captured in the last scene describes it all.
When I first got out of the film, I honestly was not that impressed by the film. I thought that it was cute, predictable, your typical love story. However, as I read Cooper’s article, which at times for me was dense, I started to appreciate the film a lot more. I respected the film and the actors in it because I think the ability to narrate a whole entire scene with a gaze with very difficult (for an actor). I think the simplicity of the film is what is so appealing about this movie. It is your typical love story and I think audiences appreciate films like Sleepless in Seattle every now and then. And after analyzing the film, I have discovered to appreciate it more too.
6 comments:
I'd tend to agree with you. I left the film thinking something along the lines of "what a load of (insert word of choice here)." But, like you, the more I think and talk about the film, the more I too enjoy it. What struck me when I was reading your blog was the picture that accompanies it. The spatial aspects of it are marvelous. Going to back to Steve Milligan's discussion, this particular image is perfect in two ways. The first is that, compositionally speaing, it obeys the rule of thirds. We see Jonah in in the bottom third, and Annie and Sam in the top. Similarly, we Annie, Jonah, and then Sam, neatly arranged in (almost) vertical thirds. It makes for a particularly asthetic image. And while this adherence to the rule might make the shot seem to stiff, it is the looks and expressions (what Garret Cooper was saying about Heath) that connects all the thirds together. Sam is looking at Annie, and this first uninterrupted look (back to Wynn's idea of "barriers" between them) conveys to us everything they are feeling in this "utopian space." What's even more interesting to me is Jonah in this image. Here, his physical position is not, as it might seem, a barrier between Annie and Sam, but rather another connection, for Jonah, too, is looking at Annie. And for the the first time in the film, the expression on Jonah's face while he is looking at another woman mirrors that of his father. Through this, we are truly able to understand each of the characters.
I agree that Sleepless in Seattle left me much less impressed than the other films Meg Ryan and Nora Ephron have collaborated on. For example, I love When Harry Met Sally. Yet, the very elements you speak of, such as Ryan's countenance, are the ones I find hard to relate to and consider them a bit trite in Sleepless in Seattle, as well as You've Got Mail(another Ephron-Ryan-Hanks film collaboration), which has that same focus on the actor's facial expressions.
In comparison to When Harry Met Sally, directed by Rob Reiner and not Ephron, "the look" was not the narration technique and the story is not fueled by it. In my opinion, it's the use of long shots and often long takes (thereby keeping the offscreen space irrelevant) of Ryan and Billy Crystal's characters that make the romance easier to believe. This back-and-forth of shots between Hanks and Ryan got to be a bit boring and old after a while. And the fact that Ryan's character and Hanks' character do not meet until the end followed by an intent gaze at each other seems sappy.
However, I do agree after examining the cinematographic elements in Sleepless in Seattle I appreciate it somewhat more, because as we saw in the workshop, it's pretty tough stuff. But just because it's tough, doesn't mean I have to like it :P
The gazes = pure Hollywood butter.
Through analyzing the looks, you've reaffirmed the important messages that the actors communicated to each other without saying a word. But looks aren't the only body language that these characters put to use in telling the story. From watching Annie crumpling up her love note to viewing the scene of her hiding in the closet listening to the radio, we get a picture of her that is fuller and more intricate than the script alone could produce. Reading the stage direction "Annie looks longingly through the windshield" can tell us the writer's intention for the scene, but it doesn't become real until we see her actually do it. This is what I love about film - seeing a story come to life.
Hmm - I'm not sure if I agree with everything in the original post. To me, its not just the emotions apparent in the actor's face which tells me the love story. I need the editor to help push the narrative. When Sam (Tom Hanks) is looking out over the water, I assume he is longing for the romance that he has been deprived of. I didn't get this from the actor himself, but from the eyeline matched edits to Annie (Meg Ryan). Its the same when Annie is listening to the radio in her car. I get from Ryan's face that she is emotionally affected by Sam's story. However, without the cuts to Sam himself, the romance between the two charaters is not established - instead, I just see Annie as vulnerable to the romantic ideal (after the conversation with her mother).
I would tend to agree with what MCJ said above pertaining to the necessary role of the editor. If the looks of Annie (Meg Ryan) and Sam (Tom Hanks) were not edited together in the classic shot-reverse shot pattern, the love narrative would fall apart. According to Stephen Heath in his book Questions of Cinema , "there are 'normal ways' of organizing dialogue scenes," and the normal convention is definitely a shot-reverse shot pattern in which the camera flips focus between the two characters. Even though Annie and Sam are not exchanging words throughout most of the movie, their "looks" serve as words. For example, when Sam is staring off into the distance talking on the phone in his living room, his lonely look is received by Annie, who is driving in her car on the East Coast, thanks to some terrific editing. If you removed the edits from this movie, you would be left with two fragmented tales of lonely, unhappy people. Instead, you get a "cute, predictable, typical love story" which everyone can appreciate every now and then.
I did think you were right on with your assessment of the film as a whole - I was surprised to see it on a film class syllabus as well. But once you get past the narrative (easier said than done) and embrace the film on a technical level like Mark Garrett Cooper does in his article Love, Danger, and the Professional Ideology of Hollywood Cinema, you see the film in a completely new light.
Greetings Jordan,
This is Alexis, the person grading the blog component of the class. Thanks for this post and your exploration of the readings within the context of "Sleepless in Seattle." As your classmates suggest, you may give the facial expressions of the actors a little too much credit for the effects achieved by the film. Maybe this is why so many of us fall in love with actors..and not editors and directors. I look forward to continuing to read your posts and to more careful attention to the technical behind the scenes, post-production magic going on in the movies.
Best,
Alexis
Post a Comment