----- Original Message ----- From: Alison Page alison_page@becta.org.uk
The input of actors is also
important of course, particularly in the B7 world, which changed so much under so many influences, over the four seasons.
It is my feeling that the British tradition emphasises dialogue much more, coming as it does on a strong and high status theatrical tradition. This
has
changed quite a bit over the past thirty years, with greater emphasis nowadays on telling a story through visual cues as well as dialogue (cf 'Trainspotting') , but obviously B7 comes well before this time.
Cinema, though, is very different to television. Television is taped theatre, and emphasises the writer, whereas cinema concentrates on the visual, and as such emphasises the director (just think about the origins of each of them: early film had to rely exclusively on the visual and the odd title-card to get its message across, whereas early television went out live on a single soundstage). If you watch early television programmes from the 1950s, this is particularly evident-- while the filmed versions of the Quatermass stories are conventional horror films, the televised versions are staged, blocked and even filmed more or less as if someone had put two cameras in front of a stage.
In many ways, modern television programmes seem to be trying to be more like cinema films, and as such to place more emphasis on the director than on the writer. This unfortunately makes for poor television in three regards; firstly because it fails to play to the real strengths of the medium, secondly because a programme lacks the budget of a film, and finally because most television directors are, unfortunately, mediocre.
An American script editor I was talking to (by email) yesterday, said to
me
that he felt the British tradition was as he put it 'proscenium oriented', which has advantages and disadvantages. I think the advantages are that
the
strong emphasis on dialogue forces strong characterization, and a drive towards wit. On the other hand (as we can see in B7) it may damage the credibility of the action sequences, as insufficient thought is given to developing them.
I think you also have to add budgeting constraints to the reasons for the lack of action sequences-- you can't show a deep-space battle when you can't afford to :).
I think this is a potential defect of the B7 style, the lack of choreographing of action sequences. And perhaps it is because nobody - not writer, director or actor, is taking sufficient responsibility to define
it.
If you watch B7 though, you will notice that the fight choreography is much better on the filmed sequences than in the studio ones. There are four reasons for this: firstly, a studio is a much tighter space, and full of things like cables and sets which you have to be careful of, whereas on a beach you can more or less do what you like. Secondly, when filming in the studio one's generally on a tight schedule and consequently not going to be so concerned with getting the fight perfect, but on location you're more likely to want to do a good job, cos it's on film and you've just spent lots of money on the location. Thirdly, stuntmen cost money, and so aren't likely to be hired unless you have a very good reason, e.g. the death of a main character, but directors are more likely to go all-out for a filmed sequence. Fourthly, actors aren't stuntmen; you do get some, like Brian Croucher, who are comfortable with action sequences, but on the whole they don't really know what they're doing :).
I'm sorry this is a long post, but I thought this might be of interest to some people
Yes, it was :). Thanks!
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Filmed in 16mm at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com