Unlike the setting on the stage, the plot, performance, and scenes in the movie are usually realistic, but the singing and dancing performances are highly stylized and non-realistic. How to coordinate the two and avoid making the audience feel that the introduction of the song and dance part is too abrupt is a difficult problem that many song and dance film directors need to solve. In this regard, some attempts by the director of the film are successful. For example, the "noise" made by a man dancing seriously disturbed the heroine who was sleeping downstairs, causing the two not to play the choreography they didn't know each other. Here, dance is no longer purely a performance, but an important narrative tool that promotes the development of the plot and influences the development of the role relationship. But in the same scene mentioned above, there is still the abruptness mentioned above: the two people talked and talked well in the living room, why did one of them sing and the other just sat there and watched? After all, this episode is not showing the protagonist's rehearsal on stage!
Astaire was always fighting alone, even when he sang farewell to his lover. Singing without interaction may be lyrical but difficult to promote the development of the plot, let alone create a comic effect. Personally, I feel that the film and even most Hollywood song and dance directors are inferior to their predecessor Liu Bieqian in digging into the drama or comedy function of the song itself. Although there are "singing" passages in "Smiling Lieutenant", Liu Bieqian creatively cross-edited two songs in different time and space to portray the character's psychology through the contrast between the tune and the singer's mood. In "Amorous History of the Red Chamber" there are a large number of male and female duets. And it's not that when you sing a song, I can only act as a live prop (just like an opera), but in a way that you and I are similar to dialogue. The two sides interact closely and the effect is vivid and humorous. Of course, you can also say that this will destroy the integrity and appeal of the song itself. But the question is, can you be sure that Astaire’s singing is as attractive as his dance? If not, then this explanation is actually an excuse for the director's lack of artistic creativity.
When film critics praised the film, the most popular mention was the scene where the hero and the heroine danced together in the gazebo in the rain, and also led to Fred Astaire’s creative concept of film dance: dance scenes should not be edited by the camera. The damage should be as complete as possible. Only in this way can the artistic charm of dance itself be displayed to the maximum! From the perspective of pure appreciation of dance, of course it is great, glorious and correct. But from the perspective of film aesthetics, it has not seen how clever it is. Because it is not difficult for a professional dancer to perform uninterrupted performances that last for several minutes. Similar performances are being performed every day on the Broadway stage. No one would call a card on the way and rest for a while before going on stage and then jumping. The director's side is even more trouble-free. He only needs to turn on the camera to record the whole process of the actor's performance. During this period, the consumption of physical strength and brain cells is not even as good as the broadcast of a football match. In other words, whether an actor or a director, they just did something that was supposed to be done. That's it.
Speaking of the difficulty of realizing long shots, I think of "A Journey to American Cinema" which I have just watched recently. When introducing the smooth long-shot styles of several American directors in the 1930s, as an example, Martin Scorsese gave a middle segment of Ty Garnett’s work: the camera followed by the guy who shot the hall and walked through with a tray. Crowded dance floor to deliver gin to the guests in the seats. Then he commented, "Operating the mirror is quite smooth. But believe me, it is very difficult to complete!"...Admitting that it is difficult to complete, although it is not clear from a purely technical level (hehe). But what I want to focus more on here is not difficulty, but smoothness. The reason why the shot is smooth and without traces is of course due to the superb skills of the director and his filming team, and on the other hand, it is probably because the audience has not noticed the special features of this shot at all! But why didn't they notice it? Is it because the lens itself has nothing to do with mobilizing the audience's psychology, but just because the director is experimenting or playing tricks (and the audience does not feel that the industry only praises it)? If the answer is the latter, how should the evaluation be made? Is this an outstanding work of art or an outstanding technical work?
(Four stars were given in the end. Because of the historical value and the unstoppable charm of Fred Astaire, number one in IMDB!)
View more about Top Hat reviews
