For the stage (maybe), not the movies
I have never seen Strange Interlude on the stage, so I don't know if it works for today's audiences, but the idea of hearing the characters' thoughts is contradictory to the whole idea of motion (not even talking) pictures. Alfred Hitchcock once gave the example, showing how economical film is, of a man surprised when police burst into his room. Then there is a shot of a drawer in which we have previously seen a gun. So we know that the man is thinking of trying to get to the drawer and use the gun.
With such fluency and economy in the film medium itself, as well as the closeups of the actors' faces and gestures, hearing the characters' thoughts is redundant. So, when we do hear them, it is laughable--imagine a character wrinkling his nose at someone and then hearing him think "I don't like him." Instead of being psychologically revealing, the device is rather like the sweet-talking villain in a Victorian melodrama turning aside and telling the audience: "She little guesses my fell purpose!"
And when one of the characters is a big lunk like Clark Gable--did anyone imagine that Clark Gable HAD any inner thoughts?
With such fluency and economy in the film medium itself, as well as the closeups of the actors' faces and gestures, hearing the characters' thoughts is redundant. So, when we do hear them, it is laughable--imagine a character wrinkling his nose at someone and then hearing him think "I don't like him." Instead of being psychologically revealing, the device is rather like the sweet-talking villain in a Victorian melodrama turning aside and telling the audience: "She little guesses my fell purpose!"
And when one of the characters is a big lunk like Clark Gable--did anyone imagine that Clark Gable HAD any inner thoughts?
- roslein-674-874556
- 11 ago 2023