FILM LESSONS FROM BUSTER KEATON

Here's an interesting book, especially if you live in L.A. and are a Keaton fan like I am. The book takes frame grabs from the films and puts them side by side with shots of the same backgrounds, made today. If you're like me, and thinking about shooting some outdoor footage yourself, you might be able to take away some interesting lessons from this book.

Here the composition in the frame grab (above, left) favors the people and not the building, and it's clearly funnier that way. Next time I'm shooting real people against a beautiful building, I'll remember this. The modern picture also seems too contrasty, and the cars are a distraction.

I can't stand walking down sun-drenched streets with no protection. I'm always glad for trees and awnings (above). Even so, the mansions have much more comedic impact in the treeless pictures at the top. There the starkness of the mansions is a potent symbol for power and wealth.

More mansion shots. The one on the top is so stark and sunny! I guess when you're filming in the real world you have to seek out the backgrounds that will look good on film, no matter hot and oppressive it is to film there.

I like the way the mansion reads like a simple shape in the top photo...the perfect backdrop for comedy.


Comparing the building photos in the upper left with the one on the lower right: boy, the lower one certainly seems tacky and overly contrasty. The awnings on the old buildings are also sorely missed. If your home or business doesn't have awnings, what are you waiting for? All buildings look better with awnings!

I love trees (above), but on filmed comedies they make the scene too busy.

What wretch tore down the buildings above?

By the way, this shot reminds me that a slightly high camera takes in more of the sidewalk and makes characters read better. A good idea is to shoot on an overcast day, which greys everything down, and wear a dark suit yourself.

I think The Stooges also used this corner (above) in one of their films. It's funniest when shot frontally and symmetrically like it is here.



Darkening the bottom (above) makes the building less funny.


Another case (above) where darkening the building takes the humor out. No doubt the crime in modern cities makes knee-high windows impractical. That's too bad. I love windows like that.

Above, one of the nice old buildings that used to abound in Los Angeles, and which Keaton used in one of his films. I want to know who tore these down, and if those people are still alive, so I can boot them in the pants. Note the beautiful awnings.

DON MARTIN THANKSGIVING

I ate too much to post. I'm gonna sack out on the sofa. See ya' Thursday!

BTW: The drawing is of course by Don Martin.

THE EX-BOYFRIEND

INT. RESTAURANT: Lunch time.

Magnolia (Voice Over): "Yeah, all my boyfriends have been losers!"

Magnolia: "Oh, I don't mean you...I just mean...well, I have to wear dark glasses so they don't recognize me. What pests!"

Magnolia: "Really? You think it's okay to take them off here? Well, er...it is pretty crowded...I guess nobody could..."

Magnolia: "Yeah, nobody's gonna see me here! I'll do it!"

Fred (V.O.): "Magnolia! There you are!"

Magnolia: "Oh, Good Grief!"

Magnolia: "Hi, Fred. Fancy meeting you here!"

Fred (V.O.): "Magnolia, let's stop the pretense. I know that you're aware of me. For a long time I've watched you secretly. But for the past few days I've stopped hiding, and now I know that the moment has come."

Magnolia: "Um...the moment?"

Fred (V.O.): "Yes. You see, before discovering you I never loved anybody."

Fred (V.O.): But between us things will be different. "

Fred (V.O.): "We'll be the example for others to follow."

Fred (V.O): We'll never leave each other, not even for an hour."

Fred (V.O.): I don't work and have no responsibilities in life."

Fred (V.O.): "You will be my sole pre-occupation."

Fred (V.O.): "I understand that this is too sudden for you to say yes at once...that you would first have to break off your provisional attachments to provisional people."

Magnolia: "Well, actually it is just a little...."

Fred (V.O): "Just remember...I AM DEFINITIVE. I must go now."

Magnolia: Definitive...yes...definitive. Well, See you around Fred."

Magnolia: "Watch out for traffic!"

Magnolia: "Don't look the other way when a car comes!"

Magnolia: "Bye, now! Don't fall down any manholes!

Magnolia: "Is he gone?"

Magnolia: "Hey, the waiter didn't give us water! What kind of restaurant is this!?"

BTW: Dialogue is an altered version of a piece by Francois Truffaut.

WHAT I'M READING NOW

I should really call this "What I'm Thumbing Through Now," since I haven't had much time to read in the past few weeks. Here's (above) an interesting, if somewhat disappointing, book I got from the library: "Plains Indian Drawings 1865-1935." Gee, I love what I've heard about Indian culture, but I have to say that I didn't know the Plains Indians were such bad artists.

The drawings I'm putting up here are pretty much the cream of the crop. The average drawing in the book looked like modern kids drawings, except that modern kids are more likely to draw things as well as people. The cover drawing is great, and so is the famous drawing above, or it should be famous, because so many modern American artists and illustrators were influenced by it.

You see the influence in fashion illustration (above) all the time. To judge from the Indian drawings in the book, American Indians were fascinated by what they wore and painted on themselves. They didn't spend much time on getting a likeness in the face, or on getting the muscles or the perspective right...it was all about the clothes. Apparently Plains Indians were more obsessed than we are about looking good.

Saul Steinberg's work (above) was clearly influenced by indian art.

A quick digression: I just stumbled on a picture (above) of Steinberg, and I thought you might want to see what he looked like.

Of course the Plains Indians were nomads, and I suppose nomads haven't much use for permanent pictures. Even so, these drawings might be an insight into the kind of thing the artists valued. They certainly were clothes-conscious, and they evidently considered battle a good excuse to show off their finery.

Like many primitive people they seemed to think nature was an unfit subject for art. Trees and mountains seldom appear and when they do they get the short shrift. There are no still lifes of a bowl of apples, no glorious sunrises and star-filled nights, no animals except horses. Teepees were drawn with an emphasis on the designs painted on them.

For an artist like me the Indian life depicted in these pictures seems pretty boring. Like the Homeric Greeks their real art form seemed to be the cultivation of character and one's own personal legend, together with horseback riding, hunting, dressing nice and war. The drawings are oddly humorless and indicative of a lack of interest in the world around them. You only realize how sophisticated the outlook of modern man is when you have something like these for comparison.

I'll note that these pictures may have been made by mostly non-artists. It's possible that all people who don't draw frequently draw similar subjects, i.e., other people and their interesting clothes. Maybe I'm reading too much into these drawings.

I'm also reading a book called, "The Pictorial History of Radio." Early on broadcasters devoted air time to music, and this (above) is how they did it. They played records in front of a horn.

Here's (above) one of the first mass market radio sets. It was called the "Aereola."

People used radio as a babysitting device, just like they do now. Aaargh!

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON ARCHITECTURE

An interesting tower (above) made doubly interesting because it's back lit by diffused sunlight. If you were an architect, wouldn't it be fun to design structures for foggy places? You could make the case that all climates should have their own unique architecture. Tropical architecture would be a no-brainer, but imagine imagine buildings designed to look good in the snow, or under gloomy, overcast skies.

I do have some misgivings about this picture. If you put your thumb over the tower, the rest of the structure isn't that interesting.



I love stairs and the example above is one of the best I've ever seen. Here the stairs come in rolling, almost musical waves with a promise of profound revelation at the top.

The trouble is, though, that unless you're 12 years-old, long staircases are a chore to climb. Government buildings traditionally have long stairs to remind visitors how insignificant they are. What an odd message to send in a democracy where the people are supposed to be in charge.

I'd be curious to know what Ruskin would have thought of this (above) picture. I know he was against excessive decoration on cathedrals. Even if there's more than a touch of decadence here, relative to the austere, and probably more religiously inspiring cathedrals of an earlier time, I still find the shapes fascinating.

How do you like the high ceilings and wonderful light in this (above) English manor house? The doorway beside it is interesting too, though maybe over done. Doorways are powerful romantic and psychological symbols, and it seems odd to throw all that away in order to emphasize the meaningless space above the door.


A curse on the wretches who tore down beautiful buildings like his one (above) in the last century. I love structures like this, but I still can't help wondering why people spent so much time and money on the roof and upper floors. I mean, why didn't they put the biggest effort into the lower floors, which are more visible from the street?

Maybe the builders were attic enthusiasts. Maybe giant attics and roofs are cheap to build and provide more visual bang for the buck than lower floors. Maybe big attics serve as insulation and heat radiators.


Can you believe that buildings like this (above) were ever torn down?

I love the interlocking shapes of wood at the intersections of beams in Asian temples and old bridges. You see it in modern Western architecture too sometimes, and the effect is always welcome.