Back in the opening credits.
In a conversation yesterday with Richard and Pelu, there are two great pages and Prologue Art of the title where one can enjoy the true art in art, and be seduced by the package that we sell, we introduces, explains and engages us with the story that will happen next.
also claims that close the film, to enjoy magnificent deception already seen, while reposarlo to grant you-deserve-like place and time to all who have been involved in that movie so mistreated by certain television stations, and even by the exhibitors from some rooms.
SECTION: Both say worry some of the so-called copyright (because they called and when they mean money) and how little care other rights such as meaning, equally important. END POINT.
credits usually place of pure artifice, visual recreation without a dependency narrative and, therefore, with more formal and expressive freedom.
But there is a restful spot for games meaning to the displays and readings metaphorical concepts.
It is interesting how in many cases the opening credits confirm, reaffirm and on occasion to directly tell what the movie to display.
And wherever you play, will wonder, at least by a server.
Here we bring to their analysis, the simple, effective and crystalline title of the movie "The Sting ," translated here as "The Sting" directed in 1973 by George Roy Hill .
A pure artifice of film, well supported and reaffirmed in its opening credits.
You can enjoy them in the boot (although here we only discuss the first part), lasting a total of just over a minute.
A caveat to review something curious:
achieved in this version of YouTube is a small but important difference from the credits of the film that I have:
appears a first look at a picture Paul Newman, Robert Redford and Robert Shaw (the main actors in the play) marked up with their own names.
appears in the second 16 of the video above.
It
say strange and even incomprehensible point not including the first image in some copies of the film, then, as we shall see, it is of vital importance in the speech that the credit will be maintained.
In any case we analyze the first image.
PICTURE 1:
see, as we have said, a picture with the three protagonists of the film.
first thing that we can attract attention is to make a drawing and a photograph is not the means chosen to show the actors. There are, so to speak, a distance with them.
is also important to note that we are seeing in front of us, as observers, we really seems to occupy the position the camera.
in any case (apart from being a drawing) there is nothing to be too noteworthy in this first image.
IMAGE 2: This time
( and here is the crux of loans) are going to get away from the action, to enter into the device curiously.
Indeed, so in this case (again a drawing) shows the image is the representation of the film: Namely, the same scene we've seen before, with the actors, but in this case stepping out beyond , and seeing part of the set shooting with cameras and spotlights that focus on the protagonists.
is, I say, a redial every movie artifice.
First is the drawing itself that separates us the image of reality.
Then there is the realization that this is a film, not to a true story.
And the unveiling of the deception (the film is a lie, we know) also are showing us what is actually going to treat the history of lies, false pretenses and that we should not trust what we see, for reality is likely to be another.
With this image we are dejando claro que no nos podemos fiar, que tengamos cuidado, pero que pese a todo debemos ser conscientes que ellos -que saben más, que tienen la sartén por el mango- nos acabarán engañando de nuevo.
Y qué es eso si no "El Golpe".
Puro artificio.
Los cambios no se realizan por corte, y sí mediante una transición que imita el pasar de la página de un libro.
Volvemos a incidir en el artificio.
Y completamos de algún modo (todavía quedarán show more) different building disciplines present in the making of a film (writing, shooting, interpretation).
IMAGE 3:
redisplays We deception, actually showing the process of creation.
In this case we see and appreciate a picture of those who are behind those behind the film rolling.
As I say, we split up to delve more into it.
And, although we accept that we are seeing a writer (the writer's work after rolling which then plays then it looks) it seems clear that no, we are showing the artist who actually performed, - the first image we've seen.
And do not tell me it's a great way to close a circle of artifice and lies.
The film we are about to see is a mere deception, and in less than 30 seconds and we have been mistreated and been around a few times.
What we will not have to spend!
With this picture in front again we see the actors (the players) but this time, do not want to repeat myself but it is almost inevitable, not your face and your skin (but what if we have not seen before ?).
Film, literature, art, theater.
Are there any higher?
And so merge and appear-finally in what might be called cinematic image, real image, the actors who will be protagonists of this device, in this story where nothing is what it seems, and where they constantly play with the viewer and what he think seeing as we have already been warned from the first seconds of the same story.
And although we know that we should not rely, we trust.
And we fall.
Because we like ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment