lumet on making movies

In my Fat Bitch Day post, dansroka said:

Back in college (way back, oh, in the late 80s), I took a class where we spent about a month examining 'Network'. It is such an amazingly complex film. That monologue scene has some amazing lighting and staging, which all reinforces the characters and their relationships to each other.

That reminded me of something I thought about when the movie was over, but quickly forgot to remember (with apologies to Yogi Berra.)

Years ago, when I thought that maybe I wanted to be a filmmaker (I chose writer because I can do essentially the same creative thing with 90% less stupid industry bullshit) I made a point to read lots of books by successful industry people whom I respected. In this batch of books, I read William Goldman's Adventures in the Screen Trade and Which Lie Did I Tell? (which inspired me to pursue writing more seriously, just not ever for film or television) and Sydney Lumet's Making Movies.

They're all great books, but Lumet's is truly outstanding, whether you want to make films of your own, or you just love movies. He made some of the greatest films of the 1970s (far and away my favorite decade for films) and in his book, he talks in great detail how he made his movies come together, and why he made some of the choices he made. Often, when he revealed a choice -- like slowly raising the camera toward the ceiling in Twelve Angry Men to create a sense of the walls closing in on the jurors -- I realized that I'd seen it without being aware of it (like a certain character who shows up all over the place in Watchmen.)

In Network, the film starts out extremely dark and grainy, then becomes clearer and more brightly-lit through the middle, and eventually ends in the same darkness as it began. I noticed this when the film was over, and wondered what exactly he was trying to convey when he did that. Is he making a statement about Howard Beale, or is he making a broader statement about the network itself? Does the darkness and light reflect the ratings? I also noticed that we frequently can't see all of a person's face when they speak . . . is that meant to reflect how secretive and guarded people are in the television news business?

Maybe it's all stupid bullshit that I'm reading too much into, but I've already spent too much time writing this to give it the old "what the fuck" and delete it.

Anyone care to comment? Update: James, from Ignore-your.tv has a comprehensive and totally awesome answer in comments. Come see, RSS readers!

(It really is a great movie that everyone really should see, if I haven't run that point deep enough into the ground to personally hand it to the Morlocks.)

Comments

[towers16]

Perhaps lighting is less about making a statement then it is to accent the journey of the main character. Now, the people talking form out of full sight could mean a lot of things, the less than forthright comments by those speaking from obscured view for example. It all depends on the context of the scene. I really need to rent the movie and watch it again. It has been years since I viewed Network.

[Craig Steffen]

Ok, got it. Putting Network into the Netflix queue.

[Riley Joy]

Great film. Peter Finch was amazing. It's been so long since I've seen it, though,I'm going to have to pick it up this weekend and remind myself why I loved it back then. Thanks for the nudge.

[MatildaZQ]

I haven't seen Network (Hammer, don't hurt me), but I live for the kind of stuff you're talking about here. Theatre, film, books, museum exhibits, whatever, I just love to dissect the choices that people make when presenting things about which they are passionate to an audience. My blog is probably 99% overreading (or,as I prefer to think about it to keep my ego intact, reading my own experience of it), but hey we all gotta follow our bliss.

Incidentally, a few months ago, I came across your review of Cirque du Soleil's Varekei. I saw the show in LA, probably within a few days of when you did. I was completely blown away by it, (and wrote what was doubtlessly a horrendously overread review of it), and coming across that entry of yours was like seeing it all over again.

[Kari]

I used to know the answer to the mysteries of "Network". I haven't seen it since college (way back in 1999). The awesomeness of that movie still resonates with me and I often recommend that movie to people, but I have forgotten many of the details in that movie. Your "Fat Bitch Day" blog reminded me of college A LOT. I watched "Network" in my Intro Film class and I also had a Coen Brothers class. I miss the days when all I had to do was watch Fargo and The Big Lebowski and get school credit for it. :)

[James Cape]

They mention several times in the DVD commentary that the lighting isn't going from dark to light to dark so much as it is going from natural to artificial, mirroring the corruption of all the characters as they get deeper into TV-land. Shoemacher lays it out explicitly during the breakup scene.

The movie starts with almost entirely natural lighting, the midpoint (traditional movie lighting) is the scenes from after Ruddy's funeral to the "I'm your wife, damnit!" confrontation. The end of it--totally artificial--is the meeting in Frank Hacket's office, which is staged "like a Ford commercial."

It's part of the general theme of illusion and entertainment overpowering reality and education.

As an aside, my personal favorite scene (aside from the Foreign Policy article-excerpt/monologue) was revolutionary ganster Ahmed Kahn during contract negotiations.

[Wil]

Wow. I wish I'd had time to listen to the commentary (that's what I get for Netflixing it instead of buying it, I guess -- something I'll not do for any of these great movies in the future.)

Thanks, James!

(This also illustrates the greatness of DVDs with commentaries, especially where master filmmakers are concerned.)

[KlfJoat]

I've never seen Network either, but from what I understand there are some parallels between that movie and the show Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Check out the wiki for Studio 60, and it's got some information on the references.

[James Cape]

My blog is actually at http://blog.ignore-your.tv/

*fills out bug report on typekey*

[James Cape]

(thanks for the link BTW </sheepish>)

[Wil]

Okay, James. I added a link. Don't blame Typepad, I just took it out of your name there.

[cobracommandr]

Wil, first time commenting. Loved Just a Geek. One of the best gifts I've ever received.

Network runs neck and neck with The Godfather for my favorite film of all time.

My favorite scene is the "Primal Forces of Nature" lecture from Mr. Jensen

Ned Beatty delivered his lines with such conviction and honesty. There was such excitement in his voice it was as if he was delivering a sermon, it was equally scary and compelling.

[FatCat3]

Wil, that's the best part of Netflix. You rent the movie, and if it's that great you know it's worth buying to watch the extras such as commentaries, etc. That's what my wife and I use it for.
Besides, isn't the main idea of Netflix that there's no due dates or late fees? So why don't you have time to go back and watch the commentary?
P.s. Glad you finally got around to catching Network.

[ZB]

The talk of the gradual lighting changes reminds me of a similar effect in the movie Sympathy for Lady Vengeance. In that case, the color de-saturates from full to black & white by the middle of the movie when things get really grim. I haven't seen it for myself, as I only have the original cut of the film. Good luck finding the special version! It's an amazing film by the way. Pretty gut wrenching.

[jay b]

Fulfilling Haujobb's Law, which states that every great film monologue must be sampled in an early-nineties industrial dance song, enjoy some Snog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXXzaaL8Khw

[ttrentham]

The Wife and I rented Network a few years ago. I knew the famous "Mad as Hell" scene, but had never watched the whole thing. Wow. The dialogue is amazing. They do not write movies like that anymore and it's a shame.

My absolute favorite exchange between Dunaway and Holden (courtesy of IMDB)

Diana Christensen: I'm sorry for all those things I said to you last night. You're not the worst fuck I ever had. Believe me, I've had worse. You don't puff or snorkel and make death-like rattles. As a matter of fact, you're rather serene in the sack.

Max Schumacher: Why is it that a woman always thinks that the most savage thing she can say to a man is to impugn his cocksmanship.

Diana Christensen: I'm sorry I impugned your cocksmanship.

Max Schumacher: I gave up comparing genitals back in the schoolyard.

"Impugn his cocksmanship"? Pure genius.

I still distinctly remember seeing the trailer for Network when I was a kid, it really creeped me out.

[dansroka]

James: thanks for that great description of the lighting in Network

Wil said "Maybe it's all stupid bullshit that I'm reading too much into..."

No, not at all! Being able to read so much into films like Network -- whether intented by the director or not -- is what makes films by people like Lumet so damn satisfying. They can be slowly savored, chewed, digested. They are an experience, not just entertainment.

I put Terry Gilliam's work in this pantheon. My uncle and I spent a wonderfully enjoyable evening once trying to find all of the movie references contained in Brazil. I love this stuff!

Dan