I’m not sure what attracts me more in The Parallax View: Warren Beatty’s flawless charm, the genuine sense of menace throughout the picture, or Pakula’s breathtaking direction. In terms of tone, Pakula manoeuvres from dead-cool suspense to straight-up fun, without blinking.

Somewhere early in the film, Beatty’s character Frady takes on a local redneck who turns out to be the deputy. It’s an odd combo of tough physical action, and a touch of vaudeville. Only in the seventies.

Movie With A View

[Spoilers] Pakula often frames his shots with large, angular shapes. The characters often drown, or disappear in them. In this film, it may well be a metaphor for the way the System consumes us. The individual is powerless.

A first example appears immediately in the Seattle opening sequence. In a nail-biting sequence, we witness the assassination of a popular senator, on the top of the Space Needle.

A metaphor for the way the System consumes us. The individual is powerless.

Can you imagine a chase on top of the domed Space Needle roof? Well, that’s what you get, in wide shots.

Mind-blowing.

If you wish, you can find a number of parallels with Chinatown (also released in 1974). In a scene that reminds of the water dumping in Chinatown, Frady visits the scene of a suspicious death with the sheriff.

Pakula frames the men with a long lens in a wide shot, against the backdrop of the dam. Suddenly, it opens and the white water thunders out. Spectacular.

The first half of the movie is a lot of fun to watch. The fun suitably comes to an end at the mid point.

You may have figured out that I am a sucker for mid points. This one is a mofo in its own league. To understand it, I need to tell you about a Russian who died nearly half a century ago.

The fun suitably comes to an end at the mid point.

Hitch And Lev

Film students know about Lev Kuleshov, or at least the effect named after him. If you saw Koyaanisqatsi, you saw eighty-six minutes of pure Kuleshov. Let me enlighten you.

The Kuleshov effect says that your perception of an image is coloured by what you see before or after. It’s essentially the principle of editing. It’s what people mean when they say “That was out of context”. Give anything context, and its meaning will change… Or it will GET meaning.

Lev Kuleshov showed the photo of an expressionless face to an audience, three times. First, in conjunction with a plate of soup, next with a woman on a divan, and finally with a coffin. The audience raved about the acting, believing the expression subtly changed from hunger to desire, to grief.

The Kuleshov effect says that your perception of an image is coloured by what you see before or after.

Hitchcock fans may remember how Hitch would look into the camera, squinting. Next follows footage of a woman with a baby, and Hitch smiling. He’s a kind old man. But when the woman and baby are replaced by a woman in bikini, Hitch becomes a dirty old man. That’s the power of Kuleshov effect.

At the Mid Point of The Parallax View, Frady gets to see his own mini-Koyaanisqatsi.

Kuleshov On Steroids

True to Kuleshov, this is not really a scene you can watch out of context. My apologies if you never saw The Parallax View. You will have to now (and I will guarantee you won’t regret it).

The mid point of this film is testimony to Pakula’s brawn. He put a six minute sequence with a barrage of still images at the centre of the film. Not only does it show he had balls, but he also had clout with the studio. There must have been some talk about this scene at Paramount before it made the final cut.

So before you watch it, I will give you a little context.

There must have been some talk at Paramount
about this scene before it made the final cut.

In his investigations about the murder of the senator, Journalist Frady traced suspicious documents back to a corporation that seems to recruit and train assassins. He infiltrates the ‘Parallax’ company. Next, as part of an induction test, he is made to watch this video.

During the video, his responses to the images are measured. Because we know that Frady doesn’t fit the profile of a murderer, some tension lies in the fact that this sequence may unmask him as a fake.

Just sit back, Nothing is required of you, except to observe the visual materials that are presented to you. Alright?

We hope you’ll find the test a pleasant experience.

-Karel Segers

https://ozzywood.wistia.com/medias/e65m0p5pqh?embedType=iframe&videoFoam=true&videoWidth=901

Sign up for our newsletter if you would like to download the Lorenzo Semple draft of The Parallax View screenplay .

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

“Film is made in the editing room. In the writing and in the director’s preparation you’re planning what you’re gonna do in the editing room.”

He then refers to the Russian theory of montage from the 1920’s, which was followed by the Brits in the next decade (and used later to great commercial success by Alfred Hitchcock a.o.).

Anybody with a real interest in the effect of montage, should really do some reading on Lev Kuleshov and what is still known as the Kuleshov Effect. Using this, one could build a case that, if story is structure (which is what Stephen Gaghan doesn’t like), therefore transitions are structure.

Isn’t it remarkable that seventy years apart, two Russians were telling the world about transitions in their respective art forms?

Gaghan writes like a director. Similarly, Michael Mann is already thinking of what he will do in the editing room and therefore writes his story from scene transitions rather than starting from the overall dramatic arc.

(originally published 06/05/2006, edited 31/10/2007)

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Jim Mercurio makes the following point about Gaghan’s comments in the notorious CS podcast: “Gaghan’s comments are showing that he is evolving from a screenwriter into a filmmaker. “

With ‘filmmaker’, he undoubtedly means ‘director’ and with his quote he hits the nail on the head. However, Mercurio makes it sound as if this is a natural evolution, when he goes on to explain how his own latest script too is told with transitions. All of a sudden Gaghan is fashionable, and screenwriters are re-inventing Tolstoy. Now let’s not forget the following facts:

1. Tolstoy was a novelist
2. Gaghan is NOT a meanstream screenwriter
3. Transitions do not stand in the way of proper story structuring

What everybody seems to be missing in this discussion is that transitions play on a shot level, or at best on a scene level. Story structure goes way beyond that. Whatever Mercurio may think, a screenplay written solely from transitions will most likely end up in the same tiny niche market as KOYAANISQATSI.

DVD: THE MANN SPEAKS

The same day I stumbled on the discussion above, I heard writer/director Michael Mann’s commentary on the Restored Director’s Cut of MANHUNTER.

Mann’s comments focus mainly on the parallel psychology of the serial murderer and the cop, besides a few killer anecdotes about production nightmares. My favourite: the airplane scene with the little girl freaking out over Will Graham’s bloody crime scene photos. The only way to shoot this was to book the entire film crew on a United Airlines flight from Chicago to Orlando without informing the airline of their plans, keeping all equipment as hand luggage. Mid flight suddenly these hundred or so people got out of their seats and started filming. No need to say that Mann could kiss his United air miles goodbye.

But let’s skip to the last few minutes of the commentary in which Michael Mann summarises his approach to filmmaking. “Film is made in the editing room. In the writing and in the director’s preparation you’re planning what you’re gonna do in the editing room.” He then refers to the Russian theory of montage from the 1920’s, which was followed by the Brits in the next decade (and used later to great commercial success by Alfred Hitchcock a.o.).

I don’t want to get too theoretical here, but anybody with a real interest in the effect of montage, should really do some reading on Lev Kuleshov and what is still known as the Kuleshov Effect. Using this, I could easily build a case to prove that transitions are structure. I’ll spare you that one for now. But isn’t it remarkable that seventy years apart, two Russians were telling the world about transitions in their respective art forms?

To conclude: Mercurio is right when he says that Gaghan writes like a filmmaker. Like Michael Mann, he is already thinking of what he will do in the editing room and therefore writes his story from scene transitions rather than starting from an overall dramatic arc. This approach to script writing is indeed in many ways similar to that of Hitchcock or Mann but I am sure those last two went through far less drafts than Gaghan.

BTW: Don’t rush out to get Manhunter from HMV or Amazon.com: unfortunately Mann’s commentary only features on a rare DVD which has been out of print for a while, which limits your options largely to eBay. But as a bonus from OZZYWOOD, you can download the last four minutes of Michael Mann’s director’s commentary here.

LOOSE ENDS: The First Act Monolith

Recently I watched BRUBAKER, not knowing anything about this 1980 drama directed by Stuart Rosenberg. If you haven’t seen the film but are planning to do so in the near future, don’t read on as I will spoil the pleasure (and surprise).

The film strays from the traditional structure mainly because of its offbeat First Act. For the life of me, I could not detect an Inciting Incident, nor any significant protagonist characterisation. Instead we witness from Robert Redford’s detainee character’s POV how the most appalling injustice and brutality is inflicted relentlessly upon the inmates.

Over thirty minutes into the movie, Redford’s character identifies himself as the new warden and announces in the same scene that he wants to force through some serious reform. Finally we have our 1st Act Turning Point. I am still trying to understand why the warden’s identity was kept hidden from the audience all along. Apart from a sudden surprise, it doesn’t add a thing. The use of dramatic irony (i.e.: the audience knows, but the other characters don’t) would have been much more powerful and it would have allowed for the badly needed character development.

Leading US critic Roger Ebert wrote about this film: “There’s no room for the spontaneity of real human personalities caught in real situations. That’s especially annoying with the character of Brubaker himself, played well but within a frustratingly narrow range by Robert Redford. “

Redford’s performance is rock solid given the material. BRUBAKER’s real problem is its flawed structure: half an hour into the movie, we have run out of screentime to sufficiently set up the protagonist’s character and potential internal conflicts. Redford didn’t have anything to work with, which makes Ebert’s comment rather unfair.

What the screenwriters did achieve quite well though, is the setup of antagonists and external obstacles in the way of the protagonist’s objective. Perhaps this explains why the film did work for me.

It still beats me though why BRUBAKER was nominated for Best Screenplay back in 1980. Perhaps it was a fluke. In my view, this theory gains strength when we look at co-writer W.D. Richter’s latest work: STEALTH…

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!