Week 5

Wednesday, 4.17.2019

Notes on My Dinner with Andre (1981) dir. by Louis Malle, 0:00-51:43

• Minimal soundtrack
• The only music is music that's actually in the scene
• Focuses on a lot of faces
• The voiceover narration somehow doesn't seem cringe-y or overdone
• 12:42, monologue is broken by natural action that's relevant to the situation
• The more intimate or serious the dialogue is, the tighter the frame is on the speaker
• Gesticulating in place of flashback
• Cuts are usually before or after one character's speech, so no cuts in-between to keep it smooth
• 23:40-24:06, use of a momento/prop/the photograph is similar to what I want to do, but Malle chooses to show the photo whereas I will probably keep the image away from the audience for them to speculate on their own what it might look like
• Makes allusions to literature and cinema, e.g. Ingmar Bergman, Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass, etc.
• Andre actually can't remember some details, makes the movie more realistic because we're bound to forget some things
• Goes on lots of tangents
• Art that is self-aware, Andre discusses how hopeless the pursuit of a project can be, how volatile the inspiration or vision of a work is
• No exposition or explanation of people, places, or events because the assumption is that they know who and what they're talking about
• Deeper themes and topics are masked by anecdotes and casual storytelling, very sly on the part of the writer
• 35:50-35:58, the silence is contemplative and it keeps the dialogue suspended, but it's not uncomfortable--this is very good! I want to do this
• 35:58-36:07, this part seems more forced, with Wallace literally asking the plot-driving, "What happened next?". It seems like they tried to make it less forced by having Andre ask, "You really want to here about all of this?", but it doesn't make up for the fact that Wallace's line seems to be there just to drive the story forward
• The actors also play themselves! This is what I was doing!
• 45:45-46:03, quick cut from a very, very tight shot to a wider shot signifies the conclusion of this (kind of dark and definitely very intense) memory
• Intense stories are sandwiched between lighter stories, the alternating keeps audiences on their toes because the emotions switch so quickly
• My biggest question: It's clear that people really do have these compelling, thought-provoking conversations in real life like they do in movies, but how do you make it seem like the recreation of said conversations in film is organic and not specifically choreographed to look thought-provoking? How do you prove to the audience that it's modeled after reality, even if a more perfect version?