{"id":30151,"date":"2015-01-05T11:27:51","date_gmt":"2015-01-05T17:27:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=30151"},"modified":"2016-09-02T17:41:43","modified_gmt":"2016-09-02T22:41:43","slug":"problems-problems-wylers-workaround","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2015\/01\/05\/problems-problems-wylers-workaround\/","title":{"rendered":"Problems, problems: Wyler’s workaround"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Little Foxes<\/strong> <\/em>(1941).<\/p>\n

DB here:<\/p>\n

For me, shooting is a struggle where you only get to be happy for five minutes before you start thinking about the next problem to solve.<\/p>\n

Ruben Ostlund, on Force Majeure<\/em><\/p>\n

One of the most famous shots in American cinema occurs at a climactic moment in The Little Foxes<\/em> (1941).\u00a0 Regina Giddens has just learned that her sickly husband Horace has let her brothers get away with a business deal that double-crosses her. They will reap all the rewards of bringing a factory to town, while she, who engineered the deal and expected Horace to fall in line, will get nothing. Horace is already not far from death, and their quarrel in the parlor precipitates a heart attack. He spills his bottle of medicine and needs some from his upstairs supply.<\/p>\n

Regina refuses to go fetch it, and instead Horace must stagger up and out. While she sits, fiercely waiting, on the sofa, he tries to pull himself upstairs, but he collapses on the steps. Once he has fallen, and perhaps died, she stirs to action and rouses the household.<\/p>\n

Lillian Hellman\u2019s original play had been a Broadway success, and this was one of the most notable scenes. How did Wyler stage it? Very oddly, as the frame up top suggests. We can\u2019t really see Horace\u2019s struggle on the stair. Not only does the camera put Regina in the foreground, but Horace is out of focus in the rear, at least until she rises whirling and runs to the background, the damage done.<\/p>\n

Why did Wyler stage it this way? It depends, as Bill Clinton might say, on what your definition of why<\/em> is.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Deeper, closer<\/strong><\/p>\n

1941 was the breakout year of deep-focus filmmaking in Hollywood. Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon, Kings Row, Ball of Fire, I Wake Up Screaming, How Green Was My Valley<\/em>, and several other films set the pace for a new stylistic option. In this style, the action is staged in depth rather than perpendicular to the camera, as most scenes in Hollywood cinema were. And the camera lens creates depth of field, in which even fairly close foreground planes are just as sharp as the action in the rear. Such images weren\u2019t unknown before; we can find them in silent cinema. But from 1941 on, depth staging accompanied by depth of focus would be increasingly common in Hollywood dramas, from thrillers and melodramas to film-noir exercises. Not all shots would be designed for maximal depth; continuity editing and closer views would still be used. But we do find such imagery becoming more common, particularly at moments of tension.<\/p>\n

Cinematographer Gregg Toland is usually cited as a main source of this trend, and his work on Kane<\/em> and Ball of Fire<\/em>, as well as Ford\u2019s Grapes of Wrath<\/em>\u00a0(1940) and The Long Voyage Home<\/em>\u00a0(1940), became models of the new look. Toland also worked with Wyler on several films, including The Little Foxes<\/em>. But even without Toland, Wyler had in some films cultivated a deep-focus look (as had Ford). Coming when it did, The Little Foxes<\/em>\u00a0proved a powerful demonstration of the deep-focus style.<\/p>\n

Three aspects stand out. First, there\u2019s a certain economy of presentation. As Wyler and others pointed out, depth imagery permits directors to minimize editing. Instead of cutting from action to reaction, we see both at the same time.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Wyler suggested in publicity of the period that this gave the viewer more freedom of where to look, and Andr\u00e9 Bazin seized upon this rationale as part of his aesthetic of realism. Just as in the real world, in some films we must choose what to pay attention to.<\/p>\n

But The Little Foxes<\/em> went beyond the moderate deep focus of Stagecoach<\/em> and other films to create very aggressive images. This is the film’s second novelty. Several shots place the foreground very close to the camera. As a result, we get looming faces or objects in the front plane, and we still see well-focused dramatic elements behind.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A third source of power is less noted. In The Little Foxes<\/em>, Wyler found ways to make deep shots comment upon the plot. For instance, the action offers Regina\u2019s daughter Alexandra, usually called Zan, a choice of being more like her mother (tough and vicious) or her father (tolerant and gentle). At other points Zan is paralleled to her ineffectual, alcoholic aunt Birdie. At one point, Birdie has predicted that Zan may wind up like her.<\/p>\n

In a theatre production, there would be many staging strategies that would create these parallels, but Wyler uses a particularly striking one. One evening, while Regina and her brothers plot their scheme, Birdie has been relegated to a chair far from the discussion.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The composition diagrams Birdie\u2019s situation in the scene and her place in the family. Then Wyler cuts in to her.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This might be seen as a bit of heavy-handed emphasis, but actually he\u2019s doing two things. He\u2019s making manifest her reaction, a numb resignation to being excluded. He\u2019s also setting up, thanks to another depth composition, the chair in the hallway by the staircase. At the climax, it\u2019s Zan, as beaten down as Birdie, who slumps in that chair.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Thanks to depth staging and deep-focus cinematography, the second image emphasizes Birdie\u2019s solitude and prophesies Zan’s.<\/p>\n

Which only makes my first question more pressing. Some shots of the quarrel leading up to Horace\u2019s collapse on the stair exhibit flagrant deep focus.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

We know from other shots in the film, like the Birdie\/Zan comparison, that Wyler could have simply shown us Regina on the sofa in the foreground, in long shot or medium shot, while keeping Horace in focus in the background. In fact, Wyler tells us \u00a0that Toland said, \u201cI can have him sharp, or both of them sharp.\u201d Why opt for shallow focus that makes Horace\u2019s staircase seizure blurry and hard to see?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Fun with functions<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Asking why?<\/em> about something in an artwork actually veils two different questions.<\/p>\n

The first is: How did it get<\/strong> there?<\/em> The answer is a causal story about how the element came to be included.<\/p>\n

The second sense of why<\/em> is: What\u2019s it doing<\/strong> there? <\/em>That\u2019s not a question of causes but of functions. How does the element contribute to the other parts and the artwork as a whole?<\/p>\n

Take the second question first. You can imagine many functional reasons for Wyler\u2019s choice. Exactly because the rest of the film keeps image planes sharp, this moment gains a unique emphasis. Horace\u2019s collapse is marked as a major turning point in the plot. In an ordinary film, we wouldn’t notice an out-of-focus background. Here, by reverting to the more traditional choice, Wyler makes shallow focus stylistically prominent. For once in a film, a dramatic high point isn\u2019t given to us with maximum visibility.<\/p>\n

Another function is character revelation. In the film as a whole, we haven\u2019t been consistently restricted to any one character. Here, Wyler could have concentrated on either Horace or Regina, or he could have given them equal treatment. An obvious choice would have been intercutting shots of Horace crawling up the steps with shots of Regina, impassively turned from him. Probably most directors would have done it that way.<\/p>\n

Alternatively, we might have been attached to Horace, letting us see Regina in the distance. That would have diminished her reaction and played up Horace\u2019s suffering.<\/p>\n

Wyler\u2019s choice puts the emphasis not on the action\u2014thanks to the distant framing, Horace\u2019s collapse can almost be taken for granted\u2014but Regina\u2019s reactions, or rather non-reactions, moment by moment. We\u2019re made to see her turning slightly to listen to his struggles, while her staring eyes suggest that she\u2019s visualizing the action with a horrified fascination. It\u2019s as if her denying him the medicine was an experiment in seeing how far she could go. Now she knows. Her straining face is virtually willing her husband to die.<\/p>\n

Keeping both this monstrous woman and her victim in focus would have divided our attention, then, and Wyler wants it squarely on Regina. He seems to have said as much in interviews.<\/p>\n

We said we\u2019ve got to stay on Bette all the time and just see this thing in the background, see him going in the background, but never lose her.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I wanted audiences to feel they were seeing something they were not supposed to see. Seeing the husband in the background made you squint, but what you were seeing was her face.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The second remark suggests another functional result of Wyler\u2019s choice. By making the collapse almost indiscernible, we become very aware of what we can\u2019t see. Thanks to selective focus, Bazin remarked, \u201cThe viewer feels an extra anxiety and almost wants to push the immobile Bette Davis aside to get a better look.\u201d The dramatic tension of the scene finds its counterpart in our frustration to see what any other film would show us.<\/p>\n

Finally, we should note that the staircase is an essential element in the film’s drama. Horace’s collapse is only one major incident taking place around and on it. Significantly, when Zan finally breaks free of Regina and the rest of the family, the matriarch learns of it standing on the stairs. Having all but murdered her husband there, now she sees her daughter abandon her.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Shoot my good side<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Bishop’s Wife<\/strong> (1948).<\/em><\/p>\n

There are other functions we, as good critics, might seek out. For all of them, there is probably a loose causal story we\u2019re relying on: Wyler and his colleagues made some choices that bore fruit. Some of those choices may have aimed at fulfilling the functions we notice. Other functions we notice may come along as bonuses\u2014unintended but still benefiting the scene. Unintended consequences, good or bad, come up in art as elsewhere.<\/p>\n

There remains the other implication of why-did-they-do-it questions: the one that seeks out quite specific<\/em> causes that govern the scene. How do we tackle that?<\/p>\n

In my book On the History of Film Style<\/em>, from which some of these Little Foxes<\/em> observations are drawn, I argued that we can make stretches of stylistic history intelligible by thinking in terms of problems and solutions. Art historians have done this for a long while. Assuming that you want to suggest that something in the picture is farther away than something else, how do you do it? One way is through overlap, as in Egyptian art. Here the fishermen overlap the background, their legs overlap each other’s, and the strings of fish that one is carrying overlap some legs.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Later image-makers suggest variable distances through size variations, placement in the format (a little bit of that here, with the river above\/behind the men), tonal contrast, atmospheric perspective, linear perspective, and other techniques. These can be considered solutions, available to artists of different times and places, to the problem of suggesting three dimensions on a flat surface.<\/p>\n

A problem\/solution way of thinking can clarify some developments in the history of filmmaking too. If you have to represent two actions taking place simultaneously, how can you do it? Crosscutting, as Griffith and others showed in the 1910s, solves that problem. It offers spillover benefits too, such as controlling pace. Similarly, there’s the problem of representing spoken dialogue. Silent films solved this in various ways\u2014through a commenter in the theatre (the benshi in Japan), through actors voicing the roles behind the screen, and most commonly through intertitles. Later, synchronized sound solved the problem in a more thoroughgoing way.<\/p>\n

These are very general answers to the how-did-it-get-there question. Occasionally we get more concrete information about problems and solution. For example, some Hollywood stars believed that one side of their faces was more appealing than the other. The stars with the most power could insist on being filmed on their good side, which led directors to make particular staging choices. (Claudette Colbert insisted her left side was her good side, so she\u2019s usually positioned on screen right, with her face turned toward screen left.) David Butler knew that Edward G. Robinson likewise favored his left side, so Butler needed to stage Robinson\u2019s one appearance in It\u2019s a Great Feeling<\/em> (1949) with him entering a scene from right to left and playing in that position.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

One vain star is problem enough, but what happens when you have two who prefer being shot from the same side? According to Henry Koster, the demands of Cary Grant and Loretta Young led to the staging of the scene shown at the top of this section. (For my reservations, see the codicil to this entry.)<\/p>\n

The Little Foxes<\/em> production provides evidence of another very specific problem. In staging the staircase collapse, Wyler faced an unusual difficulty. The actor playing Horace, Herbert Marshall, had a prosthetic leg.<\/p>\n

Marshall lost his right leg, from the hip down, in World War I. Through practice he managed to stroll quite smoothly nonetheless, and he became a significant star and featured player in theatre and films. He doesn’t need to walk much in The Little Foxes<\/em>\u00a0because his character is rolled around in a wheelchair. But the parlor-and-staircase scene was very demanding. As Wyler explains:<\/p>\n

Now there was another problem involved with that, and that was the fact that Herbert Marshall has a wooden leg and couldn\u2019t make the stairs, you see. This is a trade secret. I had him stagger in the background, get behind her and just for a moment when he gets to the stairs he had to go to a landing over there, and just for a moment went out of the picture. And a double came in and went up the stairs, staggered way behind out of focus. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Here you can see Marshall leave the foreground.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

An axial cut in to Regina shows him stumbling behind her and going out of shot in the distance. This much Marshall could manage.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

At that point the double stumbles into the frame and starts to crawl up the staircase.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Regina leaps up and runs to the rear, and the camera racks focus to the stair, but by now the double’s face is out of frame.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

So the director solved the problem of the actor\u2019s disability by a combination of deep staging, the use of a double, and shallow focus. This \u201ctrade secret\u201d yielded a range of effects that, I think most viewers would agree, were vivid and exciting.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s always more than one way to do anything. Given the constraint of Marshall\u2019s artificial leg, or a player\u2019s insistence on being shot from one side, or the leading lady’s overnight pimple, a director can work around it in several ways. One of the few critics to notice the implications of Wyler\u2019s choice was Raymond Durgnat, a critic very sensitive to style.<\/p>\n

Given a \u201cpimple\u201d or a \u201cwooden leg,\u201d different stylists will find different solutions. One changes the camera-angle; another introduces a last-minute panning shot; another will retain the original set-up, but throw heavy shadows to conceal the offending detail; another will interpose a pot of flowers or a table-cloth to conceal the trouble spot from the camera. The director has ample opportunity to maintain his style in the face of \u201caccident.\u201d And it\u2019s no exaggeration to say that such stylists as Dreyer and Bresson would imperturbably maintain their characteristic style even if the entire cast suddenly turned up with pimples and <\/em>wooden legs.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019d add only that the director\u2019s choices are further constrained. Beyond the immediate problem, the broader pressure of norms will kick in. The norms of classical studio lighting, cutting, and performance limit the ways Toland and Wyler can cover up Marshall\u2019s infirmity. The norms of quality A-picture American filmmaking of the period militate against, say, editing the scene so that a dummy is substituted for Marshall on the stair. (We might get that in a serial, though.)<\/p>\n

There are also the intrinsic norms set up in The Little Foxes<\/em> as a formal whole. These favor handling the scene in depth in some way. Wyler reports the decision: \u201cWe said we\u2019ve got to stay on Bette all the time and just see this thing in the background, see him going in the background, but never lose her.\u201d Wyler\u2019s earlier choices in the film created a kind of path-dependence for this critical moment. Deep-space staging could stay in tune with the rest of the film; but because of his actor\u2019s infirmity, he could give up deep-focus cinematography. This solution created a vivid variant on the film\u2019s intrinsic norm.<\/p>\n

You can also argue that by deciding to call our attention to a distant plane in soft focus, Wyler fell back on something he had tried before. In the extraordinary late silent The Shakedown<\/em> (1929), he showed a pie being stolen in a diner. First, there’s a close-up, then a shot of the main couple looking to the background. In the center, out of focus underneath the coffee urn, the pie is slipping away.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The action isn’t very discernible in my image, which is from a 35mm print; but the scene is shot quite soft anyway. I think audiences notice the gesture, slight as it is, because it’s centered and nothing else is moving in the frame. More visible is the background action in a shot Wyler and Toland used in Dead End<\/em> (1937). \u00a0Two gangsters are sitting in a bar debating kidnapping a child. In the out-of-focus background,we can discern a woman wheeling a baby carriage along the sidewalk. She isn’t the target, just a sort of reminder of children’s vulnerability. As in The Little Foxes<\/em>, a centered background action attracts our attention and makes us strain to identify it.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Faced with a similar problem in The Little Foxes<\/em>, Wyler had the chance to dramatize a soft-focus background to a much greater extent than in these films.<\/p>\n

One more causal factor might have shaped Wyler\u2019s decision. Lillian Hellman\u2019s original play takes place wholly in the Giddens\u2019 parlor and the hallway behind. The play text indicates that the staircase is in the rear of the set, with a landing offstage. The furniture sits downstage, closer to the audience. The foreground\/background interaction in Wyler\u2019s staging is already there, in a rougher form, in the play\u2019s set arrangement.<\/p>\n

And how does the play handle the moment of Horace\u2019s collapse? When Horace\u2019s medicine bottle breaks, Regina doesn\u2019t move. Calling for Addie the maid, Horace leaves and staggers to the rear playing area.<\/p>\n

He makes a sudden, furious spring from the chair to the stairs, taking the first few steps as if he were a desperate runner. Then he slips, gasps, grasps the rail, makes a great effort to reach the landing. When he reaches the landing, he is on his knees. His knees give way, he falls on the landing, out of view. Regina has not turned during his climb up the stairs. Now she waits a second. Then she goes below the landing, speaks up.<\/strong><\/p>\n

REGINA: Horace, Horace.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The foreground\/background dynamic, as well as the frozen indifference in Regina\u2019s performance, are written into the scene\u2019s stage directions. Hellman\u2019s instructions yield a further hint: Horace \u201cfalls on the landing, out of view.\u201d Within the norms of the deep-focus aesthetic, Wyler and Toland found a cinematic equivalent for this barely-offstage action–one appropriate for their film’s particular style. They make Horace present, but he\u2019s \u201cout of view.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Somebody may say: \u201cSee? You don\u2019t need all this fancy analysis. At bottom, Wyler was forced to shoot the scene this way because of Marshall\u2019s bum leg.\u201d This retort assumes that causal factors always trump functional ones.\u00a0Instead, I think that by considering causal factors, insofar as we can know them,\u00a0alongside<\/em>\u00a0functional ones, we can better understand filmic creativity in history.<\/p>\n

Durgnat\u2019s point shows us how. Even when contingent circumstances \u201cforce\u201d a filmmaker to change course, there are always several ways to do that. Picking any option brings in a cascade of other constraints and opportunities. Once Wyler has decided to double Marshall and sustain the take on Davis, soft focus is more or less necessary so we don\u2019t spot the stand-in. But the soft-focus provides a nifty opportunity to create the sorts of functions and effects we\u2019ve already noticed.<\/p>\n

Like everybody else, filmmakers choose within constraints\u2014some apparent, some less visible, many just taken for granted. Those constraints limit what can be done, but they also enable other things to happen, perhaps things that the filmmaker couldn\u2019t have planned in advance. Once other filmmakers realize the results, they can<\/em> plan in advance. A moviemaker today can try out Wyler’s solution, free of the pressures that drove him to it. A significant part of filmmaking’s traditions may consist of workarounds.<\/p>\n

\n

The Ostlund epigraph, apparently not available online, is taken from Hollywood Reporter’s\u00a0<\/em>December awards issue, p. 13. My Egyptian picture comes from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It’s called Fish Preparation and Net Making<\/em><\/a>, from the Tomb of Amenhotep (1479-1458 BCE), as rendered by Nina de Garis Davies. I draw the stage directions in\u00a0The Little Foxes<\/em> from Lillian Hellman, The Collected Plays<\/em><\/a> (Little, Brown, 1971), 195.<\/p>\n

My quotations about It\u2019s a Great Feeling<\/em> and The Bishop\u2019s Wife<\/em> come, respectively from two books by Irene Kahn Atkins, David Butler<\/em><\/a> (Scarecrow, 1993), 227; and Henry Koster<\/em><\/a> (Scarecrow, 1987), 87. Koster\u2019s memory fails him in his account of the Bishop’s Wife<\/em> window scene. It seems likely that Loretta Young favored her left side, which is her dominant orientation throughout the film. But there\u2019s no evidence in the film that Cary Grant favored that side of his face too. The scene at the window is too brief to count as an instance of much of anything.<\/p>\n

When I wrote On the History of Film Style<\/em> in the mid-1990s, I had the nagging memory that Marshall\u2019s artificial leg played a role in Wyler\u2019s staging, but I put it down as legend. (It\u2019s a pity I didn’t pursue it, because the information would have fitted snugly into my sixth chapter.) Only when I discovered a 1972 interview with Wyler, with the \u201ctrade secret\u201d mentioned above, did I realize there was something to the story. That interview was once online, but seems to have vanished. It’s available at Columbia University<\/a>. Durgnat\u2019s discussion is in Films and Feelings<\/em><\/a> (MIT Press, 1967), 41. My other quotations from Wyler come from Axel Madsen, William Wyler<\/em><\/a> (Crowell, 1973), 209.<\/p>\n

Otis Ferguson reported on the filming of a different scene in The Little Foxes<\/em>; I discuss that here<\/a>. More generally, on the Bazin-Wyler connection, see this entry<\/a>. Other Wyler-related entries can be canvassed here<\/a>. For more on Hollywood’s development of deep staging and deep focus, see not only On the History of Film Style<\/em> but also Chapter 27 of \u00a0The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960<\/em>. As for Bette Davis’s eyelids, much in evidence here, there’s this entry<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Little Foxes (1941). DB here: For me, shooting is a struggle where you only get to be happy for five minutes before you start thinking about the next problem to solve. Ruben Ostlund, on Force Majeure One of the most famous shots in American cinema occurs at a climactic moment in The Little Foxes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[224,109,7,1,74,60,59,57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1940s-hollywood","category-directors-wyler","category-film-and-other-media","category-film-comments","category-film-criticism","category-technique-cinematography","category-technique-staging","category-hollywood-aesthetic-traditions"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30151","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30151"}],"version-history":[{"count":26,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30151\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30196,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30151\/revisions\/30196"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}