{"id":382,"date":"2007-02-09T08:47:47","date_gmt":"2007-02-09T15:47:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=382"},"modified":"2018-03-20T09:53:49","modified_gmt":"2018-03-20T14:53:49","slug":"walk-the-talk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2007\/02\/09\/walk-the-talk\/","title":{"rendered":"Walk the talk"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"ambersons-4-500a.jpg\"<\/p>\n

The Magnificent Ambersons<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s only history,\u201d Jack Valenti is reported to have said when allowing scholars access to MPAA files. (1) After studying Hollywood for over thirty years, I should be used to the ways in which trade journalists (and some critics) forget or ignore historical precedents in moviemaking. But I still get bug-eyed when I encounter something like the Variety<\/em> piece<\/a> on TV director Tommy Schlamme (Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip<\/em>).<\/p>\n

The subhead tells us that this DGA nominee is known for his \u201challway shots.\u201d That gets my interest.<\/p>\n

I lose interest fast. The writer tells us that Schlamme<\/p>\n

developed the \u201cwalk and talk\u201d on Sports Night<\/em> and then mastered it on The West Wing<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The shot\u2014which features two or more actors moving from one location to another on the set, often from one office to another via a hallway\u2014has become a Schlamme signature.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The first sentence could be read as saying that Schlamme invented the walk-and-talk. Since I spent a little time studying this technique in The Way Hollywood Tells It<\/em>, my inner film historian cries out, Aarrgh. Long before Sports Night<\/em> (aired 1998-2000) and The West Wing<\/em> (1999-2006), movies were developing such bravura shots.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The oblique view<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the prototypical walk-and-talk, two or more characters advance, and the camera tracks along, keeping them centered as they move through the environment. Such shots are quite uncommon in the silent cinema, but they emerge in 1930s films from many countries.<\/p>\n

They were truly \u201csignature shots\u201d for Max Ophuls and the lesser-known Erik Charell. In Charell\u2019s captivating The Congress Dances<\/em> (1931) Lillian Harvey sings while a carriage takes her through an entire town and into the country, all in flowing tracking shots. Call it a ride-and-sing.<\/p>\n

If that\u2019s not as pure an instance as you\u2019d like, we can find nice ones during a street scene of The Thin Man<\/em> (1934). A more somber example occurs in Mizoguchi Kenji\u2019s Story of the Last Chrysanthemums<\/em> (1939), with the camera in a river bed angled upward at the couple it follows.<\/p>\n

\"thin-man-st-250.jpg\" \"last-mums.jpg\"<\/p>\n

Usually such traveling shots from the 1930s and 1940s are shot obliquely to the actors. That is, the performers are seen in a \u00be view, and they walk along a diagonal path with respect to the frame edges; the camera moves on a similar trajectory. Sound cameras were mounted on dollies that usually ran on tracks. Framing the actors head-on raised problems with this gear. Performers couldn’t walk smoothly if they were stepping within rails, and there was a risk that the rails in the distance might appear in the frame. It was simpler to set the camera at an oblique angle so that actors could walk unimpeded and the tracks wouldn’t be seen. Directors continued to use this framing into the 1950s, as in Welles\u2019 Othello<\/em> (1952) and Fuller\u2019s Forty Guns<\/em> (1957). Both are unusually long takes; in the second, poor Gene Barry seems to be panting to keep up with the other men.<\/p>\n

\"othello.jpg\"<\/p>\n

\"40-guns-250.jpg\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Back off<\/strong><\/p>\n

Today\u2019s walk-and-talk is more likely to be a head-on framing, with the camera retreating from the actors. (More rarely, it dogs them from behind.) With a retreating Steadicam, you don’t have to worry about glimpsing the ground or floor behind the actors, in the distance, since there are no track rails to be exposed. Again, though, we have some precedents, most famously the splendid camera movements, evidently executed with a crane, in the ball sequences of The Magnificent Ambersons<\/em> (1942), when George and Lucy stroll through the party.<\/p>\n

\"ambersons-1-250.jpg\" \"ambersons-2.jpg\"<\/p>\n

When location shooting became more common in the 1940s and 1950s, cameras could be supported on more versatile dollies that didn’t require track rails, and these reverse-tracking shots become a bit more common. Kubrick, highly influenced by Welles and Ophuls, captured his officers striding through the trenches of Paths of Glory<\/em> (1957). Vincent LoBrutto\u2019s information-packed book (2) tells us that Kubrick’s dolly rolled backward on the planks that the actors walked on (authentic details, as boards were indeed used in the muddy trenches). Godard\u2019s long traveling through the office lobby in Breathless<\/em> (1960) was shot from a wheelchair.<\/p>\n

\"paths-2-250.jpg\" \"breathless-a.jpg\"<\/p>\n

Such head-on (and tails-on) shots can be found in several films well into the 1970s, as in Arthur Hiller\u2019s The Hospital<\/em> (1970). In fact, hospitals, police stations, and other sprawling institutional spaces seem to invite this approach.<\/p>\n

\"hospital-a-250.jpg\" \"hospital-b-250.jpg\"<\/p>\n

By the 1980s, these shots proliferate in American films largely because the Steadicam makes them easy. One famous example is De Palma\u2019s Bonfire of the Vanities<\/em> (1990), which follows the drunken Peter Fallow through a hotel as he picks up and drops off many other characters.<\/p>\n

\"bonfire-1.jpg\" \"bonfire-2.jpg\"<\/p>\n

Today such shots are very common in both high- and low-budget films. Schlamme\u2019s \u201csignature\u201d device seems to be in pretty wide circulation. At best it\u2019s a convention, at worst a clich\u00e9.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

They’re called actors; let them perform action<\/strong><\/p>\n

I argue in The Way Hollywood Tells It<\/em> that walk-and-talk is one of two principal staging techniques of contemporary Hollywood. The other, usually called stand-and-deliver, plants the characters facing one another and simply cuts from one to the other. The scene is built primarily out of singles (shots of only one actor) or over-the-shoulder framings. Here’s a typically static dialogue scene from The Matrix Revolutions<\/em> (2003).<\/p>\n

\"matrix-2-d-250.jpg\" \"matrix-3-b.jpg\"<\/p>\n

\"matrix-3-c.jpg\" \"matrix-3-d.jpg\"<\/p>\n

Both stand-and-deliver and walk-and-talk began in the studio era, decades ago, but then there were other options as well. Directors cultivated smooth, unobtrusive blocking tactics that moved characters in ways that reflected the developing scene. The actors had to perform with their whole bodies, and bits of business motivated them to circulate through the setting and turn toward or away from the camera. One example given earlier<\/a> on this blog is from Mildred Pierce<\/em>; here\u2019s another, from the program picture Homicide<\/em> (1949).<\/p>\n

Detective Michael Landers has a hunch that the purported suicide of a former sailor is really murder. He has to persuade Captain Mooney to let him pursue some leads out of his jurisdiction. Today this might be played out in a stand-and-deliver session, with both men seated and shot\/ reverse-shot cutting carrying the scene. But the director Felix Jacoves decides to let his actors earn their money through ensemble staging, not merely line readings. Here are just three shots from the middle of the scene that illustrate my point.<\/p>\n

Landers stands at Mooney\u2019s desk and gets a refusal. As he turns away to the left, Mooney walks to the rear files to put the papers away.<\/p>\n

\"homicide-1.jpg\" \"homicide-2.jpg\"<\/p>\n

As they’re retreating to the opposite ends of the screen, Landers\u2019 partner Boylan, who\u2019s been offscreen for this phase of the scene, strides into the center and pauses at the door. The result of this choreography is both a balanced three-point composition and a chance to let us observe Boylan\u2019s skeptical reaction to Landers\u2019 next plea.<\/p>\n

\"homicide-3.jpg\" \"homicide-5.jpg\"<\/p>\n

The camera tracks in as Landers approaches Mooney. Boylan shifts closer as well. What seems somewhat stagy as we analyze it doesn\u2019t look obtrusive on the screen, because we\u2019re following Landers\u2019 arguments and watching the older men\u2019s reactions. The closer framing and the position of the men, now face to face rather than separated by a desk, raises the dramatic pressure. As Landers pauses, Mooney folds his arms\u2014a simple piece of body language that lets us know he\u2019s still resisting.<\/p>\n

\"homicide-6.jpg\" \"homicide-7.jpg\"<\/p>\n

Now a cut to Mooney, in an OTS framing, stresses his continued resistance as he tells Landers off, and a reverse shot gives Landers’ angry reaction.<\/p>\n

\"homicide-8.jpg\" \"homicide-9.jpg\"<\/p>\n

Interrupting the sustained take, the shot\/ reverse shot cuts have gained more emphasis than if they were part of a string of OTS shots. Jacoves has saved his cuts and closer views for a moment that raises the stakes visually as well as dramatically.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not claiming that this is a brilliant stretch of cinema. (But you have to like a plot in which the hero defeats the killer by denying him access to insulin.) It’s just that the sequence activates, in a way that directors once took for granted, aspects of film art that we don\u2019t find too often nowadays. Once you didn’t have to choose between Steadicam logistics and static dialogue; there is a very wide middle ground if you’re willing to move actors around the set and give them some body language and prop work. No need for a walk-and-talk here.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Schema and revision<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Variety<\/em> article explains that Schlamme utilizes his long walk-and-talks to save time and money. But directors in the studio era shot their fully elaborated scenes like that in Homicide<\/em> to be economical as well. If actors know their lines and hit their marks, playing out pages of dialogue in a few sustained setups can be very efficient; the Homicide<\/em> full shot consumes 45 seconds. I\u2019d argue that most contemporary directors have never learned to stage scenes this way. It\u2019s a lost skill set. I make the case in more detail in Figures Traced in Light<\/em> and The Way <\/em>Hollywood<\/em> Tells It<\/em>.<\/p>\n

To some extent, however, another skill set has emerged. Some walk-and-talks in The West Wing<\/em> and other programs have an extra feature that the Variety<\/em> writer and I haven\u2019t mentioned. Often character A and B are walking toward us down the corridor, then B drifts off and C catches up with A. A and C walk for a while, then A peels off and C picks up somebody else, and so on. This approach is suited to multiple-protagonist dramas. You can show the plotlines crossing and separating.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m no TV historian, but I think that this technique showed up on St. Elsewhere<\/em> (1982-1988), and it\u2019s definitely on display in ER<\/em> (1994-). Hospitals again. I think we also find this mingling\/ separating choreography in contemporary film, but I can\u2019t recall many examples in earlier eras. You could argue that one of the shots in the Ambersons\u2019 ballroom does this, though I don\u2019t think it\u2019s a pure instance. (The principle of overlapping character actions is at work in many Renoir films, most famously in the final party melee in Rules of the Game<\/em>, but Renoir doesn\u2019t employ what we\u2019re calling a walk-and-talk.) Did movies pick up this intertwined walk-and-talk from TV or vice-versa? I don\u2019t know. If you do, drop me a line!<\/p>\n

In On the History of Film Style<\/em> and Figures Traced in Light<\/em>, I argue that stylistic change in filmmaking often follows a logic of what art historian E. H. Gombrich calls schema and revision. (3) A pattern or practice becomes standardized, but then creators extend it to new situations or find new possibilities in it, and they modify it.<\/p>\n

Camera movements have long been used to link characters. For instance, when Nick Charles circulates drinks in The Thin Man<\/em>, Van Dyke tracks leftward to follow him from guest to guest.<\/p>\n

\"thin-man-party-1.jpg\" \"thin-man-party-2.jpg\"<\/p>\n

\"thin-man-party-3.jpg\" \"thin-man-party-4.jpg\"<\/p>\n

So maybe in the 1980s and 1990s, when ensemble stories had to balance attention among several major characters, directors blended the multiple-interaction aspect of lateral camera movements with the schema of the advancing walk-and-talk. The result makes characters move in and out of each others’ orbits along a single trajectory. Whoever came up with this device, I’d speculate that it arose from the realization that the backing-up walk-and-talk could be repurposed for dramas following the fates of several protagonists.<\/p>\n

It’s only history, but it matters if we want to understand stylistic continuity and change.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

(1) Thanks to Richard Maltby for passing this along.<\/p>\n

(2) Vincent LoBrutto, Stanley Kubrick: A Biography<\/em> (New York: Fine, 1997), 141-142.<\/p>\n

(3) E. H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation<\/em> (Princeton, N. J. Princeton University Press, 1960), especially Chapter III.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Magnificent Ambersons. \u201cIt\u2019s only history,\u201d Jack Valenti is reported to have said when allowing scholars access to MPAA files. (1) After studying Hollywood for over thirty years, I should be used to the ways in which trade journalists (and some critics) forget or ignore historical precedents in moviemaking. But I still get bug-eyed when […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[224,76,75,77,2,1,5,60,58,59,57,23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1940s-hollywood","category-directors-godard","category-directors-mizoguchi-kenji","category-directors-welles","category-film-art","category-film-comments","category-film-technique","category-technique-cinematography","category-technique-editing","category-technique-staging","category-hollywood-aesthetic-traditions","category-national-cinemas-japan"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/382","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=382"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/382\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39219,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/382\/revisions\/39219"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}