For example, in the first sentence of the script of "An Andalu Dog", "A close-up shot of two hands sharpening a razor. A men's watch is worn on the left wrist." Are you imagining it? Two hands, a razor, and a watch appeared in front of his eyes. Then I can’t wait to keep watching.
"A close-up of a man's head with his eyes down and a cigarette in his mouth (this is Bunuel himself)." This is the first sentence of the second paragraph of the script, with 37 words with punctuation. The combination of his actions and expressions is complete with just one shot. Close-ups are exclusively for movies, and the shots are indeed much more concise and powerful than the text. As long as you take a face-to-face, you can see it at a glance. It's like your eyes patrolling. The eyes are used to see, and suddenly you are tired of the tedious and common things that you are always doing. You are cutting your nails and he is sharpening the razor. But where is the difference? Yes, you are doing nothing, but he needs to continue the plot. "It is necessary to mention the shirt he is wearing: it is a collarless shirt with open vertical stripes." Compared to the plot or character traits aside, clothing is actually irrelevant.
What matters is not what clothes he wears, but what he holds in his hands. He took the razor and "gained at the sky through the glass window and saw...a cloud floating towards a full moon", and then the lens "melted into a close-up shot of a girl's face." At this time, using the alternation or re-cutting of the lens can produce the effect that the eyes of the man holding the razor are intertwined with the image of the full moon and the girl. And the razor and the floating cloud image are entangled into a tie, connecting the full moon and the girl, until the razor cuts into the girl's eyes, until the floating cloud "cuts the moon in half." At this time, the metaphor in the text is being broken down by the taken lens. The metaphor is redundant for the lens, and the association of the image is timely. This is more like the destruction of beauty, ineffable. One is the moon and the other is a girl. Through the editing of the camera, the concept is suddenly blurred. Who is who? Or what is going on? Cruelty has become trivial.
"The girl's close-up. She was pondering, looking a little tired. A quick shot of the bed. Switched to a close-up of the girl's face: she raised her head, then turned her face away." In the text, whether it's looking up or sideways. The description of the camera is not as vivid and appropriate as the sliding movement of the lens. At this time, the lens provided by the lens is no longer a tactful imagination but a direct picture. It's like describing or depicting a woman's beauty (on the outside) with a large paragraph of text and a sketch, where the conspicuous place is easy to see. Just like the girl’s tiredness in the script, sometimes we can’t see her tiredness because her tiredness is just a piece of text. When the camera gives her a close-up of her face, we see her tiredness, that look It is what we have, not told, but experienced. Not even imagined, but our experience. Reality is not words, but images. Even when you are looking at it, you have already unconsciously imitated the look in the lens. Many things, such as expressions, thoughts, and actions, are all empathetic. The camera will not tell even a word, it just lets you see it, or it's not a bad idea to be direct. The close-ups given by the lens are really the most concise language.
"Short close-up of the hand: the palm is full of ants." When you first see it, then the second glance is the fear on the girl's face. What kind of expression is that? "The girl looked at the man, and she covered her mouth with her hands in fear (perhaps to not scream)" The hand covered with ants belonged to the man, but the man "not noticed anything, still attracted by the thing in the hand ". When looking at the same thing (and this thing causes one person's fear), but two people have different attitudes, then it is possible that one of them has hallucinations. Therefore, the lens is like an ellipsis at this time, omitting a lot of unexplained meanings, and only the accepted lens can give a general idea. Immediately after the camera was given "a close-up of the hand, the palms were covered with ants crawling out of a black hole. Not a single ant fell. It melted into the shot of a girl’s armpit hair, lying in the sun. On the sandy beach of the sea. Then it turned into a sea urchin that was gently shaking. It turned into the lens of the iris (the pupil) that looked down at a girl’s head. The method of'transformation' is more subtle, euphemistic, and often has a certain meaning"). The hands, armpit hair, sea urchin, and pupils are connected together, like a flower turned into a pile of dung. The implication at this time is already meant to be self-evident. In contrast, the white space is a bit out of touch in the combination of the entire text, and the image seems to have suddenly broken.
"Panorama. She is in the background. He has his back to the viewer." In the panoramic view given by the camera, he is closer to the camera, so he is clearer. She is in the background, it seems she has been ignored. When the background is blurred, all you can notice is the foreground. However, in the text, the number of words can only be used to distinguish the importance of things, or they can only ignore the others. That means you can only see one of them. This is inevitable. When you notice this detail, it also means that you missed other details. The details given by the lens are just like what you see in your eyes, but you still missed it.
Finally, the two sets of shots before the end of the film, the only two sets of shots.
The first set of shots: They continued to walk on the beach and slowly disappeared. At this time, the word "spring" appeared in the sky.
The second set of shots: Everything has changed. Now, there is an endless desert in front of them. The male protagonist and the girl are standing in the middle, the sand is buried to their chests, their eyes are blind, their clothes are ragged, and the sun and insects are devouring them. A stop-motion shot exactly as described in the script. However, we require the words "spring" to appear on the gray sky picture.
This is a silent film. There is no words, so it must type "spring", otherwise you won't know it is spring. The problem is that the conflict between the text and the picture is irreconcilable. By the sea, in the desert, there is no spring. Maybe it's wrong!
You can even treat these two sets of shots as two endings. It’s a pity that I can’t see the ending, and I don’t even know the whole movie because I haven’t watched "An Andalu Dog"!
PS Although the lens is everywhere. However, the script is entirely written!
View more about Un Chien Andalou reviews
