Something that stood out came toward the end of the commentary, in which Eyman notes how this movie was a precursor to the screwball comedy and Lubitsch’s style might not be recognized as what the genre turned out to be. In fact, he notes some might consider it dull and passé. Well, I wouldn’t call it either of those adjectives, but it was a good point considering some of the questions I’ve been pondering on for the past couple of weeks.
The film started out as a play and one of the writers Lubitsch brought on to adapt it for the screen was Samson Raphaelson, another playwright who worked in Hollywood for many years but his main focus was playwriting. This mention of Trouble in Paradise being a stage play reminded me how early film was quite like an extension of the stage play. The way films were in the early ages of cinema is a lot like a play in the sense that there tended to be more dialogue in early films. Perhaps why this film is so funny is precisely because the dialogue is sharp and witty. Never are things mentioned flat out. Subtext is key here. Things like “her whole sex appeal is in that safe” turn upside down what is really meant, which is “I only care about her money.”
A perfectly good point made in the commentary is how the characters never say what they mean. Eyman points out that never do you hear, “I want you, I like you” between Mme Colet and Gaston, just as you never hear Gaston or M. Giron say to each other, “I distrust you, I want to destroy you.” It doesn’t need to be said because it’s perfectly implied through their actions. Dialogue is key to the screwball comedy, yet it’s not about saying just any silly joke. It’s all in what you say, how much you say, how much you reveal. The viewer can then interact without being constantly told what is going on.
Another thing pointed out in the commentary was how Gaston is put in the difficult situation of being caught between two desirable females, which was not typical of the time. Usually, and this is still true today, if a lead character is caught between two lovers one of them has to be unlikable, that way the job of choosing is easier. But here, that’s not the case. This was a concern of mine when re-watching the ending of the film. I think part of the problem for me is that I didn’t want to like Mme Colet and this probably comes from watching Kay Francis in roles in which she plays the insufferable wife or fiancée who won’t let her man be happy with his true love. I don’t want to like Mme Colet, but she doesn’t do anything bad. Her only sin is being rich and careless about it. This for me, though, makes it easy to not like her, because she’s an idiot to be so generous and trusting. But Gaston sees that with her he could be rich and happy, and just as well he could take her money and run off with Lily and be rich and happy with her. So it presents a conundrum, of which he ultimately decides to leave Mme Colet to be with the one who truly understands him like only another thief could.
I think perhaps what I got most out of when listening to the commentary is how much style Lubitsch had. He had an attention to detail and used film to his advantage. The way he cuts scenes and what he chooses to focus on, shows how he used the medium to its utmost advantage. One of the scenes pointed out is the focus on the gondola ashtray, which is also another scene of showing and not telling. Another scene is Mme Colet in Gaston’s arm near the end of the film, from the reflection in the mirror to their silhouette on the bed. I think all these things pointed out helped in understanding Lubitsch’s choice of pace that had been bothering me since I first watched it. This is simply his style of things. And it’s also made me wonder how a bold and adventurous filmmake would have fared in today’s era of filmmaking. What kind of films would Lubitsch have made today? How far would he have pushed the envelope? How would he be embracing 3D and digital technology?
No comments:
Post a Comment