|
|
Post by lune7000 on Aug 15, 2021 6:32:30 GMT
I wonder if the lack of split screen isn't due just to people not being used to it. Over time we become comfortable with anything. Almost any news or sports channel has continuous split screen action and as well as internet screens on phone or laptop. Years ago directors stayed on one scene longer than today. After MTV, people became habituated to the quick cutting video style that audiences of the 1940's probably would have found irritating. We could become used to split screen.
Over time, directors would start to develop more effective uses also. It's after a method is played around with for a while that it starts to come into its own.
I agree that it could be overused and inappropriate. But it seems ideal for the following types of set ups:
People talking from different locations A sense of a "news feed' feeling of public events Where the synchronicity of differing events is important (example: bomb ticking down, rescue workers entering) Where lots of clues are key to a plot
To me the multi-screen approach seems underused. Without split screen, a director resorts to endless cutting back and forth. But this has its own cost as sustained scenes cannot be displayed and the movie starts to feel like a "choppy" MTV video. But people have grown to accept hyper cutting so maybe this was the demise of the split screen.
|
|