I am not a fan of movies that are actually not movies at all, but TV films in disguise. I realize that seemingly endless close-ups of actors are much in favor with the actors themselves, but I find that all this over-indulgence in close-ups is actually extremely boring, particularly when the focus is on actors, rather than actresses.
"What's Good for the Goose" (also known as "Girl Trouble") is easily the worst offender I have ever been unlucky enough to come across. It seemed to me that Just about every single shot of Norman Wisdom was a close-up. Maybe this is a slight exaggeration, but I think everyone would agree with me that at least ninety per cent of Wisdom's screen time features him mugging away in a close-up.
All actors love close-ups! There's no doubt about that. But it's not fair to the other players, nor is it fair to that section of the audience that are not particularly interested in that particular actor, or indeed in actors anyway. If close-ups are on a director's menu, at least half the audience would much rather he hand them out to the girls. Men don't interest us at all.
I've discussed this issue with directors themselves from time to time. "Yes, I actually shoot a lot of close-ups," at least ten or twelve admitted, "but that doesn't mean that I'm actually going to use them in the final cut. Sometimes I tell the photographer not to bother to even put film in the camera. The whole idea of successful film-making is to get actors onside. So I give them their close-ups to make them co-operative, but that doesn't signal that I'm thirsting to use these close-ups in the final cut! Far from it!"
Getting back to "Girl Trouble" (as this film is also titled), I found it dead boring, although I will admit that it would probably look better on TV. But charging patrons money to see it in a theater is, in my opinion, taking money under false pretenses!
"What's Good for the Goose" (also known as "Girl Trouble") is easily the worst offender I have ever been unlucky enough to come across. It seemed to me that Just about every single shot of Norman Wisdom was a close-up. Maybe this is a slight exaggeration, but I think everyone would agree with me that at least ninety per cent of Wisdom's screen time features him mugging away in a close-up.
All actors love close-ups! There's no doubt about that. But it's not fair to the other players, nor is it fair to that section of the audience that are not particularly interested in that particular actor, or indeed in actors anyway. If close-ups are on a director's menu, at least half the audience would much rather he hand them out to the girls. Men don't interest us at all.
I've discussed this issue with directors themselves from time to time. "Yes, I actually shoot a lot of close-ups," at least ten or twelve admitted, "but that doesn't mean that I'm actually going to use them in the final cut. Sometimes I tell the photographer not to bother to even put film in the camera. The whole idea of successful film-making is to get actors onside. So I give them their close-ups to make them co-operative, but that doesn't signal that I'm thirsting to use these close-ups in the final cut! Far from it!"
Getting back to "Girl Trouble" (as this film is also titled), I found it dead boring, although I will admit that it would probably look better on TV. But charging patrons money to see it in a theater is, in my opinion, taking money under false pretenses!