After a read over of witness I can sense a different type of writing style attributed to visualization that is different from that of Goldman's style. Not Goldman's writing style in its entirety, that of course is out of this world, but the visualization aspect of it. To me it seems as if Goldman visualizes through his eyes, "The most magnificent chase anyone has ever seen" (something down those lines) whereas Earl Wallace and William Kelley take a more objective approach. In fact the approach in Witness definitely appeals to me because I am able to unravel whats in the text and visualize it internally more easily than the layout that Goldman presents.
Wallace and Kelley definitely spend a variable amount of time on this, not too much and not too little, therefore giving me the appropriate amount of information for me to visualize the film. From the beginning of the screenplay to the end, the writers used carefully selected methods to show the reader the action in the frame without over saturating the text with camera cues and other "no nos" attributed to screen writing.
1. Who has a better read, Goldman's scripts or Wallace and Kelley's?
Next question, How well do you thing the Amish traditions were portrayed?
Michael Carrington
1 comment:
I think the Amish scenes were very well portrayed. I can especially relate to the traffic holdup caused by a buggy. I have seen it happen and seen how dangerous it can be for impatient drivers to try to skid past one of those things. Car vs. carriage...no contest.
Post a Comment