Post by account_disabled on Dec 9, 2023 16:34:37 GMT 10
If my hypothesis holds up, it would have to be said that transferred from the page to the mimic action the fact of the expression is substantially modified, so that an actor who follows in every way, to render the mimicry of a character, the description of it given on the page of a story, it would be cold or colorless or conventional. (Especially conventional, I think: because in the mimic action the gesture has requirements of typicality, of novelty, which it does not have in a story; in which in a certain sense the reader is more satisfied - always with regard to the gesture - than to do the spectator at the theater).
The written word is more synthetic, but precisely for this reason it generalizes, "genericizes". A "furrowed his eyelashes", a "tightened his lips" referring to a character who shows bad mood, unwelcome surprise, etc., is enough for us in a story: but in the theater the actor must give us something much more complex Phone Number Datawith his face , and first of all, more precise , more personal. Here, in this consideration by Morselli, is one of the great differences between literary works and – let's call them – scenic works, whether theatrical or cinematographic. If on the one hand it is true that cinema tends to synthesize the literary work, on the other it is also true that the transposition makes the work much more complex, precisely because it is visual. As readers we are satisfied, says Morselli, with the little that the writer offers us.
A description of a few words is enough to convey the idea of anger, happiness, pain, emotions that cinema cannot allow itself to represent so quickly. This is understandable, it is true, also with respect to other elements which in the story are accessories, but are not in the stage representation. With all the details that Manzoni gives us of Renzo's vineyard, a "director" who were to reconstruct that scene on the ground would have to largely make up for it with his imagination and would find many serious gaps in the text. So it can be said that a novel (even one composed by a meticulous writer such as Manzoni) is always only an imprecise outline for those who are preparing to transport the story onto the stage (even if it is a cinematographic one).
The written word is more synthetic, but precisely for this reason it generalizes, "genericizes". A "furrowed his eyelashes", a "tightened his lips" referring to a character who shows bad mood, unwelcome surprise, etc., is enough for us in a story: but in the theater the actor must give us something much more complex Phone Number Datawith his face , and first of all, more precise , more personal. Here, in this consideration by Morselli, is one of the great differences between literary works and – let's call them – scenic works, whether theatrical or cinematographic. If on the one hand it is true that cinema tends to synthesize the literary work, on the other it is also true that the transposition makes the work much more complex, precisely because it is visual. As readers we are satisfied, says Morselli, with the little that the writer offers us.
A description of a few words is enough to convey the idea of anger, happiness, pain, emotions that cinema cannot allow itself to represent so quickly. This is understandable, it is true, also with respect to other elements which in the story are accessories, but are not in the stage representation. With all the details that Manzoni gives us of Renzo's vineyard, a "director" who were to reconstruct that scene on the ground would have to largely make up for it with his imagination and would find many serious gaps in the text. So it can be said that a novel (even one composed by a meticulous writer such as Manzoni) is always only an imprecise outline for those who are preparing to transport the story onto the stage (even if it is a cinematographic one).