I'm not Fred, but:

1) Consider Chaplin. Static frame. Gesture. Is it cinema?

2) Hawks's style is probably impossible to convey with just words. I've
been doing criticism of late using Final Cut Pro and using clips and
various analytic methods, and it's possible that way to take a scene
(say, when Bogart meets Bacall in The Big Sleep) and show how the
cutting and framing and shot construction, which first look utterly
banal or just functional, are actually reinforcements of the gestural
play -- the exchanges of glances and looks. It's difficult to talk
about this because, as you say, almost all of our official teaching is
constructed to STOP and PREVENT you from relating to movies as movies.
My suggestion would be to put all of these formulae (damned theory!)
out of your heart and just watch a scene like this over and over, trying
as much as possible to get into empathy and sympathy with the characters
and their feelings. Eventually all will come clear like a sunrise.





LiLiPUT1@... wrote:

> She finally offered: "A static,
> tableau-like frame can highlight things like gesture."
>

> Fred, a while back on the list, you mentioned "the poetry of tiny
> gestures" while discussing Hawks as a great formalist and that it's
> "hard to see
> this or explain it because it's so subtle." Also, allow me to quote
> from your
> Red River capsule review: "Hawks's elusive style grows from a kind of
> antiformalism that builds imagery around characters' tiny movements
> and gestures, so
> that each shot seems organized around personality traits--it's almost
> as if each
> composition grows organically from a single glance." Much as I love
> Red River
> , I'm afraid that poetry of tiny gestures is too subtle for me,