one flaw


Too much explicatory dialogue. Most historical films rely on a narration or brief screen roll of text explaining the When, Who, Where of the story. Becket, instead, incorporates explication in dialogue to a distracting degree, e.g., Becket's girlfriend explains in a single monologue her nationality, who her father is, how and why she "surrendered" to Becket, etc. Since all this is already known to Becket, its only purpose is to inform the audience. In that sense it's a show-stopper (in the negative definition) because it makes the lines a bit artificial and unnecessarily declamatory, and does not advance the story's forward flow. This occurs with several characters through the first part of the film. I would have prefered an initial narration or even an occasional bit of narration during the film to having the characters overly explicate themselves in dialogue.

reply

I guess you'd also say all those scene-setting monologues in Shakespeare are "show-stoppers" and unnecessary. On the contrary, almost every play and most movies have expository dialogue giving the audience information some or all of the characters already "know." I understand if you don't like it, but it's not an inherent flaw.


"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

reply



For some films, I think this is a device like many others which can be well used and not necessarily a flaw. In a historical epic, this is a necessary device in order to keep your film one film and not two or more films. The sheer bulk of footage required to fill in these blanks may be missed by a few of us who enjoy 4 hour plus cinema historical beasts, but the general public is what the studios ultimately bow to.


However, exposition or explicatory dialogue in sci-fi or horror films is quite often a sure sign of a b-movie.


.

reply