Saturday, November 3, 2007

These vagabond shoes...

So I was watching a DVD from season one of the NBC show "30 Rock" and was noticing something that always tends to grab my attention when it happens. See, "30 Rock" takes place in New York City, a city that hosts more than its share of film productions. And while larger film productions, especially in Hollywood and elsewhere block off streets or shoot in studios to control the crowd and other extraneous factors, many films and television shows set and shot in Manhattan just simply and quietly shoot out on the street, not really thinking to block out any of the space that will appear in front of the camera.

The result is a sort of guerilla style environment in which anything can happen. One of these things is the curious side-effect of innocent bystanders, random passers-by, looking directly into the camera or stopping what their doing and just observing the actors performing their scene. More often than not, these are native New Yorkers who are fairly familiar with the practice of filming on public streets and once they're done with their initial fleeting interest, merely keep going on with their normal routine. But every time I am watching a scene that does take place out in the city streets, I find myself looking for this to happen, expecting it to come at every turn, and it actually draws my attention away from the actors and the dialogue.

It's quite a funny irony I think. One obvious assumption one could draw from this practice of filmmakers shooting on the streets is authenticity. Many in the filmmaking community, especially in NYC, always complain about productions taking place in Toronto--even though the movie itself is set in New York--as a way of cutting costs. Actually shooting in New York gives it credibility and a more documentary-like feel. But here's the rub... rather than strengthening my suspension of disbelief, the physical location, actually serves to reify my engagement with the screen, turning my passivity into active viewership. It's oddly Brechtian, without for one instant being purposefully so. This quest for realism then highlights its own theatricality.

But back to "30 Rock." How great are Alec Baldwin and Tracy Morgan? The show won the Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series this year and, as much as I love the writing and the rest of the cast, I really think it's these two that make the show soar. Morgan's essentially doing the same thing he's always done, from his standup to SNL to his work in other shows, but here it's somehow funnier. His humor is so broad, not necessarily physically (although that too), but in its structure. It's kaleidoscopic in a way, shifting and morphing until it reaches such an absurd level, you can't possibly figure out where it's going. Baldwin, on the other hand, is so deadpan, so direct in his performance. Where Morgan is bouncing off the walls, Baldwin's style is choppy and staccato, hitting the beat perfectly--a little more mathematical.

And when the two are in a scene together, it's like fireworks. It's like two guitarists soloing at the same time, but each in a different key. Or maybe it's like two people playing ping pong, but without the paddles. In some cases, maybe without the ball too.

1 comment:

screamingamanda said...

Tracy Morgan okay. Alec Baldwin, I don't know. I find him creepy. On 30 Rock not so bad, but his other show creepiness counts against him. From the Episodes I have seen, it is pretty funny.