Lalwende wrote:
Quote:
|
That's a very good point about the same technique being used in films. It brings to mind war films, where the action of a battle is often best portrayed via the experiences of various combatants; we can 'see' the battle as those involved see it, from the point of view of those who die or are injured, and from those who survive, which enables us not only to follow the 'story' of the battle but also to gain something of how it might have felt to be involved.
|
I think that this is largely true. But I would also note that this plotted-battle technique is not something that all or even most films do (though perhaps it's something that
good ones do). To take a well-known example: consider two
Star Wars space battles, the one at the end of Episode IV and the one at the end of Episode I. In Episode IV, the battle is not just an episode of action; it has a narrative of its own and is cut in just such a way that the viewer can very easily grasp that narrative. A real sense of the geography of the Death Star trench, of the strategies of the Rebels and the Imperials, and of the successes and failures of each side is conveyed. In short, the battle is easy to follow. The space battle at the end of Episode I does not have a real story; it consists of rapid shots of various actions (flying, shooting, exploding) but it does not connect these shots into a coherent narrative; the battle is easy to watch, but not easy to follow. (Note that I am not bashing Episode I here; I merely think that in this particular instance Episode IV surpasses it).
Helm's Deep is like the Death Star battle. The attentive reader easily grasps the geography, the strategies, and the overall arc of the battle. I would contrast this with the Battle of the Pelennor Field, where the battle itself is more of an amorphous entity and we do not closely follow the particular ups and down of the fighting - not that this is really a flaw, since there are other things going on at that point more important than the battle at large.