Arts: Have I Got Views for You ; It's Usually Derided as Just a Sixties Fad. but, Says Tom Sutcliffe, Split Screen's Recent Revival Reveals How the Technique Can Underline Not Just Film's Artifice, but Also a Poignant Subjectivity

By Sutcliffe, Tom | The Independent (London, England), January 3, 2001 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Arts: Have I Got Views for You ; It's Usually Derided as Just a Sixties Fad. but, Says Tom Sutcliffe, Split Screen's Recent Revival Reveals How the Technique Can Underline Not Just Film's Artifice, but Also a Poignant Subjectivity


Sutcliffe, Tom, The Independent (London, England)


Look under "multi-screen techniques" in Halliwell's Filmgoer's Companion and you'll get an account of split-screen's career trajectory in just six words - "Mercifully, the fashion soon wore off" it says dismissively, after noting a flurry of interest in the technique at the end of the Sixties. In other words, split-screen could be taken as just a passing fad - as embarrassing as loon pants and Afghan coats, and just as transitory.

But while Halliwell pretty well sums up the received cinematic opinion about split-screen, he isn't entirely reliable about its origins or its future. He seems to believe, for example, that the fad derived from the Montreal Expo of 1967, which seems a little odd, since Grand Prix - which pushed multi-screen effects to an epilepsy-inducing degree - was made at least a year earlier.

And the confident assumption that cinema purists would never be troubled again by what he saw as a gauche mannerism has also been looking a little ragged recently. Last year, Mike Figgis took split- screen to its logical extreme in Timecode - a film that consists of four seamless unedited takes sharing just one screen - and this year, Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream has also been exploring the possibilities of dividing the camera's attention.

You'd be hard-pressed to put this forward as a revival exactly - even two swallows don't make a summer - but the time when it was a clearly a faux pas has passed. Split-screen these days is seen in the best company, not just with vulgarians who want you to know just who's calling the shots.

It never went away entirely, of course, because there were always directors brash enough to enjoy its faintly vaudeville effect. For directors like Brian De Palma, happy to play with the artifice of the screen and the camera's vision, split-screen was always a reliable short cut to a bit of cinematic razzle-dazzle. He actually attempted to film one sequence in Carrie entirely in split-screen, deliberately including camera equipment and tripods in the side of the frame he didn't intend to use in order to forestall nervous second-thoughts in the editing suite.

Despite this approach, second thoughts did prevail and the section eventually had to be rescued by his editor, Paul Hirsch, who wasn't converted by the experience. His remarks later neatly sum up a broad aesthetic prejudice against the device: "It can show the simultaneity of things," he said, "but you don't feel anything. Engaging your intellect takes away from feeling what's happening."

Which is another way of saying that suspended disbelief suddenly finds itself crashing to the floor again, having first had its nose rubbed in the artifice that is always present in cinema but often concealed. The split-screen effectively forces into the middle of our field of vision a seam that is otherwise invisible, because it occurs between scenes and we have become so practised at ignoring it.

There can be a utilitarian motive for this breach of decorum - classically, when the audience would like to see both ends of a telephone conversation at the same time. But such convenience always comes at a cost - that of reminding the audience that all film is a splicing of discontinuous fragments. This needn't necessarily be a bad thing - split-screen has always enjoyed a certain vogue among the more high-minded director, those who feel a Calvinist obligation to flagellate themselves and us for wallowing in the pleasures of credulity - but it's never exactly cosy or untroubling, even in films that simply want to knock your eyes out.

You can find a pertinent example in a film that long preceded Halliwell's date for the flowering of split-screen. Pillow Talk is one of those sex comedies in which Rock Hudson and Doris Day bicker flirtatiously before finally succumbing - off-screen and after the credits - to their mutual passion, but it also contains a sequence that plays teasingly with split- screen's combination of proximity and distance.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Arts: Have I Got Views for You ; It's Usually Derided as Just a Sixties Fad. but, Says Tom Sutcliffe, Split Screen's Recent Revival Reveals How the Technique Can Underline Not Just Film's Artifice, but Also a Poignant Subjectivity
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?