Slade wrote:Also, last week, I rewatched SHANE... <snip>I don't know whether they cranked the level of the blasts up for the digital reworking, but man, every shot literally explodes off the screen!
MarylandManson wrote:Perhaps you agree that often the director, and in some cases the producer, is most responsible for a final movie. If you disagree, fine by me. You know far more about the movie business than I ever will. I'm curious to hear your answer either way.
PohlSE wrote:Big egos + big money + free time - personal responsibility = reprehensible behavior.
And yes a few bad apples DO spoil the barrel.
Slade wrote:That's the problem with Westerns. They put you in a bind and leave you just one moral choice. And that sort of thinking spills over into your everyday life.
Wil wrote:So then, all cops are alcoholic wife-beaters and racists; all priests are child-molesters; all lawyers are ambulance chasers; and all children are angels.
For every misbehaved movie star, I can name ten who are perfectly acceptable in your eyes. Do we really have to argue the relative value of stereotypes?
You're still being silly.
Wil wrote:Movies are a created through a collective of artists, actors, technicians, writers, producers, directors and so on. It is a tough concept to wrap one's head around, when we are used to ascribing artistic output to individuals.
Wil wrote:The auteur theory has since been dismissed in the academic world, since it is clear that you can't use a single-artist metric to evaluate the work of a collective. (See Slade's note on Hornbeck's contribution as editor on Shane.)
Wil wrote:One cannot point to a finished work and divine who contributed what to the final product. Did the director pick the lenses, or did the cinematographer? Did the editor find a shot from an earlier scene and insert it at the right moment to make the scene sing? Did that glance from an actor set up a new way to look at the romantic relationship between the characters?
Wil wrote:If one selects the movies he/she will watch based on a single contributor (this actor, or that director) that is perfectly okay, but let's not go down the road of trying to judge the artistry of any picture on that one person. To do so is to insult the others in the process.
MarylandManson wrote:Are there cases where one can divine who contributed what? I'm thinking of the kinds of personality quirks whereby John Woo (or John Glen, for that matter) figures out ways to put flapping birds into a film.
Further, in the practical world of moviemaking, isn't it true that there are many decisions that boil down to only one person, especially where there is conflict?
...it raises the question of whether audiences can and should "judge" what they experience. I think it's all fair game.
Wil wrote:Watch these movie over a weekend (The Black Stallion, The Natural, and Being There). You'll be bowled over by how similar they are, not because they are directed by the same person, but because they were all shot by Caleb Deschanel, an amazing cinematographer that brings his own signature to his work.
Wil wrote:The studio head... or in the case of independent movies, the financier. Money always trumps in this game.
Wil wrote:An informed critique is preferable, don't you think? (To your credit, you are asking these questions, so consider the latter rhetorical.)
Let me quote Sidney Lumet, "...everybody who does decent work does that automatically, so I don't know what the big geshrei is about, the big noise. Everybody who's good has been doing that for years anyway. So all the auteur theory did was make what had been natural self-conscious. It's had a bad effect critically, because it's trained critics to look for the wrong things. It's had a bad effect on the young movie people. You see, I can't even use the words 'film' or 'cinema.' They stick in my throat because it's all become so precious."
May the angels watch over Sidney Lumet as he sleeps. He is truly one of the great ones.
MarylandManson wrote:CASINO ROYALE is rather a mess for about 40 minutes, then substantially improves.
Wil wrote:I thought the storytelling was atrocious. For the first 30 minutes, I couldn't figure out what was going on, and by the time the goofy 20 minute (!) poker game came along, with Giannini playing the part of Moe the Explainer, I didn't care what was going on.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest