• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    • CommentAuthorMilan NS
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2017 edited
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2017

    That is actually my favourite of the series.
    Brilliant!
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDreamTheater
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2017 edited
    Speaking about the Hitch...

    A while back I bought a box-set of some of his most-beloved classics on blu-ray (Saboteur / Shadow of a Doubt / Rope / Rear Window / The Trouble with Harry / The Man Who Knew Too Much / Vertigo / North by Northwest / Psycho / The Birds / Marnie / Torn Curtain / Topaz / Frenzy / Family Plot)

    It's interesting that I've watched all except the last three, and except for a select few which I've watched twice now, I have no big desire to return to them. He has a style that is at times ground-breaking (Rope), and he sets up shots beautifully but most of the times while watching half of these films I was extremely bored after an hour or so. Master of Suspense? Must be a something that felt extremely suspenseful back in those days, as there was nothing else to watch on a saturday... Because if I look at the clock or I doze off during a watch, it's not due to the masterful suspense, is it?

    I like a few of his films, but I'll never be able to call the man a brilliant director like for instance Tarantino, De Palma who have done much more in the suspense department.

    And it's not that I don't like slow-moving or character-driven films. Because I do, a lot.
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2021
    Ultimately, I think it will have to be Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott and Michelangelo Antonioni.
    I am extremely serious.
  1. I love Spielberg. He and George Lucas and Robert Zemeckis were the pivotal directors of my youth. More recently, Chris Nolan, Jeff Nichols, Pete Doctor, Taika Waititi, and Denis Villenueve have really impressed me. As I've looked back into films made before my time, I've been really impressed with Hitchcock. I haven't seen anywhere near as many films as you, Thor. So I feel like there are a ton of directors out there whose work I just don't know yet.

    Sadly, Antonioni is one of those. I've never seen any of his films. Where should I start?
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 7th 2021 edited
    christopher wrote
    I love Spielberg. He and George Lucas and Robert Zemeckis were the pivotal directors of my youth. More recently, Chris Nolan, Jeff Nichols, Pete Doctor, Taika Waititi, and Denis Villenueve have really impressed me. As I've looked back into films made before my time, I've been really impressed with Hitchcock. I haven't seen anywhere near as many films as you, Thor. So I feel like there are a ton of directors out there whose work I just don't know yet.

    Sadly, Antonioni is one of those. I've never seen any of his films. Where should I start?


    Start with BLOW UP. It's probably his most famous film. And also most accessible. Then watch PROFESSIONE: REPORTER with Jack Nicholson and ZABRISKIE POINT. Then maybe IL GRIDO - a beautiful, Italian neorealist-like movie. Then perhaps you're ready to tackle the more challenging classics about alienation like L'AVVENTURA, LA NOTTE, L'ECLISSE and DESERTO ROSSO.

    But you do need to have a tolerance for what I reluctantly call arthouse cinema. I just adore Antonioni's observations about SPACE and LOCATIONS.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 7th 2021 edited
    Good suggestions. I started Antonioni with l’Avventura and although I was impressed, I probably should’ve started somewhere else :D.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 7th 2021 edited
    1. Stanley Kubrick
    2. Steven Spielberg
    3. Paul Thomas Anderson


    Funny reading back my post from 2017, and I think the top 3 remains the same. PTA might battle it out with Terrence Malick, but even though Malick has a more pronounced style and aesthetic than PTA (although this is debatable, I know, I just love Malick’s poetic melancholy), Malick also disappointed with his recent unofficial trilogy which might drag him down a bit (especially was a bit unimpressed with Knight of Cups, but the trilogy in general felt at times like a parody of himself)

    EDIT: I accidentally edited my previous post from 2017 as opposed to quoting it, so that’s gone now, haha.
  2. Thor wrote
    christopher wrote
    I love Spielberg. He and George Lucas and Robert Zemeckis were the pivotal directors of my youth. More recently, Chris Nolan, Jeff Nichols, Pete Doctor, Taika Waititi, and Denis Villenueve have really impressed me. As I've looked back into films made before my time, I've been really impressed with Hitchcock. I haven't seen anywhere near as many films as you, Thor. So I feel like there are a ton of directors out there whose work I just don't know yet.

    Sadly, Antonioni is one of those. I've never seen any of his films. Where should I start?


    Start with BLOW UP. It's probably his most famous film. And also most accessible. Then watch PROFESSIONE: REPORTER with Jack Nicholson and ZABRISKIE POINT. Then maybe IL GRIDO - a beautiful, Italian neorealist-like movie. Then perhaps you're ready to tackle the more challenging classics about alienation like L'AVVENTURA, LA NOTTE, L'ECLISSE and DESERTO ROSSO.

    But you do need to have a tolerance for what I reluctantly call arthouse cinema. I just adore Antonioni's observations about SPACE and LOCATIONS.


    Thanks! Several of these are actually on my (extremely long) list of things to watch already.
  3. I've always admired Anthony Minghella, Ridley Scott and Frank Darabont a lot as artists/directors. But I also love a lot of Ron Howard's movies, so that might mean he's more my favorite? It's tricky. On the level of artistic/visual/creative, or enjoyment/entertainment? Or both?
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2021
    I’d say a favorite director is a combination of both: you admire his craft, and you also love watching his films, so you do get entertained by it. There are a lot of directors that I admire on a technical level, but because I don’t get enough entertainment out of them, I wouldn’t so easily call them my ‘favorite’.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 11th 2021 edited
    BobdH wrote
    I’d say a favorite director is a combination of both: you admire his craft, and you also love watching his films, so you do get entertained by it. There are a lot of directors that I admire on a technical level, but because I don’t get enough entertainment out of them, I wouldn’t so easily call them my ‘favorite’.


    More important to me than craft and entertainment is that they're proper AUTEURS (i.e. with recurrent thematic and stylistic trademarks). Not that I can't appreciate good "journeyman" directors like Richard Donner or Jon Favreau or Ron Howard or whatever, where both craft and entertainment values are top notch, but their lack of an auteur stamp means that they'll never be on any top favourite list of mine.
    I am extremely serious.
  4. Cool, yeah, that makes sense. How would you describe the aesthetic of some of your favorite directors?
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2021
    Filmscoregirl wrote
    Cool, yeah, that makes sense. How would you describe the aesthetic of some of your favorite directors?


    Oh gosh, that's a big question. Best answered over a glass of wine or beer. I'll be back tomorrow. Don't anybody "steal" my three directors in the meantime! wink
    I am extremely serious.
  5. I can't grasp how people have favourite directors. I can understand that people can see things in movies that appeal. But I want to sit and enjoy the film and not really analyse why.
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2021
    FalkirkBairn wrote
    I can't grasp how people have favourite directors. I can understand that people can see things in movies that appeal. But I want to sit and enjoy the film and not really analyse why.


    Curious notion, but not altogether unreasonable, I suppose -- from your perspective. I can watch a film in three modes -- a) just sit back and enjoy, b) continually switch between sitting back and enjoying and thinking about certain features (this is my press screening mode) or c) analyzing with pen and paper in hand, usually in the comfort of my own home (maybe for some article I'm writing).

    Since I've been a little kid, I was always curious about WHY I felt a certain way when watching a film, so the seed was grown early in terms of analyzing cultural products, long before I was a student or using it in an actual profession.

    But people "use" films in different ways.
    I am extremely serious.
  6. It's curious that my analytical mind doesn't really kick in with the arts. Especially considering that I am a scientist by profession.

    Even when I am review writing for scores I feel that I tend to err more on what the music is doing rather than on why the music is doing what it's doing.
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
  7. FalkirkBairn wrote
    It's curious that my analytical mind doesn't really kick in with the arts. Especially considering that I am a scientist by profession.

    Even when I am review writing for scores I feel that I tend to err more on what the music is doing rather than on why the music is doing what it's doing.


    Visually I adore how directors approach a film. Call me silly, but when directors shoot a particular scene in one long shot, it gives me goosebumps. I suddenly appreciate the scene more. It gives it an edge other films perhaps lack.

    I was a big fan of Zach Snyder because of this, even adored his Sucker Punch because it has a visual look unlike no other (the train fight with the robots), or the one shot in 300. Even silly things like The Queen's Gambit and the Vegas scene where Taylor Joy runs into the hotel and the camera follows her from outside till the top of the hotel. I adore directors going for the long approach. It adds realism.

    And don't get me started on the brilliance of The Haunting of House Hill and the two storms opening scene. What was that 22 minutes long?

    That's why I adore directors, willing to bring craft back to what has become essentially a fast editing nightmare, covering up the art of filmmaking for a quick and easy fix
    waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2021 edited
    I’m also with Thor in that a prerequisite for being a favorite director of mine is that he or she should have his or her own ‘auteuristic’ style, but I recognize this would not have to be the case for others, so my definition in general of a ‘favorite’ director towards others does not encapsulate this.

    I agree in that ‘directors for hire’ could never become a favorite of mine, and it saddens me that many directors that start out strong with very interesting debuts then get snatched up by Marvel, DC or what have you to execute their ideas and then become very generic directors (I fear for Chloé Zhao’s Eternals, for example).
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2021 edited
    Thomas Glorieux wrote
    That's why I adore directors, willing to bring craft back to what has become essentially a fast editing nightmare, covering up the art of filmmaking for a quick and easy fix


    I don’t think long shots are by definition a good thing, nor do I think fast cuts are by definition wrong.

    For example, that 6 minute uninterrupted sequence in the first season of True Detective completely took me out of it, that was just a bravura shot for the sake of it that felt out of tune with the pacing of the episode. On the other hand, Thelma Schoonmaker’s quick editing in the Raging Bull boxing matches are just brilliant. As is Paul Greengrass’s fast paced editing in the Bourne films, the way he adds tention by systematically quickening the editing pace is brilliant.

    Don’t get me wrong, there are brilliant examples of long takes (Alfonso Cuarón utilizes it to breathtaking effect in Gravity, as does Sam Mendes in the opening of Spectre), you just need to find the right balance. It’s all about what the material demands. Editing is an art form in and of itself, and I think it has unfairly gotten a bad reputation because of directors that don’t know what they’re doing and go overboard with stylization (and if you ask me, Zach Snyder is definitely one of them).
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2021
    So not a fan of Brian de Palma, then, Bob -- the master of long takes?

    I agree that it's kinda sad to watch visionary directors get swallowed up by the mainstream. At least most of the time. I was relieved when Gareth Edwards managed to transcribe some of his slow observation style of MONSTERS when he did the first GODZILLA (and partially ROGUE ONE). It remains to be seen whether or not he can continue nurturing that when he does his next film.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2021
    Thor wrote
    Filmscoregirl wrote
    Cool, yeah, that makes sense. How would you describe the aesthetic of some of your favorite directors?


    Oh gosh, that's a big question. Best answered over a glass of wine or beer. I'll be back tomorrow. Don't anybody "steal" my three directors in the meantime! wink


    Wine has been poured.

    To be brief about it:

    Spielberg: children's perspective (Wordsworth's idea that the "child is the father of Man"), deceptive father figures, strong mother figures, turbulent families, using light to obscure rather than reveal, "flight", The Rise of the Everyday Man, "the fear is stronger for what you DON'T see", believing is seeing (rather than seeing is believeing), playful stagings (often using geometrical shapes) and many more.

    Scott: Strong female characters, flickering light sources, air filled with objects/pollen, smoke, mental strength over physical strength, grand vistas, generational conflict etc.

    Antonioni: Alienation (from the modern, in particular), surrogate/replacement partners, long-distance observation (the sociological gaze), empty places, the absence or loss of human connection within these places, existential crisis, paths into the unknown (often concrete through his use of perspective), identity take-overs etc.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2021 edited
    Thor wrote
    So not a fan of Brian de Palma, then, Bob -- the master of long takes?


    I have actually not seen enough of him to have a valid opinion here (I know, I should definitely get into at least his classics, but I’ve mostly seen his more modern films that didn’t really utilize the long shot that much, like The Black Dahlia).

    Also, I don’t hate the long shot at all, like I’ve said there are brilliant examples. It’s just that I don’t agree with the idea that long takes are per se better than fast cuts, or that fast editing by definition is ruining cinema. It can both be a great cinematic tool, if used wisely.
  8. Speaking of long takes, I recently (finally) saw CREED. There's a fight in the middle of the film that last 2 rounds and it one continuous take. I thought it was totally brilliant. The camera had to be in the ring with the fighters, and was moving around with them as they fought, occasionally showing both fights, or focusing on one, sometimes veering away to show their trainers yelling things at them, or the crowd. They had to do CGI for the blood when cuts were supposed to be fresh, but they had a makeup team apply practical "blood" when the camera was briefly away from the fighters. It's a pretty brilliantly choreographed scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onY5Daq6jD0
  9. The long take is a staple of the director, Ryan Coogler. There's a massive one-long-take chase sequence in Black Panther, too. Sadly, can't speak for Fruitvale Station as I haven't seen it.

    I need to rewatch Creed and see Creed II.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
  10. BobdH wrote
    Thomas Glorieux wrote
    That's why I adore directors, willing to bring craft back to what has become essentially a fast editing nightmare, covering up the art of filmmaking for a quick and easy fix


    I don’t think long shots are by definition a good thing, nor do I think fast cuts are by definition wrong.

    For example, that 6 minute uninterrupted sequence in the first season of True Detective completely took me out of it, that was just a bravura shot for the sake of it that felt out of tune with the pacing of the episode. On the other hand, Thelma Schoonmaker’s quick editing in the Raging Bull boxing matches are just brilliant. As is Paul Greengrass’s fast paced editing in the Bourne films, the way he adds tention by systematically quickening the editing pace is brilliant.

    Don’t get me wrong, there are brilliant examples of long takes (Alfonso Cuarón utilizes it to breathtaking effect in Gravity, as does Sam Mendes in the opening of Spectre), you just need to find the right balance. It’s all about what the material demands. Editing is an art form in and of itself, and I think it has unfairly gotten a bad reputation because of directors that don’t know what they’re doing and go overboard with stylization (and if you ask me, Zach Snyder is definitely one of them).


    Don't get me wrong, fast editing is sometimes the only way to go. and long shots won 't always enhance a scene. But just look at The Shining, full of long shots. This never would have worked (in my book) if they constantly made fast edits. The long shots enhance the mood so wonderfully here

    The scene needs to demand it, and the director needs to know when to use it. Then you have someone who understands the artistic visual style
    waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh
  11. christopher wrote
    Speaking of long takes, I recently (finally) saw CREED. There's a fight in the middle of the film that last 2 rounds and it one continuous take. I thought it was totally brilliant. The camera had to be in the ring with the fighters, and was moving around with them as they fought, occasionally showing both fights, or focusing on one, sometimes veering away to show their trainers yelling things at them, or the crowd. They had to do CGI for the blood when cuts were supposed to be fresh, but they had a makeup team apply practical "blood" when the camera was briefly away from the fighters. It's a pretty brilliantly choreographed scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onY5Daq6jD0


    Yes adore that scene.
    Again, a scene that would have been completely different if it was edited.
    The whole movie doesn't need to be a long shot, but I appreciate the art when directors infuse it
    waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2021 edited
    Thomas Glorieux wrote
    Don't get me wrong, fast editing is sometimes the only way to go. and long shots won 't always enhance a scene. But just look at The Shining, full of long shots. This never would have worked (in my book) if they constantly made fast edits. The long shots enhance the mood so wonderfully here

    The scene needs to demand it, and the director needs to know when to use it. Then you have someone who understands the artistic visual style


    That I agree with, concerning The Shining, but that’s more about pacing than about creating long shots per se. Kubrick just knew like no other how to pace his films. He takes his time to tell the story, to let scenes breathe, to draw you into his film, and that takes confidence from the director. It’s also definitely missing from modern blockbuster films, as each scene needs to have mEaNiNg nowadays and everything needs to push the plot forwards, whereas Kubrick and other big directors (like PTA or Malick nowadays) have the confidence to sometimes just include scenes for the viewer to get familiair with characters or to create a certain mood. This is completely absent from any Marvel or DC film, which is nowadays 80% of mainstream blockbusters.
  12. BobdH wrote
    Thomas Glorieux wrote
    Don't get me wrong, fast editing is sometimes the only way to go. and long shots won 't always enhance a scene. But just look at The Shining, full of long shots. This never would have worked (in my book) if they constantly made fast edits. The long shots enhance the mood so wonderfully here

    The scene needs to demand it, and the director needs to know when to use it. Then you have someone who understands the artistic visual style


    That I agree with, concerning The Shining, but that’s more about pacing than about creating long shots per se. Kubrick just knew like no other how to pace his films. He takes his time to tell the story, to let scenes breathe, to draw you into his film, and that takes confidence from the director. It’s also definitely missing from modern blockbuster films, as each scene needs to have mEaNiNg nowadays and everything needs to push the plot forwards, whereas Kubrick and other big directors (like PTA or Malick nowadays) have the confidence to sometimes just include scenes for the viewer to get familiair with characters or to create a certain mood. This is completely absent from any Marvel or DC film, which is nowadays 80% of mainstream blockbusters.


    But essentially it's this I appreciate. It sets the mood, the pace but I adore also the artistry behind too. Much like I admire the special effect behind something, nothing beats the real thing.
    waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2021 edited
    Jup, the Effects thing is another one. With the films I (we?) grew up with, you had a lot of ‘how the hell did they do that?!’. Nowadays, the answer to that is usually ‘CGI’. Nothing is real, nothing is tangible, and I think that has impacted supernatural thrillers / horror the most. You just don’t believe anything anymore, so it doesn’t affect you.