Originally Posted by cliveh
Recently I watched again The Mirror and Andrei Rublev for n-th time (I watched everything from Tarkovsky many many times).
Every time I watch something from Tarkovsky I start to think about definition of art, humanity, beauty, mystery... all in one. Every movie he made is a master peace.
Have you read his book "Sculpting in time"? Well worth a read.
Originally Posted by darkosaric
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
this is why i am a fan of QT ..
Originally Posted by snapguy
he slaved in a video store
and then he broke his chains and has made great films.
i can'tsay anything bad about DL either
As someone else said, the "kids these days" dimension isn't new. There have been self-indulgent films that used technical devices and audience manipulation as a creative crutch for a long time, probably as long as there have been films; those of us of a Certain Age may remember the shamelessly lowbrow disaster films of Irwin Allen, for instance, clearly as great a sinner against filmic intellectual purity as Bay is.
But!---don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Back in my longhair metalhead days in the 1980s, I remember having my mind blown by an article about rap by bassist Billy Sheehan, in which he basically said "listen to that synth bass, which the genre uses because it's mechanically tight and can do that resonant deep boom in your gut---now quit complaining about it and go find a way to make YOUR bass that tight and deep!"
Mutatis mutandis, there's a reason people use devices as creative crutches; it's because those devices have a certain predictable effect, and it should ALWAYS be possible to discard the "crutch" aspect but retain the technique. As a filmmaker, don't say "confusing fast shots are stupid"; note what happens when confusing fast shots are used heavily, and set that knowledge aside for the next time you need it (say, if the camera is taking the viewpoint of a drunk in a bar fight).
By the way, those who really don't like the flash-and-effects gestalt should take a look at the work of the "Dogme 95" filmmakers. Lars von Trier is the best known, and he's a jerk whom I think it's reasonable to write off for reasons either outside or inside his work, but the others have done some interesting stuff. I particularly liked Kristian Levring's _The King Is Alive_.
ObAPUG: I think the Dogme manifesto might require shooting on film. Does that make me on-topic?
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
No. Putting on the list, thanks for info .
Originally Posted by cliveh
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
They can be used as a crutch, but don't need to be. One example shown in the film from the article was "Hot Fuzz", which uses much of the cinematic trickery that Bay uses, but it is used intelligently to emphasis the foolishness of the situation in the story itself. That is, a simple, low speed car chase through an English village is made ludicrous by applying the "Bay Method", as well as many other action film cliches specifically after the main character is asked if he ever performed any of the during his duties and says no, but by the end he does them all. Great film.
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
Any high risk, high payout environment will develop tools to gauge and mitigate that risk. Welcome to Hollywood. It's not evil, it's not soul sucking; Hollywood is just doing what any creature does to survive in a hostile environment, when something works, keep doing it.