I am very disillusioned with films produced today, as they contain so much CGI and assembled cuts/sound bites that they often lack any real integrity. Does anybody want to discuss the still images of Andrei Tarkovsky within his films? My favorite is Stalker, as I love the way he uses composition and subtle fast frame techniques in such a poetic style. For instance the images of the dog next to the man lying next to water in Stalker are fantastic.
I have not been to see any films for at least the past 10-15 years (With exception to the 'Kings Speech'). There is not a lot they can much about with there.
Haha I like when the phone rings ;-)
Originally Posted by cliveh
I think there is still good crap out there. Tarkovsky was not exactly mainstream, even in Europe.
Let me think who is visually stunning without a lit of junk. I have had too much wine tonite to dig names out of my brain.
I prefer films and tv series from the late 80s and early 90s. I like the serenity and tranquility of most of them plus many had a moral/pedagogical approach. Today everything is about sex and crime, action and cheap entertainment, but very shallow after all.
There are still some jewels though...
I haven't seen enough of Tarkovsky to comment on his films. But concerning the thread title I must say that I get offended by the shacky camera style. Actually it makes me sick.
There are scenes which demand a dynamic camera but to get the feeling that the camera-operator is a hybrid beetwen an ADHD-child and a Parkinson-syndrom patient is beyond what I can take.
Not that Hal Hartley is comparable to tarkovsky, but they would both be in the same art house cinemas at the same time ;-) he is another director I admire from cinematographic perspective.
Hartley had a real minimalist camera style. He liked to shoot everything with the same focal length lens - close to what we consider 'normal'. While he was a low budget indie director, I remember for one of his films he had a window and part of a wall removed so he could shoot from outside and not have to use a wide angle lens! He felt that changing focal lengths broke the connection to his storyline. As a dusclaimer, I guess another similarity between these two directors is that lost of folks find them pretentious and ponderous so YMMV :-)
think its all down 'partly' due to quality
Have any of you watched your favourite films recently in HD?
Some of mine that i have seen on the HD channels recently completely changed my mind about some scenes.
Dont know if this is due to the graininess of the quality of the film, tv screen, or interference before,
but 'feels' like they have lost something. Definitely doesn't have the same atmosphere