|
I can't disagree that the ending of There Will Be Blood is kind of frustrating, but I don't think it's much of a revivalist western. In a way the film could have taken place anywhere, so long as it was still about Plainview, the amoral opportunist. It's more of a Citizen Kane film, demonstrating that fulfilling the American Dream doesn't mean jack poo poo if you're an empty, unfulfilled person (that it doesn't matter to Plainview is even more disturbing - you could draw parallels to all kinds of ruthless CEOs).
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
I'd also like to know how Assassination of Jesse James Blah Blah Blah has "no mythology" in it, because it really seemed like it was almost entirely about mythology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
, D, mmm I Nmjm
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
H (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:I'd also like to know how Assassination of Jesse James Blah Blah Blah has "no mythology" in it, because it really seemed like it was almost entirely about mythology. Haven't seen it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:, feedmyleg posted:H hey get your hyper-pretentious analysis bullshit out of here buddy
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
This thread rules, you goons rule, the western genre rules.Magic Hate Ball posted:I can't disagree that the ending of There Will Be Blood is kind of frustrating, but I don't think it's much of a revivalist western. In a way the film could have taken place anywhere, so long as it was still about Plainview, the amoral opportunist. It's more of a Citizen Kane film, demonstrating that fulfilling the American Dream doesn't mean jack poo poo if you're an empty, unfulfilled person (that it doesn't matter to Plainview is even more disturbing - you could draw parallels to all kinds of ruthless CEOs). Is the ending frustrating to you as a critic or an audience member? By that I mean; is it frustrating that the style/acting/writing/execution is weak or is it frustrating that the amoral ceo bad guy wins? I thought the ending was dope. I enjoyed the stark contrast in techniques compared to the shot composition in the rest of the movie because it highlighted how loving bat poo poo drunk crazy Plainview acts in that final scene. It sucks that the bad guy wins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
I think the VERY end scene, the bowling alley scene, is pitch for pitch perfect. It's the bits before that that really weaken the film to me. The sudden jump in time, the marriage of Daniel's son, etc. all that stuff happens so offhandedly and quickly. You can almost feel Anderson thinking "okay I better start wrapping this up now". And while the final scene with HW is painful and somewhat poignant, something about it is just off to me. It's not the acting or anything...It's just the circumstance of it all doesn't have the weight it should. I was left yearning to know at least some of what happened in those last 10 years. Daniel's relationship with HW is very important, and when it's suddenly 10 years later and HW is an adult and we have no idea of the details of HW's growing up. It makes it rather difficult to properly grasp the emotional situation. but yeah, personally, the final scene hit me hard and I would not change a single thing about it. Ok, except the butler's reaction. He seems a little stoic for what he's reacting to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 03:08
|
|
|
While we're talking about modern Westerns, how about the remake of 3:10 to Yuma? I liked it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
Xenophon posted:hey get your hyper-pretentious analysis bullshit out of here buddy Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not a completely legitimate part of the discussion. (Always remember to put your phone to sleep when you stick it in your pocket, folks.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I can't disagree that the ending of There Will Be Blood is kind of frustrating, but I don't think it's much of a revivalist western. In a way the film could have taken place anywhere, so long as it was still about Plainview, the amoral opportunist. It's more of a Citizen Kane film, demonstrating that fulfilling the American Dream doesn't mean jack poo poo if you're an empty, unfulfilled person (that it doesn't matter to Plainview is even more disturbing - you could draw parallels to all kinds of ruthless CEOs). Eh, I think it wouldn't have worked nearly as well. Oil is such a big part of the story, plus the first 5-10 minutes or so with Plainview out mining by himself and managing to drag himself out of a deep mineshaft with a broken leg or ankle. There's definitely the theme of him conquering the West in his own way - instead of using the railroads that conquered the land before him, he buys all the land and lays the pipeline through it. the Bunt posted:TWBB ending You pretty much summed up my major issue with the movie. They seriously needed at least a montage of scenes showing the intervening years there to make it not feel so slap-dash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 05:08
|
|
|
In regards to TWBB I wouldn't be against a HW montage, and I think it would strengthen the film. But at the same time I think the film is fine without it, certainly not ruined by its absence. We already know a lot about Plainview and it's clear he uses the family image to push the business. The kid is important to plainview but whatever. I don't mind the ending as is. In fact I especially liked the stoic butler, it's like he's so used to the crazy hate emanating from Plainview that he doesn't react at all.Baron von Eevl posted:While we're talking about modern Westerns, how about the remake of 3:10 to Yuma? I saw it in the backseat of a car on a laptop during a road trip so I may have missed some poo poo. But why does the evil dude repent at the end and kill all his ex-gang buddies? Despite that, I did enjoy the 1st and 2nd Acts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 06:09
|
|
|
BRB MAKIN BACON posted:In regards to TWBB I wouldn't be against a HW montage, and I think it would strengthen the film. But at the same time I think the film is fine without it, certainly not ruined by its absence. We already know a lot about Plainview and it's clear he uses the family image to push the business. The kid is important to plainview but whatever. I don't mind the ending as is. In fact I especially liked the stoic butler, it's like he's so used to the crazy hate emanating from Plainview that he doesn't react at all. He was not as bad as the other guy. He also grew to respect Christian Bale's character. Also if there is anything that grew out of Unforgiven was Deadwood. There was no character that was what you would call "good".
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
Did Gem drag her leg in an evil fashion to you or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 06:52
|
|
|
What is it exactly that makes the digital Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy not 100% realistic, from a technical standpoint? I can read essays about the uncanny valley all day but I want to know about how current lighting systems aren't 100% realistic, or how compositing just isn't there, or that 10 more render passes and 3 more months and $50 million more would have accomplished _____? Stills just look so good, the modeling looks perfect, etc. Or is it just that the animation of things like the musculature/mouth/etc. just didn't work because of some certain factor? I want specifics, dammit!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
BRB MAKIN BACON posted:I saw it in the backseat of a car on a laptop during a road trip so I may have missed some poo poo. But why does the evil dude repent at the end and kill all his ex-gang buddies? Despite that, I did enjoy the 1st and 2nd Acts. I took it as he was losing control of them. The other gang members questioned going back to rescue him, and it was only Charlie that was keeping them in check. He had violated his own rule - one that he shot a man in the throat for at the beginning of the film. Sticking with that bunch would have been dangerous. Not to mention the issue of William, who he had taken a liking to and probably didn't want to see gunned down next. What I liked more than the film were the crazy fan-theories that sprung up based on small hints in the film. Things like Dan's wife being the green-eyed girl that Ben fell in love with and that William may be Ben's own son or that Charlie was actually gay and in love with Ben, explaining his loyalty and the lengths he goes to protect him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 10:33
|
|
|
BRB MAKIN BACON posted:Also what are the best recommended documentary, print or web resources for film analysis? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cinematic-Storytelling-Powerful-Conventions-Filmmaker/dp/193290705X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322746872&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Film-Art-Introduction-David-Bordwell/dp/0071220577/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322746943&sr=8-1
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 14:42
|
|
|
Baron von Eevl posted:While we're talking about modern Westerns, how about the remake of 3:10 to Yuma?  I agree with penismightier's assessment of Unforgiven, but I do have one minor gripe. Some of the greatest westerns of the past came out of a time when the genre was popular, so you can cherry pick the good ones from a wide selection and compare them to today when they are few and far between. In my opinion the standouts are great films that just happen to be framed against a western backdrop. I don't really see the genre being revived with a smash hit, but anything could happen. And speaking of genres needing revival - I am loving the fact that Star Trek, Moon, Source Code, Super 8, and Attack the Block have found a wide audience. Not to mention Never Let Me Go, Another Earth, and Melancholia being indie hits. fenix down fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Dec 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 14:51
|
|
|
Baron von Eevl posted:While we're talking about modern Westerns, how about the remake of 3:10 to Yuma? I haven't seen the remake, but the original is one of my favorite movies. The pacing is just so slow and grueling, it drives you nuts. It's by the end of the movie you are feeling just as much stress as the characters. I love it when a movie pulls you in like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:What is it exactly that makes the digital Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy not 100% realistic, from a technical standpoint? I can read essays about the uncanny valley all day but I want to know about how current lighting systems aren't 100% realistic, or how compositing just isn't there, or that 10 more render passes and 3 more months and $50 million more would have accomplished _____?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
Wild T posted:What I liked more than the film were the crazy fan-theories that sprung up based on small hints in the film. Things like Dan's wife being the green-eyed girl that Ben fell in love with and that William may be Ben's own son or that Charlie was actually gay and in love with Ben, explaining his loyalty and the lengths he goes to protect him. Those theories seem plausible to me. There was definitely something going on with Dan's wife and Ben.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
Honestly with everything wrong with Tron Legacy, digital Jeff Bridges not looking "right" isn't really a problem since he's not supposed to be real. Hes a computer recreation. He look like one. Okay. The problem is that every other thing that is a computer simulation doesn't look like him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:Honestly with everything wrong with Tron Legacy, digital Jeff Bridges not looking "right" isn't really a problem since he's not supposed to be real. There's a shot of him in real life talking to his young son that looked fake. But I agree with you that everyone in the digital world should have looked like Jeff Bridges. Including the women.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:Honestly with everything wrong with Tron Legacy, digital Jeff Bridges not looking "right" isn't really a problem since he's not supposed to be real. Hes a computer recreation. He look like one. Okay. The problem is that every other thing that is a computer simulation doesn't look like him. Except that his flashback scenes which take place in the real world poke holes in this idea. efb
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
No that's true absolutely the flashback is terrible. And that's not really what I meant about looking like Jeff Bridges originally but now it totally is. FishBulb fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Dec 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
csidle posted:I've been steadily getting deeper into film analysis and theory the past year or so, two of the books I've quite enjoyed is Cinematic Storytelling which is a pretty rough, basic listing of storytelling through image and sound -- this pretty much set the foundation for interpreting films in terms of cinematography and sound, for me -- and Film Art - An Introduction which is probably the most widespread book about film theory, used in almost all film schools, from what I hear. Thanks! I'll add them to the xmas wish list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
Pablo Gigante posted:I haven't seen Tron: Legacy but I read something a while back that argued that a big reason why CG rendered humans still look off has to do with the skin. In real life, human skin is slightly translucent and it scatters light underneath it slightly. CG in films isn't quite up to this task so skin always looks kind of plasticy and weird. There's also something about the eyes. It's always characterized as "dead eyes" but I don't know what it is specifically that makes them look that way. Something subtle changes about the eyes as they track and focus on things that CGI animation hasn't captured yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
I think they did a pretty good job with Bridges, all things considered. It's not photo-real, but it's getting there. I do think the biggest challenge is with animation- think about all of the muscles in your face, and how they all interact with each other, and how that interaction gives us facial emotion. On top of that, add a layer of fat, skin and wrinkles, and you have a very complex thing to try and simulate. On top of THAT, you have to add that reading faces is probably the most subtle skill that humans have, a lot of which we probably can't even articulate. Try the face of a bear or shark, and it would be real to a lot more people since we don't spend all day staring at shark faces. Texture, surface lighting, diffusion, all that jazz is needed to make any object look realistic. Adding all of the above other human nonsense is what makes it so difficult.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
I think it was definitely the "sheen" around the hair and skin. Most of the movement was spot on and clothing looked great. But the hair and skin just aren't quite there yet. Plus a few animation cues with eyes and miscellaneous other stuff. However, I did find myself having to remind me that it was CG and not a person several times. It's really good and doesn't have a lot to make it bad, but just enough to keep it in the uncanny valley.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:However, I did find myself having to remind me that it was CG and not a person several times. This is why I think photorealism can only happen in a movie where they don't tell you they've done it. Like, if we didn't all know that they had digitally de-aged Jeff Bridges before watching, young Bridges would be absolutely eerie for at least a few minutes before the audience caught on. The best example is The Social Network, which put Armie Hammer's head on two bodies. I didn't know that until afterwards and I was totally fooled the whole movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
penismightier posted:This is why I think photorealism can only happen in a movie where they don't tell you they've done it. Like, if we didn't all know that they had digitally de-aged Jeff Bridges before watching, young Bridges would be absolutely eerie for at least a few minutes before the audience caught on. That's because it's the only thing they did, track on the face of the actor. They didn't alter the face in any substantial way. Tron is a bad example, they hosed up the effect and it looks horrible. I think Avatar pulled of CGI photorealism much better, even though I hated the designs of the Avatars themself, with the Na'vi being slighty better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:Those theories seem plausible to me. There was definitely something going on with Dan's wife and Ben. Ben was just loving around, seducing his wife during the five minutes he got up from the table.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not talking about the caliber of the effects, I'm talking about revealing their tricks beforehand so you go in looking for them. Behind the scenes promos gotta calm it the gently caress down and preserve some mystery. We all know too much about the processes to be fooled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Also if there is anything that grew out of Unforgiven was Deadwood. There was no character that was what you would call "good". I still think the best example of that is The Proposition. Everyone in that movie is a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
Timby posted:I still think the best example of that is The Proposition. Everyone in that movie is a piece of poo poo. So's the movie itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
penismightier posted:So's the movie itself. Is the score part of the movie? If so, we are going to have words.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:Is the score part of the movie? If so, we are going to have words. Naw I'd pretty much take a bullet for Nick Cave.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Naw I'd pretty much take a bullet for Nick Cave. As would I, but that movie is great (which surprises me, because I'm not a huge fan of Hillcoat). What don't you like about it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Timby posted:As would I, but that movie is great (which surprises me, because I'm not a huge fan of Hillcoat). What don't you like about it? It feels pointlessly nihilistic. Dark for dark's sake turns me off. It's too easy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
penismightier posted:It feels pointlessly nihilistic. Dark for dark's sake turns me off. It's too easy. While I don't think the movie is poo poo, I do agree with you on this. I watched it again a year ago and I liked it much, much less than I remembered liking the film back in 2006. It is pretty, it is well acted, it has a great score, and it is fairly pointless and empty by the end. Without the score and the natural beauty of the Australian outback, it would be completely forgettable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:44
|
|