As far as living directors goes I'd have to give it to Fincher. His visuals might not be the most exciting or experimental, but god damn does the man know how to frame/block a shot, build a scene and light it like a fucking champ. He makes his productions with a machinelike competency and clarity that's unmatched by other directors. It's kind of a boring choice but I think he's underrated as a visual director.
>>48591884 >This great evil, where's it come from? How'd it steal into the world? What seed, what root did it grow from? Who's doing this? Who's killing us, robbing us of life and light, mocking us with the sight of what we might've known? Does our ruin benefit the earth, does it help the grass to grow, the sun to shine? Is this darkness in you, too? Have you passed through this night?
>>48591950 is that the final line in the movie? Haven't seen it in a while.
One thing that really stood out for me though is this shot where it's a small group of soldiers running up a hill, and as they're running up you can see the sun break out of the clouds and the golden lights starts behind them and reaches the soldiers right as they reach the top.
How do you even get a shot like that? It obviously wasn't planned, Malick just sold his soul to the devil...
>>48592021 >eleventy-hundred lighting rigs making every shot appear to be taking place next to a nuclear blast >six inches of makeup on everyone's face >good characters are nice, bad are mean, women are fragile elves, every movie has some retard acting like a homosexual monkey for "comedic relief"
>>48592118 Eh those are almost fair points, but it seems like you've only seen Ran or Yojimbo and not his more nuanced films like Rashomon or High and Low (ESPECIALLY High and Low).
A lot of what you're saying (barring the lighting complaint which is straight wrong. There's some shots like that, sure, you must have had your eyes closed for most of the movie) is really a fault of the samurai genre.
>>48592236 I give credit to Cinematographers sometimes. But we're talking about directors who put their visual mark on the film. Some of them [Kubrick] are pretty much their own cinematographers, they just use the real ones as assistants.
>>48592236 Usually (obviously generalizing here) the director will figure out how to block a scene, think of the angles, and describe the "look" he wants the shot to have. The DP then lights it and uses filters and all that complex shit to achieve the look.
Sometimes it's more of the director (look at Wes Anderson for example), whereas sometimes it's almost all the DP and the director just provides notes to the actors.
>>48592327 It's true. That is what should happen. I imagine that's why a lot of young directors would be intimidated to work with someone like Deakins or Hall. They wouldn't be able to speak up or enforce their desires and would just go along with whatever the DoP says. It's a symbiotic relationship. Both need each other to look good.
>>48592377 Doesn't matter go see it. >>48592401 The problem I have with most cinemtography today, especially coming from film schools is that this shot looks cool. The better question is why do i show this shot at this angle in this scene.
It's the kind of cinematography practiced by the greats like Kubrick, Ophuls, Fincher, Coens, Laughton, Kurosawa, and Edward Yang.
I don't like long takes done because they can do them for a long time, probably why I don't like Children of Men or Gravity.
>>48593076 Well he was trying to recreate the whole "classical paintings' look >>48593101 I feel that shots that are moving are much harder to have good composition in, as you are dealing with a much larger area. When you take a static shot, you aren't dealing with much more outside of the shot. What you are looking at for instance could be just a set made of two walls and some furniture. In long shots, not only do you have to ensure a larger area is lit and arranged correctly, but also that the camera is able to keep everything in frame and in the correct spots on the shot.
>>48593275 I wouldn't know. I believe if the story, character and tones were also similar, yes it would be effective. But just having the shot alone without those things makes a pretty empty movie. I haven't actually seen Ozu movies. >>48593304 It was trying to be realistic to the time period. Animal activists have only been effective fairly recently. Days of Heaven is during the depression.
>>48593363 That's not an excuse. You can be realistic and faithful to a period without actually recreating actions that are frowned upon nowdays. Actually I feel conflicted about many great films for this reason.
>>48593399 Tree of Life only works for certain people. If it doesn't resonate emotionally, all you get is a really good looking movie, but some people get really moved by it. I wasn't one of them but can appreciate the craft. I intend to see Baraka at some point soon. I really enjoyed Samsara and would like to see more "exhibition" documentaries over narrative ones. >>48593446 Maybe he should just hire a screenwriter. >>48593452 Nigga I'm working my way through Welles, Hitchcock and Fellini, I'll get to your Jap soon enough.
>>48593476 If it adds to the tone of the scene I don't much mind it. If it's just to show cruelty, maybe it starts to bother me. But the cattle that died in Come and See and Apocalypse Now (which was actually done for a ceremony by the extras) really really added to the tone and voodoo of the scene.
>>48593600 well I don't personally own the book... maybe just trust this guy? why would he lie? there's a bit where they talk about kubrick later and he never says kubrick wanked all over him
in fact he says kubrick phoned him up asking how he did the music for the rising shot of the town reveal in OUATIW so perfectly synched to the music which you can look up and see referenced in different places/ways online
>>48593646 They actually filmed one of the courthouse scenes in my home town, got to meet Depp and the crew, get autographs etc. I didn't go and basically said "I will see him in the movie". So my little brother held that over my head for quite some time. Then I saw the film for the first time this summer and man was I not at all regretting not bothering with it for so long. Within the first few minutes I knew I wasn't going to enjoy it. >>48593623 It was the shutter speed, not the framerate that was disgusting.
>>48593805 I disagree with that statement. >>48593833 They had lowered it a great deal below and it caused even more blur than what is traditional in most movies. I personally hated it as much as the 48fps Hobbit. Looks good if things are standing still or moving slowly, but as soon as stuff starts going fast, it just turns to shit.
>>48593861 i don't watch films from before the 40s on a frequent basis inb4 pleb the pacing tends to be terrible, along with the photography and acting plus censorship laws make any violence comical and all relationships stupidly unrealistic
>>48593805 do you reckon malick would be a good DP?
>>48593964 Shutter speed is the speed at which the shutter is open for when rolling the camera. The longer the shutter speed, the more light enters and exposes the film. Long shutter speed, brighter film, shorter speed, darker. Like the previous poster said with blur, the faster the shutter speed, the more blur there is when you move the camera. Essentially you will be getting alot more distortion.
>>48594008 Did you just say all that? I don't know what else to say except that you should grow up a little. I'm not saying you are immature, but your making odious statements backed by subjective views that are clearly not grounded in fact.
>>48594008 Try Orson Welles' movies. I find they have a very modern pacing, great visuals and editing.
But it really is different from film to film. >>48594129 Sometimes style is more important than clarity. Say your character is just bashed in the head and concussed to the point where he is dizzy and losing consciousness. I would imagine having a low shutter speed would give the image a druggy, blurry quality similar to how one experiences things just before passing out. Otherwise yeah, higher shutter speed is preferable for me.
Regarding framerate, if you pack too much moving images into the shot then I say no, if it's going to be played at close to "normal speed" at a higher framerate, then it can be very disorienting and uncomfortable. But if the high-framerate capture is reduced to slow motion, not only do you get that clarity of image, but it is going slow enough that you aren't overwhelmed.
>Static/Low movement shots in HFR Good >Fast moving/wide shots in HFR Bad
>>48594093 there are only so many films one can watch in their lifetime
on average films before the 40s are considerably worse i'm not really missing out on much
the only film from then that i haven't seen that i'll give my time to is citizen cane at some point if it's good i might check out some orson welles i do admit that i love a bit of marx brothers though
but film has come so far from then that even films from the 40s are pretty dated that it just feels like a chore as opposed to enjoyment
>>48594270 I read somewhere that the human eye, and visual instincts are wired to focus and follow on one thing at a time, which 24fps helps because it can follow the motion in focus and blur out the rest. If too many things are in focus the eye has trouble adapting given the screen is a 2D surface.
>>48594467 I think the stories in Terrence's movies are less about the conventional characters and goals, and focus more on his personal beliefs on things. He is using the medium of film to express himself. Be it a meditation on faith in the presence of evil, violence and its consequences, or just a simple tale of a rural family in anywhere-town, his movies are his way of communicating his beliefs. He was a philosophy major, not a conventional screenwriter.
Cormac McCarthy wants him to do Blood Meridian, and I think he would do an amazing job because they both have the same way of handling violence and faith. The only others I imagine who could do it might be the Coens, as their adaptation of No Country for Old Men was fantastic.
But James Franco's trying to get the rights and he'll ruin everything. >>48594497 Probably one of my favorite shots isn't in this one another anon made it The shot of the kids through the rear window of the trailer.
>>48594008 >i don't watch films from before the 40s on a frequent basis >the pacing tends to be terrible, along with the photography and acting >plus censorship laws make any violence comical and all relationships stupidly unrealistic
>>48594805 Scorsese was probably the only really good thing to come from the rat pack. Spielberg is hit or miss, Lucas can't write or direct without lots of help, and Coppola is REALLY hit or miss. Scorsese at least has a fairly consistent level of quality. Although I want him to do a non-ganster/crime film next. When he does that he can do wonders. Still like most of his crime/gangster films though
>>48594963 To me, Coppola is the best of the bunch for how interesting his filmography is. Going through his work was much more interesting than going through Scorsese and Spielberg's. As far as composition, I'd say Spielberg is the best unless we're including Malick as part of the brat pack
Scorsese wrote up a storyboard when he was like 11 called "The Eternal City" its a roman epic. I really want him to actually do it, and make it a Spartacus level epic of the century. while doing all the right moves and paying homage to the epics of the 40's and 60's.
The Departed, Hugo, Shutter island and even WOWS had some amazing shots. really his almost alway hit, all of his movies have visual and contextual depth, while still being chewable to the mainstream. I wish he'd go a little out of the mainstream, but his stuff definitely does not suffer.
Speildenjew is a hack, and only makes the movie equivalent of a Macaroni Grill meal.
>>48595282 I hope he manages to get around to it before he dies. It was really depressing hearing about Kubrick's Napoleon going out the window, and I'd hate to see another fantastic director's potential masterpiece never even see the light of day. >>48595310 No right now he's trying to get the rights. There was a VICE article where he explained how Tommy Lee Jones, whose movie The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada was great, was going to do it but couldn't find funding because of the level of violence. So he's trying to get the rights so he can re-write it so it's "tolerable for mass consumption". The only thing he understands is that the Judge should've been played by a hybrid Apocalypse Now Brando and Jack Nicholson. >>48595310 Yeah Mel might be neat. But that's got a snowball's chance in perdition of happening.
>>48595452 >>48595431 I'm not saying he's bad but when we're talking about who has the best visuals and composition there are so many better directors out there. I only assume that you haven't seen the people that are being listed continuously in this thread like: Tarkovsky, Malick, Parjanov, Eisenstein, Kurosawa, and Angelopoulos. If you think Scorsese has better visuals than any of these people then your either blind or completely biased.
>>48595612 alright you got me on Malick, and Tarkovsky, but I think Scorsese does more with the moving camera and moving charter, where your list points out many directors who are fantastic at extremely striking, and beautiful compositions. Scorsese's camera flows, and moves, almost mechanical the way characters are framed throughout a shot. I mean Malicks camera floats too, but its very different
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.