Katamari Posted February 27 Posted February 27 just say you want ppl to watch your movie in theaters and go
vale9001 Posted February 27 Posted February 27 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Goaty said: Yeah 2001 has a very thin plot. It's a great example of peak cinema because the images and the sound have a meaning, not the pure plot of the movie. As many others Kubrick films like shining or eye side shut. Television Is based on plots, cinema Is not. Doesn't mean can have great stories to tell to but great cinema can exist even without that. Television can't. Now go to watch iron man 14 Edited February 27 by vale9001 1
Rhyme Posted February 27 Posted February 27 He's not wrong. Stanley Kubrick thought you "could appeal to the subconscious more by saying less" too. Quote Kubrick once said, of the minimal dialogue in “2001,” that he had tried “to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and philosophic content.”)
Cameltoe Chariot Posted February 27 Posted February 27 He spilled! Show us, don't tell us - leave the expository dialogue for the sitcoms please 1
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted February 27 ATRL Moderator Posted February 27 I just saw the first Dune a few days ago and I hated it because the plot felt so shallow. This quote about dialog explains… quite a lot. Beautiful images can be found in a nature documentary. Story requires good characters and good characters generally communicate.
Poxy Posted February 27 Posted February 27 Well i ain’t watching dune 2, so not sure his quote worked
themroshawottguy Posted February 27 Posted February 27 But Prisoners and Arrival are both strongly dialogue driven films. Arrival is a film about language and communication that was in great part made because of it's excellent screenplay. Not saying he can't prefer visuals, but this is a weird take from somebody with multiple films nominated for Best Screenplay at the Academy Awards.
D/X Posted February 27 Posted February 27 Drag Anatomy of a Fall, king No, but really, this statement is half right, half pretentious and idiotic.
TaylorNation Posted February 27 Posted February 27 7 hours ago, Goaty said: lmfao the way it was worded made me scream too, but technically it’s not wrong. the “art” of cinema is not what story is told (the plot) but how it is told for example the plot of Hitchcock’s Vertigo makes absolutely no sense, but it’s still one of the best movies ever because the filmmaking is next level
Jay07 Posted February 27 Posted February 27 Well I agree that movies have lost a certain grandeur but plot is what hooks you and keeps your interest. He is very talented at creating iconic visuals though, Dune and Blade Runner 2049 were amazing. 1
WeFoundWill Posted February 27 Posted February 27 and to conclude a movie that made a strong impression visually is Avatar yet it is still horse sh*t
Thin White Duke Posted February 27 Posted February 27 Damn, a director really can't talk about his approach to his work without getting called pretentious, can they? Uncultured and embarrassing, but who's surprised. Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with him here, but you can definitely see it in his movies, he mostly seems to rely on great cinematography and striking visuals to prove a point and he does it great.
PennywiseTheClown Posted February 27 Posted February 27 He has a point, many cinematic masterpieces are very focused on visual storytelling instead of verbal storytelling. Luca Guadagnino's Call Me By Your Name, Dario Argento's Suspiria, Stanley Kubrick's 2001, Claire Denis' Beau Travail to name a few. It forces you to analyse what you're seeing and actually engage in a more profound way instead of just listening passively to what the characters are saying 1
Recommended Posts