All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Joined:
June 2012
Location: Free
I've been thinking around lately. Now that both digital filmmaking and CGI are reaching what we very well may call their apex, and that movies, even ones like David Fincher's modern filmography which are realistic in story content, are using more and more, for the lack of a better word, "animation", visually filmmakers can get pretty much whatever image they want (they aren't restrained by things like real life getting on the way).
So what do you think. Should (live-action) filmmakers aspire to get the most life-like experience they can get or is there room for stilization and, if there is, where's the limit for you and why?
Joined:
June 2010
Location: The White City
It's all style, man.
-Vader
Joined:
June 2012
Location: Free
Sure but I wound't compare the stylization of Peter Greenaway's movies to the style of Wes Anderson (specially in a movie like Hotel), and I wouldn't compare that to something like say, Sin City which blurs the line between cartoon and live-action. Nolan himself has a very particular style and yet his movies never suffer form what you could call "over-stylization", his images are always grounded in reality and rarely or very subtly use flamboyant color design.
Is there any particular visual style you can't take seriously Vader? Or you're willing to give anything the benefit of the doubt, as long as it works in tandem with the narrative and tone? What would be your examples (not just Vader) of films mis-using a sytle?
Joined:
June 2010
Location: The White City
didich wrote:Sure but I wound't compare the stylization of Peter Greenaway's movies to the style of Wes Anderson (specially in a movie like Hotel), and I wouldn't compare that to something like say, Sin City which blurs the line between cartoon and live-action. Nolan himself has a very particular style and yet his movies never suffer form what you could call "over-stylization", his images are always grounded in reality and rarely or very subtly use flamboyant color design.
Is there any particular visual style you can't take seriously Vader? Or you're willing to give anything the benefit of the doubt, as long as it works in tandem with the narrative and tone? What would be your examples (not just Vader) of films mis-using a sytle?
Hyper-stylization like Gilliam can be a little impenetrable for me as well as a lot of Malick, but that's kind of my point. I think the idea of "realism" or "naturalism" in cinema is sort of bizarre. IE Nolan's movies get all this attention for their realism, but it goes without saying they have overt stylization on multiple levels. But they
feel real by using non-real elements. It's the whole impressionistic thing he adopted from Roeg/Malick/Kubrick etc.
The main thing that I absolutely hate is unmotivated style. When filmmakers don't know how to appropriately use the tools they have at their disposal. The most obvious and easy example of this is Inarritu with The Revenant. Zero motivated camera movement. Zero motivated shots. Zero motivated editing. It's film school on a 100m budget.
-Vader
Joined:
June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Vader182 wrote:The most obvious and easy example of this is Inarritu with The Revenant. Zero motivated camera movement. Zero motivated shots. Zero motivated editing. It's film school on a 100m budget.
-Vader
There is no 'vs', art has many forms. Personally, I choose and watch depending on the mood and variety is a good thing.
RIFA wrote:Vader182 wrote:The most obvious and easy example of this is Inarritu with The Revenant. Zero motivated camera movement. Zero motivated shots. Zero motivated editing. It's film school on a 100m budget.
-Vader
Vader182 wrote:
The main thing that I absolutely hate is unmotivated style. When filmmakers don't know how to appropriately use the tools they have at their disposal. The most obvious and easy example of this is Inarritu with The Revenant. Zero motivated camera movement. Zero motivated shots. Zero motivated editing. It's film school on a 100m budget.
-Vader
Ay, Dios mío, yes, tell me more about what you learned as a prestigious film studies major.
Joined:
June 2010
Location: The White City
Alejandro Iñárritu wrote:Vader182 wrote:
The main thing that I absolutely hate is unmotivated style. When filmmakers don't know how to appropriately use the tools they have at their disposal. The most obvious and easy example of this is Inarritu with The Revenant. Zero motivated camera movement. Zero motivated shots. Zero motivated editing. It's film school on a 100m budget.
-Vader
Ay, Dios mío, yes, tell me more about what you learned as a prestigious film studies major.
I wasn't a film studies major.
-Vader
Joined:
June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Alejandro Iñárritu wrote:Vader182 wrote:
The main thing that I absolutely hate is unmotivated style. When filmmakers don't know how to appropriately use the tools they have at their disposal. The most obvious and easy example of this is Inarritu with The Revenant. Zero motivated camera movement. Zero motivated shots. Zero motivated editing. It's film school on a 100m budget.
-Vader
Ay, Dios mío, yes, tell me more about what you learned as a prestigious film studies major.
lmfao. Who's alt is this tho?
