| Board List | Page List: 1 |
|---|---|
| Topic | Board 8 Ranks: Westerns! The Official Results Topic |
| rockus 08/07/21 12:45:10 AM #152 | Zithers posted... there is nothing wrong with 2001 tbh, definitely in contention for greatest movie ever made Yeah, 2001 is incredible and a textbook example of how a film expresses story, information, and themes visually. And when compared to the book it's easy to see everything film can do that just the written word can't. --- |
| Topic | Board 8 Ranks: Westerns! The Official Results Topic |
| rockus 08/05/21 8:34:11 PM #127 | Inviso posted... Wrong. That's not at all what I said. If you give five directors the same script, then THAT is where style choices come into play, because they are meant to enhance a film, not serve as the sole reason a film can be enjoyed. There are multiple films on this list that are quality films first, and then the sound, the music, the cinematography, and the editing elevate them to legendary status. The write-up for my second-favorite movie on this list largely talks about how good the editing is, because it's a positive ON TOP of a killer story. The directing and cinematography in a film is not just style. They're essential in expressing the story and ideas. A film's cinematography tells the film's story, it doesn't just enhance it. Not to say that writing isn't important in a film but to think that cinematography, editing, directing don't mean anything other than glossy accessories to a film is absurd. It's also absurd to think that the Oscars are pushing true arthouse films. They're not nominating Pedro Costa here (though they should). --- |
| Topic | Board 8 Ranks: Westerns! The Official Results Topic |
| rockus 08/05/21 8:02:07 PM #126 | Inviso posted... Television is a visual medium too. The theatre is a visual medium. What makes film so special that it's exempt from needing to tell a coherent narrative in the way those other two are not? Television is actually largely a dialogue driven medium. Or at least it was in its inception, while film was born as a visual medium. TV has started to become a little more complex with the emergence of prestige TV, especially from networks like HBO, but its beginnings are closer linked to radio dramas and old 3 camera TV scripts were closer in format to that of radio teleplays than feature film scripts. Theater is not a visual medium. Theater is 100 percent a dialogue driven medium where playwrights don't even need to bother all that much with scene descriptions outside of things that would affect stage blocking. The difference between theater and a film is quite obvious. Shot composition, selection, and editing. A play can certainly do some interesting things to get around changing locations and even time periods but they're weak cheats at best compared to the cut that film has at its disposal. And of course shot angles and compositions. Even a rudimentary understanding of film form would tell you that the angle, size, depth of a shot matters and its how films convey information, ideas, and story visually and why its considered a visual medium. This is something completely absent from theater, which is not a visual medium, besides the necessity of like watching a play, but their very nature is not concerned with visual expression and visual storytelling. But if you don't understand why film is considered a visual medium and how cinematography isn't just an extra part of how films tell stories I don't know how you can even have a real discussion on the matter because I don't think you even really know much about what you're talking about. Even a film like 12 Angry Men a pretty small scale film that takes place almost entirely in a single room seems very much like a play (because surprise, it's based on one) but the film does things that a play can't with the way it's shot. Even in a single room with a small cast, it uses (dolly) push-ins, close-ups, Dutch angles, that dramatic insert shot of the knife. All things that a play can't do and all of which carry story or character importance to them. Come on now. TV is closer and has especially gotten better in the last 20 years or so but even TV has largely been more about dialogue and the way their scripts were written for the longest time would often reflect that. Especially 3 camera shows where it primarily took place in one or a few locations, so they could reuse the same sets for the duration of the show's run. Also, plot isn't the only part of storytelling anyway. Plot is just a vehicle of a story to express an idea or theme. If a film can do that in an abstract way, which it's capable to do visually, then it's very much a great film. And a film, or any work of fiction, could have a plot that functions but if it doesn't have any real purpose to it then is it really any good? --- |
| Topic | Board 8 Ranks: Westerns! The Official Results Topic |
| rockus 08/05/21 12:00:48 AM #87 | StifledSilence posted... I'm strictly saying his art reflects his feelings on the Natives. Thinking The Searchers reflected that John Ford was racist against native Americans is like thinking All in the Family reflected that Norman Lear was a racist. Zithers is absolutely right when saying that depiction isn't an endorsement. Put a little more thought into this, the great films deserve the effort. --- |
| Board List | Page List: 1 |