What are you watching? a.k.a. Film Thread v 2.0

[Guest Len B'stard]

That's what Hopper did shoot tons and sort it out in editing. To me it's insanity but if you can put the story back in place maybe it's ideal. But just shooting nice background scenes and opulent action isn't going to be great. But Out of the Blue it worked.

The problem is if you just shoot random stuff you most likely wont ever get a tight narrative drive. But for more impressionistic art narrative who cares, you're looking for magic. The story is often very simple. Like abused daughter comes to terms with death of father. There's no real right way or order to it just a balance of it. She cries for first 20 minutes, then goes on bender, then leaves to find love in Cambodia.

Well it depends because if the acting is improv heavy then thats kinda the focal point so you can just film it cinema verite style and then it's like...it kinda neutralises that led by the director aspect if you get what I mean, it's just playing out in front of you as opposed to being a series of visual revelations of a tale by the director for dramatic effect.

The difference between Cassavetes and Hoppers approach (Cassavetes alleged approach anyway) was that Hopper just shot and took it to the editing room to piece it together, so the script thing is interchangeable, Cassavetes had like...OK, say you're making a film, you narrow it down to say 20 sequences in which you know that this, this and this has to happen, you get your groups of actors together for a given sequence, chuck em in there, tell em this is whats gotta happen and then let them improv it out whilst filming it. Then you take what you've filmed of them and transcribe it in terms of their dialogue and their movement and there you go, you got a script and 9 times outta 10 it'll come off more naturalistic and feel natural and improvisatory because, well, it was but it's a lot more controlled and defined than just filming a bunch of muppets going mad and calling it a film. And then based on those improvs you can tweak the script, you can assess the emotional dynamics of how the characters relate to each other, you sometimes see things in the manifestation of the sequence that you otherwise may not have. I think it's a brilliant way of doing it myself, if in fact it was ever done that way, it's just one way i've heard of how Cassavetes shit was put together, always sounded brilliant to me though, a kind of way of melding the improv thing with a kind of structured way of filmmaking.

Everybody wets their fuckin' panties over improv cuz it's like OHMIGOD, they're so creative but i don't think it's fuckin' like...y'know, your twitchy little Brando/Dean performances are wonderful and everything but...certain roles require a grandiosity and an uprightness...like you don't do fuckin' Shakespeare with that fuckin' flaky actors studio bullshit, you'll slaughter it. And people think that you lose artistic grand or become a workhorse doing that shit which is utter fuckin' bullshit and probably why we don't have so many great actors in cinema today cuz people either wannabe the actors studio kiddie or they wannabe the actor as auteur but no one wants to be the classical actor, where things like delivery become important, subtle verbal inflections and intonations and the rhythm and meter of the dialogue of a lot of more classical stuff, 'friends, Romans, countryman' is not fuckin' easy to deliver properly.

[wasted]

Didn't Hitchcock just film the script. In the 70s you'd have directors going off rewriting the script and then actors just making stuff up. Basically if the script works on the page, film the actors saying the words. Sounds easy doesn't it.

He co-wrote most of his pre-Gaumont films. He also worked closely with his screenwriters, handpicking them and dismissing what he did not like.

What I mean was did he have a settled script that he shot all worked out? He added has input for it just right then shot it with little license given to actors or even ideas he had on set.

Was he actually into psychoanalysis or was that just film theorists?

It is not so much the screenplay but Hitchcock's famous storyboards - he believed in 'pure cinema' you see. Hitchcock had everything drawn out like a comic book, every single shot. In a way, the film was already shot before it was actually shot. He had everything worked out in advance. He also had little time for method actors. He worked with two, Clift and Newman, and had problems working with both.

Psychoanalysis? That is certain films, isn't it? The one that is most singled out is Vertigo but this theorist approach has also been applied to Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers On A Train and Psycho.

Generally he was always used in feminist film theory. He's seen as sexist. Like his camera is always on top dominating. Then also he infused his characters with psychoanalysis traits. He was interested in it. So the theorists swarmed.

[wasted]

That's what Hopper did shoot tons and sort it out in editing. To me it's insanity but if you can put the story back in place maybe it's ideal. But just shooting nice background scenes and opulent action isn't going to be great. But Out of the Blue it worked.

The problem is if you just shoot random stuff you most likely wont ever get a tight narrative drive. But for more impressionistic art narrative who cares, you're looking for magic. The story is often very simple. Like abused daughter comes to terms with death of father. There's no real right way or order to it just a balance of it. She cries for first 20 minutes, then goes on bender, then leaves to find love in Cambodia.

Well it depends because if the acting is improv heavy then thats kinda the focal point so you can just film it cinema verite style and then it's like...it kinda neutralises that led by the director aspect if you get what I mean, it's just playing out in front of you as opposed to being a series of visual revelations of a tale by the director for dramatic effect.

The difference between Cassavetes and Hoppers approach (Cassavetes alleged approach anyway) was that Hopper just shot and took it to the editing room to piece it together, so the script thing is interchangeable, Cassavetes had like...OK, say you're making a film, you narrow it down to say 20 sequences in which you know that this, this and this has to happen, you get your groups of actors together for a given sequence, chuck em in there, tell em this is whats gotta happen and then let them improv it out whilst filming it. Then you take what you've filmed of them and transcribe it in terms of their dialogue and their movement and there you go, you got a script and 9 times outta 10 it'll come off more naturalistic and feel natural and improvisatory because, well, it was but it's a lot more controlled and defined than just filming a bunch of muppets going mad and calling it a film. And then based on those improvs you can tweak the script, you can assess the emotional dynamics of how the characters relate to each other, you sometimes see things in the manifestation of the sequence that you otherwise may not have. I think it's a brilliant way of doing it myself, if in fact it was ever done that way, it's just one way i've heard of how Cassavetes shit was put together, always sounded brilliant to me though, a kind of way of melding the improv thing with a kind of structured way of filmmaking.

Everybody wets their fuckin' panties over improv cuz it's like OHMIGOD, they're so creative but i don't think it's fuckin' like...y'know, your twitchy little Brando/Dean performances are wonderful and everything but...certain roles require a grandiosity and an uprightness...like you don't do fuckin' Shakespeare with that fuckin' flaky actors studio bullshit, you'll slaughter it. And people think that you lose artistic grand or become a workhorse doing that shit which is utter fuckin' bullshit and probably why we don't have so many great actors in cinema today cuz people either wannabe the actors studio kiddie or they wannabe the actor as auteur but no one wants to be the classical actor, where things like delivery become important, subtle verbal inflections and intonations and the rhythm and meter of the dialogue of a lot of more classical stuff, 'friends, Romans, countryman' is not fuckin' easy to deliver properly.

Anything could work. But from the 70s directors got a bit more freedom, method actors etc. doesn't necessarily work as effectively as Hitchcock nailing it down. It becomes more of crap shoot. Right now we get bad movies out of the ashes of great material with great performances in mediocre movies. Maybe that was always true. But the trend has been knowingly to make shit in film history terms knowing it will make money. My theory is Hitchcock wouldn't get scripts or work. His need for control would have exiled from industry.

Personally I think a great film hinges on the perfect wording, the pace of each scene etc. that all gets worked out in the script. So I think Cassevettes sequences of improv is more likely to work. But the studios won't back it because they need to know before hand. And they sort of do, they play the percentages with the creativity they want really is them making more commercial. They just don't put the money into Hitchcock or Cassevettes or Hopper. That's why they love Superheros they can just slot characters into the formula of escalation.

Edited February 5, 2014 by wasted

[Guest Len B'stard]

Or his excellence in his field would lead him to occupy an odd Mayweatheresque position in the cinematic pantheon. Kinda did back in his day but i think it would today too.

[wasted]

I doubt he get studios jumping like Nolan or Cameron. He'd be fringe with one failure he'd have to go hack like Soderberg does. Maybe he'd be like David Lynch.

Other day I realised there's always been remakes in movies. Indiana jones is a remake. I was watching something and just thought it's King solomons mines. Jurassic Park 2. It's like one of those old movies wear the retired army colonel leads a group thrown together in jungles.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Oh of course man, and widespread too. Its difficult to remember em offhand but there's loads and loads and loads, even back in the day, in the 1950s or what have you. The studio system formula was such that there were a lot of similarly veined movies out there anyway, iconography in cinema was established in this way, along with genre conventions etc.

[wasted]

It's just now they don't bother to give it a different name they remake Top Gun or whatever with CGI. Or just release the same movie again.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Enough has happened in post war popular culture and the evolution and development of our various affections for it that we could trade off this bastard nostalgia for a good a half a century We're basically a bunch of lazy bastards that will accept mediocrity...and worse for a lot longer than you might consider healthy.

[wasted]

I think culture has ended. It's just boredom punctuated by acts of terrorism. Fear is the frisson of the people.

[Sixes]

Black Sunday

Eyes Wide Shut

[Nosaj Thing]

Pacific Rim - was that supposed to be good?

If you have a killer 3D TV and a 7.1 home theater, yes.

[Black Sabbath]

Pacific Rim - was that supposed to be good?

If you have a killer 3D TV and a 7.1 home theater, yes.

Yeah, I thought it was pretty good. Fun ass movie to watch with a nice set up.

[DieselDaisy]

Didn't Hitchcock just film the script. In the 70s you'd have directors going off rewriting the script and then actors just making stuff up. Basically if the script works on the page, film the actors saying the words. Sounds easy doesn't it.

He co-wrote most of his pre-Gaumont films. He also worked closely with his screenwriters, handpicking them and dismissing what he did not like.

What I mean was did he have a settled script that he shot all worked out? He added has input for it just right then shot it with little license given to actors or even ideas he had on set.

Was he actually into psychoanalysis or was that just film theorists?

It is not so much the screenplay but Hitchcock's famous storyboards - he believed in 'pure cinema' you see. Hitchcock had everything drawn out like a comic book, every single shot. In a way, the film was already shot before it was actually shot. He had everything worked out in advance. He also had little time for method actors. He worked with two, Clift and Newman, and had problems working with both.

Psychoanalysis? That is certain films, isn't it? The one that is most singled out is Vertigo but this theorist approach has also been applied to Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers On A Train and Psycho.

Generally he was always used in feminist film theory. He's seen as sexist. Like his camera is always on top dominating. Then also he infused his characters with psychoanalysis traits. He was interested in it. So the theorists swarmed.

I do not think there is any doubt that there is an element of old school sexism present in for instance, the famous 'Hitchcockian blonde', an ice cold Nordic temptress with hidden sexual energy; it t is a tradition that begins with Madeleine Carroll and takes in, most famously Ingrid Bergman and Grace Kelly, as well as a host of others (e.g. Tipi Hedren, Vera Miles, Kim Novak, Eva Maria Saint et al.). In his defence though, Hitchcock's women are usually 'strong', interesting and well-crafted characters that are crucial to the plot. Some of them deliver remarkable performances also. They are never mere, 'window dressing'.

[Sixes]

The Third Man

In The Name Of The Father

[wasted]

Pacific Rim - was that supposed to be good?

If you have a killer 3D TV and a 7.1 home theater, yes.

My friend has a 3D projector at home so it was epic.

Didn't Hitchcock just film the script. In the 70s you'd have directors going off rewriting the script and then actors just making stuff up. Basically if the script works on the page, film the actors saying the words. Sounds easy doesn't it.

He co-wrote most of his pre-Gaumont films. He also worked closely with his screenwriters, handpicking them and dismissing what he did not like.

What I mean was did he have a settled script that he shot all worked out? He added has input for it just right then shot it with little license given to actors or even ideas he had on set.

Was he actually into psychoanalysis or was that just film theorists?

It is not so much the screenplay but Hitchcock's famous storyboards - he believed in 'pure cinema' you see. Hitchcock had everything drawn out like a comic book, every single shot. In a way, the film was already shot before it was actually shot. He had everything worked out in advance. He also had little time for method actors. He worked with two, Clift and Newman, and had problems working with both.

Psychoanalysis? That is certain films, isn't it? The one that is most singled out is Vertigo but this theorist approach has also been applied to Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers On A Train and Psycho.

Generally he was always used in feminist film theory. He's seen as sexist. Like his camera is always on top dominating. Then also he infused his characters with psychoanalysis traits. He was interested in it. So the theorists swarmed.

I do not think there is any doubt that there is an element of old school sexism present in for instance, the famous 'Hitchcockian blonde', an ice cold Nordic temptress with hidden sexual energy; it t is a tradition that begins with Madeleine Carroll and takes in, most famously Ingrid Bergman and Grace Kelly, as well as a host of others (e.g. Tipi Hedren, Vera Miles, Kim Novak, Eva Maria Saint et al.). In his defence though, Hitchcock's women are usually 'strong', interesting and well-crafted characters that are crucial to the plot. Some of them deliver remarkable performances also. They are never mere, 'window dressing'.

It was more to do with his dominance in terms of camera angles. He physically positioned the camera over them. Of course was essays about him being sexist. Hooker, waitress, model, actress or just go nameless.

[GivenToFly]

Pacific Rim - was that supposed to be good?

If you have a killer 3D TV and a 7.1 home theater, yes.

I don't.

[Sixes]

Conan The Barbarian

Conan The Destroyer

2 of the worst movies I've ever seen

Edited February 7, 2014 by axl666axl666

[DieselDaisy]

Hitch...

Saboteur

- It is rather like an American version of his 1930s style British Gaumont films, comedy mixed with espionage and propaganda. Some of the propaganda is fairly ham-fisted stuff, but, it was 1942 after all and naturally Hitch was drafted in to do 'his bit' for the transatlantic alliance - Dorothy Parker wrote a lot of it apparently. Despite that, this film is very enjoyable. Surperb badguy in Norman Lloyd's Fry and a brilliant Statue of Liberty set piece for the finale - brilliant effects for the time.

Frenzy

Bet Len loves this film as it is all, 'fackin' London mate'. It is definitely Hitch, returning to his roots, Covent Garden etc. Sadistic and brutal as hell but not without comedy. A masterpiece. Love it.

Psycho

Forgot what a masterpiece it was. Easily one of the greatest films ever made. It was years ahead of its time, Psycho.

The Birds

It veers wonderfully between shlock and tension. A virtual template for the horror genre.

[Nobodys_Fault]

Dirty Wars

A brilliant, chilling piece of journalism. Go watch it.

[Spuffy78]

Passion Play I still don't know what to make of it.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Fantabulosa - Michael Sheen led biopic of Kenneth Williams...i tell ya what, it almost had me in tears, what a fuckin' rough life that guy lived. Quite apart from anything else it's one of the best acting performances I've seen in a great long time.

[Sixes]

The Way We Were

The Owl And The Pussycat

[Sixes]

After seeing all of this year's Oscar Best Picture nominees, I would say Nebraska is far and away my choice and also think Alexander Payne, Bruce Dern and June Squibb should win. Whether any, all or none will win, only time will tell...

[Black Sabbath]

Catching Fire was pretty good. Better than the first movie.

Hoffman

[Guest Len B'stard]

Villain - Richard Burton, Ian McShane

Smashing Time - Rita Tushingham, Lynn Redgrave