Go back to previous topic
Forum namePass The Popcorn
Topic subjectRE: isolation, intelligence, curiosity, access
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=735353&mesg_id=735392
735392, RE: isolation, intelligence, curiosity, access
Posted by howisya, Fri Aug-02-19 07:24 PM
>>>After that I used to watch movies and try to think like an
>>>editor or director would. Which camera angles worked best?
>>how would you know from the finished product?
>I had somewhat of a photographic memory back then. So, if I
>saw an action movie, I could half-remember an amazing set
>piece. At least some of the beats and camera moves. If I was
>watching an action sequence I would watch the movie and then
>in my mind compare the action sequence of the movie being
>viewed to the image in my mind.

(a month passes) that is some good (total) recall there. even in my favorite movies i'd be hard pressed to describe the camerawork of a particular scene from memory.

>Or in a drama, I would watch the framing of a scene and
>contrast that to a scene which brought out the most emotion.

i think i have a better eye for this in drama even though i love action.

>My rub with the course was that the instructor seemed to favor
>the director's liberty to stay true to their vision rather
>than serve the audience.

auteur worship i have to imagine is very prevalent in college courses. these professors are overgrown children trying to assimilate impressionable students to their taste just as was done to them. some of the coolest films i've seen are by directors who aren't widely regarded as auteurs and may not have more than one or two movies generally considered good (if even that many). directors get built up too much, and people focus too much on a few directors' oeuvre and narrow the scope of what makes an enjoyable film or indeed a masterpiece. i have more fun sometimes seeing a movie with something really weird and different in or about it than one that checks all the boxes and doesn't stray outside of the lines.

>That's not to say that filmmakers
>shouldn't have a unique style or voice. Filmmakers who have a
>unique voice but blend their style into a palatable form for
>audiences stand out more than iconoclasts who have a strong

filmmaking is a business and ultimately one of entertainment so i can't be too harsh, but i would hope that they are trying to make good work first and foremost and not trying for the widest commercial appeal. i think we've all seen movies that pandered or tried to be everything to everybody and failed miserably in offering anything real as a result. there is certainly a fine line between making art and having a point and being totally self-indulgent. you can totally deliver to a smaller audience, and you can also make great films with a broad appeal: it's all about the vision and collaborative effort. as for making money, that's a different conversation.