Films/DVD Asylum

Re: superior cinematography or plot? (nt)

205.188.208.139

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

(R)

In Reply to: 21 Grams was a far superior film, with better posted by tinear on March 02, 2004 at 07:43:19:

(nt)

Follow Ups:

I'd say so. - rhizomatic 07:00:32 03/03/04 (3)
The cinematography in Mystic River was really pretty vanilla. Sweeping crane shots, otherwise the movie pretty much stayed in close-up mode. And the other material features of the film--lighting, quality of film--were just as nondescript and lacking in art.
Meanwhile 21 Grams had a novel structure that worked well (for a change; most films that pull similar stunts don't quite succeed), and while the cinematography wasn't showy, it didn't need to be because the performances were so engrossing. Plus the lighting and film quality (digital) matched the texture of the film's content, which is important. I think 'Monster' would've been a much better film if it was grittier looking. As it was it looked too much like any other Hollywood film. Charlize Theron's performance was ill-served by the aesthetics of the film.
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!
Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
-Incredible String Band
- Re: "close up mode" - rico 08:16:35 03/03/04 (2)
  This was chosen by Eastwood to emphasize the trapped in the neighborhood lives all were living. He resisted any shots of the Boston skyline, even when they were on the bridge. And the bridge itself is a character, looming behind the neighborhood in many shots.
  Just because a talented director chooses low key photography for an overall purpose doesn't mean that choice is "vanilla".
  - Relentless close-ups aren't low key, - rhizomatic 09:05:49 03/03/04 (1)
    they're hyper-dramatic and claustrophobic. A la every other Hollywood film which bullies the viewer into being impressed--much like the overbearing strings that weigh the movie down.
    Vanilla film-making. Run of the mill. The Unforgiven was much better, in my opinion.
    I don't know why he would choose to emphasize the 'trapped' quality of their lives anyway, when that isn't what the film is about. If the film was about "I'm never going to escape this dreaery working-class existence," that might make sense. Although, really, what the film is 'about' I can't say, because it certainly isn't about the 'rippling effects of a childhood trauma' or whatever. Any film that deals with its supposedly determinant moment in less time than it takes to roll through the credits is bound to be lacking in contentfulness. Critics can try and bootstrap the film into profundity, but what happens is: something happens to some kids, then something happens to those same people when they're adults. And the way everyone behaves in the film is just implausible, especially at the very end, which is just plain surreal. And I've flipped through the book and found the writing to be alarmingly poor, so I don't think the film really failed the book. I think they both suffer from heavy-handedness.
    Sorry, I don't mean to sound defensive towards you, this is just a sore spot, since I feel like the movie has some obvious and serious flaws, and I didn't read a single reviewer who addressed them, which I found really puzzling.
    
    ______________________________
    Stranger than that, we're alive!
    Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
    -Incredible String Band
    - Re: Relentless close-ups aren't low key, - rico 09:59:56 03/03/04 (0)
      Well, we disagree. I thought the book was great and that this movie is the closest a film can come to capturing its essence.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

The Cable Cooker

You can not post to an archived thread.