|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
58.104.172.223
I just caught this on an afternoon double bill on TV paired with Mean Streets.
Whilst MS now looks like an episode of Homicide (not really a criticism, just how influential it as been), DOH still looks as beautiful... no... elegaic as when it was released. From the look of many many of the scenes that are so close to "classical" paintings, well maybe early 20th century American paintings (Wyeth etc) anyway and the music (Aquarium from Carnival of the Animals) to the girl's voice over, this is just such a wonderful film.
Follow Ups:
The entire movie's exteriors were shot during the golden hour. It is a span of time each morning and each evening where you get this magical beautiful quality to the light. not many movies can afford to shoot two hours a day.
One of the most beautiful films ever photographed. Shot in 70 MM. The Aquarium music is also used in the cinematography documentary, "Visions of Light".
...it was shot in 35mm.I've even read cinematographer Nestor Almenderos saying (and I'm paraphrasing here), "...anyone can make 70mm look good." :-)
Yes Rico! I was lucky enough to see "Days of Heaven" on the big screen and was awestruck by the cinematography. I must admit, when I rented it and watched it on my TV screen it was a bit of a disappointment. Still a good film though.
and I'm no movie-goer by a long shot.Guyesqueness.
Then how can you say it's the "finest film, period"?Why not somehting like... in my limited expereince it's my favorite film.
Not knocking the film, I love it, but what you wrote struck me as a contradiction.
"Except for the point, the still point, There would be no dance, and there is only the dance. " T.S. Eliot
...in their collective wisdom, what film does it all better:1. in music
2. in photography
3. in story-telling
4. in acting
5. in pure human warmth
6. in the merging of era-in-history with timelessness
YES, you're right: I've seen fewer movies/films than most. It's hard for me to even regard film as an art form (the medium seems too gimicky and gadget-oriented and too 'team-filled' i.e., too many cooks involved in the "production"). HENCE, my surprise that ONE film stands out.
NO, you're partially wrong, however: I've seen several (but not many many) of the classics and greats and I've been severely 'under-whelmed'.
I'll give your criticism half-validity.
Guyesqueness.
Touting inexperience in a subject while claiming something wihin said subject is THE best.
"Except for the point, the still point, There would be no dance, and there is only the dance. " T.S. Eliot
...
...but I agree with Guy!
...
(nt)
...if only for the purpose of getting to the poll booth.Guyesqueness.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: