3 ms·
> Remember that movies are HIGHLY produced works, each item in a scene, the color and angle of the lighting, the angle and perspective of the camera, the editin
by msla 4y ago
> Remember that movies are HIGHLY produced works, each item in a scene, the color and angle of the lighting, the angle and perspective of the camera, the editing (types of cuts, speed of cuts), any sound you hear, etc, those were ALL specifically chosen, if not outright preplanned by the director and his team.
This is true of good films, certainly, but films like the ones Roger Corman made, or Ed Wood, well, neither of those directors were friendly to the concept of second takes or wasting time in general. (Corman because he was immensely proud of how none of his films ever lost money, Wood because he simply wasn't that good of a filmmaker.) Similarly, cinéma verité projects are more friendly to things that just happen, and Dogme 95 leans into this as well: Naturalistic film, film without artifice, film without props brought in from elsewhere or lighting effects... it all reduces the number of choices the director can make and, therefore, the number of things which can be said to be the director's choice.
But, yes, the average mainstream (Bollywood/Tollywood/Hollywood) production is very highly managed and someone (possibly the director, possibly not) actually is in complete control over what ends up on screen, even if the film goes through multiple writers and directors and the editor is the only one who leaves a consistent mark.
- moron4hire 4y agoI disagree. One of the things I think makes a good movie is the subtlety in which metaphor is used. It can't be too subtle or bash the viewer over the head. There's still a lot of metaphor going on in bad movies, but it's usually on the "bash the viewer over the head" end of the spectrum. And that makes it easier to recognize. To me, bad movies lay bare the bones of how movies are made. You can much more clearly see what people were trying (and failing) to do with the film.
- msla 4y agoI think we're talking at cross-purposes, here, because I agree with everything you said. Let's take Plan 9 From Outer Space as an example: Ed Wood had a very unsubtle anti-war (particularly anti-nuclear-war) message and he pounded it into our stupid minds (Stupid! Stupid!) but that isn't what I was saying. I'm saying that his gravestones were cardboard and obviously moved like cardboard. Was that intentional? No, it was incompetence and not recognizing the need to do another take when a special effect failure is obvious onscreen. You can't read anything textual into the flimsy gravestones because Wood didn't intend for them to do that; it's all paratext, of the "This is a badly-made movie" variety. Sometimes, it's a bit ambiguous: The characters in the film use their handguns in ways that would cause any range safety officer to disembowel them for the good of the species. Is that intentional on Wood's part, to show how stupid (Stupid! Stupid!) they are, or is it just bad actors treating props like props? I'm inclined to think it's the latter; in a better film, I'd be more apt to give it the benefit of the doubt, but in a better film, it would be reinforced through other means. In a good film, everything is intentional and serves some purpose in the story. In a great film, there's multiple stories and themes going on, so there's layered meaning and the film rewards re-watching and debate. In a poor film, the only symbols are the obvious ones, pointless and accidental stuff happens, and the film contradicts its themes without intending to.