spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 9,326
|
Post by spiderwort on May 12, 2017 19:58:30 GMT
For me, it's a few simple things:
Stronger character development (which results in better plot development), and a pace that allows an audience to experience a film emotionally on a deep level instead of having to play catch up all the time with a story that really doesn't make much sense, but that goes by so fast no one knows it doesn't make sense.
A willingness to tell the story in a more conventional way with conventional editing that serves the narrative instead of obliterating it with unjustified fast cuts.
And a commitment to using the camera as a tool for the narrative, moving it only for clear and specific reasons that serve the narrative.
Letting a scene play out without drawing attention to the camera and/or editing is usually the best way to get the most out of the actors and the subtext of a scene. Not to say, of course, that one should never move the camera or manipulate film in the editing room; just that it has to be justified and done in the service of the narrative.
Being able to experience (and understand while you're experiencing it) the depth of a film that is honest and original in its storytelling is the real source of that thing we call film "magic," and is what makes us remember films long after we've seen them. These days all too often I remember too little of anything I've seen not long after I've seen it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on May 12, 2017 23:25:22 GMT
The ability to keep a camera steady. I hate shakycam.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 23:51:52 GMT
'Charisma'
|
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on May 13, 2017 0:46:23 GMT
For a lack of a better descriptive term... Restraint!
While I don't find most single instances offensive, I am getting tired of all the movies that have pointless and unnecessary, CONSTANT cursing, nudity, and violence... Just because directors can put it into the film.
Example: I don't enjoy films where character say "fuck" every other word, and you lose track of how many times they say it before the film even ends.
I would prefer it if films would go back to a time when such things only happened when they were necessary and expected...
Like: When you drop a hammer on your foot. ...or... In the movie: "Back To The Future" (1985), Marty witnesses Doc get killed by terrorists, and flees in the DeLorean. The terrorists follow and target him with rocket launcher in an attempt to kill him. Marty yells "Holy Shit"! It was very realistic, and expected.
But in most movies, characters are not being chased by "rocket launchers"... So I don't get this need to curse every other word.
Some of the best block buster movies I have ever seen have very little cursing, nudity, and blood & gore in them: Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, Superman, Star Wars, E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, Indiana Jones, Back To The Future... Just to name a few... Compared to much of today's "crap" that is being released today.
It wasn't necessary before, why is it now?
|
|
|
|
Post by movielover on May 13, 2017 0:53:56 GMT
They're missing edge, spontaneity, and political incorrectness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on May 13, 2017 0:54:10 GMT
How about normal people? It seems too many films these days are about superheroes and other freaks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 1:25:17 GMT
Good (coherent, interesting) storytelling, for starts.
|
|
|
|
Post by kijii on May 13, 2017 2:03:29 GMT
For me, it's a few simple things: Stronger character development (which results in better plot development), and a pace that allows an audience to experience a film emotionally on a deep level instead of having to play catch up all the time with a story that really doesn't make much sense, but that goes by so fast no one knows it doesn't make sense. A willingness to tell the story in a more conventional way with conventional editing that serves the narrative instead of obliterating it unjustified fast cuts. And a commitment to using the camera as a tool for the narrative, moving it only for clear and specific reasons that serve the narrative. Letting a scene play out without drawing attention to the camera and/or editing is usually the best way to get the most out of the actors and the subtext of a scene. Not to say, of course, that one should never move the camera or manipulate film in the editing room; just that it has to be justified and done in the service of the narrative. Being able to experience (and understand while you're experiencing it) the depth of a film that is honest and original in its storytelling is the real source of that thing we call film "magic," and is what makes us remember films long after we've seen them. These days all too often I remember too little of anything I've seen not long after I've seen it. Spinder, You sound a lot like me. I think that makes us CLASSICAL MOVIE fans more than modern movie fans. I like LOW action movies that imply mood rather than hitting us over the head with cleverness... Yet, there are some good modern movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on May 13, 2017 2:48:03 GMT
Originality.
|
|
|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on May 13, 2017 3:02:20 GMT
films need great actors. there are hardly any great actors left. the absence of manly actors is a problem. i suspect it has something to do with the techies or people in corporate jobs taking over as role models.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on May 13, 2017 3:35:56 GMT
Coming at it from a different angle. I think a problem with many movies today can be summed up with 3 words; OVER THE TOP. Every movie feels they have to out do all previous movies to the point where films have become absurdly unrealistic. So I think what's missing is subtlety and restraint.
|
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on May 13, 2017 5:11:50 GMT
Many filmmakers today mirror the debasement of our culture by the corporate bureaucrats who run our "entertainment industry." The violence and glamorization of criminal and unethical behavior only reflects the values of our corporate society: its lack of integrity, support of power over principle, and its philosophy that the end justifies the means.
I don’t think that movies by themselves can be blamed for the current sorry state of society but they do reflect the pervasive cruelty and the spiritual emptiness of our culture, supported by the scientific/materialist paradigm that discourages people from seeing themselves in a larger context, as part of a larger whole that transcends our limitations. Unlike movie classics of the past, cynicism and anger and sociopathic and psychopathic behavior are strongly promoted as exciting and fun entertainment.
I have no problem with films about people who live outside accepted standards of moral and ethical behavior. Indeed one could argue that we need more films that honestly reflect the conditions of contemporary life including the growing lack of conscience. The question must be raised, however, -- does not the artist have a responsibility to not only depict contemporary conditions but to provide a sensitizing and humanistic context?
The tendency to glamorize disturbed characters is not new but I believe the tacit acceptance of this behavior by failing to address consequences is recent. Even in quintessential movies about anti-heroes such as Godard's Breathless, Nicolas Ray's Rebel Without a Cause, and Arthur Penn's Bonnie and Clyde, while the characters are glamorized, they display feelings for others and there are always consequences for their actions. In Shane, the protagonist is a man of compassion who is out to protect the homesteads of the people living off the land. His violence is not an end in itself.
In Rebel Without a Cause, the teenagers are outcasts and cannot relate to their family, yet they create close friendships and deal with their problems together. Even in nihilistic novels of the past such as Camus’ The Stranger, in which Meursault, an existentialist anti-hero, flaunts society rules without regard for ethical convention and holds that life has no greater meaning than the sum of his experiences.
Yet throughout the story he feels a natural affinity for the people around him and goes out of his way to help them. Many of today’s heroes have little regard for consequences and the consequences are rarely shown. Acting without conscience, taking no responsibility for your actions, never remaining attached to anyone or anything, seeing people only in terms of how they can be used, and having a constant need for stimulation is not cool or hip. It is the definition of a psychopath.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 13, 2017 5:37:00 GMT
pimpinainteasy , I have to agree and disagree. I think films do need great actors. But I think we still have great actors. It's just that too often today they don't have great material to work with and great directors to direct them. Most of the great actor's directors are gone now. And too many of the scripts that get green-lit are not that good. But actors want to work, so even the greatest today end up making not very good films. Sometimes even embarrassing ones. I will say this though: it appears to me that with few exceptions younger actors today are not getting the training they should be getting. Acting is both an art and a craft, and the greatest of actors always learned the craft, even if it meant that in the end they just let go and let inspiration take over. Still, their craft was part of them, internalized. In any case, if a an actor doesn't have a terrific script and a terrific director, it's very hard to give a terrific performance. And so I both agree and disagree.  Hence why i love children of men. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on May 13, 2017 13:34:27 GMT
Wit.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 13, 2017 13:39:53 GMT
Hence why i love children of men. I haven't seen this film, hi224, so could you please elaborate so that I can better understand your point? Thanks. And I wish I had seen the film. It looks very interesting. A movie about an ordinary man whose faced with immensely extroadinary circumstances pertaining to the need to save his race. |
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on May 13, 2017 13:46:33 GMT
A great, compelling, intriguing story which is different than the rest. Also, thrillers that rely on suspense, character development and a frightening storyline.
|
|
|
|
Post by airborne3502 on May 13, 2017 13:59:55 GMT
The ability to properly pace and edit a film.
Take a prolific 80's director like John Badham or Richard Donner, and compare how their movies flow compared to movies today.
Look at Rogue One for example.
Gareth Edwards has no idea how to pace a movie. Three quarters of Godzilla was dull, and so was the first half of Rogue One.
You can tell a story, drop important plot details, and keep things moving without boring your audience.
"20 minutes in the editing room" has become my favorite saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by howardschumann on May 13, 2017 15:39:42 GMT
Beautifully said, Howard, and I agree completely. I do worry, however, about the influence of irresponsible filmmaking on the culture at large, as more and more people, particularly young people, come to accept it as the norm. Because I've spent my entire life in this medium that we all love, I know that it has as much power to influence society as to reflect it. In America, anyway; I don't know about other countries. Anyway, thank you for your beautiful post. And I strongly want to reiterate that conscience, empathy, and understanding the consequences of one's actions are critically important in films, just as they are in real life. I agree Spider that while the industry panders to what they see as the desire of the audience, it leaves out of account the fact that marketing quite consciously creates desire, or tries to, with statistically successful results. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 13, 2017 15:51:34 GMT
I don’t think that movies by themselves can be blamed for the current sorry state of society but they do reflect the pervasive cruelty and the spiritual emptiness of our culture, supported by the scientific/materialist paradigm that discourages people from seeing themselves in a larger context, as part of a larger whole that transcends our limitations. It's your narrative, howard, so you can express it any way you want, but it strikes me that an association of "scientific/materialist" in this way presents a contradiction rather than a linkage. Spirituality is such an amorphous concept, one I daresay could have as many meanings as there are people to adopt them. While it's true that scientific pursuits can be appropriated for materialistic purposes (just as pursuits defined as spiritual can be appropriated for purposes of control, oppression or any number of other self-serving ends), a scientific paradigm, if I may adapt your phrase, seems to me the very embodiment of seeing ourselves in a "larger context, as part of a larger whole." As inhabitants of a tangible, physical world and universe, science allows us to understand our practical place therein; a spiritual paradigm can allow philosophical interpretation thereof, and a system of values with which to employ that interpretation. Whether that takes the form of service to humanity, dominion over nature or anything in between is entirely up to them, just as employment of scientific understanding is. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on May 13, 2017 16:24:03 GMT
Yes, indeed. I'm so tired of seeing films that resemble other films. In fact, I just don't go see them anymore. This goes to the point of a comment I made elsewhere about how too many films today are made by directors who copy other directors rather than bringing something substantial and meaningful in terms of their own life experience to the films they make. This is in part a consequence of the constraints of being able to get those more personal films financed, for sure. But it's also very true that a lot of directors do copy a lot of other directors simply because that is a lot of their life experience. And sadly, that's what they are taught to do in too many films schools, including at USC. Exactly. What we have now are too many remakes, too many sequels, too many reboots, and too many movies that rip off other movies. There was a time when I used to go to the cinema at least twice a week, but nowadays I'm lucky if I go twice a year. |
|
