|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 20, 2022 20:34:17 GMT
Synthesizer buff here, I work with Cubase, Ableton, etc. Are you saying that compression is raising background noises to the same volume as dialogue? Aren't they on a different bus (and not compressed together on main output)? Why would audio mixers do this? Is this an aesthetic or practical decision? Thanks. Well, I am saying that -- digital or not -- if they aren't mixed right, background noises can rise to the same level of dialogue. That was true in the days of film mixing, too. But without question, compression is definitely one of the complications of digital sound editing, because it overwhelms and conflates everything. It doesn't matter if the elements are on different tracks (or buses); in film editing they were always separate, too, with each track (dialogue, sound effects, and music) manipulated separately, then together to achieve the desired goals. I think good mixing can and has been done in digital realms, with the right technologies and talents, though I do think it's harder to make the sounds sound "normal," because of the inherent problems compression causes, not least of which is that sounds are harder to hear, for lack of a better way to put it.
That said, I have to add that I began to notice a dialogue to SFX ratio imbalance in theaters quite awhile ago, when movies were still being distributed in film formats. When SOUND for the sake of SOUND began to become the most important thing, overwhelming everything else and dialogue be damned. That's an aesthetic choice, and a bad one, in my opinion. Oh, and let's not forget, part of bad sound in a film can be because sound recordists on set may not always be able to get the best sound recordings, making it much harder for the sound editors and mixers. Usually that would be solved with ADR, but maybe that's an example of a "practical" decision made because of a lack of money. It's a complicated issue, to say the least. But compression is definitely a part of it and must always be considered and addressed.
I, too, have been plagued by the things you cite, but I've noticed it also in films 60, 70 or even more years old, the original DME tracks of which have been digitally enhanced and remixed for HD mastering. But I'll highlight one item from above for light comment: From the relatively few (50 or so) films released in the last 20 years that I've seen, my snarky thought was, "You're probably not missing much." Which reminded me of Joe Gillis's remark to Norma Desmond: "That's where the popcorn business comes in. Buy yourself a bag and plug up your ears."
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Mar 20, 2022 20:35:17 GMT
Oh, Rufus-T , you've got that right! I can't remember most films I see very long at all anymore, or if at all (and it's not because of age). Mediocrity prevails these days, and I say that with deep sadness. As Meryl Streep said a few years ago, "What have we done to this medium we love." Btw, I just heard that CODA won the PGA award. Glad for that. And london777 , I'm speaking of American films; I don't see many new "foreign" films these days, so I don't pretend to know about those.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Mar 20, 2022 20:39:59 GMT
Well, I am saying that -- digital or not -- if they aren't mixed right, background noises can rise to the same level of dialogue. That was true in the days of film mixing, too. But without question, compression is definitely one of the complications of digital sound editing, because it overwhelms and conflates everything. It doesn't matter if the elements are on different tracks (or buses); in film editing they were always separate, too, with each track (dialogue, sound effects, and music) manipulated separately, then together to achieve the desired goals. I think good mixing can and has been done in digital realms, with the right technologies and talents, though I do think it's harder to make the sounds sound "normal," because of the inherent problems compression causes, not least of which is that sounds are harder to hear, for lack of a better way to put it.
That said, I have to add that I began to notice a dialogue to SFX ratio imbalance in theaters quite awhile ago, when movies were still being distributed in film formats. When SOUND for the sake of SOUND began to become the most important thing, overwhelming everything else and dialogue be damned. That's an aesthetic choice, and a bad one, in my opinion. Oh, and let's not forget, part of bad sound in a film can be because sound recordists on set may not always be able to get the best sound recordings, making it much harder for the sound editors and mixers. Usually that would be solved with ADR, but maybe that's an example of a "practical" decision made because of a lack of money. It's a complicated issue, to say the least. But compression is definitely a part of it and must always be considered and addressed.
I, too, have been plagued by the things you cite, but I've noticed it also in films 60, 70 or even more years old, the original DME tracks of which have been digitally enhanced and remixed for HD mastering. But I'll highlight one item from above for light comment: From the relatively few (50 or so) films released in the last 20 years that I've seen, my snarky thought was, "You're probably not missing much." Which reminded me of Joe Gillis's remark to Norma Desmond: "That's where the popcorn business comes in. Buy yourself a bag and plug up your ears."
Thank you, Doghouse!! You made me laugh, and that's a wonderful thing these days. Also, I agree with you. God bless Billy Wilder!
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Mar 20, 2022 20:44:41 GMT
Oh, Rufus-T , you've got that right! I can't remember most films I see very long at all anymore, or if at all (and it's not because of age). Mediocrity prevails these days, and I say that with deep sadness. As Meryl Streep said a few years ago, "What have we done to this medium we love." Btw, I just heard that CODA won the PGA award. Glad for that. And london777 , I'm speaking of American films; I don't see many new "foreign" films these days, so I don't pretend to know about. Yesssss, CODA now is a legitimate Oscar Best Picture contender, and I will predict it to win. I will post my prediction soon.
As for those "wow" movies, even the best I saw this year, CODA, King Richard, Dune, and Spiderman: No Way Home, they all just missed that "wow" when I finished the movie. I thought CODA was beautiful, touching, wonderful story, likeable characters, and brilliantly executed, but it so close but not quite give me the "wow" like in some movies on first viewing: Schindler's List, Chicago, Whiplash (the last movie I got that feeling), to name a few. It is still one of the best this century got to offer.
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Mar 20, 2022 21:17:27 GMT
Just for this year, how many disappointments that were praised by critics: Don't Look Up Spencer The Lost Daughter The Eyes of Tammy Faye Being the Ricardos
These are not that bad, but not the masterpiece I was expecting according to the media The Tragedy of Macbeth Belfast Drive My Car
It has been like this for a couple years already.
|
|
|
Post by stryker on Mar 20, 2022 22:29:13 GMT
LOL, not that bone. PS. Have you seen SHORTBUS Doghouse? I didn't actually watch that Maher clip until you asked me about it. I used to watch him regularly until his curmudgeon act became scattershot and tiresome, so he fell off my radar a couple years back. Naturally enough, his "Politically Incorrect" brand as "the lib who's honest enough to tell you what's wrong with libs" was carried over into his HBO show, but I've always felt it misses a bet by not living up to its name. I don't know if he still books as many righties as he once did, but he was often letting himself get bulldozed by them when they Gish-galloped with a stream of did-you-know-Hillary-did-this and why-did-Obama-do-thats, leaving him to only sputter in protest. The show's called Real Time. He's got a staff. They've got online access, and can bring up any info in a minute. He could have made it a feature of his show to fact-check right there in real time. I was not asking you your opinion of Bill Maher Doghouse, that's a conversation for the Politics Board, but the death of Free Speech should, I would like to think, worry you, and why do you think Hollywood is to afraid to make romantic comedies anymore and stand up comics have been neutered etc etc?
About Shortbus: I saw maybe a half-hour of it a few years back and found aspects of it engaging, and it occurred to me hubby might do so as well, so I stopped it until we could see it together. Before we got around to it, it seems I forgot all about it until it was mentioned here. Now this part of your reply I found interesting, and can relate to, even if it saddens me you never got to see the best, most beautiful parts of the film, and its gentle message - for the record book Sook-Yin Lee's sex therapist, Sophia, finally had her first orgasm: and boy did she discover what she had been missing out on. Along with MILK, SHORTBUS is the most affecting film dealing with queer themes I have seen - in that they changed my way of thinking about certain things - not that I was a stranger to gay films before that: I had been programing LGBT film festivals in cinemas for years. I remember the first time I saw SHORTBUS, which was on a special edition DVD - I have since seen it on the big screen and own it on Blu Ray, my friend had imported it for his DVD store and I rushed home with it after seeing it on the shelf. My missus, a sports sub-editor, was working a night shift on the local morning paper, so I watched it alone, and was deeply touched and entertained by the film; it left me feeling warm, but also with plenty of food for thought. It's funny too. I was exhausted by about 12,30am when Sonja got home and needed to sleep, and she was wired after a hectic shift with multiple tight deadlines. But I had left the movie in the DVD player and told her it was wonderful and she should watch it. She duly turned the film on and sat down to watch it. As you may or may not remember it opens with a scene of the guy in the bath farting - accompanied by a little yellow bubble, before successfully fellating himself (and here was me, LOL, thinking this was every straight guys dream). Well that was it, Sonja stormed into the bedroom and told me the film was "pornographic" and she would not watch it. But sometimes we know our longtime partners better than we know ourselves, so I roused myself from slumber and stepped up to plate. "What happened to the beautiful, free-spirited, sexually liberated woman I fell in love with," I demanded to know. "When did you get old and close minded?" It wasn't working ... until I looked at her with a dramatic sadness, shock on my face and said "oh my God, I never thought it would happen, but you have turned into your mother". That did the trick, and, although not totally convinced, she went off to watch SHORTBUS as I surrendered to the sandman. To cut a long story short, the next morning she thanked me for pushing her to watch it and said it was "beautiful, funny, sweet and life affirming". I ran off copies of that DVD and gave one to a repressed journalist and actor, and another to Terry and Donald - a fascinating old gay couple I had know for years (Donald was a newspaper editor and Terry a liberal politician and ace journalist) who were then in their early eighties; within a few months both men would pass away from natural causes. It certainly rocked the repressed journalists world, but the reaction I got from Terry and Donald was a truly beautiful and moving thing, they were absolutely blown away by SHORTBUS, and when they talked with me about it, the tears ran out of their rheumy eyes and down their faces. They thanked me profusely for thinking of them. To day this day I am trying to convince folk to watch SHORTBUS, with various degrees of success. I was going run on for a while and my wall-of-words might have got really intriguing, but I better pack it in before I offend someone on the board's delicate sensibilities. I would like to think I have stayed on topic here, but please forgive me if I haven't. PS. Did you get to see CALL ME BY YOUR NAME? It's a delightful, excellent, deliciously romantic film, and thank goodness Arnie Hammer got to co-star in it before he was called a cannibal on twitter (seems he was overly fond of love bites, and years after their relationship ended, his ex said she had been offended by it, despite her willing participation at the time) and cancelled.
|
|
lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Mar 21, 2022 3:32:12 GMT
Just for this year, how many disappointments that were praised by critics: Don't Look Up Spencer The Lost Daughter The Eyes of Tammy Faye Being the Ricardos These are not that bad, but not the masterpiece I was expecting according to the media The Tragedy of Macbeth Belfast Drive My Car It has been like this for a couple years already. Watching movies in successive decades, I have noticed that there is a reigning style of movie making that pervades a time period. Currently, I am going through the 2010-2020 films (500 so far) and the style can be described as follows: 1. Lots of violence, sex, cussing and emoting 2. Repetitive, unoriginal music that dulls feelings and is sometimes non-stop throughout the film 3. Characters do not go through a crisis that leads to inner change- there is no discovery, growth, or awareness, just a plot 4. Lots of visual tricks that dazzle and overwhelm the importance of the characters- style over soul If you combine these four elements- you lose the "wow" factor. Today's films generally feel like "content" more than "art"
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Mar 21, 2022 4:17:31 GMT
Just for this year, how many disappointments that were praised by critics: Don't Look Up Spencer The Lost Daughter The Eyes of Tammy Faye Being the Ricardos These are not that bad, but not the masterpiece I was expecting according to the media The Tragedy of Macbeth Belfast Drive My Car It has been like this for a couple years already. Watching movies in successive decades, I have noticed that there is a reigning style of movie making that pervades a time period. Currently, I am going through the 2010-2020 films (500 so far) and the style can be described as follows: 1. Lots of violence, sex, cussing and emoting 2. Repetitive, unoriginal music that dulls feelings and is sometimes non-stop throughout the film 3. Characters do not go through a crisis that leads to inner change- there is no discovery, growth, or awareness, just a plot 4. Lots of visual tricks that dazzle and overwhelm the importance of the characters- style over soul If you combine these four elements- you lose the "wow" factor. Today's films generally feel like "content" more than "art" You hit it right on the nail. Many modern movie are very shallow disguised as a deep thought provoking movie. In addition, many of the characters are unlikable narcissist with the problem are their own making (e.g. The Lost Daughter). Who knows, may be it is me who found them unlikable, but likeable to the film makers.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 21, 2022 8:12:35 GMT
To day this day I am trying to convince folk to watch SHORTBUS, with various degrees of success. I was going run on for a while and my wall-of-words might have got really intriguing, but I better pack it in before I offend someone on the board's delicate sensibilities. I would like to think I have stayed on topic here, but please forgive me if I haven't. Going OT never bothers me in the least. I'm not the OP, so they may feel differently, but on the rare occasions I start threads, I generally encourage participants to do as they will with it. Conversations are like that: rambling off into parts unknown, and some of the most interesting take us to unexpected places. There's another film site I visit regularly, the moderators of which are rather stuffy about groups of replies that stray from the thread topic, routinely transferring them to other threads or sometimes deleting them altogether. What a bore. I haven't given up on Shortbus. As I say, it just slipped from memory, and complicating the matter was my having forgotten the title. But you're a great salesman, so we'll make an effort to find the time to see it together. Inasmuch as the evidence submitted here for the death of free speech is a Maher routine, it's fair to consider where he's coming from, wouldn't you say? I believe he's sincere enough, but it is a comedy bit - biting as it is and wrapped in a rant as befitting his style - and one of the basic tools of comedy is exaggeration. What he's done is cite a handful of examples, a magazine here, an ACLU policy there and a few others, and magnified them into a full-on assault on expression. I've previously made my feelings known about what's now called cancel culture, but what gets forgotten by many is that, by whatever name, public disapproval, criticism or outcry is itself free speech. Bill mocked "the right not to be offended," but another of the things causing me to disengage from him is a habit of indulging the very behavior of which he complains: it apparently offends him when people find things objectionable that he doesn't and speak out about it. I don't believe any comics are being "neutered" by anyone, unless they're doing it to themselves in response to blowback from something they said or did. That's their choice, and I've spoken about that before too: some public figures buckle to pressure; others charge ahead in spite of it. When it comes to what movies Hollywood makes (or the corporate rebranding that offended Maher), that's a whole different ball of wax. The bottom line on those decisions is actually the bottom line ($$$), and various genres or styles regularly go in or out of style with the ticket-buying public. I haven't seen Call Me By Your Name. It didn't much interest me but, again, you're a good salesman. Incidentally, I found a source for Green Book on my cable's On Demand menu, and will try to make time for it today.
|
|
|
Post by stryker on Mar 21, 2022 8:44:27 GMT
To day this day I am trying to convince folk to watch SHORTBUS, with various degrees of success. I was going run on for a while and my wall-of-words might have got really intriguing, but I better pack it in before I offend someone on the board's delicate sensibilities. I would like to think I have stayed on topic here, but please forgive me if I haven't. Going OT never bothers me in the least. I'm not the OP, so they may feel differently, but on the rare occasions I start threads, I generally encourage participants to do as they will with it. Conversations are like that: rambling off into parts unknown, and some of the most interesting take us to unexpected places. There's another film site I visit regularly, the moderators of which are rather stuffy about groups of replies that stray from the thread topic, routinely transferring them to other threads or sometimes deleting them altogether. What a bore. I haven't given up on Shortbus. As I say, it just slipped from memory, and complicating the matter was my having forgotten the title. But you're a great salesman, so we'll make an effort to find the time to see it together. Inasmuch as the evidence submitted here for the death of free speech is a Maher routine, it's fair to consider where he's coming from, wouldn't you say? I believe he's sincere enough, but it is a comedy bit - biting as it is and wrapped in a rant as befitting his style - and one of the basic tools of comedy is exaggeration. What he's done is cite a handful of examples, a magazine here, an ACLU policy there and a few others, and magnified them into a full-on assault on expression. I've previously made my feelings known about what's now called cancel culture, but what gets forgotten by many is that, by whatever name, public disapproval, criticism or outcry is itself free speech. Bill mocked "the right not to be offended," but another of the things causing me to disengage from him is a habit of indulging the very behavior of which he complains: it apparently offends him when people find things objectionable that he doesn't and speak out about it. I don't believe any comics are being "neutered" by anyone, unless they're doing it to themselves in response to blowback from something they said or did. That's their choice, and I've spoken about that before too: some public figures buckle to pressure; others charge ahead in spite of it. When it comes to what movies Hollywood makes (or the corporate rebranding that offended Maher), that's a whole different ball of wax. The bottom line on those decisions is actually the bottom line ($$$), and various genres or styles regularly go in or out of style with the ticket-buying public. I haven't seen Call Me By Your Name. It didn't much interest me but, again, you're a good salesman. Incidentally, I found a source for Green Book on my cable's On Demand menu, and will try to make time for it today. As always, I enjoy your responses even if I don't agree with everything thing you say Dohouse. I look forward to hearing your opinion of GREEN BOOK. As you might have noticed, I am a sucker for a good love story, but film's like GOD'S OWN COUNTRY (2017) are why I haven't given up on modern movies yet. As for the salesman thing. LOL, If I look back on my life I want to say I was a reporter, a columnist, a writer, a philosopher, a traveler, an animal lover, a political activist, a marketing guru, a humanist and a die hard romantic, but, much as I hate to admit, the reality is that I was, like my late father before me, a salesman. This depresses me, until I realize that I wasn't just a salesman, I was a f...... great salesman. LOL, I remember doing a video launch in the Drakensburg for Stuart Gordon's Jeffrey Coombs-starring, one-of-a-kind blood spattered B-movie classic RE-ANIMATOR back in the day. I was hungover as all hell that morning but I knew the picture was going to be a huge hit on video when the industry audience started clapping after I told them the film featured "cunnilingus by a decapitated head". PS. Having grown up in the repressive, verkrampte atmosphere of apartheid South Africa, free speech means everything to me Doghouse, and I abhor censorship with every iota of my being. The scars of the past run deep in my country. PPS. Also, whether you want to admit it or not stand up comics are being neutered. LOL, Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 21, 2022 13:30:01 GMT
As always, I enjoy your responses even if I don't agree with everything thing you say Dohouse. I look forward to hearing your opinion of GREEN BOOK. Those are my feelings exactly. There are few things more stimulating to the intellect than exploring differing points of view. And I shall duly report on Green Book once I've collected and organized my thoughts on it, whatever they may be, and have decided where to put them so you'll see them. I'm sympathetic to concerns about censorship in the atmosphere you describe. In the U.S., issues surrounding free speech and censorship are defined under law as relating to actions by governmental entities, and our courts have been reluctant to involve themselves in such disputes arising in the private sector, such as advertisers or employers severing their association with those whose expression has been met with public disapproval. Whether on social media, in letters, editorials or public commentary, the freedom to express that disapproval is as valued as that to make the statements that brought it about. And as our capitalistic system here is held to be as sacred as religion, business decisions made in response to that disapproval rarely meet legal interference. Everyone's guaranteed the ability to speak their mind, but no one's guaranteed a public megaphone paid for by others through which to do it, whether that megaphone takes the form of a TV show, a stand-up comedy engagement, a tweet or whatever. So unless government becomes involved, it's a free-for-all in which everyone takes their chances, and there are too many here (and I'd include Maher among them) who sometimes forget that the freedom they advocate is a two-way street. One of the forms of censorship that most concerns me at this time does involve government, with legislatures in conservative U.S. states passing laws allowing parents to sue teachers, school administrators and even entire school districts if lessons or discussions on racial, sexual or gender issues offend their personal values. The way one such bill is worded, it could leave a school liable if a male teacher happens to say, "My husband and I" or little Tommy mentions his "two mommies." So, yeah, I do worry about assaults on free speech.
|
|
lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Mar 21, 2022 15:48:51 GMT
Watching movies in successive decades, I have noticed that there is a reigning style of movie making that pervades a time period. Currently, I am going through the 2010-2020 films (500 so far) and the style can be described as follows: 1. Lots of violence, sex, cussing and emoting 2. Repetitive, unoriginal music that dulls feelings and is sometimes non-stop throughout the film 3. Characters do not go through a crisis that leads to inner change- there is no discovery, growth, or awareness, just a plot 4. Lots of visual tricks that dazzle and overwhelm the importance of the characters- style over soul If you combine these four elements- you lose the "wow" factor. Today's films generally feel like "content" more than "art" You hit it right on the nail. Many modern movie are very shallow disguised as a deep thought provoking movie. In addition, many of the characters are unlikable narcissist with the problem are their own making (e.g. The Lost Daughter). Who knows, may be it is me who found them unlikable, but likeable to the film makers. I think there is a good reason that characters tend to be more flawed in today's film- but I am not sure what that reason is. It could be that people have lost faith in the existence of true heroes, kind individuals, or true lovers, or it could be people find these types boring. Maybe people have lost faith in goodness in general. I sense a great deal less idealism than in the 60's and 70's when I grew up. Folks seem more jaded today and don't see a happy ending to their lives. Movies tend to reflect public mood.
|
|
|
Post by ghostintheshell on Mar 21, 2022 20:22:38 GMT
Oh, Rufus-T , you've got that right! I can't remember most films I see very long at all anymore, or if at all (and it's not because of age). Mediocrity prevails these days, and I say that with deep sadness. As Meryl Streep said a few years ago, "What have we done to this medium we love." Btw, I just heard that CODA won the PGA award. Glad for that. And london777 , I'm speaking of American films; I don't see many new "foreign" films these days, so I don't pretend to know about. Most big budgeted films (especially those annoying remakes & reboots of classics) rarely ever live up to the hype generated but there have been some exceptionally good sequels like that of SW, ST, Alien, LoTR, Jurassic Park and then there are rare gems like Ben-Hur, 2001:ASO, Lawrence of Arabia that embodies everything that makes a film feel 'epic' and immerses you into it's world. Making such films is quite an achievement in a pre-cgi/imax age of cinema.
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Mar 22, 2022 16:47:53 GMT
You hit it right on the nail. Many modern movie are very shallow disguised as a deep thought provoking movie. In addition, many of the characters are unlikable narcissist with the problem are their own making (e.g. The Lost Daughter). Who knows, may be it is me who found them unlikable, but likeable to the film makers. I think there is a good reason that characters tend to be more flawed in today's film- but I am not sure what that reason is. It could be that people have lost faith in the existence of true heroes, kind individuals, or true lovers, or it could be people find these types boring. Maybe people have lost faith in goodness in general. I sense a great deal less idealism than in the 60's and 70's when I grew up. Folks seem more jaded today and don't see a happy ending to their lives. Movies tend to reflect public mood. This remind me of a time back in the 90s when a few colleagues and me brought up The Brady Bunch, and one of the colleague complaint that The Brady Bunch is too perfect and not realistic. It struck me strange to hear that complaint. It later occurs to me that many people like to hold on to their misery instead striving for something near perfect. Instead of making movie with inspiring moments, many film makers opt to make movies about egocentric miserable people. They aim to satisfy the carnal needs instead of reaching for the spiritual fulfillment.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 23, 2022 18:53:03 GMT
I look forward to hearing your opinion of GREEN BOOK. I trust you'll wish me to be candid in my evaluation, stryker . And to our host, spiderwort , who's been so gracious about our straying from the topic, my appreciation and apologies for once again presuming upon his generosity. I'm adding my comments to this thread simply because it's where Green Book came up most recently. I can say I found the performances to be its primary asset, even if the characterizations were shoehorned into somewhat superficial archetypes. Overall, it seemed a paint-by-numbers affair, although a skillfully done one: every color correctly placed and staying well within the lines. To employ another analogy, it appeared to be one cup Planes, Trains and Automobiles, one cup Driving Miss Daisy and one tablespoon each of nearly every other "road film" made, going back at least as far as It Happened One Night and on up through The Last Movie Star (which I found rather more engaging, if you haven't seen it...and if my opinion still means anything after you've read this). A formulaic and predictable story arc needn't necessarily serve as an indictment. I'm sure you've heard the old saying about there being only seven basic stories, and I guess this is one of 'em, so predictability comes with the territory. Based on our earlier discussions, I allowed Green Book extra latitude where my 20-Minute Rule is concerned (if a picture hasn't hooked me within that time, I bail), which highlights my only other major criticism. I'd call it imbalance brought about by overstatement. Everything the film took nearly a half-hour telling us about Tony could have been accomplished in under ten minutes. As a result, later character development of both he and Dr. Shirley was regrettably lacking some scope. Lest any of this sound harsh, I do want to make it clear that I didn't dislike the picture, nor am I sorry I saw it (no glib laments about "two hours I'll never get back"). Had that been the case, I could never have stayed with it. And for what it's worth, hubby seemed rather taken with it.
|
|
|
Post by stryker on Mar 23, 2022 23:09:14 GMT
I look forward to hearing your opinion of GREEN BOOK. I trust you'll wish me to be candid in my evaluation, stryker . And to our host, spiderwort , who's been so gracious about our straying from the topic, my appreciation and apologies for once again presuming upon his generosity. I'm adding my comments to this thread simply because it's where Green Book came up most recently. I can say I found the performances to be its primary asset, even if the characterizations were shoehorned into somewhat superficial archetypes. Overall, it seemed a paint-by-numbers affair, although a skillfully done one: every color correctly placed and staying well within the lines. To employ another analogy, it appeared to be one cup Planes, Trains and Automobiles, one cup Driving Miss Daisy and one tablespoon each of nearly every other "road film" made, going back at least as far as It Happened One Night and on up through The Last Movie Star (which I found rather more engaging, if you haven't seen it...and if my opinion still means anything after you've read this). Tony Lip and James Gandolfini in THE SOPRANOS. Don Shirley is in the small pic below it. As I said to you before Doghouse, Green Book is a road movie in the time honored Hollywood tradition, Peter Farrelly wasn't looking to reinvent the wheel here, he was looking to put a great true story from the past with a potent message for our times and two marvelous characters into a form which would appeal to wide audiences around the globe. Rather than "a paint-by-numbers affair", it was, IMO - and by all industry accounts I have heard, a heartfelt labor of love from everyone involved, and it certainly shows in the finished project. Apropos of nothing really, the real life Tony Lip appeared in some 27 films leading up to his acclaimed role as Carmine Lupertazzi in The Sopranos.As for "if my opinion still means anything after you've read this", I am interested in just about anyone's opinion, even, LOL, an articulate, but crusty old curmudgeon stuck in an idealized past - movie wise at least, whose assessment of GREEN BOOK I almost completely disagree with. However, I must tell you I read very few reviews - even on this site - before I've seen a film. And I never, ever comment critically on a film I haven't seen. I have great confidence in my opinions when it comes to films. And yes, I have seen The Last Movie Star, which, while not uninteresting - and a nice little send off for Burt Reynolds, was no Green Book, and nowhere near as engaging. LOL, let's just say, I am hardly surprised GREEN BOOK won 3 Oscars - including Best Picture, and grossed over $320 million worldwide, while The Last Movie Star garnered mediocre reviews and was barely released in cinemas. Still, it has a fairly high rating on the IMDB. I should also add that you probably went into The Last Movie Star with low expectations, as opposed to Green Book. LOL, maybe the best salesman you ever met oversold it to you? I love Green book, it made me think, laugh, cry and feel joy, I have seen it twice and will almost certainly watch it again in my life. But, LOL, I don't dislike you for not enjoying it as much as I did. At least I got you to watch it. LOL. I dragged you to the water and I made you drink it, but you didn't like the taste. And of course, bad taste isn't a crime so I am not going to hold that against you. The harrowing and haunting, one-of-kind Russian war opus COME AND SEE (1985) is one of the greatest films I have ever watched, an unforgettable viewing experience which left me shaken. GREEN BOOK is not one of the greatest films ever made, but it is, IMO, a heck of a good film and (most) people walk out after watching it feeling better about the world than before they went in - I loved the way Tony folded that giant pizza in half and ate it like a sandwich; what an appetite for life he had. Sadly, in a rapidly changing (and not for the better) industry landscape Green Book is almost certainly the last relatively low budget (about $25 million), character driven drama which will ever gross $320 million in cinemas. It also made a small fortune on DVD, Blu Ray, VOD and other platforms. Wish there were a few more films of the caliber of Green Book around in 2021, this year's Oscars would be so much more fun, and so much more accessible (to a wider audience). I might have asked you this before, but if I have I have forgotten, please forgive me if I am repeating myself. Have you seen COME AND SEE?
PS. I absolutely love It Happened One Night, hope you at least enjoyed that one, and we can find some common ground?
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 24, 2022 12:11:31 GMT
Peter Farrelly wasn't looking to reinvent the wheel here, he was looking to put a great true story from the past with a potent message for our times and two marvelous characters into a form which would appeal to wide audiences around the globe. Rather than "a paint-by-numbers affair", it was, IMO - and by all industry accounts I have heard, a heartfelt labor of love from everyone involved, and it certainly shows in the finished project. I am interested in just about anyone's opinion, even, LOL, an articulate, but crusty old curmudgeon stuck in an idealized past - movie wise at least, whose assessment of GREEN BOOK I almost completely disagree with. I hasten to assure that I have no doubts about the sincerity of those involved in the film, nor of its critical and commercial popularity. And while I generally consider it best practice to limit criticism to the work being discussed rather than the personalities evaluating it, I think I quite like the "crusty old curmudgeon" assessment. If being "stuck in an idealized past - movie wise at least" suggests eras predating an assembly-line atmosphere I've found in films of the last couple decades, I'll even cop to that. In any event, I thank you for "articulate." I guess it was that underdog quality that appealed to me about The Last Movie Star, about which I knew next to nothing when I stumbled upon it. It imparted the dryly sardonic sensibility of a film that didn't take itself too seriously, yet never descended into frivolity, as though the attitude of the whole enterprise was, "We don't much give a damn if you like our little film or not," embodied in the hurdles it set for itself by establishing two principal characters who were entertaining but less-than-likable human wreckage, then exposing vulnerabilities gradually making both more sympathetic. Now, now, stryker, be fair: I made the point that I did not dislike it. As I said, I couldn't have stayed with it if I had (my regard for you notwithstanding). I don't recall it coming up. Watched the trailer; looks pretty grim. Perhaps I'll find myself in the mood for it at some point. Oh, certainly. I've heard many refer to it as "screwball comedy," but I don't subscribe to that at all. I do consider it the granddaddy of both rom-coms and road pictures (in the best senses of both), and have seen it countless times...and will again. While not without moments of honest sentiment, it's a movie that's just as tough and sassy as the people it's about.
|
|
|
Post by DanaShelbyChancey on Mar 25, 2022 15:02:29 GMT
Some of my favorite movies of the last few years are
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri Can You Ever Forgive Me? The Favourite Promising Young Woman
I just hope movies like these will continue to be made. Just for me.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Mar 25, 2022 15:10:42 GMT
Oh, Rufus-T , you've got that right! I can't remember most films I see very long at all anymore, or if at all (and it's not because of age). Mediocrity prevails these days, and I say that with deep sadness. As Meryl Streep said a few years ago, "What have we done to this medium we love." Btw, I just heard that CODA won the PGA award. Glad for that. And london777 , I'm speaking of American films; I don't see many new "foreign" films these days, so I don't pretend to know about. Most big budgeted films (especially those annoying remakes & reboots of classics) rarely ever live up to the hype generated but there have been some exceptionally good sequels like that of SW, ST, Alien, LoTR, Jurassic Park and then there are rare gems like Ben-Hur, 2001:ASO, Lawrence of Arabia that embodies everything that makes a film feel 'epic' and immerses you into it's world. Making such films is quite an achievement in a pre-cgi/imax age of cinema. Couldn't agree more, ghostintheshell. Just curious to know if you've seen a couple of silent films that I believe produce a sense of wonder (though admittedly not without a bit of silent film over-acting): Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927) and Abel Gance's Napoleon (1927)? They were imagined and created in the infancy of the film medium, but are filled with remarkable cinematic techniques that inspired filmmakers to come. Gance's Napoleon has some extraordinary split-screen (tryptich) sequences, which I always marvel at. Both are worth a look, if you have the time. (They are not short, especially Napoleon.)
|
|
|
Post by stryker on Apr 2, 2022 13:00:13 GMT
Peter Farrelly wasn't looking to reinvent the wheel here, he was looking to put a great true story from the past with a potent message for our times and two marvelous characters into a form which would appeal to wide audiences around the globe. Rather than "a paint-by-numbers affair", it was, IMO - and by all industry accounts I have heard, a heartfelt labor of love from everyone involved, and it certainly shows in the finished project. I am interested in just about anyone's opinion, even, LOL, an articulate, but crusty old curmudgeon stuck in an idealized past - movie wise at least, whose assessment of GREEN BOOK I almost completely disagree with. I hasten to assure that I have no doubts about the sincerity of those involved in the film, nor of its critical and commercial popularity. And while I generally consider it best practice to limit criticism to the work being discussed rather than the personalities evaluating it, I think I quite like the "crusty old curmudgeon" assessment. If being "stuck in an idealized past - movie wise at least" suggests eras predating an assembly-line atmosphere I've found in films of the last couple decades, I'll even cop to that. In any event, I thank you for "articulate." I guess it was that underdog quality that appealed to me about The Last Movie Star, about which I knew next to nothing when I stumbled upon it. It imparted the dryly sardonic sensibility of a film that didn't take itself too seriously, yet never descended into frivolity, as though the attitude of the whole enterprise was, "We don't much give a damn if you like our little film or not," embodied in the hurdles it set for itself by establishing two principal characters who were entertaining but less-than-likable human wreckage, then exposing vulnerabilities gradually making both more sympathetic. Now, now, stryker , be fair: I made the point that I did not dislike it. As I said, I couldn't have stayed with it if I had (my regard for you notwithstanding). To be fair, Doghouse, you are damning with faint praise.
|
|