Talking Cinema is one of my favorite activities. People who know me is to film buffs, so usually I take the subject. I lose no opportunity for a conversation to flow in that direction.
At this time, I have more film talks yet. Oscars are coming and everyone amused comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the leading nominees.
The talks are very rich and mixed everything from simple opinions, preferences, resources and analysis of cinematic techniques, and even ideological positions.
On the other hand, I have to admit that many times in the film talks about some comments and misconceptions arise that complicate the exchange of views.
some comments more common than my hair stand on end in my cinephile obsession:
"The film is slow. Nothing ever happens "
This comment is a classic. I think it deserves a separate post. What does that mean? It seems that many people associate "slowness" issues as the absence of decisive events in the plot, the use of long shots, the camera still, non-explanation of the conflicts of the characters and the resolution, or directly to the absence of themselves. It is as if the frenetic editing, the camera moving las vueltas y vueltas en la trama hacen a una película más “llevadera” o entretenida. Evidentemente, el ritmo de la película es importante, pero el mismo no está atado únicamente a la acción desenfrenada. El público está acostumbrado a que los personajes expliquen qué es lo que les pasa y que no se promueva la participación más activa de la audiencia. Muchas veces se narra con elementos que se ven, pero que no están tan explícitos, y requieren un espectador más atento. La intensidad puede no implicar una sucesión ininterrumpida de acontecimientos determinantes.
“Me gusta el mensaje” "No message!"
"For mail messages is" said one day the great Alfred Hitchcock. Very true. We agree that art is expression, and a film can present a particular view about the world. But that does not mean that films have to be giving messages and life lessons to people. There is a huge difference between saying something about an issue and get online to tell people what to think.
"But it's a true story!"
is amazing the charge of a film it is presented as "based on a true story." Amazing stories become even more incredible when people know that everything is looking really happened. Beyond the impact, this should not mean anything cinematically.
On one side are people who believe that absolutely everything that happened that way show with background music and everything. The problem is greater when people, instead of focusing on the story, discusses whether things happened as the film says, when the vast majority of cases does not matter and the fact of reality is simply an excuse to tell a story. Clearly, if the film is a historical issue known to all, and the theme of the movie has to do with what happened in that particular historical moment, things change. I
is delas in most cases, is far more interesting "what might have been" adapted to film language and rhythm that "what really happened" ...
"It's very good photography"
This happens quite often. The audience praised the magnificent picture of a movie which takes place in Tuscany or in the far west, but neither would think that a movie filmed in a rundown industrial city can excel in this field. Good photography does not mean "beautiful scenery." I remember when the girl in the video store gave me a copy just arrived from Lost in Translation. When I told him my idea was to see her in movies, I said it was worth it, he had no good photo ...
"But it is in cartoons. Not for children? "
At this point in the circumstances, with over 15 years Pixar life, this discussion should now be resolved. Miyazaki and I could mention many others who started before, but not necessary. There are dozens of wonderful animated films. Reflect on the most diverse and have the qualities prized by people of all ages. Unfortunately, there are still people who rejected and taken somewhat seriously because a film is animated and its main audience is children. That attitude is almost like the guys underestimated.
's the same with comedy. Many people do not believe that a comedy can be a great movie, or you can play more serious subjects awake and deeper than any drama.
"is old and black and white! Have to be boring "
This directly is a prejudice without any foundation. I can cite dozens of films of the decade of 30 and 40 which are more modern, awake and entertaining romantic comedy any day.
Beyond these lines, est to clear that all opinions are Alida v and interesting debate, but I think you can find much wealth in the analysis and enjoy the movies if these preconceptions crumble ..
Well, there are some more ideas that I wake up these reflections, as something that if a film is time, we are dealing with "quality cinema" or "the end does not leave me anything," but I think that is enough for today.
0 comments:
Post a Comment