Films Recently Watched

  On 1/24/2013 at 7:46 PM, The Overlook said:

By the way, Dominik has used a different DP on all his films. Deakins on Assassination, Greig Fraser on Killing Them.

how unusual is that? do director usually find one they like and stick with it till the DP dies or decide to try directing themselves?

It's not that unusual. With regards to Dominik, he's a highly visual director and, as a result, tends to collaborate with very talented DPs. I'm not familiar with Fraser, but he shot Zero Dark Thirty, too, so maybe he's just FOTY.

The Coens have shot with Deakins half a dozen times as he's considered by many (including me) to be the best in the business.

Transitioning from DP to director is actually very uncommon. Hollywood is a pigenholing business.

Speaking of the Coens, Barry Sonnenfeld shot Miller's Crossing before going on direct lots of movies. That's definitely rare, but holy shit, he did a fucking great job. One of the best looking movies ever IMO.

Spike Lee's DP of many years, Ernest Dickerson, directs TV shows now.

  On 1/22/2013 at 1:37 PM, lumpenprol said:

That’s a good question, and I don’t have an easy answer. On the surface it seems as if it has no agenda; it positions itself as a dispassionate retelling of the manhunt and killing of Bin Laden. Then the question becomes, why even tell it? Wouldn’t a documentary just be easier and more honest? I guess that’s where my reservations lie, why not try to make it a documentary (sure, access would be hard, but could use the typical combo of talking heads with re-enactments).

 

The direction she chose instead, to focus on Maya, who becomes this unwavering, almost telepathic force of retribution, bugged me. She seems to personify the flaw that is the biggest flaw we Americans need to guard against – namely, always believing our gut impulses are right. I was bothered that I didn’t know if Maya was whole or partly fictional, if waterboarding and other torture did or did not help us locate Bin Laden, etc. It seems like a very well-made piece of propaganda…possibly (although not as much as say, Saving Private Ryan).

 

That’s what I mean about being “politically opposed”. I probably could have worded it better as it’s not a left or right thing. In fact when it comes down to it, I’m supportive of the decision they made to go after Bin Laden (wish they could have nabbed him alive but…). The whole situation was just so monstrous and incredibly thorny, that I don’t think any Hollywood-izing of it is appropriate. The direction Bigelow took was too keep most details cut and dried, but totally Hollywood-ize the character at the center of the story – make her a “tough chick” that is fighting the patriarchy because of her “hunch”, a vulnerable but tough-as-nails broad who fights for what’s right and triumphs in the end (but has a good cry to show she’s still human). But in reality, the situation was we were violating a sovereign nation under cover of darkness in a vigilante move to murder a guy without a trial, a guy who was linked to people we in fact trained to fight the Russians…talk about a clusterfuck. There can be no heroism or glory there. The reality was it was probably mostly analysts in a room who sifted through a bunch of data to find Bin Laden. But that doesn’t make good entertainment.

 

I guess that’s what I mean by politics. Making such a film is an inherently political act, because of the subject matter. And if I judge by effects, the only effect I can imagine the film having is giving people who like the idea of American revenge and “smoking ragheads” a big fat boner. Would have been better not to make it at all (and just make the documentary).

sorry for the late reply, was a bit busy, looks like we're still not far off topic here in the thread so..

i think the issue might be the "american perspective" which you could have in mind when you watched the film. if one considers OBL an ultimate evil that must be dealt with at all costs then this film might indeed appear quite "fuck yeah, america"-ish, "mission accomplished", pro-torture friendly and so on.

but i had no problem watching the film as bigelow intended (if you trust her), the film clearly shows things such as: torture whose efficacy is dubious, the numerous fuckups which lead to death of cia members, a bureaucratic fuckup that prevented crucial evidence from reaching the right hands that could spare torture, the reliance on gut feeling instead of hard evidence and most importantly the raid itself, which imo, was simply chilling and flawlessly directed, and all that for a guy who was pretty much disabled when it came to his ability to mess with americans (if i understood correctly).

one interesting thing is that she deliberately included torture as an element despite cia saying that it was not crucial in getting to osama. so why is that ? to portray that it's awesome and it works ? doesn't make sense. her argument for the inclusion was that she doesn't want to whitewash it. the (almost) facts themselves can be inherently political and i believe she's going for that but without saying it outright.

regarding making a docu, im sure you can think of many reasons for making a feature instead of docu, she's hardly unique in that. i also doubt the people who were celebrating on the streets when it was announced that osama got got are the target audience of that film, they wouldn't get past its first hour. although one might argue (and awepittance will) that this was aimed at the dronebama crowd..

but still, my argument hangs on whether there are good enough reasons to distrust bigelow and so far i haven't seen those.

mirezzi linked an article earlier in the thread that shares my view, you might want to take a look.

  vamos scorcho said:

Flesh + Blood - 10/10

yes.

  On 1/24/2013 at 8:09 PM, The Overlook said:

Speaking of the Coens, Barry Sonnenfeld shot Miller's Crossing before going on direct lots of movies. That's definitely rare, but holy shit, he did a fucking great job. One of the best looking movies ever IMO.

Holy shit, I didn't realize... that Barry Sonnenfeld? Jesus.

I'm going to have to mentally bifurcate his career the same way I do with Phil Collins.

  On 1/24/2013 at 10:18 PM, baph said:

  On 1/24/2013 at 8:09 PM, The Overlook said:

Speaking of the Coens, Barry Sonnenfeld shot Miller's Crossing before going on direct lots of movies. That's definitely rare, but holy shit, he did a fucking great job. One of the best looking movies ever IMO.

 

Holy shit, I didn't realize... that Barry Sonnenfeld? Jesus.

 

I'm going to have to mentally bifurcate his career the same way I do with Phil Collins.

Yep, he also shot Blood Simple and Raising Arizona quite capably. You may want to trifurcate your perception of his career. Before shooting Coen films, he directed several feature length pornos.

new coen brthers movie trailer

is it a film about his penis?

some awkwardly delivered lines about a dudes dick doesnt make me want to see a film

It looks very... Eh... Instagrammy? I'm sure I'll enjoy it anyway.

drive reunion with f murray abraham. I"M IN

too bad i hate country music

  On 1/24/2013 at 11:03 PM, Awepittance said:

new coen brthers movie trailer

 

I love the Cohen brothers but after watching that trailer i have zero interest in watching this film.

is that supposed to be a satire of bob dylan in new york or...what was that?

good question, and wtf is justin timberlake doing in a coen brothers movie. The most exciting part of this trailer is the return of John Goodman and F Murray Abraham

It looked like the editor of that trailer had no fucking idea how to market the film.

After watching that im really excited to see it. I love the Coen Brothers writing. Definitely looks like some sort of Bob Dylan type character especially with the music in the background

  On 1/25/2013 at 12:50 AM, Danny O Flannagin said:

After watching that im really excited to see it. I love the Coen Brothers writing. Definitely looks like some sort of Bob Dylan type character especially with the music in the background

Not Bob Dylan, its soppose to be about Dave van Ronk

I'll watch the shit out of that, but the (venue-specific?) trailer isn't helping.

  On 1/25/2013 at 12:53 AM, YO303 said:

  On 1/25/2013 at 12:50 AM, Danny O Flannagin said:

After watching that im really excited to see it. I love the Coen Brothers writing. Definitely looks like some sort of Bob Dylan type character especially with the music in the background

 

Not Bob Dylan, its soppose to be about Dave van Ronk

Ahh, indeed it is...interest growing now.

  On 1/24/2013 at 1:30 PM, lumpenprol said:

big art-house boner rape sequence black people are saints white guys are the devils. there was a long stretch Shelly Duvall understand it.

  On 1/24/2013 at 11:22 PM, tauboo said:

a film about penis awkwardly dudes dick make me want a film

Coincidence?????

I'm not sure if those posts are garbled or if I'm having a stroke

  On 1/25/2013 at 12:55 AM, The Overlook said:

  On 1/25/2013 at 12:53 AM, YO303 said:

  On 1/25/2013 at 12:50 AM, Danny O Flannagin said:

After watching that im really excited to see it. I love the Coen Brothers writing. Definitely looks like some sort of Bob Dylan type character especially with the music in the background

 

Not Bob Dylan, its soppose to be about Dave van Ronk

 

Ahh, indeed it is...interest growing now.

after i saw you discussing how beautifully shot Millers Crossing was, i can't help but wonder why this new one looks so heavily color filtered and desaturated. I don't like the way it looks, way too altered looking.

It seems like it's trying to convey the overcast look of Fargo, but instead of doing it with real world environments it's just totally devoid of color by some sort of post production digital bullshit

Yeah, agreed. Whoever said it was Instagram was right on the money.

It was shot by the guy who shot Amelie / Very Long Engagement.

Boner shrinking a bit...

so did they switch cinematographers recently? I thought Roger Deakins had been doing it since Barton Fink. I don't see Amelie on his credits

edit: strange, i guess they did. i wonder why

it looks like the prologue sequence in fellowship of the ring. bizarre.

  On 1/25/2013 at 1:26 AM, Awepittance said:

so did they switch cinematographers recently? I thought Roger Deakins had been doing it since Barton Fink. I don't see Amelie on his credits

 

edit: strange, i guess they did. i wonder why

Deakins was busy doing Skyfall of all things

  On 1/24/2013 at 7:46 PM, The Overlook said:

  On 1/24/2013 at 7:01 PM, lumpenprol said:

What is up with Ray Liotta, something about that guy just gives off the vibe that he has bodies in his basement.

Liotta is a weirdo. He made a couple (horrible) films at my company and spent hours every morning lying on a couch getting free therapy from our motion graphics designer.

 

By the way, Dominik has used a different DP on all his films. Deakins on Assassination, Greig Fraser on Killing Them.

this should go in the "stupid questions" thread, but when I wrote my mini-review I almost said DP but then opted for Cinematographer. Is there a difference? I had some friends in film school who always used DP; maybe that's the more appropriate term?