All month, I’ve been on crunch mode writing my memoir. And, because I’m such an auteur bitch, I’ve also been obsessively thinking about the ingredients that make for compelling storytelling.
- Characters doing shit completely incongruent with their established personalities.
- Characters that don't have personalities in the first place because they're merely plot vehicles (these two do not apply to abstract films).
- Scenes that deliver only exposition. Every fucking scene should have an idea beyond exposition, if not twenty! Entertain us, tell us something about the environment, set up a joke, show off a cool camera filter, mislead us, whatever. Just make use of the second-most-fundamental unit of cinematic grammar.
- Bad lighting, though I'm happy to report this is rarely a problem anymore. I've become obsessed with lighting: movie crews mostly crush this nowadays, and so do most television crews. Last night I was watching American Psycho and marveling at the way that the cinematographer and lighting team often created three distinctive regions of light on each actor's faces in a way that amplified their expressions, looked beautiful, and appeared natural (or if not natural, at least well-suited for the scene).
To give you some idea of where I'm coming from, a few movies I consider perfect: "Raising Arizona", "Alien", "Kill Bill", "Chungking Express" and "The Teacher's Lounge".
Completely agree on red letter media. I'm always baffled when people make any argument that the prequels were good. It is literally impossible to withstand that withering critique and it is hilarious that those epic takedowns function better as entertainment than their subject matter.
There's nothing strange about thinking highly of total recall or terminator 2, the conventional wisdom is that those films are great.
Agreed on Total Recall. One of my "instant mood elevator" films. Big Trouble in Little China would be another.
Glad to hear about the memoir. Cellini wrote, "All men of any condition who have done something of special worth should write the story of their lives, but they should not begin such a fine undertaking until they have passed the age of forty". You make the age cut?
"None of the above even matters, because Natalie’s useless security detail chatting it up in the room next door still managed to 'hear' the worms slither in and rushed in just in time to save her."
The Jedi to whom I assume you're referring--whom the previous films have already definitively established have quasi-psychic abilities--have explicit dialogue about "sens[ing]" the danger, not hearing the dumb killer worms crashing about while Yakety Sax plays in the background.
The prequel trilogy is a target-rich enough environment that we don't need to be inventing criticisms contradicted by the explicit text of the dialogue.
Andor is so beautiful and the first SW thing that feels like it honestly takes place in a massive galaxy. I hope the entirety of season 2 is just the endless petty frustrations of empire and subject alike
I think 90% of movie analysis is post hoc justification invented after seeing how it did in theaters. Show me the person who can reliably predict how well a movie will do *before* it releases, and I'll believe that this person actually understands movies.
I'm confused by this. The movie analysis I'm describing has nothing to do with predicting a movie's profitability. Film nerds are very used to adoring obscure oeuvres that have bled money.
I think "post-hoc justification" explains a lot of film analysis, but it's usually a post-hoc justification of vibes and critical acclaim rather than box office success.
I'd estimate that, more often than not, a critic/reviewer watches a film, subconsciously gives it a rating based on vibes, or existing acclaim, and then uses their expertise to interpret the film's traits in positive or negative ways. e.g. dialogue is "intelligent" or "pretentious", or a shot is an "homage to", or "derivative of", Kurosawa, depending on whether the reviewer liked it or not.
"This is why that film you like is so good!" or the inverse, is an incredibly popular genre of YouTube video, so I guess YouTube reviewers are likely to frame their analysis to agree with the mainstream, but probably still more about general acclaim than box office success.
Episodes 7,8, and 9 make the prequel trilogy look like The Godfather. That’s what people don’t like.
If I were your wife, I would divorce you. I hate people interrupting my viewing. Or talking when I am watching.
I love this. Other crimes against the audience:
- Characters doing shit completely incongruent with their established personalities.
- Characters that don't have personalities in the first place because they're merely plot vehicles (these two do not apply to abstract films).
- Scenes that deliver only exposition. Every fucking scene should have an idea beyond exposition, if not twenty! Entertain us, tell us something about the environment, set up a joke, show off a cool camera filter, mislead us, whatever. Just make use of the second-most-fundamental unit of cinematic grammar.
- Bad lighting, though I'm happy to report this is rarely a problem anymore. I've become obsessed with lighting: movie crews mostly crush this nowadays, and so do most television crews. Last night I was watching American Psycho and marveling at the way that the cinematographer and lighting team often created three distinctive regions of light on each actor's faces in a way that amplified their expressions, looked beautiful, and appeared natural (or if not natural, at least well-suited for the scene).
To give you some idea of where I'm coming from, a few movies I consider perfect: "Raising Arizona", "Alien", "Kill Bill", "Chungking Express" and "The Teacher's Lounge".
I'm checking out the two I haven't seen yet!
Completely agree on red letter media. I'm always baffled when people make any argument that the prequels were good. It is literally impossible to withstand that withering critique and it is hilarious that those epic takedowns function better as entertainment than their subject matter.
There's nothing strange about thinking highly of total recall or terminator 2, the conventional wisdom is that those films are great.
Agreed on Total Recall. One of my "instant mood elevator" films. Big Trouble in Little China would be another.
Glad to hear about the memoir. Cellini wrote, "All men of any condition who have done something of special worth should write the story of their lives, but they should not begin such a fine undertaking until they have passed the age of forty". You make the age cut?
Every Frame a Painting is updating again—they just posted a lovely short film the other day, along with an animatic / director's commentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfz6tj_Ep1E&t=6s
oooh shiiiiiiit!
"None of the above even matters, because Natalie’s useless security detail chatting it up in the room next door still managed to 'hear' the worms slither in and rushed in just in time to save her."
The Jedi to whom I assume you're referring--whom the previous films have already definitively established have quasi-psychic abilities--have explicit dialogue about "sens[ing]" the danger, not hearing the dumb killer worms crashing about while Yakety Sax plays in the background.
The prequel trilogy is a target-rich enough environment that we don't need to be inventing criticisms contradicted by the explicit text of the dialogue.
You're right! They "sensed" the worms rather than "heard" them. I regret the error and have corrected it.
try andor if you haven't, it's star wars written by plot nitpickers
Andor is so beautiful and the first SW thing that feels like it honestly takes place in a massive galaxy. I hope the entirety of season 2 is just the endless petty frustrations of empire and subject alike
1. Lots of movies have plot holes, plot holes so gaping as to insult my intelligence. "No Country For Old Men" was a critically-acclaimed howler.
2. I didn't know that you were married.
I love being married: https://www.ymeskhout.com/p/i-got-married
Enjoy, congratulations!
I think 90% of movie analysis is post hoc justification invented after seeing how it did in theaters. Show me the person who can reliably predict how well a movie will do *before* it releases, and I'll believe that this person actually understands movies.
I'm confused by this. The movie analysis I'm describing has nothing to do with predicting a movie's profitability. Film nerds are very used to adoring obscure oeuvres that have bled money.
Oh, someone explaining why they *personally* like or dislike it is totally different.
I think "post-hoc justification" explains a lot of film analysis, but it's usually a post-hoc justification of vibes and critical acclaim rather than box office success.
I'd estimate that, more often than not, a critic/reviewer watches a film, subconsciously gives it a rating based on vibes, or existing acclaim, and then uses their expertise to interpret the film's traits in positive or negative ways. e.g. dialogue is "intelligent" or "pretentious", or a shot is an "homage to", or "derivative of", Kurosawa, depending on whether the reviewer liked it or not.
"This is why that film you like is so good!" or the inverse, is an incredibly popular genre of YouTube video, so I guess YouTube reviewers are likely to frame their analysis to agree with the mainstream, but probably still more about general acclaim than box office success.