I found everything you said really fascinating.
Thank you, that was a really nice thing to say.
First, even though I agree with the importance of the story/script, one just have to look at 12 angry mens or any tarentino movie and realise that words CAN make a movie but I still think that the visuals is one of the things that differ theater to movies. You just have to see a movie like the russian ark. It has no story and everything is in the image but it is still a viable movie.
I think you have good insight. I'm not saying that writing is the most important thing in all films. All you need to make a film is a camera. You don't need a script, and a movie doesn't have to tell a story or really say anything. Cinema can be abstract and just capture beauty without words or a message. Images communicate more than words, and a film is typically 60 images per second. So visually it's an incredibly powerful medium for art. But I just mean in general, most movies tell a story and have a script. Cinema is an extraordinary medium of art because it can encompass so many artistic mediums. Paintings, acting, music, theater, and countless other forms of art can be involved in making a movie. I can't think of any form of art that can encompass so many different mediums of art. But even a movie with no story where everything is just images and visual storytelling, it is still written. Before they go out with cameras they sit in rooms and write down ideas about what they want to film. The actual shooting of a movie can take weeks or months, but the writing process can take years. Can you shoot a great film with a terrible script? No, but you can tell a great story with terrible cinematography and lousy acting. On the surface everything can look beautiful, but if there is no substance deeper, then there will be nothing to inspire. Anyone can go and get an expensive camera, and pay talented experts in studios to polish up the visual presentation of a movie, but to capture something meaningful on camera, something truly moving, you have to first ask yourself why you are filming and what you are going to film. If the answers you find to those two questions aren't profound, then neither will your picture be profound. Because life itself is a spiritual experience, and nothing soulless can achieve true beauty.
And how many times have you heard, "The book was so much better than the movie." Take Lord of the Rings for example. The sets they built, the elaborate costumes, the high production value, and it pales in comparison to the books.
Second, my favorite Wong Kar-wai movie is fallen angel because of the visuals. Wong Kar-wai, especially in the 90's, had a technique i've rarely seen of <<lagging>> during slowmotions.
This technique is seen in fallen angels, ITM4L, 2046 and others but is most present in chungking express. It was the first time I realised that movies could be artistic and not just entertainement. It was something I have never seen before and it seemed so different than anything else. Also, in fallen angel the very short lenses give a nice mood to the movie and in ITM4L the color and music make it so beautiful. So I strongly believe that wong kar-wai cinema is very visual.
I vaguely recall hearing this slow motion discussed by other filmmakers. I think they said it had to do with reducing the frame rate. I'll try to watch Chungking Express soon, after Yi Yi. I got a little distracted with Jennifer Lawrence, and I need to catch up on some Westerns too.
I definitely agree that Wong Kar-Wai is very visual. He experiments with cinematography and that's always exciting to see. For me, realising that cinema was art was pretty gradual. I've always watched a lot of movies, ever since I was a kid. And I started getting interested in art gradually. I won awards for acting in a play and drawing when I was 14, and every year in high-school after that I continued entering regional art competitions and winning. I just loved drawing, but I don't think I had a clear concept of art until I was at least 19. Back then I wasn't drawing because I wanted to make art. I was just drawing because I wanted to draw. It wasn't very long ago that I started getting particularly interested in arthouse movies. Andrei Tarkovsky was the first great artistic filmmaker that made me want to pursue art films specifically. I struggled at first because I found a lot of artistic movies boring, but I could sense that there was something incredible that took time to learn to appreciate. I strove to find that, and with every art film I watched I could feel myself expanding. The first time a Marvel movie came out that I didn't watch was very exciting. Gradually my enjoyment of those kinds of movies was diminishing. I would often watch them anyway hoping they would be entertaining even though I knew they were going to be terrible. And I was disappointed so many times, but kept going back. Finally I was able to say to myself, "I'm done with them. I'm just not going to watch the next one." And I really had to fight the urge to watch it. But it felt like getting over a hurdle. I felt finally free from that garbage. It's a great relief to no longer be tempted to watch these terrible new Hollywood movies that keep coming out, like the recent Star Wars movies. When I watched Tarkovsky's Stalker, the first of his movies I saw, I had never been so captivated by opening credits before. While the opening credits were coming up there was such a fascinating scene unfolding in the background. Before that I'd always been bored by the opening credits. Like some sweeping landscape from a helicopter view of nothing exceptionally beautiful, just some trees and a lake, or a town, or something boring and bland. When I was a kid we would always fast forward through the opening credits (VHS back then). Now, the older I get, the more I learn, and the more I watch movies that push boundaries and expand my mind, the more and more excited I get about cinema. It's a never ending journey of excitement, growth, and exploration. I can't wait to discover what's next.
Someday I would like to make a truly great masterpiece of art that will be remembered after I'm gone. But art alone is not profound enough to devote myself entirely to. I can live with never creating a great artistic masterpiece, but I can't live without being devoted to something infinitely greater. Great art can only be great by pointing towards something greater. When another person sees art that reflects that, then they feel inspired. Without that, it can never be great art. Most people settle for entertainment, and I guess I can't blame them. But it is sad.
For Gaspar Noé, i've never seen one of his movies because they are hardcore and I hate hardcore. I was afraid of toy story 2 until I was 12 so maybe I will not start by the Noé's movie. Even though I do not watch his movie, I knew him via a Utube channel that interview mostly french; but not just; directors. The <<show>> consist in directors in a video club that pick movies that were important for them. I will put the video but it is in french. Don't worry, I will list the movies he picked.
By "hardcore" I assume you're referring to sex and nudity? Or are you also referring to horror and violence?
-prava d'orchestra (fellini)
-the towering inferno (John Guillermin) see 10x
-wake in fright ( ted kotcheff)
-La maman et la putain (jean Eustache)
-Le plein de super (Alain Cavalier)
-Seul contre tous (he filmed it in 6 weeks with a 3 page script)
-Vibroboy (jan kounen)
-La haine (matthieu kassowitz)
-Salň o le centoventi giornate di Sodoma (Pier Paolo Pasolini)
-Taxi driver
-2001 ( his personnal favorite)
-any dario argento movies
-4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days (Christian Mangu) his favorite horror movie of the last decade
-any Harmony Korine movie (dude who did springbreakers) it's his BFF
Thanks for listing them. It was hard to follow everything. I put English subtitles on, and I can understand a little French, but he talked so fast I missed a lot of what he was saying. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days sounded really interesting. I have La Haine, but haven't watched it yet. I'm a big fan of Salo, that movie is brutal and Pasollini is a cinematic wizard. I don't know how I feel about The Towering Inferno. I keep hearing about it, but it also doesn't really look like a great movie. I dunno, I may get around to watching it someday, but it's not high on my list and more movies get added faster than I can watch them. So movies like that just get pushed down and down until I forget about them completely. I'm also not a fan of Dario Argento. That whole sort of school of Italian horror movies would be great if they had better acting. The only Dario Argento movies I liked were Deep Red and Two Evil Eyes.
I was happy to hear Noe praise Spring Breakers. It's funny to me that it's thought of as a controversial movie because some people think it's great and other people don't like it. Whenever I hear great filmmakers like Noe talk about it, it's always praised.
I love it when actors and filmmakers do this kind of thing, where they just discuss films they like or go into a movie store and talk about movies off the shelf.
Have you seen any of Yasujiro Ozu's films? Tokyo Story really captivated me with the way the camera was positioned looking down hallways while characters walked in and out of the shot.