Reply to Topic
Technically speeking, but even from the point of view of content, of courage, of sharpness, it is almost imposible to compare a film made in recent years to a film of half a century ago.it's only logical, think about it: the filmmakers of today are artists who have learned from all the greats of the past, so they should take the best out of the best and refine it. moreover, cinema is a very technical art. In other words, the form of writing a book, for example, has not changed for thousands of years. All that happens is a man with a pen and a page. Music, too, since they began to combine words with melody, there was no technological improvement that is change the industry. But with cinema it's not like that. A film from even 20 years ago will be completely different from a 2018 film. In terms of photography, acting, music integration and so on ... I'm not even talking about CGI, but just in terms of location and boundaries of what a creator can do with a camera.. It has a lot to do with technology, unlike the rest of the arts. Take a movie from the 1950s or 1960s. Almost all of them, you can notice their forgery. Because they're made of sticks and cardboard, they were made out of sets.
but also in terms of content. In the mirror of history, the cinema of the 20th century will be referred to as 'literary cinema'. In the sense that he uses cinema as if it was literature, only diffrence its being filmed. the truth is that the first filmmakers did'nt know what to do with this great art. one that combines all the great arts: music, image, story ... and ... time! (Cinema is unique in how he absorbs time) In a sense cinema is the art that will finish all the arts. Why write a story if you can add music to it? Why draw a painting if you can make a story out of it? there has been a big revolution in filmmaking over the last decade. There is an attempt to make the cinema more musical than literary. More experiential than interpretive. More mathematical than humane. Above all; To create a certain concept around the narrative, around the time of the narrative, how it is interpreted in the story and with the music ... to reach some sort of midpoint between story-music-image-and-time. If you go too far into one element you lose everything. Films like Ghost Sotry, Under the Skin, Dunkirk, Nymphomaniac, Enemy (2013), memento. they Try to play more on a conscious continuum than about a story within a life.
The thing is that some anonymous film lover, when he set to watch the classics, he (even at subconscious level) adopts a point of view that adores, almost automatically. Because the reason people do what they do is almost always out of a desire to adopt a particular identity. And what movie lover would say he did not like Citizen Kane? While the films that have been coming out in recent years he's looking with contemptuous eyes.. But the truth is that in every year cinema is getting better and better.
sorry for the english.
but also in terms of content. In the mirror of history, the cinema of the 20th century will be referred to as 'literary cinema'. In the sense that he uses cinema as if it was literature, only diffrence its being filmed. the truth is that the first filmmakers did'nt know what to do with this great art. one that combines all the great arts: music, image, story ... and ... time! (Cinema is unique in how he absorbs time) In a sense cinema is the art that will finish all the arts. Why write a story if you can add music to it? Why draw a painting if you can make a story out of it? there has been a big revolution in filmmaking over the last decade. There is an attempt to make the cinema more musical than literary. More experiential than interpretive. More mathematical than humane. Above all; To create a certain concept around the narrative, around the time of the narrative, how it is interpreted in the story and with the music ... to reach some sort of midpoint between story-music-image-and-time. If you go too far into one element you lose everything. Films like Ghost Sotry, Under the Skin, Dunkirk, Nymphomaniac, Enemy (2013), memento. they Try to play more on a conscious continuum than about a story within a life.
The thing is that some anonymous film lover, when he set to watch the classics, he (even at subconscious level) adopts a point of view that adores, almost automatically. Because the reason people do what they do is almost always out of a desire to adopt a particular identity. And what movie lover would say he did not like Citizen Kane? While the films that have been coming out in recent years he's looking with contemptuous eyes.. But the truth is that in every year cinema is getting better and better.
sorry for the english.
I like Will Ferrill in the few comedies I've seen of his: Elf, Blades of Glory, Anchorman.
I take it you don't like In Bruges either?