Re: Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DavidPla
This is where we STRONGLY disagree. And no, I don't think Smith does this as a creative choice. I think he simply doesn't have a visual style or sense as a director.
|
I think the films show otherwise;
Jay & Silent Bob didn't look like a Kevin Smith movie because the framing and lighting were used to parody Hollywood and the films referenced.
Jersey Girl is as slick and sophisticated as any chick flick out there, because it was a completely different film from his usual repertoire.
Clerks II returned to his familar genre, and was shot accordingly. There is a purpose to his static framing; it holds the viewer in a particular place and time so that he or she feels like she's an extra member of the conversation. His movie are about conversations, not action.
Quote:
| There's a difference between simple (Juno) and simplistic (Clerks II). If they work just as well on stage as plays then they shouldn't be films. |
Except that film offers a completely different audience and experience than the stage. Smith's films are like productions with the ideal casts as seen from front row center.
Juno is a delightful, equally dialog-driven experience. But the visual flourishes are just that, flourishes. They give the film an extra something special, but neither drive the film nor give the film its power.
Quote:
| Films ARE a visual medium and a great director utilizes everything a film can offer; dialogue, music, performance and visuals. The camera should work as a character, IMO, and not stay out of the way which is what separates it from simply being a play where the audience chooses what to look at. |
The role of the camera varies dramatically from film to film. The framing for
Clerks, which features static people living static lives, would not work for "The West Wing", which features dynamic people living in fast foward. The characters in most Smith movies aren't going anywhere, or doing anything but sitting around. The camerawork mirrors that.
Quote:
| But what separates him from say Quentin Tarantino who has his own voice in dialogue and character is that Tarantino also has an amazing visual sense and style to his films. |
Tarantino's work is a constant mashup of influences and montage. His work is absolutely distinctive, but he's carrying on his shoulders the burden of his cinematic heritage. Someone who loves the same thing he loves could instantly tell you what inspired what scenes and what shot choices.
By contrast, Smith has none of that baggage. He's knowledgable about cinema, but he's doing his own thing.
Perhaps I feel so strongly about it because I so dislike what MTV has done to film. I would argue, for instance, that Tony Scott's visual style is a far graver crime against cinema than anything with Kevin Smith's name attached to it.
I'll cite Aaron Sorkin and "A Few Good Men," as my example.
