A Few Words About A few words about...™ Dr. Zhivago -- in Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[benbess]

I finally finished Doctor Zhivago. I still think it's a wonderful, touching, thought-provoking film, and a terrific blu-ray.


I liked it as much as the first time I saw it.


That ruined frozen house is quite poetic.

 

[marsnkc]

Originally Posted by benbess /forum/thread/299956/a-few-words-about-dr-zhivago-in-blu-ray/90#post_3697767

 

[benbess]

Originally Posted by marsnkc

marsnkc: what a vivid nightmare!! I first thought couldn't ever happen, but you know, it just could....yikes...

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by marsnkc

I'm sorry, but why would fast cutting equal a bad movie? I think it's great that audiences don't need many long scenes to receive the same information a short quick cut scene can. Fast cutting and shaky cam definitely improves the pacing, as the car chase in The French Connection already proved, and that movie is forty years old.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst I'm sorry, but why would fast cutting equal a bad movie? I think it's great that audiences don't need many long scenes to receive the same information a short quick cut scene can. Fast cutting and shaky cam definitely improves the pacing, as the car chase in The French Connection already proved, and that movie is forty years old.

Fast cutting when appropriate CAN improve the pace of a movie. However if you compare say a fight scene in a Bourne movie, with the airplane fight in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Raiders fight is vastly more compelling, and its not cut at a rapid fire pace. Spielberg often cuts back to wide shots so you can see the geography and tell what’s happening. He also uses cameras on tripods or dollies so the image is stable. Frankly I find the use of shaky cam to be for the most part, just laziness on the part of filmmakers to day. Who care if the action cuts together if you can't really tell whats going on? Yes the French Connection car chase is cut fairly rapidly, but not anything like action films today, And in that film you can always tell what is happening. The same can not be said of many action films today. Doug

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce Fast cutting when appropriate CAN improve the pace of a movie. However if you compare say a fight scene in a Bourne movie, with the airplane fight in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Raiders fight is vastly more compelling, and its not cut at a rapid fire pace. Spielberg often cuts back to wide shots so you can see the geography and tell what’s happening. He also uses cameras on tripods or dollies so the image is stable. Frankly I find the use of shaky cam to be for the most part, just laziness on the part of filmmakers to day. Who care if the action cuts together if you can't really tell whats going on? Yes the French Connection car chase is cut fairly rapidly, but not anything like action films today, And in that film you can always tell what is happening. The same can not be said of many action films today. Doug

I don't think that Paul Greengrass made the Bourne movies to make sure everything was visible perfectly. To get the chaos of a car chase across, shaky cameras using close-ups do a much better job than constantly cutting back to a full shot. Also, Spielberg made Raiders a lot more static than the regular movies of that time, to hark back to the older serials. He did the same thing with Indy 4, while Saving Private Ryan and War of the Worlds used shaky cameras. It's just Greengrass' style.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Case in point: on the Bourne Supremacy special features there's a moment when Damon wonders if Greengrass caught on camera the seriousness of the wound of Jason Bourne when they;re walking through the stores before the final car chase. Greengrass tells him that while he didn't specifically capture Damon's hand checking his wound/blood loss when he touches his leg, he did capture Damon from mid-stomach and higher, and it's enough information that the audience knows he's checking his leg wound. I tend to agree here. It works for Greengrass. For some others contemporary filmmakers... I don't know if they get it in the same way.

 

[marsnkc]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst




I'm sorry, but why would fast cutting equal a bad movie? I think it's great that audiences don't need many long scenes to receive the same information a short quick cut scene can. Fast cutting and shaky cam definitely improves the pacing, as the car chase in The French Connection already proved, and that movie is forty years old.

Brian-


I put a winking smiley at the end of my post to indicate that I was poking a little fun at the 'fast' cutting. As I said, I love the series but, for my money, there's fast cutting and there's fast(er) cutting (!!!) and Greengrass and/or his cutter take(s) it to extremes. I love globe-trotting movies but wonder why, having spent a fortune going to these exotic places (as the Bourne films do and Quantum of Solace did for its opening car chase) we get to see them in strobe. They may as well have stayed home and filmed them against a green screen (for all we'd know and) for all the time one gets to drink in the scenery, which we get to do beautifully in The Bourne Identity. If scenery wasn't an important aspect, why bother going to these places?


My next movie to watch will be 'The French Connection' to remind me of the famous chase. But I saw Ronin recently and the chases in that were not edited using a shredder. Despite this (or because of this) they produce an excitement and sense of danger that's totally lacking in QOS. Even 'slower' is the chase in Bullitt, the one that wrote the blueprint. Ironically, the most exciting parts of that occur when the baddy loses sight of McQueen, then see him in his rear-view mirror sneaking up behind him, and when the baddy slaps on his seat belt, all done in 'real time'. The tension achieved by those moments is more exciting than the chase itself, which ain't bad, of course


As to the shaky camera, that, like the kamikazi cutting, gets old (and annoying) real quick. Whatever about using a shaky camera (it saves time and money of course by cutting down on set-ups) during an action scene, what's the point when the scene involves two people sitting down and talking (Bourne with the girl's brother)? That just takes me out of the moment and makes me think that it was either filmed on a yacht during a storm or the cameraman was drunk!


Fast cutting doesn't 'equal a bad movie'. If I thought they were bad I wouldn't have bought them on DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-ray. I think they're fabulous but could have been even better if they'd eased up on the cutting and shaky camera. I just want a shot to last longer than a hundredth of a second!

 

[JohnMor]

Of couse, frequently with quick cutting you aren't getting "the same information." You're merely getting the basic gist, but none of the details that separate, say, a haiku from a ballad. Lovers meet, lovers lose each other, lovers meet again. Same premise in a million movies, but it's the character details that differentiate them, and that's what we're starting to lose a lot of with so much quick-cutting and shorthand. Sometimes I wonder why they even want to make some movies. We've seen all the plots before, so it's the character and story detail that makes the difference, but they don't allow us to savor those anymore. We get the same calories if we wolf our food and don't taste anything, so isn't it better sometimes to take a little time and actually taste the flavors in the meal?

 

[marsnkc]

Originally Posted by JohnMor


PS: As I said before, I'm a huge Bourne and Bond fan, and any criticisms I have are from a sincere desire for them to have taken it a little slower and allowed us to 'savor' their riches a bit more. Let's have a scene lasting more than two or three frames!

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst




I don't think that Paul Greengrass made the Bourne movies to make sure everything was visible perfectly. To get the chaos of a car chase across, shaky cameras using close-ups do a much better job than constantly cutting back to a full shot. Also, Spielberg made Raiders a lot more static than the regular movies of that time, to hark back to the older serials. He did the same thing with Indy 4, while Saving Private Ryan and War of the Worlds used shaky cameras. It's just Greengrass' style.

I know he shot it that way on purpose, and I'm not particularly enamored with that style of film making. Raiders was NOT cut "slowly" to emulate some older style. The intent on Raiders was never to emulate the actual cinematography or editing style of the old serials.


On Ryan the shaky cam was used very effectively to give the effect of news reel cameras. I was never confused about what was going on in that film.


Doug

 

[owen35]

It's also important to note that RD was also a victim of a great film released at the wrong time. Lean's overly romantic look at a woman's budding sexuality ran smack into the gritty, "realistic" films of that time including Five Easy Pieces, Mash, Midnight Cowboy, Easy Rider, etc., And then there were the critics who savaged both Lean and the film at the time. The infamous quote from Richard Schickel (who now denies saying it) at the Algonquin Hotel asking Lean "Can you please explain how the man who directed Brief Encounter could have directed this load of shit you call Ryan's Daughter?" only proves their disdain for this film at the time.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

You'll find that DL's "epics" were small, very personal story, wrapped within earth-shaking events.
Many people didn't come to like Ryan, as they didn't understand what it was. He felt that with that film, the problem could have been solved with the addition of a single piece of dialogue: "Rosie, you're lookin' at the world through rose-colored glasses."

Can't wait for it to arrive on Blu. Another brilliant film.

No one has ever done it better.

 

[24fpssean]

I love Lean's reverse of the Lawrence match cut in Ryan's Daughter, with the match flaring up after a sunset. RD's score really sets my teeth on edge, but there isn't much of it in the film. Something more lush and Irish would have been wonderful, or a simple Celtic tune, but the circus music that Jarre composed really does leave me astounded. In spite of that, I think RD contains Lean's most amazing visual poetry, even out-doing Lawrence in certain areas. Sarah Miles is enchanting and I've never had a problem with Robert Mitchum or Christopher Jones; Lean gives them their due, mapping out meticulously the psychological reasons for why they do what they do, only Passage and Lawrence come close. And Brief Encounter!


Saw RD at the Academy in 70 a few years ago and it was like eye-wash. Just breathtaking. I've a feeling Warners will do it justice on blu.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I moved the discussion on animal cruelty that was taking place in this thread to it's own thread over in the Movies (Theatrical) forum.


That discussion--in its entirety--can be found HERE.

 

[marsnkc]

Originally Posted by 24fpssean


Owen's comment about the timing of RD is interesting. Never thought of that. However, I have to agree with many that, despite RAH's comments, the story is too 'small' for such epic treatment. If he'd approached it a la Brief Encounter it might have elicited a completely different reaction. I feel as if there's a disconnect between the 'epic' part - the storm etc. - and more intimate one.


Coming from the 'oul sod myself, what sets my teeth on edge are the exaggerated Irish accents, the biggest offenders being the otherwise incomparable Trevor Howard (I wonder how Guinness, Lean's first choice, would have fared?) and, to a lesser degree, Leo Kern and Sarah Miles. Unless actors are completely comfortable with accents they tend get very self-conscious and play the accent at the expense of the role. Unfortunately, some believe it adds to their performance when it actually detracts from it. I think each would have been better had it not been for this additional hurdle. I'm not aware of any other movies where these actors used accents other than their own. It's amazing (or maybe not, since so many American vowel and 'R' sounds are fairly similar to the Irish) how well Mitchum pulls it off. Christopher Jones was dubbed.


Regarding Zhivago: A mention of Bergman in one of your posts reminded me of a still from a scene (or a clip on TV - not sure) that I saw a hundred years ago. It depicts a raped woman 'succumbing' to the perpetrator. You see her hands go from fighting him off to finally embracing him, which of course is what Lean 'borrows' from for Zhivago. It's like a dream to me that it's from an earlier Bergman film. If so, do you know which one? (Lean, like every great artist, 'borrowed' from others. He made no bones about admitting that (if memory serves!) the parade of recruits that the 'younger' Guinness joins at the outbreak of war was inspired by/stolen from 'The Big Parade').

 

[24fpssean]

Ha! No, I'm done with Howards End. I did show it to one other person at the studio, on a plasma with a PS3, skipping down to the most offending sequences. He turned away immediately and said, "Bad encode. Yuck."


I agree about RD, it's a small story, blown up too large. Extraordinary just the same, but I can completely understand why critics gave it such lacerating reviews. But to call Lean out on it? Who the hell were Schickel and Kael anyway? Had they ever made a movie? Two foul-mouthed New York critics who assumed they were intelligent?

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by 24fpssean Ahhhhh. The life of a critic.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by 24fpssean
Who the hell were Schickel and Kael anyway? Had they ever made a movie? Two foul-mouthed New York critics who assumed they were intelligent?

Schickle has actually written and directed 34 films. They are all documentaries about filmmaking and filmmakers, but they are films none the less which is no small achievement.


However your point is well taken.


Doug

 

[24fpssean]

Good for Schickle. I'll look for reviews of his films.

 

[marsnkc]

Originally Posted by 24fpssean
Who the hell were Schickel and Kael anyway? Had they ever made a movie? Two foul-mouthed New York critics who assumed they were intelligent?

To be fair to Schickel and Kael, I've always read their careless criticism as a back-handed compliment to the man who'd made a string of masterpieces going back to the '40s, saying something like 'how could the man who made Great Expectations, Brief Encounter, Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia etc. 'end up' making RD? (I've said the same thing about Billy Wilder and others, wondering how such masters could turn around and make such and such and not see it as being bad. Sometimes the most savagely criticized movies are the directors' own favorites). I think Schickel also admitted later that they'd been drinking for some time before Sir David made his entrance, so there was some context. I imagine also that the critics were more shocked by Lean's reaction than he was by their comments. He was a very sensitive man, as all great artists are. You have to admit that the movie was not universally admired. We have our own problems with it.

The biggest 'problem' for Lean was that he made 'Lawrence' when he did. For me, it's the greatest film ever made and everything he did afterwards suffered by comparison. How do you 'top' a movie like that? I'm still not crazy about Zhivago or RD but have grown to admire 'Passage' more with each successive viewing.