Rob Tomlin
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2000
- Messages
- 4,506
I agree with this as well. I thought he was incredible in The Score.Toy Story said:Quote:
I agree with this as well. I thought he was incredible in The Score.Toy Story said:Quote:
He also has this habbit of shooting a room in such a way that is seems the viewer is peering into a cube. Ah, it's hard to explain. It is as if the camera took the place of one of the walls.It's another of his trademarks to use a very wide lens (like fisheye) so that you see much more to the sides than you normally would. The effect is "tunnel-like", and of course you often see the distortion on the straight lines to the side of frame (they are curved).
I can agree that the acting itself is not documentary in style, but Kubrick still maintains that distance from the subject. I think the above mentioned style gives the appearance of looking into a diorama. It's fake, but you are much more aware of being an observer than you normally are. And normally such a distance occurs in documentaries which are intentionally removed from their subjects (its the nature of a doc.).
Normally a film tries to ENGAGE you so that you do feel as though you are there with the characters. But because documentaries do not follow a NARRATIVE structure (when they do they become less honest as a doc), you are detached rather than engaged, even though you often can see that the FILMMAKER WAS ENGAGED. The filmmaker's presence is more obviously known with a doc.
And since Kubrick makes his presence more known by obviously removing us from the narrative subjects, it ends up playing like a doc.
Back to the Future
The Blues Brothers
Ah yes definately! I can't believe I didn't think of these two.
This is a great point! IMO, for a film to be considered the greatest film in a particular timeframe it has to be able to reach the majority of it's audience as to the full story it was trying to convey.so, a film cannot be great unless the director spells everything out for you? i wholeheartedly disagree. i believe a work of art, in any medium, must stand on its own, without preconceived notions of how to convey its message. thats like saying that 2001: A Space Odyssey could be considered the great scifi movie of all time if only that pesky kubrick would have used more dialog and explained what happened at the end.
the main focus/message of the film can't be lost to the majority of the audience, otherwise, the goal of the director to tell his/her story is a failure.film is a different medium. sometimes, telling the story is not the only objective! that is why, IMHO, film is the greatest art form. imagery, sound, story, they all play together.
is 2001: A Space Odyssey a failure?
is Apocalypse Now a failure?
failure - your word, not mine.
Your question not mine.It is a question you raised by claiming (1) that AN did not convey its meaning to the majority of audience members and (2) that any film that did not convey its meaning in total was a directorial failure.
Now, if you want to continue your debate of my words then let's do so away from this thread which is about Apocalypse Now being the greatest film from the last 25 years.
i believe that is EXACTLY what our debate is about. You said it you feel that it is not based on some criteria. I am questioning your criteria. I was under this illusion that a discussion forum was all about debating words.
robert, you seem to come down in threads with an authoritative hammer. this is fine in instances of moderation, but i you are overreacting in this case.