Spielberg. The formula. Busted.

I tend to not enjoy very old classics as much because I am such a visual person, and I feel like I'm watching a play, not a movie. That's not to say I don't appreciate a play for what it is, or good acting and story. I do. But I don't appreciate them as much cinematically because many of them lack what I most enjoy about cinema - the visual aspect (I KNOW they have it and many pioneed styles, effects, etc.) But there's no denying they are not as visually gripping with as newer movies with all of the newer visual techniques.

But I also don't like new films that over-do it in the visual department, lack character/story/creativity etc.

I enjoy a lot of what comes out of Hollywood. It's easy to focus on the bad, but what about everything coming out by Nolan, Abrams, Coen Brothers, etc. There's been plenty of great, highly entertaining and quality productions coming out.

I do HATE when people come out of Transformers 3 and rave about how good it is. I saw that with a group of 10 people. I thought it was a foregone conclusion that the movie was vapid, boring, and just sucked. I was shocked when people I was with actually liked it. In fact, only one friend agreed with me. Sad day.
 
> I tend to not enjoy very old classics as much because I am such a visual person, and I feel like I'm watching a play, not a movie

Seriously? Citizen Kane? HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha....
 
Sounds like somebody doesn't like mise-en-scéne. I for one favor it, especially over cutting to singles, if the composition allows. I like seeing people talk and react in the same shot, then move for CU's for really important delivery.
 
Pookie said:
Yep. Humanity is Dead.
Click to expand...

I begrudgingly agree, but leave hope that there could be a rebirth... or remake? Classics are called that for a reason throw out all preconceived notions and go into them with an open mind, the good ones will not disappoint. Case and point the killing loved it, though there is two versions and the Regan version is very interesting if only because you can watch a future president in a gangster/heist flick. Anyone who wants to get into this industry and does not know the past of it is really missing out, not saying you have to it's just always good to know the past of any industry you are trying to get into or be a part of.
 
Perhaps the the greatest Spielberg Closeup is the final shot of "E.T." No dolly in, but plenty of smoke and interactive lighting, plus of course the John Williams score. The entire narrative thrust of the emotional growth of this little boy, whose father has abandoned the family and now this 10-year old has found maturity in rescuing another lost creature, all of it plays out in the closeup on Henry Thomas' face.

Amazingly, the shot is nearly identical to the final shot in "Starman," a film from the same year but a different studio (Columbia, which had turned doen the chance to make E.T. because it was too similar to Starman which was already in the works). The end of that film is again a closeup on the human companion watching the alien leave, this time Karen Allen. Interactive lighting again and a bit of camera motion (both to emulate subtly the departure of the space ship) along with a far quieter but haunting score, this time by the director himself. Again the emotional journey of the entire film is played out on the character's face in a relatively simple closeup. Directorially, it is the filmmaker stepping back and saying to the actor, "You've been through it. Just be the moment."

And it is not like this has not been done before. Greta Garbo was famous for her silent gazes. Anna Karenina is a famous example and contains perhaps the prototypical Spielberg Closeup. That we as the audience read so much into these shots is human nature. Actually beyond human and into sentient beings, as shown in the Classical Conditioning experiments of Ivan Pavlov, aka "Pavlov's Dog."

In other words, there's nothing new here. Spielberg just does it well.
 
filmguy123 said:
I tend to not enjoy very old classics as much because I am such a visual person, and I feel like I'm watching a play, not a movie. That's not to say I don't appreciate a play for what it is, or good acting and story. I do. But I don't appreciate them as much cinematically because many of them lack what I most enjoy about cinema - the visual aspect (I KNOW they have it and many pioneed styles, effects, etc.) But there's no denying they are not as visually gripping with as newer movies with all of the newer visual techniques.

But I also don't like new films that over-do it in the visual department, lack character/story/creativity etc.

I enjoy a lot of what comes out of Hollywood. It's easy to focus on the bad, but what about everything coming out by Nolan, Abrams, Coen Brothers, etc. There's been plenty of great, highly entertaining and quality productions coming out.

I do HATE when people come out of Transformers 3 and rave about how good it is. I saw that with a group of 10 people. I thought it was a foregone conclusion that the movie was vapid, boring, and just sucked. I was shocked when people I was with actually liked it. In fact, only one friend agreed with me. Sad day.
Click to expand...

You need to watch the classics in context. How in the world could you compare Eraserhead to Inception, for example. Think about the period, the problems, the cultures and traditions of the time - teleport yourself back to that period and then watch.

In any case, the Coen's are really Hollywood rebels. They tend not to follow the Hollywood cultures and standards, for example: They edit many of their own things, which is hardly ever done by big-name directors.

j said:
> I tend to not enjoy very old classics as much because I am such a visual person, and I feel like I'm watching a play, not a movie

Seriously? Citizen Kane? HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha....
Click to expand...

I was thinking the exact same thing. How's that for some visual satisfaction (and especially so in-context).

S. Matthews said:
Anyone who wants to get into this industry and does not know the past of it is really missing out, not saying you have to it's just always good to know the past of any industry you are trying to get into or be a part of.
Click to expand...

Once again, I find that I was thinking the exact same thing. Way too many filmmakers nowadays don't know their classics, and show a complete lack of respect towards them. Wes Anderson is known to have a vast knowledge of the older stuff - and that's one of the many reasons his a fantastic filmmaker.
 
There are many older films with cinematography that appears innovative and fresh even today. The Cainet of Dr. Calgari, The Third Man, Night of the Hunter, The Conformist.These movies are incredibly fresh.

If you are just talking action movies (you did refernce Transformers) then I suggest you watch the subway/car chase from The French Connection.

Saying that old movies don't do it for you means that you're watching the wrong old movies.
 
kylevant said:
You need to watch the classics in context. How in the world could you compare Eraserhead to Inception, for example. Think about the period, the problems, the cultures and traditions of the time - teleport yourself back to that period and then watch.
Click to expand...

I've never been a big fan of Citizen Kane, particularly because the only defense I've ever heard for it being long, slow, and kinda boring is that "But it was revolutionary for its time!" If a story doesn't hold up, it doesn't hold up. I feel no obligation to sit through All Quiet on the Western Front when I could be rewatching His Girl Friday, Mr Smith Goes to Washington or On the Waterfront, none of which require me to undergo some bulls..t mind game in order to enjoy or appreciate.

I agree that any filmmaker who wants to create true cinema should have at least a basic understanding of the history of cinema (and I'm not talking about Bazin and Tarkovsky), but I don't agree because a film was revolutionary 70 years ago, that it must be worshipped and enjoyed today.

-JMT

As a side-note, the actual story of CK holds up quite well, but the delivery is so 1940's. :banned:
 
The title of this thread makes no sense. Is consistent, appropriate use of a proven effective visual storytelling technique really a "formula"? And does an expose' admiring its use and the man using it, really make it "busted"? Like now suddenly Spielberg has been revealed to be a sham filmmaker or something?
 
That was weak. Enjoyable to see some Steve Montage, but a weak analysis no less. Ohhhh a Dolly shot ... oohh it pushes in. Look at the face !

It is basic visual language.
 
Yes, but at the same time probably the collection of reaction shots I've seen. Simple, basic, clear, effective.
 
Mitch Gross said:
There are many older films with cinematography that appears innovative and fresh even today. The Cainet of Dr. Calgari, The Third Man, Night of the Hunter, The Conformist.These movies are incredibly fresh.

If you are just talking action movies (you did refernce Transformers) then I suggest you watch the subway/car chase from The French Connection.

Saying that old movies don't do it for you means that you're watching the wrong old movies.
Click to expand...

Mitch, could you expand a little more this list of old movies with interesting cinematic techniques?

Thank you! :)
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Mitch, could you expand a little more this list of old movies with interesting cinematic techniques?

Thank you! :)
Click to expand...

There have been movies pushing the boundaries of cinematic technique since the dawn of the medium. Lady in the Lake was the first film to be shot entirely in POV. Primary is an excellent example of Cinema Verite documentary filmmaking. Seconds was a wild looking film with lots of extreme images from a veteran cinematographer in his later years, James Wong Howe. Another example of an old salt showing he's still got his game is Robert Surtees' work on The Graduate, which he did in his 60s.

Look at the work of Antonioni. Look at Welles from just about any period. When a director will allow a cinematographer to do so, some really fascinating collaborative work can result. There are hundreds of examples. Ever see I Am Cuba (Yo Soy Cuba)? The first film released with a Steadicam shot in it was "Bound For Glory," and when Steadicam Inventor showed up on set he discovered that DP Haskell Wexler and director Hal Ashby had devised a crane shot where Brown would then step off and walk into a huge crowd of people. That's really taking a tool no one had used before and creating a revolutionary use for it.

I could go on, there are hundreds of examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top