Here at From The Frame we love movies and everything that goes into making them. In that vein, we want to delve deeper into what makes us appreciate particular shots, scenes, sequences, bits of dialogue, unexpected performances, and the specificity of choices creators make. In each video we’ll explore various aspects of the filmmaking process to uncover the impact stories can have on us - leaving us amazed, astonished, and in awe long after we’ve turned off the screen.
If anybody has read the script of "The Little Women" written by Greta Gerwig, you'd find this movie is so badly directed. None of the actors have pulled their weight. There are such clear moments in the script that make a scene magical and the actors have paid no heed to it and just rushed through them. For eg the last train scene where Fredriech says "i have nothing to give to you, my hands are empty", Jo's character holds his hand and says "no they are not"-now look at what Saoirse Ronan has done in the scene. The only thing that the script maybe did not have was an inherent rhythm. The only element of structure that pops out is the back and forth in time. Was that what led to this rushing? I wish somebody who has read what Greta wrote would interview here about how she directed it.
You didn’t show Repo Man while Paul Thomas Anderson was talking about Robby Müller. It’s been years since I’ve heard that interview, but I think they get on the subject of Müller there because they’re talking about Repo Man.
Lars von Trier's films are super liberating. I had much more convictions about strict filmmaking processes in order to create a top tier piece, but quite literally everything changed since I've started watching his works. And by the way, willing to understand his decisions I also changed my way of preparing for someone's films. Similar to David Lynch he leaves so many hints about his vibes and worryings and overall moods of his works in his interviews and stories. My most rewatchable director.
Breaking the waves! My girlfriend and I went to see that in a quite small cinema, and had to sit in perhaps the third row from the screen. We both had to leave after 30 minutes because of nausea. A unique cinematic experience for us.
Muller is not discussed enough these days. And… why did it take me this long to realize that I had seen Emily Watson and Stellan Skarsgard together before Chernobyl.
I know everybody is locked in their own way of seeing things, and this is mine and I even put characters talk about it in a book I've writen: it's all great until we have bells tolling in the clouds, in the end. This ends the mystery, this ends the miracles, this ends transcendence. Because in the universe of the movie, god exists. We, as viewers, are left with no chance to choose for ourselves. The way the movie looks is more or less irrelevent to me, because of this. It's a sort of cheating device the way the movie ends.
This is one of the more common critiques of the film’s ending and it’s definitely valid. I wanted to address the bells in the video, but also, that scene feels like such a climactic moment that leaving it in for anyone who may not have seen the film just didn’t feel right. I was left devastated at the film’s conclusion, but also did not interpret the bells as necessarily proving God’s existence. To me this film was just as much about love as it was about faith (the original title for this film was ‘Amor Omnie’ or ‘Love is Omnipresent’ from Dreyer’s film Gertrud). Similar to the way the melodramatic narrative clashes with the documentary-like camera, the CG chapters and bells directly contradict an otherwise very naturalistic film. Rather than being grounded in reality as definitive proof of God’s existence, the bells to me had a more existential quality. The ending felt meaningful/impactful, but ultimately open to interpretation based on your perspective. Does Breaking the Waves reflect reality, or, like the children’s book that inspired its creation, a fairytale? Is the film rooted in religion, or something else? I think everyone engages with a film differently, so it’s really open to interpretation, as most of the best films are.
@@fromtheframe Faith is put down with those bell in the clouds. Their distant sound should have been enouugh There is no space for interpretation. What are the bells doing in the clouds? We either answer this or we question the whole movie. I prefer to question those last seconds. The film is not filmed like a fairytale. It's filmed in a way to reminds at all times that it is pretty real and raw. Everything else is just fine and is probably his best work.
Decades later, still too emotionally raw to rewatch this film. Interesting to lear the process that created this, as I saw this long before RU-vid video essays or knowing jack about film theory. I just wanted to see the new film with Emily Watson in it.
Many of von Trier’s productions actually have some really interesting post-processes. I connected with this one the most because of the way the form sort of contradicts the film’s content, but yes, this film truly left me devastated and certainly isn’t something I can watch over and over.
It’s an interview between Anthony Dod Mantle & Christopher Doyle from Berlinale ‘06 called 'Here's Looking at You, Kid' (it’s on the Berlinale Talents website).
Fantastic critique as always, and the journey you take us on is mesmerising. Cutting to preserve the emotional integrity of the scene is something I’ve heard several times, but this is the best example I’ve seen of it explained.
I know a lot of editors don’t necessarily cut for continuity - Walter Murch’s book is pretty clear about prioritizing cutting for emotion - but this film ratchets that up to a pretty astounding level.
intentionally making an image look "bad" is a valid creative decision, but the people doing it, definitely have to be competent at making stuff be conventionally and technically good in order to properly make things "bad" and know the right moment when to break the rules. Not having any technical knowledge, not knowing the "rules, or the cinematic language and then attempting to deliberately "break the rules" just begins the process of creating a finished work, that's something like "The Room" (2003).
Have you seen Robert Altman's McCabe and Mrs Miller? I can't tell you what Altman did to the film and exposure, but the film has a beautiful, fuzzy look to it. Essentially, he 'damaged' the film, but he did it for a reason.
I almost brought up McCabe & Mrs. Miller in this video, because that’s an excellent example of another filmmaker striving for a more realistic image over one that is viewed as conventionally beautiful. Altman wanted the film to resemble a dreamy, faded photograph so DP Vilmos Zsigmond flashed the entire film negative to give the film that pastel look. He then used diffusion filters and underexposed the negative, which was push-processed in post. That coupled with Altman’s use of overlapping dialogue creates layers of authenticity that add to the film’s realism.
@@fromtheframe Flashing, that's the term I couldn't think of. The shot at the start, where we see Beatty light his cigar in the dusk light, impressed Kubrick so much, he rang Altman to ask, 'how did you know you got it?'. Kubrick was clearly an admirer because Altman was on hand to finish Eye Wide Shut should the aging Stanley fall ill during production. Not two guys you'd think were 'sympatico', but they were.
@@fromtheframe We are speaking about intentional decisions by film makers, but we can be frank and say The Room is not intentionally bad. Wiseau thought he was making a proper movie!
@@fromtheframe well I feel like Nolan is a director that also likes to leave mistakes in his works, was just wondering if you were able to see that in Oppenheimer?
Oh yeah! That definitely is an aspect of that film, but in my opinion not necessarily in the same manner as Breaking the Waves. For Nolan, leaving in mistakes feels like more of a byproduct of the fully optical process where he can’t digitally go in and fix things. But more interesting, your comment just jogged my memory that Hoyte van Hoytema actually was mentored by Robby Müller, so…maybe there is something to the parallels you’re drawing after all!
Incredibly thorough, well paced, insightful historical context and interviews, and just gorgeous examples from a pretty incredible variety of films. I don’t know if you particularly hit your thesis perfectly because I thought some of the shots were actually quite beautiful in their humbleness 😅 But I really enjoyed the journey you took me on with the analysis and story presented.
Thanks! Haha, it admittedly hurt a bit to put this film in the category of ‘not conventionally beautiful’ because we love it so much, but its visual design is one of the reasons why it’s so compelling - and in the end that makes it truly beautiful.
You guys have such a good grasp on analyzing media critically. I too have been exhausted by people online unable to talk about films within the larger context instead of cherry picking the classics that has stood the test of time and comparing them to weaker mainstream modern films while they ignore amazing modern films and ignore terrible old films from the same era. And I don't know if Breaking the Waves inspired Mark Mylod or Kieran but Succession does the same with their camera, lighting and performances. Especially in Connor's Wedding episode where they hid reels in set so they can have at least one camera running without interruption so they can capture the raw performances from everyone and then they cut it all together in the edit to pace it better even though they had 10 mins of long take for that crucial scene. Love the video!
Yeah, I think one of our goals on this channel is to push back against a tendency toward sweeping overgeneralizations that fall short of the potential for diverse interpretations and the richness of analysis. As fun as pithy one-liners and A/B comparisons can be (that’s us admitting we enjoy them too) they rarely show the whole picture (the whole ‘they don’t make movies like this anymore’ discussion rarely accounts for the historical shift in the industrial structure of Hollywood over the past century). Oh and Succession was heavily influenced by Dogma 95, specifically FESTEN (aka The Celebration). Jesse Armstrong has said that he originally conceived/pitched the show as “Festen-meets-Dallas,” following a mock family modeled off what he termed his holy trinity - Rupert Murdoch, Sumner Redstone and Robert Maxwell.
Lars von Trier can be quite the controversial character. There’s an interesting interview with Anthony Dod Mantle (his longtime DP) on The Film Stage that delves into that a little bit deeper if anyone's interested.
Having seen almost all of his films, from the shorts, the debut feature Element of Crime up to the latest, The House that Jack Built and Riget S3. I get curious... When was the point he went crazy? Because in my mind, there's a form of unconventional rebelliousness in there from the start. The earlier films (pre-dogme95) are shot a bit more conventionally. But it's still a crazy mashup of whatever he could think of to make the storytelling interesting. Some work, some don't. I feel that once he did Epidemic and Europa. That's when he got real good.
Nice work. It can't be said enough: Fincher's use of natural sounds (birds, insects, etc.) play a huge role in the atmosphere of his films. This is especially true in TGWTDT and GG.
the local amc dolby is large enough bro. seats are also more comfortable and i don't have to brave through LA traffic to get the the only 2 true 70mm imax theatres, by comparison AMC Dolby's are mor eplentiful. as mentioned before, the screen is large enough and the crap we are missing on the top/bottom is usually negligible .
halfway through watching this video, I suddenly realise I don't want to know about how they filmed it. In my head, the twisters and the people are real.
I still remember watching twister for the first time. It was so captivating to me when I was a child. It sparked my love for weather. I may not storm chase but it would be amazing to go one day 😃
17:50 whatever background noise was chosen from this point on is absolutely horrible. it sounds like locusts mimicking an alarm clock. that is the audio equivalent of chinese water torture
"There's something beautiful .... weirdly Tarkoveskian about those transformers fighting in those Birchwoods" that has been stuck in my head ever since i saw this video ...i just love the idea that you can experience something so seemingly surface level and get these profound or ethereal observations out of it ...very inspiring
I LOVE this movie and it sparked an utter fascination with meteorology and storms. Legit considered moving across the country to become a storm chaser. It just triggered an absolute love of storms and fond memories of warching it with a livingroom packed with family
the sequel was so totally awful I couldn't get thru the first hour, the writing and acting was so lame, cliched and boring. as far as the fantasyland about the central goal, gimme a break. the main difference is that there was no purpose or motive to make part two except a named cash grab, and that's how much creativity and effort was put in. The original of course had the luxury of truly great actors to perform it, and the new one did not.
