there are very few actual creators discussing DIRECTING, all your videos on DIRECTING are just fantastic. Please my friend, never stop creating. You are one of the few masters at analysing DIRECTING FILM. @Moviewise
Spielberg truly changed the game when it came to shot composition and his effect can be seen in almost all modern filmmakers like everybody in film school has definitely found themselves wondering what would Spielberg do when they try to figure out shot composition.
The Banshees shot over the roof is clearly an homage to Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West, when Jill arrives in town and has to get transportation at the station. Leone combines the over-the-roof shot with the crescendo in Morricone's music to exceptional effect.
TAR was simply a masterpiece in every aspect. From direction to cinematography to editing to mind blowing acting from cate Blanchett. Academy was wrong to let this masterpiece go empty handed
Trying to judge movies from different genres, and then decide which is the "best" for that year, is always a problem. It is also a very interesting question. Should more weight be given to a director who also wrote the screenplay? Do you count entertainment value, or just judge a film by its composition, camera movements, and ability to give us striking visuals? And how much of that is done in collaboration with the cinema photographer? Jerry Lewis made movies that were generally disliked by critics, but they always seemed to contain at least a few sight gags that were wonderful. But, these movies also seemed to have an extremely saccharine resolution. How, exactly, would you compare Lewis's work to the comedies of Billy Wilder, which always seemed to have a very dark and cynical heart? Or the witty dialogue and tragicomic movies of Woody Allen? But, somehow, the Oscars will muddle through again, and make some people happy, while disappointing and angering plenty of others.
Many fascinating questions there, Jerry! The influence of the cinematographer is a theme I’d like to explore someday. It makes me think of how Woody Allen started off in hilarious but visually clumsy films, and it was only when Gordon Willis came along that he turned into an exemplary filmmaker. We can also ask ourselves how much of the acting quality should be credited to the director. I know many people give it a lot of - if not the most - weight, but how do you even know it was the director who made that performance possible?
@@Moviewise By looking at the actors other films and seeing if it's unusual for them to be that good and then looking at the directors other films and seeing if they often have actor's in their movies that's true of. Looking at behind the scenes interviews and seeing if the actor specifically credits the director with helping them can be useful too.
@@Mr.Goodkat Sometimes that's something great to do, but it's so much work there's no way to do it with every film, every director and every actor. In general I prefer to take each film at a time.
Herzog is my favourite director, but that is a cop out answer - in reality I have no idea, many directors are insanely good, it’s not easy to choose at all.
Tar really resonates the Kubrickian influence on Todd's visual language. You also see it in Fincher and the way he frames, often talks about "strong lines" and the editors use a grid overlay and oversample in order to completely stabilize and manipulate the precise composition, including splitting the screen to retime portions of the frame or intercut different takes within one comp. House of Cards especially the first two seasons features this level of precise filmmaking and composition as well, even from the other staff directors as Fincher was essentially overseeing the entire production those years.
Thank you for describing Iñarritu as 'showy'. No personal malice implied, but I think the point matters. Was going to sub anyway, but that really got me there. EDIT: And I hadn't even seen your view on 'Triangle of Sadness' yet. Yep, not funny. Ostlund's stuff never is really. Maybe one could say, it doesn't help that he picks such easy targets -the art world, fashion, the super rich - but I think it's more that he doesn't find anything that matters to say about them. 'The Square,' which I think is even worse than 'Triangle' is a really trite commentary on class: the art-world guy, up on the hill, is happy to be around trash, dirt and primitivism if it's domesticated into high art (note the weak old joke early on where an artwork is mistaken for refuse and tidied up by the cleaners), but he's going to be - groan - forced to go down the hill to the dark ghetto and even root around in actual garbage. It's a series of crass clichés lived out by the flattest of characters.
Thomas Flight did it twice for the Best Editing Oscar. I liked it so much I wanted to do it for the directing and writing categories. To be honest, I copied his thumbnail style for this specific video 😬
I know I'm late to watch this and comment, but maybe you could've added at the end one film that should've been nominated over your least favorite, which was Triangle of Sadness. For me, it would've been All Quiet On The Western Front. For me, there wasn't a single uninteresting shot in the whole movie, from the foxes in the foxhole to the closing. But that may just be me. I hate the snub word used when it comes to the Oscars but it was snubbed.
I think you mostly talk about the cinematography. Of course, the director usually has big imput on the cinematography, not only the cinematographer and his team, but the director's job is much more than that. It is how everything blends together, how all aspects cooperate to achieve a feelilng. It's like the director of an orchestra who plays with the musicians. There comes the style and the energy of the film as well. I agree the Daniels did a good job, but Field and Spielberg and others who were not nominated like Chazelle, Cameron and Chan-wook were way ahead. Analysing directing is the hardest possible task in film anaylisis. Even though the directos overviews all aspects, you can have great directing with a decent script or with decent performances.
Again directors' goodness is judged almost solely by visuals. Yes, movies are visual media, but also so much more. Other important aspects are at least how the director uses sound and music, and what he gets out of the actors. For instance Kubrick was very visual, but he was also extremely good at creating mood with music. I don't like Shining that much, but even for me he used music (and lack of it) brilliantly. Other is Aronofsky, who has managed to get Oscar worthy performances out of actors like Natalie Portman and Brendan Fraser. At least I would change most of good compositions and color gradings to better acting and moody soundscape
Good for you, too bad you picked some particularly crap movies.i wouldn't rewatch none of this stuff ever...and a couple i didn't make it to the end the first time. Banshees was the best of the bunch.
I completely disagree with your point on "triangle of sadness". I think you are reviewing world cinema by comparing it to Hollywood movies. as a person who have watched all of his films except "Guitar Mongoloid", I am sure that he is not a typical director who cuts the scene into 100 shots inorder to inject instant emotions. I think his intention is to take the audience through what his characters are going through, rather than just entertainment. he wants us to feel the situation as if we are in it. and about the "timing and framing" , i would like to hear your opinion on Roy anderson's movies. "i'd rather people feel a film , before understanding it" - Robert Bresson.
Triangle of Sadness shamelessly followed the trendy path of vilifying the wealthy, powerful, and beautiful, and curiously, it's precisely these very elites who hailed it as if it were a form of redemption for society. It's not worthy of its praise. The story boasts exhausted, stereotypical characters and an overused, preachy narrative that lacks any semblance of innovation or creativity. The trailer teases us with moments that the film never delivers. It presented itself as a dark, satirical comedy, but it consistently missed the mark. Ultimately, I found it grossly vapid.
Dude get some information before writing dumb comments. He talked about every director nominated for the Oscar of 2023. There wasn’t any woman nominated that year that’s all.
