I would literally pay you money to do a full feature analysis of Drive. That movie is positively rife with cinematographical prowess, and after seeing videos like yours, I realize just how much I lack the eyes to see it. Seriously, I would fund that in a heartbeat.
We watched this movie in my Art & History of the Motion Picture class today, and I told my professor about your video on the quadrant system. Turns out he is just as big of a fan of your channel as I am. We spent a half hour after the movie geeking out about your video and I think we got the rest of the class really interested. So thank you. What you do really means a lot to me, and this is by far my favorite educational recourse when it comes to filmmaking.
GAH, I can't wait fot the next video. Is there any way to support you? This has seriously turned out to be my favourite youtube channel. As a film composer I've really come to appreciate these in-depth looks on cinematography. You sir, are awesome!
Try Mckee's "story" and "Sculpting in time" by Tarkovsky. But don't hesitate for too long trying to put all that knowledge under your belt prior first steps, since it's about mastering tools, not memorizing all the rules.
+Ali K It's excellent that you are studying. But if you are thinking of become a visual storyteller, espcially a filmmaker, know this: Growing as a filmmaker has to be both intrinsic and extrinsic. Cultivate your roots while you cultivate the tree trunk and branches. Start shooting now, film a tree, a flower, a child. Use a camera phone, still camera. Heck, drawl on paper, and tell a story with stills, frame by frame. Just start telling a visual story now, if you really want to grow, don't wait and study. Study and film at the same time, that's how you will maximize on your growth. Collaborate as soon as possible, and have people critique what you've done, don't be too precious with your work, making mistakes=growth. I wished someone would of told me this. Cheers!
+Samuel Fabiny Yeah, after watching it I found the plot of the movie to be very weak but I still liked it and I kinda didn't understand why. Now I do, not only the soundtrack but this movie is beautifully shot and has a very good atmosphere.
+MagnoVJ10 I would say, in a movie like drive, the plot is secondary. perhaps even tertiary. And I wouldn't be surprised if that was intentional. As the plot is fairly simple, that allows the director to focus on the more "direct" aspects of the film. Lighting, composition, and what have you. And it may even have freed up the actors, as well. There isn't an abundance of dialog in the film, so the actors are able to really deliver through their physical performances.
+JackgarPrime Yes Drive is a prime example of "it's not so much the story you tell, but how you tell it." -Alfred Hitchcock. Indeed you can take the most generic, over used narrative you can think of but if you tell it the right way, it could be the greatest story ever told. The plot never has to be complex, many of the greatest movie's ever made(Citizen Kane, TGTBATU, Seven Samurai, etc.) had simplistic plots, and there's no arguing their ability of storytelling. To me Drive is ultimately a film about loneliness, violence and different individuals responses to it, and severe disconnect from both humanity and reality, and the director was able to explore these themes masterfully. In fact I have never heard a valid criticism for this masterpiece, as unfortunately "it's boring" or "I hate Ryan Gosling the only reason he gets work is because he's hot" are neither true nor respectable criticisms. What a generation of philistines we've produced.
I've watched the movie a dozen times, and it wasn't until the last time I watched it (about a month ago) that I noticed the Star of David in that scene. It was absolutely intentional, and I feel foolish that I never noticed it before!
James-Lachlan McCallum what do you mean if? how do you imagine that thats an accident? i think youre looking at movies wrong if youre not sure when something like this was intentional or not
even taking a film class as a college elective makes watching movies more enjoyable (and you stop making a fool of yourself by simply focusing on basic nonsense like "plot holes" or "bad directing")
I learned more fundamental concepts in a few months from a film class, than years on the Internet reading clumps of text from dim-witted indie snobs. The information is on the Internet, but you have to know what to look for, and the information could hide in plain sight until someone smart tells you what you need to know
David Curry good advice, but if one wants to go into filmmaking (writing/directing) is it really necessary to go to film school? I get that if you want to be a cinematographer or an editor that it's necisarry but what about just writing/direction?
Stories? Not really. It certainly shows different things.. but the scenes are not complex enough to tell a real story in a few frames. Details might be a more appropriate word.
@@Big_Dai Indeed. It seems people think this composition method is some kind of big deal, but it's actually a basic one. Besides, the movie was shot this way to convey a feeling, not to suggest overthinking of every single frame.
@@Big_Dai Woosh... stories here means they each side of the screen focuses on a different person. In the pedantic sense even the full scene doesn't tell a story, it's just two people exiting an elevator and getting in their apartments.
@@alessandrot.2777 I use this video as an example of overanalyzing basic film making principles to trick people into thinking its far more deeper than it is. All it really shows is that the movie used good composition and blocking. It's been done in other movies over and over. The Quadrant system is entirely made up and not an actual principle of film making. Hell, refn has used those methods in his earliest works and plenty of filmmakers before him have done it as well. The thing is people are not used to movies being shot like that anymore. Everything now is a simple single subject(subjects) or actions being displayed or shots are so quickly cut between subjects that there is little room to have extra actions going on when you cut away as soon as the principle action is over. When the general movie goer is confronted with this sort of perspective they tend to feel their minds "blown" and attach themselves to it. In reality you have probably noticed it before but you consciously didn't realize it and most movies don't really do it because it takes time and effort and generally isn't useful for spectacle.
As a person who grew up studying the films of the 80s and 90s, i was wondering where do you start on watching such classics and finding the works of influential filmmakers. I'm eager to learn but just don't know where to start.
He kind of did with the Jackie Chan one. In terms of filmmaking the most you can really praise is john wicks action scenes. Action and reaction being in the same frame, as Tony said in the Jackie Chan one
Regardless of what people might think of it, I believe that John Wick turned out EXACTLY like the filmmakers wanted it to. That alone is worth a lot of praise. Additionally the action is truly beautiful.
Its funny, i kind of did notice this while watching the film. But i suppose coming from a photography background i just put this down to rule of 3rds. But taking the party scene, i always interpreted him standing in the left, and the exit sign top right. Both things are paid as much screen space as each other. He wants to exit, she wants to exit, but neither can.
The kissing scene in the elevator is the best scene in cinematic history if you ask me. The way they glide to the wall, shadowing the light and thereby darkening everything around them in a grace of pure silence and romance between two characters and then BAM the scene turns on it's head and becomes evil, loud and violent as Driver beats the hitman to pulp while Irene stares by in disbelief and shock. That scene captivates the whole story. How Driver had to sacrifice his love for Irene to safe her. Amazing how one scene can encapture the entire story in a few moments of genious filmmaking. LOVE IT!!!
I remember exiting the theatre after seeing Drive and realising that movies . . . they mattered. As a writer I'm more familiar with deciphering what a script is trying to express - but I must say that it is a genuine pleasure to experience an editor's clear and enlightening perspective on this method of storytelling. It makes it all the more special when it concerns a movie which I hold most dear. As always Tony, your standards, even in a neat, three minute slot, are impeccable. See you next video.
I actually disagree with your rational to the framing of these images. Instead I think it's his use of the golden ratio and the spiral that acts as a trail for the eye. He uses timing and motion within a shot to help dictate how the viewer is navigates the scene, circling through the composition to focal points. Even within the shots you used, there's a repetition within increasing smaller objects, A picture within the mirror on the wall for example. In the car shots you see his face blurred out, then in a spiraling pattern you follow the sets of lights back to the reflection of his face in the mirror. Over and over again he uses teh golden ratio as a framing technique to dictate the intended focus, and often time that cues you into what kind of interaction is occurring. The way each scene has balanced composition even with actors being off center or action occurring in a seemingly unbalanced way. I think the spiral even acts as a metaphor for the general tone of the movies escalation.
eun0ia He actually uses just about every compositional technique in the book: golden mean, rule of thirds, leading lines, negative space, frame-within-a-frame, etc. At a certain point I was like... well, I'm not going to do a 20 minute video, so I'm just going with the quadrant thing, because I like what he did in the hallway scene. If you or anybody else would like to do a video about the golden mean in this film, I'll gladly watch it. It's definitely there, too.
Exactly the same opinion here. It is still enoyable to listen this guy trying to explain things. But I do think that way he is explaining it it sounds like he is comming with some random explanation he just placed there. If we would have some proof from director... To me it seems like author of this video is just wrong (wrong assumption). It does look like director is using golden ratio a lot, for most of the stuff.
Usually I would say that you are overthinking it, but with Refn I believe you are actually correct with every single point and theory. It's all been thought through.
I'm actually really enjoying these mini-videos. Instead of an expansive look of a movie/director, you can just focus on a small topic or one scene. I like it.
That's interesting. I learned something similar in photography called "the rule of thirds," which was described to me as "if things fall into one of three sections (separated by two vertical lines), then it looks better for some reason." It never really made sense why it was "thirds" instead of, say, this, but i guess the point of it was less the divisions, and more that you aren't just using one side of the frame for the whole movie, and distributing info/telling the story or relationships through where you place them. It's nice to have it explained like this, so that i can actually, y'know, understand how to apply it. thanks for the video!
The rule of thirds is used in filmmaking as well. Composition is still composition, except in the case of film it moves, and keeps recomposing itself! :)
If you divide your composition into three both vertically and horizontally you will have for intersections where your dividing lines cross. Each of those intersections will correspond to one of the quadrants mentioned here (just roughly off-centre, note the characters are also never centred in the quadrants here). The main point of the rule of thirds is that just sticking your focus slap-bang in the centre of your composition is (usually) rather boring.
i always thought this was a beautiful movie, i never really knew why and most of my friends never agreed with me and claimed it was boring and awkward but just the way it was shot was so different and odd from anything else ive seen I enjoyed it. Im glad you pointed a lot of this out, it kind of helps me understand why some parts of the movie "clicked with me so well.
Maybe not the most viewed channel, but definitely one of the most refined and informative one on youtube. Great job Tony, well done. Excellent presentation and very informative.
Watching this series makes we wonder if all this composition is intentional on the directors part, or if it's something subconscious they did or stumbled upon.
+Brandon Keller I have always wondered this too and as an independent filmmaker and cinematographer I've found it's a combination. Sometimes you frame a shot because you like it without realising why and only later discover it's because of Quadrants (or other techniques). Other times you actively try to do it.
It does make one wonder; however, I always come back to the following dictum: A theory of analysis (such as psychoanalytic, semiotic, marxist, theological etc.) is not good because it describes the intentions of an artist, but because it describes his work. (And preferably also why we like/dislike this work). Which is further to say, in an analysis, we should not be primarily interested in whether Refn intended these effects, but be interested in whether the theory fits the material.
This was Tony's reply to someone who asked a similar question: "Refn is a very specific about his compositions. In interviews, he's stated that he always composes the bottom of the frame first, then uses that to build the top. Drive is full of every compositional technique in the book; I just picked this one to focus on. Do I think he was walking around with a quadrant in his hand, checking every shot? God no. But he's an experienced artist: he's internalized all of this. What I am saying is that there's a pattern in his style, and it lines up pretty well to the quadrant system. I'm also saying that he finds ways to insert subtle storytelling details through this compositional system."
Most likely both, it's like that shit they say in kung fu movies... once you have mastered something you have forgotten it... it sounds corn but i compare it to learning how to walk (or ride a bike)... do you know how you walk??? probably not, i mean you can walk but the dynamics the subtle change of weight, the control falling, is all something you have forgotten, you just do it... sounds like some zen shit i know, but i love the concept of mastery and have noticed that when you do master something it is almost by definition subconsciously embedded in your being... so go out there and learn to forget!
I recently made a short film and didn't realize until editing it that for the entire film up until a decisive moment at the middle the protagonist is facing the left. It isn't until they begin going down a path against their nature that they face and move to the right. The only other time they face the left is when they are directly referencing their old ways. I was aware of the importance of lateral movement in film but I didn't plan to use it this way. So I agree that it's both. The old saying is: It's all theory until you do it'; but as far as compositional techniques go it helps a lot to know as much theory as you can to "guide your hand."
This has to be one of my favorite videos ever. I've always loved Drive, but couldn't put my finger on why. This kind of blew me away. Keep up the amazing work.
I love the analysis of composition you do with this film. After watching "Drive", from your analysis, I proceeded to watch it once more, and after the second viewing, I realized what I loved so much about the film. The absence of sound and dialogue. The way that the film lets the simple scenes of immersiveness through the characters getting to know each other. Are there long conversations between the male lead and female lead? No. Does the main character have to have an inner dialogue to show his emotions about his evolution of his character of the film? No. The director lets the silence speak. Instead of focusing on the script, he focuses on the visual narrative. "You wanna see something?" the kid says, just before taking them into the river banks and skipping stones with her and her son. After that, a whole construct of connection between the characters occurs. A montage of hanging out by the river and smiles being thrown between the two. I would love for you to make a video showing how human body language and simple shots of establishment can hold more words then the actors saying them. This film is a lovely example.
This is like when your english teacher says the curtains are grey to symbolize the protagonist's emotional struggle as a result of childhood trauma, but instead of being complete bullshit is actually right and cleverly points out something deliberately done that you experienced but didn't notice. Not because you didn't make some arbitrary association but because someone smarter than you spent the time analyzing it
+TwoFistsOneHalleluja His comment about Ryan Gosling at the end of that video was actually nothing to do with Ryan, but was merely pointing out that using Vine, someone made more innovative comedy than many American movies.
+Cameron Dean I think TwoFistsOneHalleluja was referring to the bit when a scene in which Simon Pegg is carrying a pot plant, and the narrator jokingly refers to good performances by Simon Pegg and Ryan Gosling, implying that the plant is Gosling
These videos are excellent: thank you. This one prompts a question: what are your thoughts about "Only God Forgives." While I liked "Drive" very much, I was much less enthusiastic about "Only God Forgives." "Drive" strikes me as a good example of formalism (style, coolness) that retains vibrant, human elements: genuine emotions, thoughts. That is one way of defining what a film is. "God" felt like an exercise, in formalism. Every moment so exactly considered, shot, edited together, that the "film" was devoid of believable characters and situations. For me, very simply, the scene above represents great framing of two people in a very believable situation, involving their feelings (attraction) and thoughts (implications of feelings); the best kind of movie moment. "God" was shock, spectacle, strangeness, but mostly lifeless. The brutality of the elevator scene in "Drive" works because you care about the characters and their predicament. The slicing in "God" might produce a jolt at first but ultimately was kind of dull because I didn't believe any of the characters were real people, just objects to frame along with set dressing and props.
As someone that loves movies and cinematography, I can't get enough of this stuff. You gotta do Kubrick or Christopher Nolan. And...are there any other channels doing something similar? This is great learning material.
Ok, three questions: 1. Is he implying that this is a regular thing in movies and that the director intentionally framed all of his shots to give this subtle effect? Or is he simply speculating? 2. How does this guy even come up with this stuff in his mind? Did he study film or something? 3. Why isn't he worried about copyright strikes with the song?
1. Refn is a very specific about his compositions. In interviews, he's stated that he always composes the bottom of the frame first, then uses that to build the top. Drive is full of every compositional technique in the book; I just picked this one to focus on. Do I think he was walking around with a quadrant in his hand, checking every shot? God no. But he's an experienced artist: he's internalized all of this. What I am saying is that there's a pattern in his style, and it lines up pretty well to the quadrant system. I'm also saying that he finds ways to insert subtle storytelling details through this compositional system. I leave it up to you to decide whether I'm full of shit or not. 2. I am an editor. I stare at hours and hours and hours of footage from people who shoot it. I have to make split-second decisions on what does and doesn't go into the finished edit. While most of my individual decisions are instinctual, like Refn, I've internalized certain things. My eye prefers certain types of images over other types, and I favor different shots for different reasons (both narrative & aesthetic). Go talk to anybody who's studied a craft for a long time; they'll tell you the same. We don't walk around shouting "quadrant! rule of thirds! golden mean!" but when we see something, it's pleasing to our eyes. If we stare at it for 30 seconds, we can usually figure out why. This video is me staring at Drive to see what appeals to me (and to Refn). 3. Yeah, fair use.
Every Frame a Painting Interesting. I wasn't being dubious or anything (if it came off that way). I was just intrigued, because I've seen drive countless times, and I knew it was a beautifully shot film, but I never knew how deep it actually went.
James oooo these are things you can find in everything that's designed, which is why these videos are great! and i mean everything. the masterful use of some visual element that might fully immerse you in a character's journey in an excellent feature-length film, might be the same tool that McDonald's uses in their 30-second ads to try and get you fully immersed in chicken nuggets. though I think you can decide for yourself if one uses it better or more tastefully than the other haha
James keep staring at more beautiful movies and you'll notice how deep they go as well. i laugh at people who call movies like Drive boring. those people seem to have zero appreciation for visual art of any kind. the beauty of the world seems to completely escape them. must be such a bleak existence.
+James Refn has described himself as a fetishist, keeping only what he wants and loves within each shot. So I don't think this is speculation at all. I noticed the left-right dynamic, but didn't know it was a quadrant thing. Thanks Tony! Love your work here :D
I am in a Creativelive chat room and some how your channel came up and this is the first video I have watched. My jaw is on the floor. This was amazingly educational and useful and just freaking awesome. Thank you!!!
Impressive! I've been studying this lately. It's awesome to think (and see) how he subtle lines influence the film. It also makes me appreciate the work that goes into staging and filmcraft, all the more.
You have an impressive amount of insight into the medium of film. In all of your videos that I've watched, I've been able to notice on my own some of the things that you bring up, but you always manage to make me look at things from a different perspective. You're clearly a very passionate and perceptive person, and I think that you honestly put out some of the best content on this website. Keep up the great work.
I would love to hear your thoughts on Birdman. The story may not appeal to everyone, but I was blown away by how smooth the transitions were and the overall cinematography. The lighting, reflections, camera movement were simply fantastic!
Well, in Nicholas' case, he has a very particular way of filming / directing, and has an eye for everything, so I think it indeed is what he was going for.
Holy shit. I have to rewatch this movie right now. Really loved this breakdown, it made me think about composition in a totally different way. Please do more of these!
My favourite film. For a whole day after watching this I would reply in one-word sentences without realizing, just like Ryan Gosling in this film. You gotta admit, he's one of the coolest characters we've seen in films.
Really enjoyed that Tony, thank you. I've only just discovered Every Frame a Painting ♥ and now I just have to watch that movie! Looking forward to your next instalment :D
+Bullit Cake I disagree. The story was brilliant. Unlike most fairy-tale stories, in Drive the hero doesn't get, nor does he expect a reward for his heroism. That's a true hero. Not something you see often in cinema stories, because it makes us feel sad, but it's how true heroes act in the real world - or they wouldn't be heroes.
I love this movie but it's true if you look at the plot it isn't mind blowing. It's everything else...the music, the lighting, the audio that really brings it together for me. It's a quite "arty" which can be shit but I think this movie shines
Harold Haroldson Personally I see his entire attitude as a mask, that only ever comes off ever so slightly in his relationship with the girl. And yes, he is extremely awkward in all of his social interactions, which is why I like his character a lot.
TheCrazedLorry98 Agreed - it's very simple as a story. But like I mentioned, the real golden nugget here, is that you have a hero who doesn't expect a reward for his heroism - SPOILERS and so even though he survives the final showdown -there's no "happy ever after-shot" - he doesn't get the girl in the end - because that wasn't his intention - he was acting out of complete compassion, not for a reward.
Only an amateur needs gimmicks to create a work of art. As an expert meme maker I create memes that go straight to the front page of reddit.com using only my intelligence and euphoric knowledge of atheism. -Gilded redditor, stage 3 ahteist, 148 IQ
Interesting exploration of the film's use of quadrant, and extra codes such as the shadow cast by the Love Rival. I also liked the presentation with the demonstration via the first scene of how the quadrant isn't easily noticed, and the further examples of quadrant shots such as the top-left to bottom-right cut from the driver onto the woman. :)
Your videos are so inspiring! I love how you bring up these things in movies which I might have missed, because although they may be "small" things, they're so telling, and important. You're great at uncovering the layers, and extra dimensions of filmmaking, which helps me rethink how I watch movies.
I saw Drive when it came out on DVD and I don't remember liking it very much. Then when I saw Taxi Driver I loved it, and thereafter it became my favorite film. Still after seeing Taxi Driver, I felt like I should go back and watch Drive again. So I'm just wondering, Mr. Zhou, how did you like it? I've seen all of your videos, so I trust your judgement.
I watched drive for the first time the other night - It will be one of those movies that will stay with me forever. Great Channel and Keep up the good work
I feel that my problem with Drive was that there was a lot of emotion without focus/context. Like, sure, I feel the sadness of the characther, I see what's at stake here but... why should I care? Why should I like this characther? I hope the answer is not the lyrics of a song or because a mother and her child are involved, because I feel that either would be cheap, but I see no other answer. When I finished the movie, I felt empty, because I didn't know what moved me nor the direction of the movie. I was:"yes, I guess I saw a thing and felt a feeling".
Thats called not getting it. There's no way to explain how to get it and unfortunately anyone who explains this to you inevitably sounds like a snob doing so, but... you just gotta get it to get it.
This is a great video thank you for sharing your knowledge with public. I just want to add something. These scenes are quadratically good used by Refn but they are also narrationally structured by using shadow and decor. At 2:17 Irene's casting shadow occupies the right bottom quadrant, at the next shot Driver occupies the left top quadrant which is opposite. First of all using casting shadow at this particular scene tells us Irene's character cut into two pieces one is with his husband and one is with the Driver. This may sound a little over-analysed but the decor between Irene's casted shadow and Driver's position in the quadrants is supporting this particular visual storytelling by it's position. There is a choppy sea painting on the wall. This painting and waves are in the same height with the casted shadow and they are in the same quadrant. No need to say but this painting is between Irene and the Driver at least between Irene's casted shadow and the Driver. It is telling us Irene's other character is having obstacles with the Driver between them. I think this movie is a great piece for analysing any narrational layer. Thank you again for making these videos they are priceless for public. These kind of specific information are not taught even in film schools and universities. You are doing a very good job.
So I've come across a couple of your videos now and I have a question. Is this simply an analysis of how the framing and placement of actions and characters is done in a film, or are you suggesting that this is a thing that if another film-maker did, it would make the film equally appealing visually. Because I find it a little bit funny that you talk about shapes and lines and quadrants, but all of these things just happen naturally it seems to me, maybe not with the quadrant thing, although I don't think the film maker was sitting at every shot thinking about quadrants. But the shapes, people differ in height, so you'll have a triangle of eyes so long as multiple actors are in the shot so it seems more like you're saying that more film-makers should have multiple actors in shots talking instead of closeups and constant cuts as you've discussed in another video. I also don't quite see that the bottom half of the frame is telling a story really, so much as the actors important gesturing body parts, namely the hands and head are all in the frame, regardless of the "quadrant" they're in. Maybe I'm overthinking it but it seems like an unnecessary way to explain how shots are framed, it makes you sound intelligent while you basically explain that the actors go from one side of the screen to the other and are gesturing using their hands and that the filmmaker used the entire frame to show characters, sometimes in cool ways. I doubt the quadrant thing applies to the entire movie also, in fact I would wager it doesn't. Although I do think this type of analysis, whether what you're saying means anything or not does cause people to think more about this sort of thing so it's good in that respect at least.
You don't need to agree with everything said in the video, but I think you are underappreciating how much thought goes into a shot. Simply pointing the camera at some actors and saying "go!" is not film-making. Film being a visual medium, the framing of the shot is one of the most important and powerful tools a director has to tell the story. It's his job to think about the nuances of positioning the camera and actors, just as it is an actor's job to act with all their appendages (in line with the script and the director's direction, of course).
Kenny Hibberds I just meant to agree with you, people don't have experience with how much work goes in to a shot, thinking about it probably drawing it before hand etc. Not just grabbing a "really good camera".
idleist Of course, without a doubt. This wasn't what I meant though. The aspect I question is whether or not the way it's being explained here, really serves any purpose, it's a somewhat interesting analysis but this and several others of his videos kind of exaggerate things a bit and often talks about things that you will find it literally every movie ever released, or just about. Like the triangle with the eyes thing he mentioned in this and the video from a couple days ago, any shot with three people in it will have that and yet he makes it sound like some masterful creation, when really saying that three actors are in frame and their heights or the camera's height varied, is basically the same thing. Either that or I'm just hearing what he's saying different than he intends and he's not explaining why any of this matters so that's entirely possible.
Actually this is basic composition theory used very well. It's the same in painting. But you know in pure theory of cours. Enters top left exits bottom right.
great soundtrack, great opening scene, but EVERYTHING else about this movie I really hated. wish you had used quadrants from any other number of movies.
Mihai Dragomir I agree, I think the beauty of a film like this is that it says a whole lot more about the person who doesn't like it (or at least can't appreciate it) than it does about the movie itself.
Well, I didn't like this movie much either, but you've got to appreciate this compositional staff. I, for once, am totally not ashamed to say I've totally overlooked these techniques and yeah, they do look great, so that I've partly changed my opinion on the movie. It's no shame be a visual illiterate, most people really are, that's why I started to watch this channel in the first place. To the others: come on, guys, don't be so elitist. "Oh, you just don't like it cause you have a poor taste!". Seriously, you can measure up one's taste based on a single movie? You really-really think so? This is more of a way of pretencious modern art 'connoisseurs'. Different people look for different things in movies, the have different emotional reactions from it. On this the liking/disliking is based. That said, liking or disliking a movie shouldn't really be a point for not appreciating things it does finely or badly. I like a number of acceptably bad movies, I may as well dislike some good movies for personal reasons (like most of James Cameron's staff, which, admittedly, is quite well-directed). It is really normal. If one's taste could've really been boiled down to a liking of a single movie for EVERY person, well, what's the fun on having one then? It turns from taste into a test.
Every once and a while I come back to watch this video again. Thank you for introducing me to my favorite movie and cinematography. Hope you're well Taylor and Tony.
