Why don't films look like films?

[Sam]

I've talked before about disliking restorative three act structures and screen plays that are very much plays. Films that consist of static shots, two-shots, over shoulder, long speeches etc. Films lit too brightly, where the sets, costumes and make up look too artificial. I like dirt under fingernails and authentic dress.

All of these conventions are far too theatrical and betray lack of faith or skill in the cinematic medium.

That said, naturalism isn't the only way, and I think the other end of the spectrum is equally valid, where ultra-stylisation takes the art away from the literary/theatrical and into pure visual language.

It's the middle ground which makes up so much fare, TV movie style directing, neither natural not stylised.

Examples of great cinematic film making:

True Detective. Shot on 35mm, the whole success of the show stems from its use of atmosphere derived from cinematography, set design and sound.

Under the Skin

The most audacious bit of cinema this century, sctintillatingly uncompromising at every level and in every moment. This is what cinema can do if you let it.

Malick. Obvs.

Lynne Ramsay, Ulrich Seidl, Ben Wheatly, Herzog, Kubrick and all the obvious Great Directors of Cinema Past.

Andrei Rublev.

Chock full of moments that defy belief, that take cinematic language to new universes. The horses! The geese! If one film could be preserved as testament to mankind's achievement it would be this. If cinema's going to do away with theatre, the world of visual art and the mysticism of the past is a better bet.

Films that can fuck off:

Hobbit (sets makeup uncanny valley)

Most superhero stuff

Lots of Woody Allen's direction and clunking dialogue in the last 25 years (occasional good acting and script saving graces)

Theatre to film adaptations such as Mama Mia, The Producers etc.

[Funcrusher]

I've talked before about disliking restorative three act structures and screen plays that are very much plays. Films that consist of static shots, two-shots, over shoulder, long speeches etc. Films lit too brightly, where the sets, costumes and make up look too artificial. I like dirt under fingernails and authentic dress.

There's loads of cinema that isn't like this though, certainly from the French New Wave onwards. The festival circuit is full of it. It just doesn't make it to multiplex cinemas. I think the worst thing about most modern day blockbusters is that they're not structured enough. The basic skills of storytelling have atrophied.

[popcorn]

I find there's a lot of this sort of thing - the kind of thing I call "naturalism", I dunno if that's the sensible term for it - in Asian movies, which is why I watch so much Asian cinema (see the Asian movies thread).

There's loads of cinema that isn't like this though, certainly from the French New Wave onwards. The festival circuit is full of it. It just doesn't make it to multiplex cinemas. I think the worst thing about most modern day blockbusters is that they're not structured enough. The basic skills of storytelling have atrophied.

I agree with this. The lack of structure does my head in. Multiplex movies are just flabby messes. I dunno if it was ever better though.

[Mister Six]

Lots of Woody Allen's direction and clunking dialogue in the last 25 years (occasional good acting and script saving graces)

God, I was worried I was the only person who thought this.

See also every second post-Anchorman comedy, in which a bunch of static cameras are positioned to catch everyone's endless hours of riffing, and the reams of footage are then stitched together into something that's 20 minutes too long.

[Glebe]

It's the digital, CGI, 3D era and all that. I'm all for invention and new techniques, but a bit of subtlety wouldn't go amiss.

[Noodle Lizard]

The last three films I (re-)watched were 'The Shining', 'Picnic At Hanging Rock' and 'The Thing'.  All three of them got me thinking "these were made in the 70s/80s and they look ace, why can't people do that now?" 

I'm not one of those anti-digital people, I generally think it's a good thing, but I'm not sure if it's a coincidence that with the advent of that technology films have generally looked so much less appealing.  It's less to do with technology than it is effort and, ultimately, creative talent.  You'd think that without all the hassles that come with shooting on film there'd be more time to really make shots look great, but nope.  Films now are either plot or effects driven, but cinematography and significant stylistic flourishes often fall by the wayside.

There are exceptions, of course, but I haven't been fucked sideways by the way a film has looked for a fair old while now.

[Noodle Lizard]

I will say this, though.  One thing I'm glad has more of less ceased to be is crossfades as scene transitions.  These very rarely work and are jarring in otherwise perfectly-composed films.  'The Shining' is good example of this horrible technique being used horribly.

[Mister Six]

It's less to do with technology than it is effort and, ultimately, creative talent.  You'd think that without all the hassles that come with shooting on film there'd be more time to really make shots look great, but nope.  Films now are either plot or effects driven, but cinematography and significant stylistic flourishes often fall by the wayside.

Spoiler alert

Spoiler alert

[close]

[close]

That's a good observation, I think. Before you needed the cinematographers, directors and cameramen to be absolutely on-point, or even working harder than was strictly necessary, because you only had a limited amount of film and it was tougher to get what you wanted and to change things up in post.

Now the processes (and processing) are easier, there's less pressure to get things perfect in the shot, which also means people aren't going above and beyond any more.

[Thomas]

The last three films I (re-)watched were 'The Shining', 'Picnic At Hanging Rock' and 'The Thing'.  All three of them got me thinking "these were made in the 70s/80s and they look ace, why can't people do that now?"

That's my main argument against the allegedly forthcoming remake of An American Werewolf in London. One of the merits of that film is its visual 'feel'. Its texture. Delete that, and the experience loses something.

I reckon.

[Noodle Lizard]

allegedly forthcoming remake of An American Werewolf in London.

What?!

[Thomas]

It's been taking a while -

In June 2009, it was announced that Dimension Films was working with producers Sean and Bryan Furst on a remake of the film. This has since been delayed due to other commitments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_American_Werewolf_in_London#Remake

http://variety.com/2009/film/news/werewolf-remake-in-development-1118005523/

[Bored of Canada]

Not being bold and investing in/utilising a range of good prime lenses and poor direction.

Digital can looks beautiful and can really enhance the premise where film cannot with certain stories. Film is the same story for others. Shit. VHS can have that effect better than film or digital with stuff like Trashhumpers.

Not saying it's a good film, in fact I kind of hate it, but it feels like a film and is of a cohesive piece and establishes it's own unique atmosphere with everything in the frame.

Film itself doesn't immediately just enhance a piece just because it's film. Look at the difference between Holy Grail and Life of Brian to see the lens choice and visual direction. Life of Brian is excellent in performances and writing, but it doesn't look like a "proper film" to me in the way you're describing.

Look at the bold choices Gilliam makes in The Crimson Permanent Assurance, compared to the rest of the film. Still has beautiful touches throughout and Terry Jones is definitely pushing himself a bit more, but still, a bit of boldness and consideration in the frame as opposed to performances goes a long way.

[Noodle Lizard]

Jesus fucking Christ, just make a werewolf movie!  The plot of 'American Werewolf In London' isn't so unique that it could only fall under that title, what makes it unique is that it's ... it!  They only do this because the name carries a built-in fanbase.  I can't imagine John Landis is happy about this, but it's probably out of his control.

[Noodle Lizard]

Not being bold and investing in/utilising a range of good prime lenses and poor direction.

This is a big thing.  Knowing lots of amateur filmmakers myself, they're almost all obsessed with expensive cameras/lenses and 4K and all that, but they never consider how it can improve their film, just the cache of saying they used top-end equipment.  So you get a bunch of very fancy-looking films which are still, ultimately, bad student films that are no more impressive than some iPhone movie you might find on YouTube.  Utter bollocks.  Kubrick, for instance, was a known obsessive about lenses and equipment but it was never for the sake of "being the best".  He didn't get NASA technology to film 'Barry Lyndon' just because it was the most expensive, he did it because it was the only way he could film it the way he wanted to (with low natural light).

The manufacturers themselves aren't helping because they're aiming at the "pro-sumer" market now, whereas before this kind of equipment was only held and designed for high-end professionals.  So what you get are a bunch of overpriced and unremarkable lenses and cameras marketed as though they will instantaneously make your film good.  Bollocks.  I've seen nicer-looking films shot on a 5D than an Alexa, and 'Lawrence Of Arabia' looks nicer than anything made on the RedOne.  It's so much more to do with composition and lighting, and it's not enough to use the highest-end equipment, you need to know when and why you need to use it.

[Bored of Canada]

I can't imagine John Landis is happy about this, but it's probably out of his control.

[Onken]

The first film that came to mind reading the title was The Avengers. I've never been so bored off my tits and unable to comprehend how it could be so universally popular. The whole thing felt like an extended TV episode in direct comparison to Nolan's more easy to value Batman films. Horribly stale and sanitised.

[phantom_power]

I think the Avengers is the case of a film directed by a writer, who is more interested in the characters and dialogue than shot composition, which I think is fair enough if that is what you want.

I disagree that films don't look interesting any more. Most mainstream action films and comedy blockbusters don't but then generally they never have. PT and Wes Anderson are still doing interesting things with lenses and cinematography, as are Nolan and plenty of others. Guardians of the Galaxy is a visual delight as well, despite being a CGI fest

[Van Dammage]

What's the opinion on Nicolas Winding Refn around here?

[CaptainSchpunklewiff]

Jesus fucking Christ, just make a werewolf movie!  The plot of 'American Werewolf In London' isn't so unique that it could only fall under that title, what makes it unique is that it's ... it!  They only do this because the name carries a built-in fanbase.  I can't imagine John Landis is happy about this, but it's probably out of his control.

*rubs thumb against fingers

[Funcrusher]

What's the opinion on Nicolas Winding Refn around here?

I used to be a massive fan in the days of Pusher 2/3 and Fear X. It's all downhill after that for me (although I did enjoy the first half of Drive). Only God Forgives was fucking woeful. I think he's a decent genre film maker, but his attempts to emulate the likes of Kubrick and Herzog have really revealed his limitations.

[CaptainSchpunklewiff]

I agree with everything this thread says before half past 3.

[Thursday]

Inland Empire is a weird one. Shot on fairly early, standard defenition digital video. So it looks a bit dated for that reason  but there's just something odd about it, it doesn't really look like any other digital film.

[Don_Preston]

I can't imagine John Landis is happy about this, but it's probably out of his control.

Stop stealing my jokes.

[Rolf Lundgren]

I think the Avengers is the case of a film directed by a writer, who is more interested in the characters and dialogue than shot composition, which I think is fair enough if that is what you want.

The majority of films are more about characters, dialogue, plot etc. than shot composition and it's a shame. A director should be the author of the film, putting some kind of stamp on it so we know it's one of theirs. I'm not a huge fan of Wes Anderson but he does it well. I'm even less of a fan of Michael Bay but have to concede he does it well too. A well directed film lives longer in the memory than a film with a great plot. I can vividly remember the final scene in Fassbender's The American Solder but recall virtually nothing about what happens in The Usual Suspects.

Too often big films are given to a safe pair of hands who knows how to direct in the basic sense of putting a film together that makes sense. There's definitely less appetite for directors who are more daring and brave in their choices but that's  because studios are afraid to take a risk.

[Brundle-Fly]

Where do the panel stand on Tarantino's vision?

[Bored of Canada]

Where do the panel stand on Tarantino's vision?

Getting worse as he's older, but I think he wears contacts.




HAHAHA AND IN THE FIMLSahaha

[Funcrusher]

Where do the panel stand on Tarantino's vision?

He doesn't have one and I hate his films, but I think most people have some time for him.

[Van Dammage]

I just hate the fact that he found fame through a blatant scene for scene rip off of another film.

[Noodle Lizard]

What's the opinion on Nicolas Winding Refn around here?

His film generally look pretty good I reckon, yeah (although sort of on the lower end of good, if that makes any sense).  'Valhalla Rising' looks really nice.