The true patrician has spoken.
>While enduring the fetishizing aestheticism of “Mad Max: Fury Road,” I wanted George Miller to stop the action and show the trickery involved in endowing Charlize Theron with Imperator Furiosa’s prosthetic arm. With the vast and sparsely populated landscapes of “The Revenant,” I wanted Alejandro González Iñárritu’s balletic cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki to swivel the camera around to show the teeming crew and the high-tech caravansary behind them. Yet even if Miller and Iñárritu abandoned the faux audacities of their bombastic style for these sorts of radical moves, which were radical in 1960 and are still radical today, it probably wouldn’t help: they’d do so with the same willfulness that they bring to the hermetic grandeur of their actual work. They wouldn’t need to free themselves from their scripts or their intentions but from their very taste—from themselves.
>mfw Brody reviews Knight of Cups when it gets released in the US
>mfw he hates it
Lubezki didn't decide how his cinematography is being applied. The aesthetic is dictated by the director, who hires the necessary people to fulfil that vision.
He never once criticises Lubezki in the piece.
"balletic" is faintly neutral in this case, but it's idiotic to say Lubezki is guilty by association. He did not direct The Revenant. He didn't scale up the bombast through use of extras, on-screen action, long takes. That was all pre-decided before he even touched the camera.
>He didn't scale up the bombast through use of extras, on-screen action, long takes. That was all pre-decided before he even touched the camera.
You don't know that. One of the problems with cinematographers and directors working together is that some directors rely and give more control to the cinematographer. Some directors are anal about the visuals and leave very little interpretation to do for the cinematographer.
It's one of the most close and symbiotic working relationships when you make films, the relationship between the director and the cinematographer. Cinematographer is almost always one of the first people brought into a project by a director. They collaborate together to achieve the aesthetic of the film and what the visual language of the film is communicating to the audience.
Great guy, Brody. One of the more idiosyncratic critics around. Definitely one that doesn't pander to the the masses for better understanding. To put it even more clearer, he's deeply non-/tv/ palate.
>through use of extras
Have you even seen the movie? Apart from the opening scene there are hardly any extras.
Honestly though I don't know what kind of "bombastic style" Brody is criticizing in The Revenant. Maybe all the shit Glass goes through, all the ham from Leo and Hardy, I don't know. He talks about a high-tech crew caravansarai that Inarritu relies on but this wasn't apparent at all from the movie which relied on natural light and Steadicam. Certainly less of a crew than Mad Max.
Cinematographers don't dictate what gets to be in the film. They're hired to capture a specific vision of a director, working off a screenplay and storyboard. He's framing what's already supposed to be there. Everything in Revenant is so controlled and meticulous (as was in Birdman) that it's pretty safe to say that Inarritu already had the style in his mind and Inarritu was just there to realise it.
he's talking about his transparent desire to be technically dazzling. The transparency is what makes it boring to watch, because it's so controlled, because we've basically seen this style before from directors like Cuarón.
> I wanted Alejandro González Iñárritu’s balletic cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki to swivel the camera around to show the teeming crew and the high-tech caravansary behind them
What the fuck lads?
What did he mean by this?
Did he really want the movie to abruptly cut the scene to show the technical aspect behind making a movie?
this reads like the rantings of a lunatic
There weren't many transparently dazzling shots from The Revenant if you discount the whole natural lighting shtick. I was actually sort of
disappointedbecause I was expecting something flashy like Birdman.
one of his favorite films last year was Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One, so he's probably on a deconstructivist kick.
he's right though. A docu-fiction about actual hardships would be more interesting than Inarritu's stale action cinema.
>one of his favorite films last year was Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One
It got a release last year?
>A docu-fiction about actual hardships would be more interesting than Inarritu's stale action cinema.
Kiarostami get out of that fucking car
>I want a movie to break my suspension of disbelief and become a making of documentary in the middle of me watching it
Does he actually watch movies for any other reason than to bitch at them?
Brilliant. If one could only free oneself from one's taste in the way you can separate chocolate from chocolate ice cream to coalesce "ice cream" in it's purest form, you wouldn't need to demonstrate the reduction in calories or whether or not you used 2% or whole fat milk.
But these niggas be nutella, they be fucked.
a. 1. Of, pertaining to, or taught by, Hermes Trismegistus; as, hermetic philosophy. Hence: Alchemical; chemic.
The alchemists, as the people were called who tried to make gold, considered themselves followers of Hermes, and often called themselves Hermetic philosophers.
- A. B. Buckley.
2. Of or pertaining to the system which explains the causes of diseases and the operations of medicine on the principles of the hermetic philosophy, and which made much use, as a remedy, of an alkali and an acid; as, hermetic medicine.
3. Made perfectly close or air-tight by fusion, so that no gas or spirit can enter or escape; as, an hermetic seal. See Note under Hermetically.
a - Books of the Egyptians, which treat of astrology.
b - Books which treat of universal principles, of the nature and orders of celestial beings, of medicine, and other topics.
What does he mean?
Brody feels that authenticity is lost in the spectacle works of Miller and Iñárritu. It's a great sight, but a closed bottle. He seems bothered that the best in film that exists in 2015/16 isn't a cinema of 'inviting freedom', instead one of carefully, richly constructed closed circles.
I disagree with him.
If you are going to critic you have to be objective and concise, specially with your vocabulary, you are not a poet or a philosopher, using big words to get more credibility is pathetic and only an idiot would fall for it.
His favorite movies of 2015.
1. Chi-Raq – Spike Lee
2. Li’l Quinquin – Bruno Dumont
3. Queen of Earth – Alex Ross Perry
4. Heaven Knows What – Ben Safdie and Joshua Safdie
5. Jafar Panahi’s Taxi – Jafar Panahi
6. Timbuktu – Abderrahmane Sissako
7. In Jackson Heights – Frederick Wiseman
8. Mistress America – Noah Baumbach
9. Stinking Heaven – Nathan Silver
10. Arabian Nights – Miguel Gomes
11. Carol – Todd Haynes
12. Trainwreck – Judd Apatow
13. Digging for Fire – Joe Swanberg
14. Wild Canaries – Lawrence Michael Levine
15. Results – Andrew Bujalski
16. Creed – Ryan Coogler
17. The Princess of France – Matías Piñeiro
18. Field Niggas – Khalik Allah
19. Iris – Albert Maysles
20. Irrational Man – Woody Allen
21. Da Sweet Blood of Jesus – Spike Lee
22. Uncertain Terms – Nathan Silver
23. Young Bodies Heal Quickly – Andrew T. Betzer
24. By the Sea – Angelina Jolie
25. While We’re Young – Noah Baumbach
26. Entertainment – Rick Alverson
27. Approaching the Elephant – Amanda Wilder
28. In the Name of My Daughter – André Téchiné
29. Buzzard – Joel Potrykus
30. Fifty Shades of Grey – Sam Taylor-Johnson
It's a list. Everybody has their oddities. Most questionable:
>Fifty Shades of Grey
The first two can go for him being an Apatow and Allen admirer, even if in the case of Allen, IM was a very doped movie. But I can't explain Fifty Shades.