Well this was a 10/10
way more intellectually stimulating than star wars, anyway
Just watched the trailer. Literally looks like mindless degeneracy, just like:
>A Memework Orange
>Requiem for a Meme
And other films that glorify narcotic abuse. Absolutely disgusting
>Whats that dress made of?
Implying that matters at all. Yet his inner monologue and journey executed this, he just didn't break the fourth wall to wink at you anon, explaining "I get it now everyone! And to all a good night." FIN
I have hated Malick's last few flicks, but for some reason I really liked this one.
Knight of Dubs
is literally just a bunch of good looking shots put together without story
I'm just like Christian Bale in Knight of Cup. A modern life poet, a knight of melancholy. I remembered all of my past qt gf.
You are illiterate if you think Lubezki created that style on his own. He and Malick have jointly developed what you call "Lubezki's cinematography" over the course of Malick's filmography from The New World to Knight of Cups. It's similar to but certainly not the same as Lubezki's other post-2005 non-Malick work like Birdman or The Revenant.
>He says his previous movies were dictated by rules such as using only one lens, or shooting the entire film at T2.8. Although there is no written version of the Malick-Lubezki dogma on Tree, interviews with the cinematographer and some key collaborators suggest some parameters:
> • Shoot in available natural light
> • Do not underexpose the negative Keep true blacks
> • Preserve the latitude in the image
> • Seek maximum resolution and fine grain
> • Seek depth with deep focus and stop: “Compose in depth”
> • Shoot in backlight for continuity and depth
> • Use negative fill to avoid “light sandwiches” (even sources on both sides)
> • Shoot in crosslight only after dawn or before dusk; never front light
> • Avoid lens flares
> • Avoid white and primary colors in frame
> • Shoot with short-focal-length, hard lenses
> • No filters except Polarizer
> • Shoot with steady handheld or Steadicam “in the eye of the hurricane”
> • Z-axis moves instead of pans or tilts
> • No zooming
> • Do some static tripod shots “in midst of our haste”
> • Accept the exception to the dogma (“Article E”)
>“Working with Terry has changed my life,” he admits. “I’m a different parent, I’m a different husband, and I’m a different friend. I see nature in a different way since I started working with Terry. I have much more respect for things that I wasn’t aware of as much. He is one of the most important teachers in my life. And I’m a much better cinematographer in helping directors in a much more comprehensive way.”
Doesn't refute my point at all about how Lubezki's cinematography is fucking grating at this point and this looks exactly like every work he has been part of.
Revenant was basically ruined because of this ADD photography mindset he has.
>and this looks exactly like every work he has been part of.
Did you not read what I wrote? You have to be blind to think The Revenant or Gravity looks exactly the same as Knight of Cups or To the Wonder.
>Revenant was basically ruined because of this ADD photography mindset he has.
What do you mean by ADD photography?
Have to have everything filled to the screen and can't hold a fucking shot if his life depends on it.
Revenant felt like small fucking bush because everything was clamped uip together in the ugly wide ass photography
>Revenant felt like small fucking bush because everything was clamped uip together in the ugly wide ass photography
Explain again because you're not making sense. How can something look "small" with "wide ass photography"?
Because it shows everything and makes everything look squeezed and small? That's it.
Say, David Lynch's shots of just a few trees of forest feels much "more", like I'm being swallowed by the fucking nature around me, he didn't squeeze the entire forest line in there but filmed just a part of it and it felt huge, massive and scary.
>Because it shows everything and makes everything look squeezed and small?
But that's the opposite of how most of the movie is shot and Lubezki's post-2005 style. It focuses more on the humans and the faces and the local area more than any wide shot of nature. These are the typical Malick influenced Lubezki shots of humans appearing larger than than their surroundings, which is enhanced by the wide angle lens and low shooting angle pointing upwards. You seem very confused and think that Lubezki is somehow influenced by the long shots of someone like John Ford.