What is that movie with the girl who is an orphan and she has a black orphan friend, and they imagine they are having an amazing feast. Then some guy in a turban comes to visit her and her wish comes true. Does anybody know this movie?
>>65072475 There's not much to think about when Lubezki is involved since his Perfect Shot Nation cinematography is never interested in adding anything to the context of the film (narrative, directing).
>>65072640 >implying adding anything to the context of the film is solely the job of the cinematographer >implying Lubezki doesn't do that in his collaborations with Malick where the use of natural light, no filters, short focal length lenses and low angle Steadicam contributes to the Heideggerian philosophy of being-in-the-world that drives Malick's films where the characters appear larger than life and hyperreal in the midst of their existential doubts >implying you made any sense when you said that Lubezki's aesthetics are both Instagram-YouTube (which is wrong since he doesn't use filters nor a cinema verite visual style) as well as Perfect Shot Nation, which implies something even more nonsensical >implying you're not just shitting on Lubezki because he's popular than ever and it's the cool thing to do >implying I wasn't right when I wondered whether you even think before you type
>>65073840 I've shat over Lubezki since I first saw him work in Children of Men. >>implying adding anything to the context of the film is solely the job of the cinematographer Okay, we can agree both Malick and Lubezki are terribad. I can go with that since Malick hasn't made a good movie since Badlands.
Any existential doubt Malick can muster up comes off as shit writing so I guess the issue is with both.
>>65074160 >Okay, we can agree both Malick and Lubezki are terribad. That's not what I said at all. Please learn to read.
>I can go with that since Malick hasn't made a good movie since Badlands. >Any existential doubt Malick can muster up comes off as shit writing so I guess the issue is with both. What issues do you have with Malick? People don't seem to realize how deep his work really is, especially his critically polarizing recent films.
>>65074299 >Malick >deep His writing is shallow and terrible, his directing is much worse, and all he has is Lubezki's Youtube music video sensiblities or maybe his cologne advertisement aesthetics depending of the scene.
>>65074400 I figured One Perfect Shot Nation retard wouldn't understand cinematography that actually serves a purpose of the director instead of being cinematographers jerk off reel
>>65075091 >His writing is shallow and terrible His writing is based on Biblical, theological, historical and autobiographical sources not to mention his own interpretation of Heidegger's works. It is not based on any conventional three act structure, but conveys the mood, theme and emotions of his vision of reality effectively. He is a filmmaker first and foremost, not a novelist, and it shows.
>his directing is much worse His directing style has changed much from when he started. You cannot say without knowing beforehand that the person who directed Badlands is the same person who directed Knight of Cups. But it still carries his distinct style of allowing the actors freedom to improvise within his narrative framework. His idea of shooting in the moment and creating a more coherent structure in editing is innovative as an exercise in montage and, as said before, capturing the hyperreal now.
>and all he has is Lubezki's Youtube music video sensiblities Again, you are spouting paradoxical nonsense. Is Lubezki's aesthetics perfect shot or YouTube? Because I seriously don't think anyone can believe that a "YouTube aesthetic" is the same as a "perfect shot". Besides I think you are criticizing the editing style ("music video") rather than the cinematography, in which case you are even more stupid than I thought.
You have no real criticism to offer beyond playground level insults and swipes and posting some very mediocre cinematographic shots. If you do not have any reasonable argument, perhaps you should go and educated yourself instead of posting your terrible opinions on things that you have no capability of understanding.
>>65075551 His directing is shit. Nolan can get Bale perform well and Malick can't even make Bale look believable in his role. Simply put, his directing is shit. The fact his turds are 2 hours long and it's riddled with shit acting every movie screams he is bad director. The fact he can't cut a movie to save his life (Thin Red Line) screams he is shit director.
The fact first 15 minutes or was it 25, hell entire Knight of Cups seems like parody of Malick's sensiblities shows he is shit director.
And we all know what Malick is telling about and shooting because he isn't subtle and spoonfeeds his audience like they're 6 year old kids. I think Michael Bay has more subtle approach to his film making than Malick. He is one of the worst writers and circled only because of his established status in canon, if this was newcomer his movies would be ridiculed because, they are, written like a retard.
>Paradoxical nonsense Just because you don't udnerstand doesn't mean it's paradoxical. Lubezki has never outside Birdman offered anything as cinematographer outside his antics which don't relate to narrative or storytelling in any level.
>>65075639 >Malick's writing is shit. >Malick's faggot brother committed suicide doesn't mean the whole world should suffer. You have no real criticism to offer beyond playground level insults and swipes.
>His interpretation of any philosophy is bunk. Have you read his work "The Concept of Horizon in Husserl and Heidegger"?
>He was literally laughed out of Oxford. This is the same person who studied at Harvard, won a Rhodes Scholarship and left Oxford only because his interest in continental philosophy clashed with his analytic peers.
>Privileged cunts can never be artists. Do you have a tumblr page?
>>65075843 Twin Peaks has actual cinematography that ties to its themes, goal, narrative and aesthetics Lynch had in mind. It helps the director to tell a story.
but what would a faggot loving Lubezki know about storytelling? ONly thing that matters is latest cinematogrpahy memes and gimmicks.
Go fuck yourself, pleb scum
>>65075830 >>His interpretation of any philosophy is bunk. >Have you read his work "The Concept of Horizon in Husserl and Heidegger"? No but I have seen his joke movies that are filled with atrocious writing
>>65075967 >>65075967 AYYYYY [ ] Not told [ ] Told [X] TOLDASAURUS REX [X] No country for told men [X] Knights of the told Republic [X] ToldSpice [x] The Elder Tolds IV: Oblivious [x] Countold Strike [X] Half Life 2: Episode Told [x] World of Warcraft: Catoldclysm [X] Roller Coaster Toldcoon [X] Toldasauraus Rex 2: Electric Toldaloo [X] Pokemon Told and Silver [x] The Legend of Eldorado : The Lost City of Told [x] Mario Golf: Toldstool Tour [X] Battoldfield: Bad Company 2 [x] Portold 2 [x] J.R.R Toldkien's Lord of the Told [X] LitTOLD Big Planetr [x] Told Fortress 2 [x] Castlevania: RonTold of Blood [x] Cyndaquil, Chicorita, and Toldodile [x] demon's told [x] Tolden Sun: Dark Dawn
>>65075720 >Malick can't even make Bale look believable in his role. Believability is not a primary concern in the arts. Perhaps you in your limited high school sensibilities think that realism is the be-all and end-all of artistic expression but for most of human history believability has never been the measure of good art.
>The fact first 15 minutes or was it 25, hell entire Knight of Cups seems like parody of Malick's sensiblities Having a consistent and unique visual style does not mean it is parody. Are Tarkovsky films parody for reciting poetry over images of flowing water?
>And we all know what Malick is telling about and shooting because he isn't subtle and spoonfeeds his audience like they're 6 year old kids. But apparently this doesn't work because people like you still do not understand his philosophical background or how they color his films.
>He is one of the worst writers and circled only because of his established status in canon If he is such a bad writer how did he become established in canon? You are not making sense, certainly not the first nor second time this has happened.
>Just because you don't udnerstand doesn't mean it's paradoxical. No, you are the one not understanding because I said that you are being paradoxical. Either Lubezki is "YouTube tier" or makes "Perfect Shots". Do you sincerely believe that "Perfect Shots" are "YouTube tier"?
>His directing is shit. >Simply put, his directing is shit >he is shit director. >he is shit director. Is this really going to be your level of argument or are you pretending to be a moron?
>>65076081 If you use actors as a director and can't direct them to a good performance, you are bad director.
If you can't cut through a movie to a respectable showing, you are bad editor, which Malick is since he does it.
>doesn't mean it's parody No but being so in far in his own ignorant ass that only a retard or parody could be explanation makes it one.
>>65076145 >>Lynch isn't a cinematographer. Focus. But director will direct the cinematographer unless we are talking about hack directors like Malick or Villeneuve, both belong to same intellectually nothing to say trash can.
>>65076081 >If he is such a bad writer how did he become established in canon? Lucked out with Badlands which is legitimately good and managed to fool people with Days of Heaven because of his memetography
No, but it was a response. I haven't read it, and neither have you. Undergraduate theses are neither interesting nor readily available. Why would you want to read that anyway? It literally has nothing to do with Oxford.
He was kicked out for being a hothead spoiled Texan retard.
>Academic disagreement can never be grounds for dismissal.
Failure to work with your advisor has always been grounds for removal from PhD candidacy.
>>65076240 >If you use actors as a director and can't direct them to a good performance, you are bad director. Film is not just about performance or acting, perhaps in the Hollywood world where the most important celebrities are always the surface level people i.e actors. This is an absolute childish approach to the visual arts, on the same level as people who go to watch movies because their favorite actors are in them.
>If you can't cut through a movie to a respectable showing, you are bad editor, which Malick is since he does it. Malick cuts the movie to his own personal vision which is thematically coherent and "respectable". I would say he is a much better editor than a director.
>No but being so in far in his own ignorant ass that only a retard or parody could be explanation makes it one. Again ad hominems that contribute nothing to the argument and only make you, reflexively, look like the "ignorant ass".
>>65076634 >Film isn't about performances or acting Then why is Malick stuffing his films with ensemble casts, he films actors, this will be rated, he has failed time after time in directing in his actors.
>Own personal vision >TTRL >Own personal vision Confirmed for liking Malick just because he is told to like.
Malick can't direct, cut his films at all. Stop slupring his dick, it's okay to not to like empty airhead dierctor like him
>>65076408 >It literally has nothing to do with Oxford. And Oxford has literally nothing to do with this conversation.
>He was kicked out for being a hothead spoiled Texan retard. What evidence do you have apart from memespouting? All the biographies state that it was he who left over disagreements with his advisor who did not want him to write about Heidegger.
>>65076790 >And Oxford has literally nothing to do with this conversation.
Sure it does, considering we were discussing the reason why he was kicked out of Oxford. Err wait, lemme guess, you thought that was what he wrote while at Oxford and you just now learned it was just an undergrad essay?
>>65076769 >Then why is Malick stuffing his films with ensemble casts, he films actors, this will be rated, he has failed time after time in directing in his actors. Because he wants characters and the human element, but it should not become the primary focus nor take over a scene or even the entire film. Malick's actors are placeholders for the emotions and words which they represent and voice. This is the exact theatrical interpretation of film acting that Bresson had problems with.
>Confirmed for liking Malick just because he is told to like. Do you know what a personal vision is? Because The Thin Red Line (which is a very loose adaptation of a book) carries his personal vision, again of the Dasein, temporality and up/rootedness of his Heideggerian interpretation.
>Malick can't direct, cut his films at all. I already addressed this. Directing is not just limited to telling actors what to do. Once again you betray your adolescent view of film.
>Stop slupring his dick, it's okay to not to like empty airhead dierctor like him Perhaps you should go over my previous posts and look things up and read them.
>>65076950 There is nothing human in Malick's movies, and there are terrible characters because of the writing, in fact he has very few characters in his movies. Intentional or not, it's hilariously shit.
>blaa blaa Malick has vision and terrible execution of it.
>Directing is not limited to what actors do Mind stating the obvious bit more? He can't make a film that's not a joke, that's also a huge fault in director. First 30 minutes of KoC are GRRRR SO EXISTENTIALISM MUCH THINKING tier shit it made me laugh my ass off.
>>65076936 >Sure it does, considering we were discussing the reason why he was kicked out of Oxford. Yes, and that has nothing to do with his films or Lubezki's cinematography, which is what started this entire argument.
>Err wait, lemme guess, you thought that was what he wrote while at Oxford and you just now learned it was just an undergrad essay? Not at all, it's one of the few writings we have that lay out his approach to philosophy and film in his own words.
>Cite them. Tucker, T. (2011). Terrence Malick film and philosophy. New York: Continuum. Maher, P. (2012). One big soul: An oral history of Terrence Malick. Peterborough, N.H.: Paul Maher Jr. Maher, P. (2012). One big soul: An oral history of Terrence Malick. Peterborough, N.H.: Paul Maher Jr.
>>65077031 >There is nothing human in Malick's movies Except for the fact that all his movies deal with existential themes, a philosophical movement that explicitly centers the thinking on humans and the individual.
>and there are terrible characters because of the writing The writing is in how the characters
>>65077259 >So? We were still talking about Malick getting kicked out of Oxford. And that's not true. See the works I cited.
>We don't have it. It hasn't been published. You never read it. All theses are published and publicly available. If you had any library resources, you can easily request a copy.
>Are either of those critical of Malick in any way? They are biographies and academic articles that refer to the biographies. Why on earth do you think they should be critical or on the other hand lionizing?
>>65077285 >Working a digital handycam isn't cinematography.
>I just don't find anything unique about the cinematography of Twin Peaks.
Seems liek you can't even fucking understand what is being spoken 'bout.
Why are you babbling about digital handycam in relation to TP? And it doesn't even matter what you think of anything, Lynch was dop in Inland Empire which you clearly mixed up somehow with Twin Peaks (where he also DIRECTED the cinematographer or is it a fucking accident the episodes are (mostly) staying with same set of rules cinematographically?
>>65077031 >Mind stating the obvious bit more? I was merely stating your teenage approach to film. I did not make the claim, it is you who languish in it.
>First 30 minutes of KoC are GRRRR SO EXISTENTIALISM MUCH THINKING tier shit it made me laugh my ass off. Merely confirming your teenage sensibilities. Read all the posts I have made, perhaps you can appreciate films more.
>>65077549 >You were assuming things and putting words into my mouth But you were the one who said that "If you use actors as a director and can't direct them to a good performance, you are bad director." here >>65076634 I only summarized what you said to show how childish your approach to film is.
>>65077605 Well you are a bad director in that case, simply bad in directing actors and thus you have no reason to get a fucking ensemble cast but seems Malick's head is so lost in his brother's faggot ass that he can't see the retarded mistake he makes with likes of thin red line and koc and as of, IDK, about Thin Red Line he can't even direct a honest convincing scene that doesn't make me question if the director is simply retarded or pretentious. Every scene moves liek they're having gravitas of fucking funeral but skips to parody or near laughable instantly he tries to hold it.
>summarized put words into my mouth and pretended to win argument :v)
Feels like watching dishonest lies made by a man that enjoys sitting in self-pity in some cabin. He really should do a straight forward movie about self-pity sometime
>>65077816 >Well you are a bad director in that case, simply bad in directing actors and thus you have no reason to get a fucking ensemble cast So you agree that I was right, that you think directing is just about directing actors? Thanks.
>thus you have no reason to get a fucking ensemble cast but seems Malick's head is so lost in his brother's faggot ass that he can't see the retarded mistake he makes with likes of thin red line and koc and as of, IDK, about Thin Red Line he can't even direct a honest convincing scene that doesn't make me question if the director is simply retarded or pretentious. Every scene moves liek they're having gravitas of fucking funeral but skips to parody or near laughable instantly he tries to hold it. I have no idea what you just wrote. Can you please enroll in a grade level English class and come back to me?
>put words into my mouth and pretended to win argument :v) No, I only repeated what you said. Don't be upset that you were proven to be wrong by your own words.
Besides, all the "cinematography" you posted is just bland and uninteresting. Makes sense that you are a cyncial teenager who can't appreciate film that falls outside your narrow, presumptouos, cinematically and philosophically illiterate views.
>>65077983 No I'm stating he is bad director when he has to film actors with his stupid ensemble casts and he is too ignorant to see his own weaknesses. He is also bad director when it comes to overall mis-en-scene (he used to be good, in fact Badlands has quite the conclusion)
>Malickfag rating cinematography based on one still of a movie. >Malickfag canonically saying director only directs actors >>65076454
One Big soul is, and I'd be interested in reading it, but I doubt if there will be anything negative about Malick in it. It won't be a tell-all. So things making him look anything other than a genius philosopher who sacrificed academia for art probably didn't make it in.
>>65078269 >He doesn't direct the DP. He tells the DP what he's looking for. That isn't directing. That's directing you twat. >Informing of your desired outcome isn't directing. Informing of your desired outcome isn't directing.
Or do you think it's fucking accident that despite everyone else but DIRECTOR changing in various auteur films (from Mann, Guillermo Del Toro, Ford etc) the movies looked the same in general terms?
fucking ignorance running wild here, but you are malickfags, you are ignorant by nature as is your director.
>>65078269 >He tells the DP what he's looking for. That isn't directing. Stop being a pedantic cunt. For all intents and purposes that IS directing. DP may have an idea, director shuts him down and DIRECTS him towards something he does want.
>>65078428 There will never, ever be another film like this ever again. Who could possibly risk that much time, money and effort? I'm just glad it's a masterpiece because at least we know what can be done with the medium if everybody involved in such an ambitious project is firing on all cylinders.
You two retards, there are no hard and fast rules determining what directors control or hand off to their DP. It even varies by project. Sometimes a director will want to frame & light & shoot certain shots exactly his way in one film, and in the next, be excited to work with a DP he gets on well with or just respects, and hand it all over to that DP's autonomy.
I feel that there is a difference between filming a location or set that is already beautiful/cool looking and actual "good" cinematography. If I am making sense, can someone point me in a direction of the latter?
Glad to see all these posters realizing what hack frauds Malick and Lubezki are. They are the cancer killing the American art film scene, while auteurs like Harmony Korine and Joe Swanberg are trying to save it.
>>65078749 >That doesn't mean the director is the cinematographer.
Nobody said he is. The director directs the DoP to film a movie in such a way as to bring his vision to life. Most directors are heavily involved in the selection of lenses that will be used, framing, etc.
You can just as well say >The director doesn't direct actors, he just ''manages'' them, because the actors are the ones who give the performance.
>OK then let's talk about two movies by any director that look the same but have an entirely different camera crew.
David Fincher has maintained a very consistent visual style throughout his career and has used several different cinematographers.
This is a dubious point to make anyway, because what you are implying is that if a director changes cinematographers and the look of the film changes from what he has previously done, therefore he is not directing and it's 100% the cinematographer's work. Take someone like Soderbergh, for example, who has been the DoP for lots of his own films, and they can look very different.
>>65081121 I've never thought of von Trier as pretentious, what is it that makes you say that he might be, dishonest - pretentious? I think he is very sincere and open director, his movies are simple and straightforward.
I do wanna say that splitting into two did more harm than good.
>>65076560 hey anon, this is less on the topic on cinematography or maybe it is. I loved A river runs through it because of the shots and the setting. Do you know of any other movies with similar landscapes shot in a similar light? Stand by me was a movie I felt had same visual to emotion appeal
>>65078885 >No. For one thing the DP is usually far more educated. The DP is educated in everything camera and light related. >I agree Malick is an airhead. I don't like Malick. I don't know how many times I need to say this for a pattern to emerge in the conversation flow. Your opinion matters. >I will accept that. I love wikipedia. Right after I get back from walking my dogs. Good to know?
>>65082840 Lord of the Rings is an obvious choice, although a bit different than the meandering river and streams along mountainsides that Montana and North GA showed in the aforementioned movies.
Rambo had some great shots honestly, but cheesy. The Hunted I think had kinda a comfy feel.
I know exactly the feel you're looking for, but nothing else is really jumping to mind. I actually loved the feel the show The Detectorists gave. Different landscape in the UK, but a similar feel for me. Also a very solid show imo.
The Patriot has some nice scenes, but other than that I'm afraid I haven't been much help. Sry anon.
>>65083883 And in regard to the suggestions, LOTR definitely had the scenic looks like you suggested but like the other anon mentioned the atmosphere being captured in those scenes was so different. Maybe in the beginning and the end when "everything was peace".
I'll give the rest a go. The Detectorists esp. Ty again
>>65083605 >its intended purpose and how well it worked
It doesn't work. The one shot is forced as fuck. Lubezki had to throw in a fucking timelapse to make it fucking work with the script. That's not even including the idiotic scene with Birdman flying around with tons of FX where there's literally no point in having it a one shot because you know you're not watching something real anymore. The cinematography's primary concern in the movie is to show off what great cinematography which is bad cinematography.
Lubezki's alright usually but his work on Birdman sucks because of that piece of shit hack Inarritu and his direction.
Also, fuck Malick and his shallow, tone poem filmmaking. He disappeared up his own ass ages ago.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.