Here’s a fantastic new discovery for me: FlickeringMyth.com. What a great name for a blog about film-making!
On the site you’ll find some fascinating film-maker profiles on Steven Spielberg, Akira Kurosawa, and Hayao Miyazaki to name just a few. There’s also great section called, “Essential…” where they list the five essential Alfred Hitchcock films, Jim Carrey films, boxing films, and much more. There’s a ton of reviews, articles, and insightful opinions that make this site a great find for sure. Readers of this blog will likely dig this site and want to bookmark it or subscribe to it.
CG Society has done a nice little feature on Toy Story 3 which you can find here.
I regularly check the iMDb.com Top 250 Films rankings to make sure I’ve seen all the best films. That way I know exactly what I need to rent. I hadn’t checked it in a while, but I thought it was pretty cool that Inception has shot right up the list to number four amongst some pretty nice company. Toy Story 3 has also made its mark at number twelve.
I’ve been checking this list for over five years, and I’ve noticed modern films steadily creeping up the ranks and knocking off some pretty good classic films. Modern audiences just can’t stay awake for the old films anymore with their comparatively slower pacing. I find myself in the same boat a lot of times trying to watch stuff on TCM. Occasionally there’s something gripping, like Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte which I posted about a while back. I guess we can all blame MTV for this, right?
This 1964 movie was on AMC last night. Check out the range of emotions Bette Davis goes through in this scene. It’s wonderful. Also, notice the interesting staging and lighting setups you don’t see anymore. This is a fantastic scene.
For the first time in a long time I ventured out to see a non-Pixar film on opening night, and I’m so glad I did. Even though I ended up near the front row, I don’t think I can remember the last time I came out of the theater with such a fanboy buzz. I was so…entertained. What a concept! A movie did what it was supposed to do! I think the last time I came out of the theater with that same feeling was after I saw The Incredibles.
Go and see this film. I’m a huge Christopher Nolan fan ever since I saw The Prestige, and like his other films and maybe even more so, Inception challenges you intellectually, psychological, and keeps you suspended until you’re exhausted. In hindsight, perhaps that’s a flaw in the film, it’s constantly moving at a million miles an hour (not enough contrast), but it worked.
If you’ve fallen in love with Nolan’s film making style, the look and feel of his latest films, than you should add two more names to your list of inspiring film makers: Wally Pfister and Lee Smith. Directors often stick with Cinematographers and Editors that they find chemistry with, and Nolan is no exception. These two men have worked with him on all his latest films, including the most popular ones. So a huge part of the the look (Cinematography), and feel (Editing) can be attributed to them. I’m going to watch some of the films these guys did without Nolan, and find the similarities, find the charm they’re bringing to his vision that I absolutely love.
There is one thing I didn’t understand about the plot of Inception that maybe you can explain to me. I’ll post it as a question in the comments so I don’t spoil the movie for others. So comments are for people that have seen the film. Don’t go there, you’ll ruin the movie!
Update: John posted a great link in the comments. CinemaBlend has attempted to unravel some of the mysteries of this complex narrative. While it’s all theory, it’s a group effort, and it may help you understand something you missed the first time.
I think the latest Old Spice ads are pretty hilarious. I’ve often wondered how they’re done. It turns out I’m not the only one. Check out this interesting making of I found on YouTube. It’s amazing how they pulled this off.
Here’s a great read for aspiring filmmakers. This is Orson Welles memo, written in 1957, to the head of Universal Pictures, requesting changes to be made to the film he was pulled off of, Touch of Evil. I personally think the man was a genius, and definitely ahead of his time. Reading this is like getting inside the head of a revolutionary film maker. Welles knew he wouldn’t be present to see any of his requested changes made, so he laid everything out so anyone would be able to precisely edit the film to properly coincide with his intended vision. As a result, we get to read the entire thought process behind some of the scenes that contribute to his version of Touch of Evil. I’d suggest you read it, and then watch the 1998 re-edited version of the film.
Here’s a gripping scene from The Sweet Hereafter starring Ian Holm. This scene is full of stuff to use as reference. First off, the actors barely move during the whole scene (this scene goes on for five minutes in the film, but I’ve clipped out a minute of it), so were in subtle acting territory here. Second, despite their lack of movement, there’s a vast difference in the acting between the two as one tells a tragic story, and the other listens.
Notice the difference in their blink rates and blink speed. The actor that’s listening barely moves she’s listening so intently. They say acting is reacting, well she’s all reaction here. The few elements that keep her alive are the subtle brow furrows, blinks, and slight head tilts.
Ian Holm doesn’t move much either. He’s giving us some great reference for pained expressions. Everything is so subtle, it’s great. At the beginning he’s forming his thoughts, he’s visualizing his story. While he’s doing that he’s chewing his bottom lip. Notice the muscle’s under his left eye right before he says, “How to cut into her wind pipe.” That subtle movement is the anticipation for the large brow furrow and blink as the thought is fully formed. After that build up of thought he speaks way faster like he’s exorcising demons. It’s like a release because of the contrast in his rate of speech. Notice how his bottom lip quivers throughout. He swallows and blinks faster than the actor that’s listening. My favorite part is the uber subtle head shake he does right before he says, “You might just make it here first.”
There’s so much going on here. Did I miss anything? What can you pull from this?
This film forces us to think outside the box. To notice the beauty around us, and question the systems were all a part of. I’ve had a lot of the same thoughts as the main character in this film, Emile Hirsch, though obviously I’ve never acted on them. This movie explores what can happen when you do. I must admit a lot of it appeals to me. I’d love to get out there, maybe it’s the photographer in me, maybe it’s something more depressing. Who knows? Check out this film, it will give you a new perspective on some aspect of your life.
The one part I didn’t like about this film is when the main character broke “the fourth wall.” I’ve included that shot in the slide show below. Sometimes it works in films. I felt it was a little jarring, and sucked me out of the story a little. Fortunately it didn’t happen again in quite the same way, and there was enough story left over to suck me back in.
Pi is a dark movie about a Mathematician that studies Pi into near insanity. I’m a sucker for dramatic lighting and dynamic compositions (must be the photographer in me), and this film has a ton of interesting setups. It has a strong film school feel that most early directors have (Watch El Mariachi). The lighting in most of these shots is completely bleached out, making them look a lot like a graphic novel instead of a selection of shots from a film. I also love the close-ups of props and extreme close-ups of facial elements. It makes you look at them in a different way, which is a big part of the art of photography, and in this case cinematography.
