|
Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Silky Johnson |
| Goddamn, you know you suck when you're gettin' whooshed by IGK. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Silky Johnson
Goddamn, you know you suck when you're gettin' whooshed by IGK. |
:stongue: |
|
|
| GoSpeedGo! |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I wasn't talking about camera movement. I was talking about, to quote you again, "figuring out of what kind of film you are watching". |
Now you quote only the second part of my sentence - how could I have known that your answer doesn't relate to the camera movement part as well?
When I mentioned "kinds of film" I didn't mean genre, you should have figured that out from my examples. Art films are pretty much the opposite of genre. I was talking about two different modes of storytelling and their characteristics.
| quote: |
When people talk about films having "no story", generally they mean there being a lack of events, of plot, of many things happening because other things happened. Perhaps Gravity does have plenty of this, but you've not demonstrated that at all. You've just talked about symbolism and themes and shot durations, none of which in any way indicates there being an abundance of story in the first place. |
A lot of things can happen in a movie, but that doesn't automatically mean it is story-driven. 2001: A Space Odyssey spans thousands of years, has multiple protagonists and includes a goddamn flight to Jupiter, yet the narrative isn't really the most important there. You've got long shots of spaceships floating in space, for example, that don't contribute to the story in any meaningful way.
On the other hand, Gravity has a simple story that happens within a day, or even a couple of hours, yet almost all shots in the film are narratively motivated and keep pushing the story forward.
My point from the beginning is that in films you can't reduce story to "events" and "things happening", because how are those events depicted is extremely important as well. That can also easily contribute to average goer's (no offense meant) impression that there's not much of a story.
You ignore all of this and keep emphasing "symbolism and themes" when in fact I talked about those only in a sentence or two. Whatever serves your argument, I guess. But this, combined with your annoying condescension, has at least finally convinced me there's no sense in wasting my time arguing with you. Good job  |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Before I jump to any conclusions here, is there any existing critical framework from which you've drawn this very odd paradigm of "types of films", where you appear to categorise films by what "drives" them? I assumed from your use of formalist terms that we could proceed on a straightforward narrative theory discourse, but you're clearly operating on an altogether more idiosyncratic paradigm. |
|
|
| FuzzQi |
-Goes to space
-Everything that could go wrong goes wrong
It was basically Kerbal Space Program: The Movie |
|
|
| Guest |
Finally saw it. Been waiting impatiently, so stupid that UK releases are so much longer than NA releases. Anyways, got to the theatre for a matinee because I wanted to be one of the only people in the theatre. Show was supposed to start at 2:30PM, I was there by like 2:15PM, only person in there. A few more people make their way into the theatre, until finally there was only around like 12 of us in there.
Starting from 2:30PM-3:00PM, there was a green screen. Some worker comes in at 2:40PM saying they are having difficulties with the projector and that it will be fixed in a few minutes. He comes in again at 2:50PM saying it will be fixed in a "few minutes" 3:15 rolls around and they come in with another announcement saying that it won't be fixed but we will get free movie passes and given priority seating in another theatre showing the 3:15PM show. Awesome, right? That's what I was thinking. I don't mind waiting 45 minutes for a free movie pass and comfy chairs.
So, I get into the new theatre, turns out it's a complete piece of . Screen is smaller than the last one, weird layout, and the ing lights didn't even turn off. They were dimmed for the entire ing movie. Like, really? So ing annoying. What made it worse, is that I had to sit through 15 minutes of adverts, 15 minutes of movie trailers, then another 10 minutes of adverts. Is this really how the UK does movies in theatres? Seriously? In Canada we get 10 mins of adverts and 15 mins of trailers, then it's on to the movie. None of this waiting for 40 minutes bull of rubbish until I actually see the movie. I was expecting the lights to go off finally at the end of the adverts/trailers, but no. The movie starts with dim ing lighting.
Now, I think I need to see the movie again, because I was extremely unnerved by the entire situation that I really didn't get into it until 30 mins-1 hour of the movie. It was pretty good however. I wouldn't go as far as saying it was amazing, but it was definitely a solid movie. The music score was brilliant as well. Visually and audioally (made up a new word yo) this was a great achievement. Also that was some pretty solid acting I saw from Bullock. I've only seen her in ty movies and/or romantic comedies though so take my opinion with a grain of salt :p
All in all, a pretty interesting day to say the least. Never going back to that theatre though, jesus christ. I'm not normally the one to go and rage at managers, but I felt I had a legitimate beef. Talked to him, making him know how ty a time I had (and most likely everyone else), and then left.
*edit: I know it's a movie, and they at least got some of the things that happens in space correctly, but there are a few things that got my kinda annoyed. Why doesn't Sandra's hair flop around? Zero G bro.
Also, there would have been zero tension on Clooney's character, he's weightless. But I understand these caveats were meant to either advance the story or be aestetically pleasing :p |
|
|
| juzr10 |
| It was a pretty awesome movie experience, If Alfonso had directed "europa report" too, that would have been so cool! :D :stongue: |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| So I've finally seen this sucker. I thought it was technically stunning and made full compositional use of 3D. The visuals reminded me of hearing music in 5.1 for the first time. Definitely one to be seen on the big screen. I do, however, think the film was relatively lightweight on a human level. The dramatic arc of Ryan Stone felt slightly rushed to me, and some of the symbolism was very clunky and obvious. I felt they could have extended the film by 15-20 minutes and spent a little bit more time with the characters, which is a rare sentiment in the era of uber-bloated 130 minute blockbusters. |
|
|
| Sykonee |
| By the end of it, I half expected Bullock to get attacked by a crocodile or giant squid. Poor woman never got a break. |
|
|
| Juan Paulino |
I was truly waiting for some aliens, but never got it.
:( |
|
|
| richard.winters |
| I don't want to read the posts as I've not seen it yet, seeing it tonight at 6.40 in 3D Imax so expecting it to be a visually treat. I did read that the script was a bit disappointing so I'm going to be aware of that but nevertheless people are saying it's intense. And I'm a MASSIVE fan of Children of Men so feel like Cuaron has some serious chops. Will report back later. |
|
|
|
|
