Printable View
Didn't know where else to post this..
Further interpretations of the Stalker. Quite an interesting read I should say, though the article rather wanders about without sufficient cohesion.
:DQuote:
..at a certain point the audacious claim is made that the reason we were put on earth was to create works of art. By the same token, it's not enough to say that Stalker is a great film - it is the reason cinema was invented
Kannannn,
Neenga Ireland-la irukeengala? Anyway which is the best UK portal for film criticism? Guardian or Telegraph or Daily mail or Times online or what have you?
Thilak, I live at a godforsaken town called Rugby near Birmingham, UK. As for UK portals, Guardian is my preference. Daily Telegraph and Times are both Tabloidish and I tend to avoid them. Peter Bradshaw of the Guardian does good reviews and brings to notice most of the new foreign language releases. Their film blog at http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog also carries interesting articles from time to time and the Friday 'Music and Film' feature is a must read (new indie movies and music, interviews and recommendations).
Thanks Kannannn. I wanted a portal for unknown Indie films made in UK. That should help. :D
Kannannn,
Parthacha? Guardian too. :D
Not yet Thilak. It hasn't released here from what I gather :(. Paartha sollunga..
To Nolan fans (including myself)
Saw the trailor of his next flick Inception starring Dicaprio. Looked very sick. :)
:shock: Eppa release?
Innum naal irukku
summer 2010
Oh!! Thanks AF :)
Did you mean slick?!Quote:
Originally Posted by ajithfederer
No. I meant sick (In the good sense).
Oh mannikkavum!
Interesting...
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810099246/video/15201197
Trailor/Inception/Nolan/Di caprio
To quote the words of the great supervisor supramaniQuote:
Originally Posted by ajithfederer
hayyoo....aarambamE asathalA irukkE dA
HD Version. Trailer dhool 8-)Quote:
Originally Posted by ajithfederer
Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire are off from spiderman 4. :cry:
Now Sony has planned to reboot the series with a new director.
now Sam.. release Ash to paramount and give us Jason vs Freddy vs Ash.. Pls..
Athukkulla reboot-ah? Yabbaaa...the third one sucked anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLAyo...layer_embedded
Lynch :smokesmirk: meets Lucas :lol:
Video made from a real interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDB8Q15iUIE
allakkaigaLOda rules ennadA..vaazhga ozhiga. aththOda niruthinga da.Quote:
Originally Posted by MADDY
replace that with action/cut and you have my PoV :-)
btw this is largely a definitional tussle.
I am talking about a script which is written in fair level of detail.
We see from over Saket's shoulder, gun SA's head
Cut to...
SA seeing Saket's thread
smiles
SA: abivAdhayE vishwaamitraaha aagamarshaNa kaushika..
Saket still has gun pointed at him
View moves away from shoulder to show them in profile.
By the time he is done, view shifts to SA's shoulder
If it is not this detailed...what the deuce is screenwriting?
That excerpt, and the complete (detailed) script would seem a whole lot different under Shyam Benegal's or Mani Ratnam's direction.
With the same script...i.e written in that level of detailQuote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
I don't see what difference they'd make.
Thought experiment: consider a director contractually obliged to stick to that level of detail (down to editing/pacing) as the script commands. Then would it really make a difference ?
One thing I can see is par level performance from actors (Barathiraja :lol:). Apart from that, I see limited influence a director can wield.
It is not surprising that directors co-write their films. The way I see it, it is inevitable. They have to.
Apparently Orson Welles (who was from the stage) used to give lighting directions on the first day of shooting Citizen Kane. Then he was told that in cinema, the DoP made those calls. So he politely (atypically) accepted that.
They make a big deal of how he shared the credits page with the DoP.
If asked I'd say: adhu Mankewicz in perundhanmai.
Franz Kafka ezhudhi, adhE Welles direct paNNa 'The Trial' paathuttu vaanga, appuRam theriyin yaar Citizen Kane thillAlangadinnu.
Raasukutti
stone crunch at dinner table
Manorama: ayyo thuppu thuppu
Bagyaraj: spits out the food
Kalyankumar: yen di avanai thuppa sonnE?
Bagyaraj: puLLa kallu kadichadhu kEkkaleengaLA?
KK: nee yEn dA thuppunE?
KB: aathA thuppa sollichu thuppunEn
KK: kallu kadichadhu naanu, neenga thuppikkureengaLaakkum
P_R,
Almost all prolific directors with a consistent signature rewrite/enhance the already written script. Not just visualize it mentally. The worst case is to storyboard it.
Yes, as a thought experiment, Kamal's "Hey! Ram" wouldn't be the same under Benegal/Nihalani/Mani 's (hypothetically assuming they're directing the same script), if you consider their respective style.
Benegal's contemporary adaptation of Mahabharath in Kalyug vis-a-vis Mani's Thalapathi wouldn't be apt. But knowing their respective styles, I see a different "Kalyug" in Mani's vision, and an entirely different film in "Thalapathi".
Well, Kuruthipunal seems a whole lot different from Droh Kaal (I love both films). Ditto UPO v/s A Wednesday.
As Bresson puts it in his Notes p.63,
"Many people are needed in order to make a film, but only one who makes, unmakes, remakes his images and sounds, returning at every second to the initial impression or sensation which brought these to birth and is incomprehensible to the other people."
P_R,
I love "The Trial". Actually, it not only made me appreciate Welles as a maverick filmmaker, but also reassess how his "direction" elevates "Citizen Kane" to the classic it is.
As Ray finishes in his closing para of the introduction chapter in "Our films, their films", "Words are not enough".
Okay. I see that. In fact that is inevitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
If the rewriting is even about stretching the pauses, who looks at whom, who gets to look at what and pacing - that fundamentally changes the film, so it easy to understand why the 'same' script outline can change with directors.
Yes, as a thought experiment, Kamal's "Hey! Ram" wouldn't be the same under Benegal/Nihalani/Mani 's (hypothetically assuming they're directing the same script), if you consider their respective 'style'.
Bresson to fe read in office tomorrow :P
I'm of course oversimplifying it when I use 'style'. :)
This is exactly the kind of example I am looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
What exactly is it that you appreciated about Kane that seemed defnly like Welles' input (as opposed to Mankewicz's) that you inferred after trial.
I've not read the novel but after having watched the movie I could see that I'd've enjoyed the novel. I didn't enjoy the movie - it was a drag.
It is not as if there were not good scenes in it:
The whole assembly line type office ending the day at a stroke
His first entry into the courtroom
His search through the labyrinth to the architect (?) who lives in that wierd nook
But these were few and far between and there was little to sustain my interest in the film. I am sure the novel would have had much much more glue.
So much so that (even without reading the novel) I felt that the scenes that had an effect on me where not the most important ones in the novel but only those which could be made to create the maximum impact on film.
The absurdity of a man in search of his crime - wears out much early in the film. Much easier than (one assumes) Kafka would have wanted it (that is if we are to give a damn what Kafka wanted in the first place !)
Well there are certain things film can do and certain things it can't (atleast to me!).
Coming back, I struggle what it is abt Kane that seemed exclusively and heavily Welles' contribution.
Apparentlty he took up Touch of Evil with the intention of elevating a dud of a script. It wasn't that great for me. I know you have nice things to say about that film (I remember the screenshot of the flashlight you asked in a kweezz once). That was such a throwaway moment and (for me) becomes memorable only when embedded in a 'good' script. Else it hardly sticks and worse, feels gimmicky.
Whenever I get the feeling that the script is weak I get quite uncharitable about the rest of the film. Balance is for trapeze artists.
Notwithstanding the fact that you and I are most likely looking for completely different things in a film, I am interesting in this precise example of your reassessment of Kane after watching Trial.
To turn this on its head, I struggle to see Mankiewicz’s overwhelming authorial stamp in CK based on the 4-5 films I have seen of his. What Welles does to this film could be compared and contrasted to "directors" of other Mankiewicz's scripts. I could sense the narrative devices passing through Welles's filter at many places. And how the melodrama of other Mankiewicz's scripts isn't carried over by Welles both as director and performer. Overwhelmingly so, that it's hard not to call it a "Welles film".Quote:
Coming back, I struggle what it is abt Kane that seemed exclusively and heavily Welles' contribution.
The final draft wasn't dud at all. But I have read effusive praise for the "rewritten" script. I read this in interviews given by Heston.Quote:
Apparentlty he took up Touch of Evil with the intention of elevating a dud of a script. It wasn't that great for me. I know you have nice things to say about that film (I remember the screenshot of the flashlight you asked in a kweezz once). That was such a throwaway moment and (for me) becomes memorable only when embedded in a 'good' script. Else it hardly sticks and worse, feels gimmicky.
Oh, not for specific "parallels".Quote:
What exactly is it that you appreciated about Kane that seemed defnly like Welles' input (as opposed to Mankewicz's) that you inferred after trial.
Notwithstanding the fact that you and I are most likely looking for completely different things in a film, I am interesting in this precise example of your reassessment of Kane after watching Trial.
But in general, the tonal and formal treatment he gave to one of the most unfilmable books. Adaptations aren't easy, especially not of Kafka! Welles himself considers it to be his best film. Not since Griffith's silent era generation incl. the German expressionist films, Dreyer and Eisenstein, I have encountered a post-war post-Silent filmmaker with visual sense so strong that you could even mute the sound/dialogues and still watch the film. You try articulating the sequences that you like, and yet, they don't come half as close to what's on the frame.
Hmm ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid_glove
I will have to see other Makewicz films to see what you are saying.
I was trying to get by with a Kane-Trial comparison :-)
Yes very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid_glove
I know if not a vehicle such as this film such sequences would not have been made available. But in the end I only have an overarching sense of disappointment with such films. And curiously, rather that the sequences here and there which I enjoyed actually being arguments in favor of the film, they become the part of the reason why I feel dismissive. i.e. as if something appealing had been smuggled into an otherwise drab story. Or atleast a story whose twists and turns stop being engrossing after a point.
'Touch of Evil' was very naive. The framing, law twisting, arrogant dismissal, 'lay off candy' bars old louu - all seemed B grade writing.
The thing is, after Kane I was expecting something like that and was mighty disappointed with the superficiality of the characters.
I guess the spooky motel would have worked in the 40s/50s. Again, I wasn't going to give it a time handicap, I didn't need to for Kane.
So with all this, the long opening tracking shot, which I later understand was waeld famous at that time, Heston racing through the streets in the open car and a few such impressive filmmaking aspects which impressed me when watching - failed to prop up the film for me.
Better "B grade writing" than "B grade filming". To be honest, apart from the efficiency of colloquial usage, "B grade" doesn't make much sense to me. They called Hitchcock's script sense "B grade". And they keep calling Gounder's comedy "B grade". It doesn't matter to me, to tell you the truth.
I don't read "Touch of Evil" like a book, I watch.
Okay B-Grade is not the word. Suggest another. What I mean is, if someone expects Kane range, he is going to be bummed. (I've not seeing any other Welles film.)
:-)Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
I am only trying to understanding a film can get away with 'weak writing'.
In terms of characetrization and staging of sequences : filmwriting is even more demanding, isn't it? You can get away with a whole lot of slack in writing type on paper. In film it stands up there as a three dimensional entity which you don't for a moment what the viewer to suspect the reality of.
Of course bringing together the performances and holding the pace is pretty central. Without it, you wake up in a trice. And the director's role is pivotal in that. But one அப்பழுக்கில்லாதவரா is enough to blow the house of cards away.
Regarding Hitchcock, enakku avarai personalA theriyAdhu (have watched only 5-6 films) and the film I liked best probably isn't his most typical. It is a 40s film starring Joseph Cotton called 'Shadow of Doubt'. The 'thrill' is because the characters are real, you see the relationships, the emotional situations, the tension is built up wonderfully. From my small sample I'd say such writing wasn't there in the other films. That is something that he shorts on and perhaps that's what people mean by his script sense.
It all depends on the depth of the screenplay. Yes once I read the scripts of Mahanadhi as written by Kamal. After reading that script anyone in the world will agree that SB was just take-catch. Kamal even described camera's location and camera's movement also during the shot. In that kind of screenplay what kind of Role, a director can play even if he wants to.?Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
I think this level of detail is too much if one is simply screenwriting. It gives too much cue about camera movements. It is acceptable here because it is kamal who is ultimately the director. I wonder if kamal would accept the same coming from a script writer for a film he is directing. For changes in the view while action is taking place, I feel the old fashioned story boarding is the best as it conveys dropping all the vocabulary jugglery about how camera should move and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
btw before it gets out of hand, Kamal did not write it. I was just giving that as an example of how the scene would have been written.
I understand. But I quoted the example to support the fact that screenplay writer can not be differentiated from director, if screenplay is deep enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
I think there's some confusion, making director = manager.
No, the expectation is director = leader.
(Most of us here are probably aware of the manager v/s leader thingy & the illustration of a team cutting trees etc. Leader decides in which forest they'll cut trees while the manager works on efficient cutters / tools / tricks / training etc)
Director needn't be a script writer. He should have the insight to choose & OK the right script among 100's of them.