ITT: cinematic techniques that pseudo-kino uses to make itself look great to those with low cinematic IQ
>long one-shot takes
>"Dude, it's like, impressive, because it's all one shot!"
90% of the time there's no real reason to make it one long shot and they usually awkwardly move the camera around because they're so committed to this crap when cutting would be 50 times better.
>slice of life movies
You know those movies where when the end come you're astonished because you think like it shouldn't be the end at all, that nothing has been resolved, nothing happened.
I hate those movies.
Learn to write a story.
This, it's fucking annoying. Children of Men was the last movie where it was used well.
You could have made this point in a single line, but by taking four you've outed yourself as a butthurt projecting faggot who probably failed to have his own school film project acknowledged by anyone other than his mom.
I would argue that it got a bit carried away at times, especially in the end, but was generally useful for the movie's purposes.
Much better use than his friend Inarritu's flick, Birdman, which just has the camera boringly follow its characters around if we have to change the setting.
You could have made your point in less than 10 words but by taking 39 you've outed yourself at a butthurt pleb who can't handle any challenges to his conceptions on cinema.
one shot worked well in La La Land, it would be a disaster if they made the musical scene with an insert and uses a gorrilon jumpcuts everytime a different character sings
>being so btfo you can only clumsily repeat the sick burn that took you out
Sad
These threads are so boring, always the same damn three or four things you know about camera operating like the long takes, dutch angles and rule of thirds.
Shows how "intellectual" Sup Forums really is.
>can dish it out but can't take it
pathetic
I'm beginning to think you're the one who failed to have his film school project acknowledged. Normal film lovers shouldn't be this assmad about my criticism. Did the whole "one-shot" thing not work out for you? Did you fail to impress your kinomaster professor?
hahaha look at all this mad
The (over) use of symbolism in films.
People think it makes a movie "deep", while it only makes it even simpler in reality.
I can't explain it better than Tarkovsky, so here's a quote from the man himself:
>"I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image. People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? An image cannot be a symbol in my opinion. Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite"
do they even use "split screen" anymore??
I was watching DePalma's Phantom of the Paradise and he uses the technique so that it shows two things happening at the same time in different parts of the club.
(I assume he stole this from hitchcock...not sure)
It was a cool idea that new films dont seem to use anymore
If anything ive noticed newer movies use the camera to show what is literally happening right in front of you and not using any interesting techniques (like split screens, slow fades, freeze frames, other camera tricks that I cant think of)
like everything has to be realistic even when the films subject matter is clearly absurd and fantastical
whatever, anyway...OP is right....Long Take Shots are usually just a gimick where the director can be like "yeah i did this"
Russian Ark was cool but really no reason for it to be one long take. but thats basically experimental art house instead of a narrative
very similar to what Tolkein said about Lord of the Rings.
That being said when people talk about "symbolism" as in "this character is really suppose to mean this" its more like "This character was informed by this"
ex: Lord of the Rings isn't a fantastical retelling of Tolkeins World War 1 experiences but informed by them and how it influenced him.
the Hobbits arent literally a symbol for Tolkein's idea of the medevial peasants in small english villages but rather he was informed by his research on the topic and used it in his book.
its not like Animal Farm where everything is 1:1 clockwork symbolism
Nothing ever gets resolved in real life. You want a story, read a book.
Split screens are one of the most lazy gimmicks of them all, no DP with any kind of artistic integrity would use them ever.
It is literally showing that the director and DP don't know how to tell a story through framing and composition in one frame, but has to resort to cheap editing trick of split or even multiple screens going at once in a scene so you can just catch up with the narrative.
Whenever split or multiple screen framing is used, 99% of the time it's used purely for exposition purposes.
A gimmick.
What did he mean by this
If that was true more directors would use that trick now.
>inb4 DePalma is a hack
pls
its an effective way to show tension as two separate events are happening at the same time
What if they're trying to represent the Deleuzian concept of the time-image?
It is used, but it's used by literal no names in romantic comedies (phone calls mostly) and comedy action flicks to show an "epic" heist from all the characters at once.
None of the screens have any artistic merit or info which you should gather from the visual narrative, it's almost like putting just text on screen explaining what's happening.
I hardly even see it during phone call scenes any more
You're falling into the "cinematic rules" trap where a movie can only be good if it follows certain rules. It's an easy problem to have...very common in YouTube critics