Yet another appeal to Oscar votes. Man, that's limited. And frankly desperate, to repeat that appeal.
There's still no sense that Dmaria's actually seen any of these movies. No substance to what he says. It's seeming more and more that all he knows about movies is what the Oscar votes were! Oh, and a list created as a publicity event by Paris Match magazine. Sorry, but that's so pathetic it's funny.
Somehow he got the notion that disorientation is necessarily the desired effect in an action movie. In certain moments, yes, sometimes, but as a general rule? I don't think he can support that claim. In most action movies the action is presented in a way that allows us to follow it in a relatively complete way. By contrast, the approach in Ultimatum conceals the overall progression of action.
As I say, some like this extreme approach, others less so. That's fine. I personally don't let the Academy influence my own judgement of this or any movie. However, I think it's a good idea to carefully weigh the judgements of knowledgeable, thoughtful individuals among viewers, filmmakers, critics and scholars.
I find the extreme approach of Ultimatum goes beyond the experience of disorientation into incoherence. This is why I think it delivers excitement much in the sense of staring at a strobe light. Okay, it's a stimulating experience, but its expressive capacity is very limited. There's always a cost, a tradeoff to any creative decision. In my view many action movies offer more bang for the buck because their approach doesn't restrict expressive options so severely. To me, they deliver the more truly immersive experience. I think this extreme approach actually serves to cover flaws and sidestep the challenge of making the impossible seem plausible.
Visceral impact in Ultimatum is due to literal flash, the jolting way action is shown, not by the action itself, which often can't be understood. And it's not just shots from the hero's POV, but objective ones too. There's no way to understand geography. Disorientation is so total that there's no way to understand flow of action or what is a high point - unless the music tells us.
Editing pace isn't the only cause; it's also the jerky nature of the editing, which breaks up both action and camera movement. This is in contrast to action movies where we're given relatively full views of the flow of bodies in motion, sometimes gracefully, where the impact is intensified by expressive framing and fluid matches on action. To my mind, that takes more skill than the flashy approach, which seriously could make anybody look like a hero since there is no perspective.
In the same way I prefer to see close-ups used sparingly and strategically, I also prefer when the techniques used in Ultimatum aren't wall-to-wall so there is a sense of proportion. Where they lend relatively greater impact and meaning because they're not just par for the course.
reply
share
dmariat55
8 years ago
Larks would have liked it if Bourne had been in a car chase with the police in Paris driving at 30 miles per hour and stopping at red lights.
Not only did Bourne win the Oscar for best film editing but it won the same award from many other societies. It won that award from the society of those who edit films for a living. I don't blame larks for disdaining all these people who work in the film industry. I am sure with her twisted logic she rarely agrees with the experts.
These people from the industry found Bourne to be the best of the best for editing. So did many viewers including myself. Larks found Bourne incoherent. Maybe just maybe it is larks that is incoherent.
Larks put it best when she said she couldn't understand the jolting action in Bourne. Many of us could understand and found it outstanding.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
Hyperbole always betrays Dmaria's desperation. He can never risk addressing what you say cleanly and accurately because he knows he would fail, so he has no choice but to distort it.
He now appeals to more mass voting in other contests. The poor fellow never dares think for himself. And there's still no evidence that he's actually seen any of the movies he's honking about.
I've said that the approach involves serious tradeoffs, and outlined some of the limitations of the experience. A strobe light has coherence in its way. Move it around and you can "understand" the action to a degree. Many viewers in fact did not prefer the experience when the movie came out, and later, and gave cogent reasons why. So did some insightful and rigorous critics and film scholars. So did some important filmmakers (Spielberg, for one).
That doesn't mean that I, or any of these people, are necessarily saying the approach is necessarily bad or failed filmmaking. It's pointing out some real consequences that aren't so positive. This extreme form of classical style offers visceral impact but it comes at a cost. For some reason Dmaria finds this threatening, even though I said it's fine if some people like it. I'm not sure why he's so insecure; after all, it's just sharing ideas about a movie.
reply
share
dmariat55
8 years ago
Larks is really going down hill fast. She mentions mysterious critics and film scholars to reinforce her opinion. She also mentions Spielberg. Yet larks doesn't mention what any of them say about the Bourne ultimatum. Any type of scholar would laugh at her so called argument.
Larks says the approach in Bourne involves serious tradeoffs. These tradeoffs resulted in the film editing being awarded as the best of the best. In other words any tradeoffs are inconsequential.
Larks compares the filmmaking in Bourne as like a strobe light. She makes it sound like somehow that's been established. In reality Bourne is nothing like a strobe light. It is just something stupid larks made up.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
Oh, I'd never name any of those critics and scholars for Dmaria because he's insincere. If it was someone serious, I'd feel differently. I can say that their judgements, in the main, are pretty close to my own.
With regard to the style's tradeoffs, Dmaria prefers to concentrate on a different context than the one I was referring to. His context is awards and magazine lists. That's all very nice, but I find much more interesting the context of the way the story itself is presented. Every choice an artist makes has consequences for that complex ecology, and for their potential options in shaping it.
The rest is just Dmaria's usual huffing and puffing.
reply
share
dmariat55
8 years ago
I wonder where larks comes from. To my knowledge in most of the English speaking world the correct spelling is judgment not judgement.
As usual larks is all mixed up. The awards are based on the academy's perception of the way the story is presented. Larks makes up distinctions that do not exist.
Bourne has a rock and roll mentality. A modern art viewpoint. A rock and roll artist has no concern with music from 1910. He or she doesn't think they are giving up anything.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
Dmaria always wants to know something about my personal life. I never let him, though. All I'll say is that he is mistaken about the word's spelling.
Awards are based on many things, a lot of them superficial. Awards with mass voters tend to get caught up the flashiest, short-term qualities.
Dmaria is mistaken about modern artists; most are very concerned to know about art history. You can't innovate if you don't know what you're innovating from. Rock and roll artists studied the blues and other earlier forms. Dmaria really doesn't know anything about the world.
The devices used in Ultimatum were employed in the silent era, including the shaky cam. Many films have used them since. It's just amped up to the nth degree. So by Dmaria's own logic he shouldn't have concern for this approach because it can be traced back to the early days of cinema. Alternative approaches can be traced back too, which developed over time. They include some of the best films of the studio era, and forward. I prefer those long-developed approaches to recording action than the kind in Ultimatum.
reply
share
dmariat55
8 years ago
Larks doesn't get it. As John Edmund Andrew Philips said in creeque alley, John and mitchie were getting kinda itchie just to leave the folk music behind. Bourne ultimatum left the folk music behind.
I just thought it was funny that larks rhapsodizes in her usual pretentious way about the sound in no country and the editing in blood since the Bourne ultimatum won the best of the best awards for sound mixing sound editing and film editing from the academy and many other prestigious associations. Bourne's style is the opposite of the others.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
In every post Dmaria clings to award vote tallies. I didn't realize he was that insecure. I knew he was that naive, though.
Actually Ultimatum didn't leave anything behind. Its techniques are all conventions with a long history back to the early days of cinema. All Ultimatum did was dial them up high. Still, others have gone further; for example Tony Scott pushed the same techniques to an even more extreme degree.
The approach has limiting consequences, it doesn't take much skill, and it actually covers mistakes and sloppiness in several areas. Rank and file voters are attracted to the latest flashy thing. The style draws attention to itself - and of course to the filmmakers themselves. Which is always good for votes.
reply
share
dmariat55
8 years ago
I was just joking around to demonstrate larks pretentiousness. I like movies with all different styles. The important thing is the story and the dialog.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
Anything above the Mother Goose level and Dmaria will lash out and say it's "pretentious." Little wonder he's constantly in a tizzy.
Here's a fellow who has nothing to say about any of the films except award tallies and a magazine list. That's why it seems he's never actually seen their contents, never given them any thought.
reply
share