Movie Talk (New Films, Old Films... doesn't matter) (52 Viewers)

[Dostoevsky]

Yeah Douchen. Will defenitely watch more movies of this director with his visual style. Very compelling in building a grim and cold world.


Too bad all is ruined when the actors open their mouths...

I'm pretty sure that's the part where majority of people describes the movie as a genius work. Some people understand it and love it for it.

Just noticed that this director is making Assassin's Creed which comes out this year. It also has Fassbender in it

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Osman]

That should be amazing, Fassbender I dig alot. And the director showing me in this movie he is a master at building a visceral sight for your eyes, especially in period piece movie as AC story is.

 

[blondu]

watched brooklyn...meh

 

[Dostoevsky]

That should be amazing, Fassbender I dig alot. And the director showing me in this movie he is a master at building a visceral sight for your eyes, especially in period piece movie as AC story is.

Da, I highly rate Fassbender nowadays. Should keep an eye on both of them.

 

[Post Ironic]

Macbeth is beautifully shot movie, amazing cinematography with fantastic cast.


But it's near unwatchable (watching it right now) because of the insanely tedious and confusing heavy Shakespearean speak. Communication is key in telling a story, and they went a tad far in this with so heavy handed dialogue that it leaves you detached from the story.


I know it's about staying authentic to the prose of the source material. But should left it at theater stage and not in a full feature flick without an ounce of modern common English in there. Kind of alienates you from the world when so much effort is needed to fully get what they saying nonstop (even if it gets easier later).

I didn't feel this at all. It's staying authentic to language as it was spoken and written then, and to the roots of the story as told by Bill the bard. Why should they modernize the language so as to make things easier for the modern crowd? The film is set "in period", it's not moved to a more modern era, so why adapt the language to a more modern era?

Aside from this Shakespearean language really isn't that difficult, nor confusing. We grow up with it in the school system in Canada, reading Shakespeare plays throughout secondary school English classes.

Part of the charm of Shakespeare adaptations is the authenticity of the language, the soliloquys, and monologues... While some find this heavy-handed, archaic, tedious... others find it the most enchanting part. Branagh's adaptation of Hamlet was lovely because of language, although it was a full-scale adaptation. One of the most interesting aspects of Kurzel's adaptation was how he kept hold of the language and feel of Shakespeare's work, while adapting the play to be grittier, darker, and paced better for film.

 

[Osman]

This film is bad PI except for the cinematography.

 

[swag]

Such a swag joke.

I approve

 

[Post Ironic]

This film is bad PI except for the cinematography.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think particularly highly of the new Macbeth, I just don't find the period dialogue all that troubling. The bigger problem for me was just how ridiculously abridged and rearranged the script of the play was. It wasn't so much the Shakespearean language that made it confusing and tedious, but more so the omission and rearranging of so much of the play's dialogue that what was left told a vague and at times incomprehensible story.

Having acted in Macbeth as an adolescent, I'm pretty familiar with the play, which makes it hard for me not to just fill in the gaps myself while watching this, and then kind of overlook their omission when thinking about the quality of the film.

SO the cinematography is the best aspect, I certainly agree... As I said, I did find it interesting how he tried to keep the language and feel of Shakespeare's Macbeth, the problem was he abridged and rearranged it far too heavily and made the story utterly confusing and tedious.

 

[Ocelot]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think particularly highly of the new Macbeth, I just don't find the period dialogue all that troubling. The bigger problem for me was just how ridiculously abridged and rearranged the script of the play was. It wasn't so much the Shakespearean language that made it confusing and tedious, but more so the omission and rearranging of so much of the play's dialogue that what was left told a vague and at times incomprehensible story.

Having acted in Macbeth as an adolescent, I'm pretty familiar with the play, which makes it hard for me not to just fill in the gaps myself while watching this, and then kind of overlook their omission when thinking about the quality of the film.

SO the cinematography is the best aspect, I certainly agree... As I said, I did find it interesting how he tried to keep the language and feel of Shakespeare's Macbeth, the problem was he abridged and rearranged it far too heavily and made the story utterly confusing and tedious.

It might be great for you and a lot of other people, but you just said yourself that it only works for people who are already very familiar with Shakespeare, and the play in particular. For other people who do not have that sort of knowledge beforehand, the movie is inaccessible to a rather large extent.

Not that that has to be a flaw necessarily, and it is probably very debateable whether adapting it to modern English would have made the movie better or worse, but it is simply geared towarsd a rather specific audience.

 

[Post Ironic]

It might be great for you and a lot of other people, but you just said yourself that it only works for people who are already very familiar with Shakespeare, and the play in particular. For other people who do not have that sort of knowledge beforehand, the movie is inaccessible to a rather large extent.

Not that that has to be a flaw necessarily, and it is probably very debateable whether adapting it to modern English would have made the movie better or worse, but it is simply geared towarsd a rather specific audience.

I don't see this a bad thing. Tarkovsky, Bergman, Tarr, Kieslowski, Godard, Truffaut, Kurosawa, Wong Kar-Wai... and all sorts of other incredible directors made films geared towards a rather specific audience, that the average movie-goer quite frankly, will not enjoy.
@Dostoevsky and I were discussing this earlier in the thread... that question of films that require either previous knowledge or a willingness to study outside the film in order to understand them. Does this take away from the film, or does it increase its value? The reality is probably a case by case study. Some films are exceptionally dense and obfuscatory just for the sake of being so. Others it's much more natural.

 

[Klin]

watched brooklyn...meh

Overrated.

 

[Völler]

I liked Brooklyn a lot. It might be small in scope, but it was heartfelt.

 

[Klin]

I liked it too, but definitely not Oscar worthy. To think that it took The Danish Girl's place in the Best Picture category.

 

[Völler]

I liked it too, but definitely not Oscar worthy. To think that it took The Danish Girl's place in the Best Picture category.

More like Carol's.

 

[Klin]

More like Carol's.

 

[Völler]

Donald Trump interviewed by Errol Morris about Citizen Kane.

Surprisingly, he's pretty much spot on. Though his last comment is, perhaps, somewhat revealing.

 

[Dostoevsky]

Clouds of Sils Maria - Good. I liked it.

 

[Völler]

Clouds of Sils Maria - Good. I liked it.

Good you liked it

 

[Dostoevsky]

Good you liked it

You watched it?

 

[Völler]

You watched it?

Yes, a few months ago. I liked it, but I didn't love it. The different layers are interesting to think about while you watch the movie, but it didn't really have anything that stuck with me afterwards.