Hitchcock was a genius--and he's spot-on! Exposition is altogether necessary, to explain for the audience who the characters are--but the problem is, it runs a serious risk of being boring, if "explaining" is all you're doing. The key is to make the exposition exciting or otherwise compelling, to keep their interest while at the same time lodging the necessary info in their minds.
For all the comments about Inception, yes there was exposition, but it was sugar coated. All the exposition serves to help explain the strange events happening, and like Hitchcock said, explaining strange events in the middle is better than delivering a lengthy exposition at the beginning of the film. Also, Inception is not the greatest film ever made, just an interesting, clever one.
@nameless12345 but of course, I know, that can't happen now - because the producers are too worried about the film making 'a return'. It was always a business, but it's more a business now than it ever was.
@smithhedgehog Nolan didn't have a choice lol. The audiences are too dumbed down. If Inception didn't have the level of exposition it did it would not have worked as a blockbuster and people would have criticised it for being too "complex" lol
If people come out of a theater confused en masse - which is common in a lot of Nolan films - you've failed as a filmmaker IMO. It's the same mistake magicians make.
@nameless12345 sorry, I don't agree. Audiences are cleverer than we give them credit for. This is simply a muddy piece of film-making. You can't treat your audience as idiots and then justify it with "oops, not my fault; I HAD to do this cos audiences are too dumbed down" it doesn't wash. Besides, I doubt that christopher nolan was thinking that. I think he probably thought the opposite; set out out with good intentions...and made a lot of wrong turns (much like the characters in the film, haha)
Every movie needs its Basil Exposition to move the action along and drop some awkward information. I resently read a book called Spellbound By Beauty about Hitchcock and his involvement with many of his leading ladies. It tainted my opinion of him to a degree. He could be a very mean, vulgar, and spiteful person if he is rebuffed by the object of his desire. Has anyone seen Hitchcock? It was absolutely terrible. Anthony Hopkins perfoemance was one dimensional. The scenes with Ed Gein were bad.
!["สนธิ" ห่วงมีขบวนการปกป้อง "ทนายตั้ม" : [THE MESSAGE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2GQNp3EoMc0/mqdefault.jpg)
Hitchcock was a genius--and he's spot-on!
Exposition is altogether necessary, to explain for the audience who the characters are--but the problem is, it runs a serious risk of being boring, if "explaining" is all you're doing. The key is to make the exposition exciting or otherwise compelling, to keep their interest while at the same time lodging the necessary info in their minds.
For all the comments about Inception, yes there was exposition, but it was sugar coated. All the exposition serves to help explain the strange events happening, and like Hitchcock said, explaining strange events in the middle is better than delivering a lengthy exposition at the beginning of the film. Also, Inception is not the greatest film ever made, just an interesting, clever one.
Christopher Milan gets this. His remarkable visuals complement the intricately organized dialogue.
Nolan's exposition is less like a pill and more like a Lego brick casserole. With mandatory seconds.
@smithhedgehog Smith... I can't tell if your laughter is in agreement or mockery... you are TEARING ME APART!
💟💟😊
@nameless12345 but of course, I know, that can't happen now - because the producers are too worried about the film making 'a return'. It was always a business, but it's more a business now than it ever was.
I just have to ask, what was the first comment here?
@cr33pyGamer does
@smithhedgehog Christopher Nolan needs nothing explained to him. However you could use some time to learn from Mr. Nolan.
@cr33pyGamer yeah, I do. Or he dosen't. its one or the other.
@smithhedgehog Nolan didn't have a choice lol. The audiences are too dumbed down. If Inception didn't have the level of exposition it did it would not have worked as a blockbuster and people would have criticised it for being too "complex" lol
and Tenet proved this
If people come out of a theater confused en masse - which is common in a lot of Nolan films - you've failed as a filmmaker IMO. It's the same mistake magicians make.
@TheNickNuttall lol
@nameless12345 sorry, I don't agree. Audiences are cleverer than we give them credit for. This is simply a muddy piece of film-making. You can't treat your audience as idiots and then justify it with "oops, not my fault; I HAD to do this cos audiences are too dumbed down" it doesn't wash. Besides, I doubt that christopher nolan was thinking that. I think he probably thought the opposite; set out out with good intentions...and made a lot of wrong turns (much like the characters in the film, haha)
11 years later and nothings chaned
oppenheimer was arguably worse as it was a "biopic"
@duckangelfan ok then
Every movie needs its Basil Exposition to move the action along and drop some awkward information.
I resently read a book called Spellbound By Beauty about Hitchcock and his involvement with many of his leading ladies. It tainted my opinion of him to a degree. He could be a very mean, vulgar, and spiteful person if he is rebuffed by the object of his desire.
Has anyone seen Hitchcock? It was absolutely terrible. Anthony Hopkins perfoemance was one dimensional. The scenes with Ed Gein were bad.
n° view 32455~
no it wasnt lol