Putting your favourites at the beginning and the end of the video so that the viewer leaves with positive feelings? I give you an oscar for best screenplay.
You should do more Martin Scorsese cinematography videos. It’s wild how much detail that old wizard stuffs in his films and never a frame or second wasted.
"His wideshots are a mouthwatering lesson on cinematic composition." -- Moviewise on Scorsese. This is all I've been trying to say. This is all Spielberg meant when he told Martin Scorsese that Killers of the Flower Moon is his masterpiece. It's his best directing ever. Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver are all amateur night at the Apollo when compared to KOTFM. The Departed is a distant second. He was on fire with his latest movie, on some Kobe scoring 80 ish. Who cares that it's long? Every shot was so well composed. No amount of running can take away from that. People are getting off on Nolan and complaining about Scorsese merely because they wouldn't know good directing if it fell on their heads like an anvil for the sky. He will lose to the lesser Oppenheimer. But goddamn. There's an obvious best director of the year and it isn't going to be appreciated. Thank you, Moviewise.
@@snair4548The Oscars don't mean much except for leaving a trail to investigate past works. Though, the rest of that comment is exactly the type of comment that is the problem with film. Deification of the director and the blinding of his faults because of the Cult of the Auteur.
Started watching the TV-series "Marriage" with Sean Bean, and was glad to realise how much I noticed the terrible blocking and framing. You're a great teacher, Mr. Moviewise!
On the positive side, with 'Shōgun" director Jonathan van Tulleken's framing and blocking, thanks to moviewise, gained a new appreciation of his contribution.
Yup, ever since Tony stopped uploading I yearned for a channel that focuses more on the visual/techinal side of things and not just the story. Finding this channel a couple of weeks ago was a treat.
David Bordwell passed away today, I see you referenced him in the description, an indispensable figure to cinema theory and appreciation. He will live on in his works, which will hopefully continue to be read and seen by future generations.
I've never finished one of your videos without feeling like I just had one of the best film lessons ever. Your explanations are thorough and detailed yet easily understandable. Great work man
So regarding the central framing of Oppenheimer, Hoyta Van Hoytema has talked about the reason being that IMAX is just so large that it's actually distracting having to look from left to right, so central framing becomes the main focus. Similar to what George Miller did with Fury Road. However the awkwardness and blocking (literally) of actors in key moments is quite sloppy at times.
But George Miller did it with the intention of making the action scenes readable; for Oppenheimer it seems more like: "We have to do it like this otherwise it will be bad for those who see the film in IMAX". Clear, but most people (and the future survival of the film) will not be in IMAX, but on a wide format... In addition to the fact that there are scenes shot both in IMAX and on 65mm film, and even those in film have a central framing... But here there is no complex action scene, they are characters talking and seeing 3 hours of characters all talking in the center of the framing is a bit boring visually... Not even Wes Anderson or Peter Greenaway!
I think Nolan changing the aspect ratio in such an abrupt way is a symptom of a problem in his directing, which is he prefers to change the aspect ratio to hide the blank spaces in the frame instead of thinking of creative composition like Scorsese does. In this sense, Scorsese is the most talented director and the one with a more complex visual style, meanwhile Nolan choose the easy answer in his cinematography
Regarding my comment, I think the problem with Nolan's style will play in his favor in the Oscars, as he will excuse the aspect ratio thing not as a problem but as a creative decision and part of his style, which might fool someone who's not visually trained in cinematography (and might as well be his style) and for that he will receive extra points in the academy.
The aspect ratio switching is technical not artistic. I suspect if he could Nolan would shoot an entire movie in IMAX but it just isn't feasible (yet).
@@richardcahill1234 Then he should just shoot the non-spectacle scenes in regular spherical 4-Perf Super 35 and forgo the pointless “ShitScope” (as the orator of this great channel calls it) in his movies. Or if he wants his Hi-Fidelity, VistaVision. VistaVision is ten times as viable as 65mm IMAX. It uses regular 35mm film, is twice the definition of Super 35, has a versatile aspect ratio (1.50:1, easily cropped to 1.43:1) and over 70+ movies back in the day were shot entirely with the format.
Yeah he should crop both formats to a single ratio, and compose for that target. Unlike in Everything Everywhere Etc, in Nolan's movies the aspect ratio changes don't play any role in storytelling, and they're not even interesting visually. They're just a technical byproduct that should have been ironed out - like any other technical artifact. Film formats seem to give him too much of a hard on and he can't be bothered straightening the bump in his pants.
@@fredscallietsoundman9701 Putting this on a t-shirt "Film formats seem to give him too much of a hard on and he can't be bothered straightening the bump in his pants."
Nobody tears a movie “a new one” by saying something negative or nasty. And why would you, anyway? I’ve never once had that feeling or desire watching a movie.
I really enjoy your videos and think this one is strong as well. And while I think you bring up many valid points, I think every film on this list has a unique visual style that is well catered to its subject matter. This goes back to your video on cinematic staging/blocking and your desire to have films return to a more elegant and crisp form of visual storytelling, which I agree is fantastic, but at the same time, I think using that template as a rubric for everything is detrimental. Filmmaking has definitely become more visually progressive as formats have changed, and I think it's only natural that filmmakers use these tools to say something that couldn't be said before. Nolan for example has never really concerned himself with 'painterly' framing or anything like that, he shoots for the edit and tries to develop a momentum and compliment whatever narrative tricks he is utilizing. This is a function of personal style and trumps a traditional way of viewing framing/composition. The same goes for Triet's documentary-esque style; it is what the film needs, and I think she uses it to say something interesting about the artifice of what we deem to be authentic. And yes, Scorsese's work in Killers is still great; he does it like the masters of old, and it works like a charm. My point being is that there is room for everything; I personally wouldn't hold someone like Cassavetes to the same standard that I would John Ford. Their styles are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but both effectively enhance the kinds of stories they want to tell. Anyways, I really think you have some great points in this video (the Poor Things extra's criticism was one that I thought was particularly sharp). I will continue to watch!
Just to counter your point on Nolan's framing/blocking. I have also heard the same said of him elsewhere which I still don't understand, because for me I don't see it on screen. His camera work often feels sloppy and unmotivated and confusing. One of my big issues with Oppenheimer is I couldn't follow the drive from scene to scene was, couple that with the constant over bearing sound design, I just wasn't having a good or immersive experience, in fact the opposite. I was getting irritated that I wasn't being brought on a journey. He may be trying to construct momentum but it is done to a detriment of coherent story telling. It baffles me the praise Oppenheimer in particular has received, there's so many creative and technical choices that are so jarring. It feels like an academic text book masquerading as a film with visual story telling as an after thought. But i'm in extreme minority. Perhaps time will change my opinion, or the consensus.
I have to thank you, your perspective on directing has teached me a lot to appreciate filmmaking on a more in depth analysis than just narrative which is the easiest to pin point when something is well and poorly done.
ppl like you - movie teachers and critics - should be the ones to select Oscar nominees. The Academy is a disgrace. i watched the Oscars decaying for the last 15 years. With great sadness. Oscars use to mean something. Nowadays it seems like the Academy doesn't even watch these movies, like if they only read the synopsis or something. Not to mention they would't even know good directing if they saw one. Movie industry needs more people who know how to analyse good directing, good screenwriting, good acting. The audience needs them. Someone who will help us elevate our taste... not just satisfy our lowest needs for entertainment. Thank you for your channel. i love it. I'm always waiting for the next video :)
I learn so much from your videos! You make me a more perceptive cinephile. And I laughed out loud several times- what a delightful wit and sense of humor . You manage to critique these films and directors without insulting them .
Now I know why I thought KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON was my favorite movie of the year, and why I thought OPPENHEIMER wasn't much more enjoyable than FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY from way back in 1989.
When I was in college, I took an "Understanding Film" course. It really improved my appreciation of filmmaking, and taught me how to watch films. This channel is like a refresher course, renewing my appreciation for what goes into a film, what makes a film good, and what to look for. Really great channel!
Thank for this video! It's very educational. I don't think I can notice these sort of details when watching a movie for the first time (I'm too invested in the story), but I'll definitely notice them when re-watching it! Framing, camera movement, the actions of extras in the background... These seem like perfect details to pick up on when you want to understand the movie better.
Great instructive comparison of Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon. Lanthimos's fisheye fetish is tiresome to me, though I enjoyed the movie. I loved the look of Anatomy of a Fall. I really don't need every movie to look like a classical painting. 'Who'd want to watch that?' Me. I love that candid photographic style. I can't justify that, but that's the point: your view here is just as subjective. I really like your point about how the style fits the story and theme, though. But fantastic analysis of The Zone of Interest. As you were going through it, I was thinking of Playtime and Ozu, so it was great to find you were leading us there all along - and to learn the term 'parametric storytelling'.
Check out David Bordwell’s Narration in the Fiction Film. Parametric Narration is a fascinating and highly complicated subject. And thanks for the comment!
I haven't seen Oppenheimer yet (I've had a lot going on) so when you showed the 4 second clip of Opp and his lawyer, I legitimately thought our focus was meant to shift towards the man on the far right getting up and walking away. That scene was so poorly blocked I didn't even know RDJ was there!
Well done. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’ve learned more about cinema from you than any other source. I really appreciate what you do and how you do it. Bravo!
Let me also add please. You said once that you’d reveal your identity and some other nonsense. Please don’t. Your mystique is part of the fun of your show. Think of other TH-camrs that operate in your space. Is it better that I know who Mr. Plinkett is? The Critical Drinker? No! Nein! It’s better if they don’t let their identities be known. It’s better to be the character. Let your accent remain a mystery. Who cares where you are from or what your politics are or what you look like. Let me imagine you as a fantasy. Something that exists only as an intellect and a voice. You are perfect the way you are. Never change.
Man i remember your Tar review and Oppenheimer is seems just like an anti thesis of that film Tar is Like you said "spacious" + long takes + extremely character focused with super subtle hinting in its dialogues Oppy just spazzes out with cuts, the shots are cramped and well the characters seem pretty hollow to me with there being an exposition bomb every minute of the film This video is very helpful for people like me who dont notice or know much about cinematography. Tells me how much thinking goes into the camera work.
Exposition bombs are Nolan's specialty. 99% of the dialogue in Inception is someone explaining something to someone else or doing an "as you know" to remind the audience of something.
I don't think you're watching Moviewise's videos, because if you were, you'd know that he praised Oppenheimer's script as the best of all this year's Oscar-nominated screenplays.
@@sandeepdas3526 Am I under any obligation to agree with the Academy's decisions or do I have a right to form and express my own opinion on this matter?
Yes!! You did it. Very good analysis, I was kind of expecting you don't liking Nolan's direction. I can't feel engaged by the images of any of his movies. Did you read Bordwell's little book on him? He talks how Nolan isn't very interesting in style, and great at cross-cutting narrative. So sad that he died today, one of the bests we had. I haven't watched Zone of Interest yet, but your analysis got me very excited to do it, probably I'll watch this weekend. I really got tired of Lanthimos directing in Poor Things. As for Anatomy of the Fall I really liked the narrative, especially the son's drama; but I kind agree with your take on the directing (it was the thing that didn't let me like more), some details I was even able to chatch it, but I still think is kind of effective. Well, Marty, what can i say?
Case and point, we need to bring back the intermission. Oppenheimer could have used the extra 30 minutes to flash things out. Killers would have been easier to take it with a break.@@IcarusSuite
so, this video was great, and I will watch it several times to extract as much knowledge as I can, but what I really want to know is how good the directing was on a scale of super cool dance moves
Nolan’s issue is he doesn’t utilise tonal variation. Each moment must escalate and outdo the last one until we are being foghorned in the face in an epic finale. The problem with that approach is how do you follow the cataclysm of man splitting the atom, the dropping of the bomb, with litigation in Judge Judy small claims court? Nolan’s verbose cinematic language seemed silly and clumsy when transposed in these small back rooms. Funnily enough if he had subverted the very style that’s become his signature I think the final act could’ve provide a more emotional and unexpected kick in the guts. Static wide shots, long takes, minimal score. There’s something so undignified and dreadful about this intriguing and intelligent figure being slowly dragged through mundane legal proceedings after everything he’s managed to do. That’s an intriguing story structure but better served through a drastic tonal change.
I honestly do not understand the obsession with Oppenheimer. The dialogue is robotic, the cuts are weird, and as you just showed us, the blocking is horrible. Is it just because it is Nolan and the budget is big? He isn’t even able to direct a romantic scene.
I didn't notice the intricate framing and blocking at all while watching Killers of the Flower Moon, but I spent a lot of time asking why so much of the film was made up of shot-reverse shot dialogue scenes in close ups and mid shots. It turns out the stuff I was looking for was all there, but either went over my head or was just invisible to me, which I suppose means it did its job and I was wrapped up in the story during those parts. Very clever. Looking at Christopher Nolan's haphazard blocking, it's interesting to think that Steven Spielberg was the first person to watch Oppenheimer in 70mm. He declared his love for it, but I wonder what goes through his mind when he clearly has, and wants to preserve, something that the filmmaker who he is praising doesn't have. Nevertheless, I have to say that the pacing and structure of Oppenheimer is very much to my tastes. I often don't like Nolan's overbearing soundtracks and undisciplined cutting, but in this film I thought it built up a symphonic sense of despair that swept me right up and brought me to leave the cinema despondent about whatever future we might have. So, it was my favourite film of the year by far.
I love this walkthrough and that you aren't affraid to point out bad compositing. But I gotta' say a well-shot and well-composited movie does not automatically make it a great movie. At the end of the day it's about telling a great story, which is of course subjective in contrary to great craftmanship.
Really strange takes in this video. You seem like you're coming at this from more of a cinematographer's standpoint as opposed to a director's standpoint. You clearly seem to have a very big bias towards meticulously storyboarded filmmaking, which is fine, but claiming it's the only valid style of filmmaking is just reductive and a bit obnoxious. Directing isn't just about making a shot look pretty or clean, it's about serving the story and experience of the film in whatever way that may be. You are essentially removing the part that makes films worth analyzing, which is intention. Anatomy of a Fall could've been meticulously framed and blocked, sure, but what would that achieve outside of looking a bit prettier? It would've betrayed the themes of the film by putting us firmly into a stylized reality where everyone can see everything. The whole thing would've felt choreographed, which for this film would've completely ruined it. Similarly with Nolan's style, Nolan does not storyboard his films. But that doesn't mean he isn't choosing his shots and making interesting choices. He largely wants Oppenheimer to be a subjective experience, putting us very firmly into Oppenheimer's perspective in the color-scenes and Strauss's perspective in the B&W scenes. It's not going for something meticulously blocked because it doesn't have to. It's a very internal film that is playing on subjective experiences of time and memory, creating the feeling of an atomic bomb blowing up but put into cinematic form. There is not an objective right way to do this, all that matters is whether or not something serves the tone, vision and story of the work at hand. Don't ask what it is, ask what it does. Just really bafflingly bad takes here, sorry. You're allowed to have a personal preference but don't start treating your taste as a fact. Directing is not just blocking - it's working with actors, weaving a narrative throughline, crafting an atmosphere, determining a pace, communicating with each department of a film and getting everyone on the same page to craft a specific vision.
And no matter how each film was made you’d still praise it as the right choice. A rationalization can always be made to justify any creative choice. If you have no basis of quality you simply accept everything that’s given to you.
I get this, but I have to say the cinematographer's standpoint is normally approved by the director. All things printed on screen should be the director's standpoint.
Justine Triet followed the Beaux Arts school as an aspirant painter. She made her debut as a documentary director, then switched to fiction with 'la bataille de Solferino' in 2013. It is a low budget film where Triet mixed real world capture with scenarized plans.
Poor Things needing to break the 180-degree rule three times for a shot of someone eating gives me Taken-3-needing-fourteen-shots-to-show-someone-jumping-a-fence vibes
This opened my eyes to a lot of what makes directing well directing. But narrative will always be what will makes movies great. That’s the mark of a true great director to me. Obviously, the coupling of the writing with shot composition is important for the pacing and overall vibe, but at the end of the day, it’s all subjective, so lets keep it that way.
All those Lanthimos zooms! Jean Rollin was famous for his zooms, wasn't he? Maybe a deep dive into the demi-monde, the seedy world of B-movies, would make a fun video essay?
I think most talk about visuals is dominated by how an image looks on an aesthetic level. There's not enough focus on staging and also how shots can cut together. Recently, I've noticed far more films with shots that just don't work next to each other in an unintentional way (it's a major problem in my own work too, to be fair).
Nice vid. Let's all remember though that all this is easier said than done. It is the director's vision, yes. But it takes the collaboration of many departments to get the beauty of something like Flowers.... There's a reasom why many, if not most, if not all directors work with the same teams of people, especially the camera department....DoP, etc. It's hard as hell to find the right people to vibe with that get your vision and add to that vision.
I'm curious what you think of Maestro's direction. A lot of interesting shot choices and framing devices but it seems like Cooper is just playing with directing toys without trying to achieve a greater purpose.
Thank you @Moviewise because this excellent video had perfect release timing. Most of the "film critics" I follow were barking about Denis Villeneuve's comments about preferring great shots over dialogue, and this video is the perfect antidote. Also, one more difference in the opening comparison: does Chris Nolan get his ideas for aperture settings from Zack Snyder? Can we get some depth of field please?
If I ever direct a film in my next life, I'd definitely learn from Martin Scorsese, Billy Wilder, William Wyler (if that's correct) and many directors that you've mentioned. Oh btw, because of you, I cannot enjoy most films or tv series due to........many terrible blocking.
That was so fascinating. Thank you. I think we register many of these jarring shots and cuts on a subconscious level, without realising it. I think back to Scorsese’s earliest successful movies and wonder if these rules apply to his blocking and composition and I’m reminded of how the film Taxi Driver went over schedule and over budget just to get one shot for the climax of the movie. They removed part of a ceiling and put tracks through it, just so the camera could pan in an arch over the characters, looking down into the scene of Travis Bickle’s carnage below after the police officer enters. It’s as though the officer is stunned into an out of body experience. But it’s also a way for the viewer to step back and see a more collective image of this stunned officer, the crying girl and the suicidal Bickle, without taking you out of the flow. I can see how he agonised over shots like those and why they mattered so much to him. Before he could command such blank cheques as he gets now, it’s impressive to reflect back on such artistic achievement. You sir, have given me fresh eyes with which to appreciate the genius of one of my favourite directors. And I am grateful.
Thank you yet another fantastic video! One not though - Nolan's poor use of the vertical aspects of the frame are intentional. I heard Hoyte van Hoytema feels he has to stuff everything in the middle of the frame because IMAX movies shown in non-IMAX theaters will have the sides cropped a bit. No the real question in my mind is why in the "?%&!# would you shoot in IMAX? It costs about 1000 dollars a minute (not exaggerating here) and for my money, Carol, shot on 16 mm looks as good, if not better than, Oppenheimer. How are we this obsessed with resolution still?
I really respect the fact that your criticism constantly brings us back to the director's technical ability even though in my subjective opinion you occasionally over value formal qualities at the risk of undervaluing the responsibility the director has for protecting continuity and maintaining suspension of disbelief. Anyway, thanks for making us all into smarter audiences!
In your response to the frame being overly centered in Oppenheimer, Hoyte van Hoytema, DP for Oppenheimer explain that when shooting with IMAX cameras the projection is really curved so attempting to use the entire frame is pointless because it forces audience to stretch and lose themselves tryna find certain details in the frame. He says that it more of a 3D, or “you’re right there” vibe they were trying to give. It’s an interview on TH-cam where he said this.
You can still frame for the centre but dress the rest of the frame, and give some depth. Mad Max does this wonderfully, everything is centre framed, on the eyes, but the whole frame looks spectacular.
that shot at 5:09 breaks my brain, how do they stay consistent with the right side lighting. It can't be overhead lights the shadow angles look accurate to the window as a light source
I find your love to cinema an inspiration to be a more conscious (and hopefully better) filmmaker. You pinpointed all what’s wrong with Oppenheimer cinematography. I guess IMAX is lobbying hard this year. “Anatomy of a Fall” feels almost like a n episode of “The Office”. I was waiting for someone to break the fourth wall at some point. I Loved the cinematography of “Flowers of the Killer Moon” but I’m a nineties kid who grew up watching skateboard videos shot on fisheye, so my heart is with “Poor Things”. But “The Zone of Interest” tastefully whoops some asses here. Thank you very much. God bless.
I heard that the budget and the filming schedule on Oppenheimer was tight as violin string. Apple made a fortune on laptops so they can afford to be an art patron but for Universal film is business. They cannot overspend. buuut There are some moments in Oppenheimer where I can't believe no one on set offered to fix them with minimum effort. When Kitty and Robert go horse riding they put the reins on the bushes instead of tying them. Jean has to get out of bed, pick up a random book from the shelf, in a language she doesn't know, open a random page and ask Robert to read a quote that just happends to be the quote. Wouldn't it make more sense to put the book near the bed to suggest Robert is reading it? Add a bookmark, some notes to show he is learning the language? Maybe underline the quote so that Jean would want to know why it is important to him?
Can you do a video on what makes good editing or good sound design? Editing is the third most important part of movie making and I think not enough film analysers break it down well. Also, who are your favourite film critics?
Super helpful analysis, in particular the analysis of Scorcese. I am not a movie expert, but coming from a photography and design perspective I am not quite sure why you consider empty space as something bad, when analysing Nolan? It creates a different mood and gives room for breathing.
I think the point of that 4 second take was to put the focus entirely on Oppenheimer's dismissive reaction to his lawyer saying that he might've taken in too far. Given that scene is in color and all color scenes are supposed to be from Oppenheimer's subjective perspective, this made sense to me. We also see that same scene multiple times throughout the film, from different angles, different close ups and both in color and in black and white. Strauss saw it as a humiliation, Oppenheimer intended it as one but was arrogant enough to revel in it and enjoy it and believe that it wouldn't backfire. On your point of the jarring editing. I've seen this criticism a lot and I totally get this isn't everyone's style. But to me, the frantic, messy editing is a strength of the movie. So much of the film feels like memory. We're watching Oppenheimer remembering his life story and watching him go through key memories of his life in his head. I don't know about you, but whenever I look back at my life in my head or recall certain memories, the images I see are series of rapid, disorganised and frantic images. The editing of this film is exactly how memory feels to me. It gives the whole film a contemplative and meditative quality. Which is why I found it to be so incredibly immersive. Nolan wanted to put us right into Oppenheimer's head. The rapid editing played a huge role in that imo. It also represented just how eventful and full of turmoil Oppenheimer's life was. The editing helped me understand just how difficult it must've been for him to deal with so many changes in a short amount of time. That same style of editing also helped the court room drama in the 2nd half of the film. The way it was edited and paced made it feel like an action movie. Which made the 3hr runtime fly past by me as if it was 2hrs long. One of the best paced films I've seen in recent years. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.
I disagree because, if we were to be drawn to Opp’s reaction the focus wouldve been on him and not the background. The lawyer’s look is what is being communicated in the scene visually. Had the camera, for example, zoomed on Opp’s face subtly after he glances it would visually show us the narrative you are talking about. Otherwise i think you have a point that sometimes moviewise has some takes that are more about preference. He’s still the goat of film analysis on youtube
Watch JFK (which he himself has analyzed in other videos) and you'll realize how fast-paced editing isn't a problem in itself, but depends on how it's handled. Every cut of JFK has a purpose, a meaning, a reason for being there. And above all, it doesn't cut from all possible angles with camera movements that have no beginning or end; indeed, sometimes he breaks up long-takes with quick flashbacks. In Oppenheimer everything is more approximate and vague... It's difficult to make it clear with a comment, the best thing is to see JFK and Oppenheimer a short time apart to understand it. But in short, Oppenheimer's editing draws a lot of attention to itself, while JFK manages to create this "fluid" and organic flow of images.
@@bordidellapizza I've seen JFK, it's also one of my all time favourites because of the way it's edited and so tightly paced. When I came out of my first viewing of Oppenheimer I had to immediately think of JFK as both films have a lot of similarities. I think Nolan and his editor did a good job echoing that same style of editing, especially in the court room drama part of the film. For example that cross cut scene where Oppenheimer meets Pash was so well cut in terms of tension and suspense. But also the cross cutting of Oppenheimer's security hearing with Strauss senate confirmation was so well executed and put together and worked on so many levels, my favourite being that it worked as an analogy for the mutual assured destruction in a nuclear arms race. I think the vagueness you mentioned could be more due to the highly subjective nature of the film. We never get to see an objective pov. It's either Oppenheimer's perspective or Strauss'. Which means we don't necessarily get to always see the full picture. JFK on the other hand is interested in telling a more objective story. Ironically enough, despite it's attempt at this objective storytelling JFK is far more historically inaccurate than Oppenheimer with its highly subjective storytelling. But that's a different discussion. I really believe that Oppenheimer is an editing masterclass. Condensing that huge amount of information and the sheer scope and magnitude of Oppenheimer's story into 3hrs was no easy challenge. I think they pulled it off as best as one could.
@@daftyfunky I agree that the scene with Pash has tension, but it has tension because of how it was written and conceived. The implementation from my point of view remains a problem. In the room with Oppy, Pash and the guy at the table (I don't remember his name), three shots were enough: shot/reverse shot and two shots. Instead Nolan includes a single two shot with an insignificant movement to the right, because it has no beginning and end (why move the camera, then?) and shots of characters that have nothing to do with it: what's the point of that half-length shot of two 2 seconds on the defense attorney in that scene? What's the point of all those shots of the guy at the table if he doesn't say/do anything and just listens? He doesn't even react! He has the same expression all the time. It's details like these that disturb and don't let the tension build organically. Without those insignificant shots and with a little more refined editing, the scene would have been truly perfect. And anyway this concerns the whole film, not just this scene. Even in the courtroom scenes, how many "insignificant" cuts and shots (i.e. those that are so short that they provide neither information, a character's emotional state, or add to the atmosphere) that are held for only milliseconds? What purpose do they serve? Every time I see it all I think about is how it could have been so much better if it had been refined here and there. And I agree that the editing is excellent! Because it unites scenes and creates absurd and fantastic connections... But at the same time it's the worst part of the film.
Each film has its own essence and style that has to reinforce the idea of the script, it has nothing to do with aesthetics, unless the film needs it. I agree that KOTFM is very beautiful, because it is what Martin Scorcece wants to show, the counterpoint between the beautiful world of the Osage and how it is stained by the colonizers. Oppenheimer is loud and chaotic, reflecting the point of view of our protagonist, dazed, tired, complicated. (that includes the excessive use of music, I consider it reinforces this idea. The fact that there is too much dialogue and that it is not audible at times strengthens this idea, Oppenheimer is stunned by so many voices, noises, sounds that as spectators also stun us). Anatomy of a Fall doesn't look bad, you're just expecting to see it as if it were filmed traditionally, the movie is more about confusion, bias, and just like Oppenheimer; of chaos, is what the images mean, not of the images themselves. About Poor Things and Zone of the Interest, I'm not going to say anything other than, not all cinema has to look, sound or feel good (like Scorcece does), it's no use putting them side by side, just for the fact that which are very different directorial points of view, KOTFM is realistic in the romantic sense, Zone of the Interest is realistic in the crude sense and Poor Things is a crazy fantasy through the eyes of a childlike protagonist, very different. I think your criticism is somewhat flat on all movies, including KOTFM, it comes down to whether it looks good or not, whether it fills the frame or not. Direction is treating a film as a whole, not just from the image, you are simply talking about composition and blocking. I love these 5 movies, I don't think any of them are better than the other in any area, I think that instead of policing the differences and taking a stance of "this is better than that", it's about celebrating the diversity that cinema can offer (and we are only talking about Oscar movies, where diversity is well restricted) Sorry for the long comment, I don't plan to be hostile, I just would like us the public to raise the level of film criticism.
Ok, look. Your videos are great, and I can't get enough of them. I think you should dispense with eating, sleeping, a job, family, and churn out 2 of them per day just to entertain me - ok? Get to it. (and yeah, I've watched some of your recommendations - they're good, but not as entertaining as your videos about them)
This is why there shouldn't just be one Best Picture award: then Oppenheimer could win Best Production and KOTFM or The Zone of Interest could win Best Artistic Feature.
Love your style and analysis! However I don’t think that a more evenly-filled, meticulously framed composition is inherently better. This is just one of many approaches and styles.
Amen! The same happens in literature. People obsess about meaning while sentence structure, rhyme and technique fall to the wayside. O tempore o mores.
Another great lesson on film making. Watching your videos I have come to the conclusion that how I feel and react to a film has a lot to do with how it’s all put together as well as the story or subject matter. Poor Things felt uneasy and disorientating watching but I loved the story. KOTFM was a joy to behold and very educational on the history of that period. Oppenheimer was like being bombarded with sound/dialogue/images and my brain got frazzled trying to keep up but I was fascinated by how such a monstrous weapon came about. I can’t wait for your next instalment so I can learn more.
Putting your favourites at the beginning and the end of the video so that the viewer leaves with positive feelings? I give you an oscar for best screenplay.
The poop sandwich. Ole management tactics.
You should do more Martin Scorsese cinematography videos. It’s wild how much detail that old wizard stuffs in his films and never a frame or second wasted.
Scorsese seems like a natural fit for his "Why It's A Classic" series.
I love moviewise's passing stab "such an artist gets to decide what is cinema and what isn't" 8-D
I was afraid at first that we won't get anything close to classic cinema. Didn't think of Scorsese immediately
Check out the channel in depth cine!
"His wideshots are a mouthwatering lesson on cinematic composition." -- Moviewise on Scorsese.
This is all I've been trying to say. This is all Spielberg meant when he told Martin Scorsese that Killers of the Flower Moon is his masterpiece. It's his best directing ever. Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver are all amateur night at the Apollo when compared to KOTFM. The Departed is a distant second. He was on fire with his latest movie, on some Kobe scoring 80 ish. Who cares that it's long? Every shot was so well composed. No amount of running can take away from that.
People are getting off on Nolan and complaining about Scorsese merely because they wouldn't know good directing if it fell on their heads like an anvil for the sky.
He will lose to the lesser Oppenheimer. But goddamn. There's an obvious best director of the year and it isn't going to be appreciated.
Thank you, Moviewise.
i'm not sure if you're telling that he continuously improved all his life or that he finally learned how to direct as an octogenarian.
If it helps, Scorsese has long transcended the Oscars. Even when he feld the need for their approval and validation, he was too big for them
@@snair4548The Oscars don't mean much except for leaving a trail to investigate past works. Though, the rest of that comment is exactly the type of comment that is the problem with film. Deification of the director and the blinding of his faults because of the Cult of the Auteur.
I still support Nolan’s Oscar simply because it’s long overdue.
@user-pi8qw9jj7h How is my comment the problem with film? I'm not even a Scorsese Stan.
Started watching the TV-series "Marriage" with Sean Bean, and was glad to realise how much I noticed the terrible blocking and framing. You're a great teacher, Mr. Moviewise!
Hope you notice some excellent framing and blocking in the future!
On the positive side, with 'Shōgun" director Jonathan van Tulleken's framing and blocking, thanks to moviewise, gained a new appreciation of his contribution.
It's a blessing and a curse to develop a refined taste. From now on, you'll no longer be able to simply enjoy a movie. 😂😭
This channel is the new Every Frame A Painting. The amount of knowledge and passion you put in, man... it's just great.
I think is even better
Yup, ever since Tony stopped uploading I yearned for a channel that focuses more on the visual/techinal side of things and not just the story. Finding this channel a couple of weeks ago was a treat.
David Bordwell passed away today, I see you referenced him in the description, an indispensable figure to cinema theory and appreciation. He will live on in his works, which will hopefully continue to be read and seen by future generations.
I was shocked to find out today. No other person influenced so much my manner of looking at and explaining filmmaking.
I've never finished one of your videos without feeling like I just had one of the best film lessons ever. Your explanations are thorough and detailed yet easily understandable. Great work man
So regarding the central framing of Oppenheimer, Hoyta Van Hoytema has talked about the reason being that IMAX is just so large that it's actually distracting having to look from left to right, so central framing becomes the main focus. Similar to what George Miller did with Fury Road. However the awkwardness and blocking (literally) of actors in key moments is quite sloppy at times.
But George Miller did it with the intention of making the action scenes readable; for Oppenheimer it seems more like: "We have to do it like this otherwise it will be bad for those who see the film in IMAX". Clear, but most people (and the future survival of the film) will not be in IMAX, but on a wide format... In addition to the fact that there are scenes shot both in IMAX and on 65mm film, and even those in film have a central framing... But here there is no complex action scene, they are characters talking and seeing 3 hours of characters all talking in the center of the framing is a bit boring visually... Not even Wes Anderson or Peter Greenaway!
I think Nolan changing the aspect ratio in such an abrupt way is a symptom of a problem in his directing, which is he prefers to change the aspect ratio to hide the blank spaces in the frame instead of thinking of creative composition like Scorsese does.
In this sense, Scorsese is the most talented director and the one with a more complex visual style, meanwhile Nolan choose the easy answer in his cinematography
Regarding my comment, I think the problem with Nolan's style will play in his favor in the Oscars, as he will excuse the aspect ratio thing not as a problem but as a creative decision and part of his style, which might fool someone who's not visually trained in cinematography (and might as well be his style) and for that he will receive extra points in the academy.
The aspect ratio switching is technical not artistic. I suspect if he could Nolan would shoot an entire movie in IMAX but it just isn't feasible (yet).
@@richardcahill1234 Then he should just shoot the non-spectacle scenes in regular spherical 4-Perf Super 35 and forgo the pointless “ShitScope” (as the orator of this great channel calls it) in his movies. Or if he wants his Hi-Fidelity, VistaVision.
VistaVision is ten times as viable as 65mm IMAX. It uses regular 35mm film, is twice the definition of Super 35, has a versatile aspect ratio (1.50:1, easily cropped to 1.43:1) and over 70+ movies back in the day were shot entirely with the format.
Yeah he should crop both formats to a single ratio, and compose for that target. Unlike in Everything Everywhere Etc, in Nolan's movies the aspect ratio changes don't play any role in storytelling, and they're not even interesting visually. They're just a technical byproduct that should have been ironed out - like any other technical artifact. Film formats seem to give him too much of a hard on and he can't be bothered straightening the bump in his pants.
@@fredscallietsoundman9701 Putting this on a t-shirt "Film formats seem to give him too much of a hard on and he can't be bothered straightening the bump in his pants."
You are a film school moviewise!! Love you.
I remember seeing that scene from Oppenheimer and hoping Moviewise would tear it a new one some day.
Nobody tears a movie “a new one” by saying something negative or nasty. And why would you, anyway? I’ve never once had that feeling or desire watching a movie.
@@MrShakespearefan it’s not inherently negative to criticize something, especially in regards to art.
I really enjoy your videos and think this one is strong as well. And while I think you bring up many valid points, I think every film on this list has a unique visual style that is well catered to its subject matter. This goes back to your video on cinematic staging/blocking and your desire to have films return to a more elegant and crisp form of visual storytelling, which I agree is fantastic, but at the same time, I think using that template as a rubric for everything is detrimental. Filmmaking has definitely become more visually progressive as formats have changed, and I think it's only natural that filmmakers use these tools to say something that couldn't be said before. Nolan for example has never really concerned himself with 'painterly' framing or anything like that, he shoots for the edit and tries to develop a momentum and compliment whatever narrative tricks he is utilizing. This is a function of personal style and trumps a traditional way of viewing framing/composition. The same goes for Triet's documentary-esque style; it is what the film needs, and I think she uses it to say something interesting about the artifice of what we deem to be authentic. And yes, Scorsese's work in Killers is still great; he does it like the masters of old, and it works like a charm. My point being is that there is room for everything; I personally wouldn't hold someone like Cassavetes to the same standard that I would John Ford. Their styles are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but both effectively enhance the kinds of stories they want to tell. Anyways, I really think you have some great points in this video (the Poor Things extra's criticism was one that I thought was particularly sharp). I will continue to watch!
Everything I wanted to say. Seconded.
Just to counter your point on Nolan's framing/blocking. I have also heard the same said of him elsewhere which I still don't understand, because for me I don't see it on screen. His camera work often feels sloppy and unmotivated and confusing. One of my big issues with Oppenheimer is I couldn't follow the drive from scene to scene was, couple that with the constant over bearing sound design, I just wasn't having a good or immersive experience, in fact the opposite. I was getting irritated that I wasn't being brought on a journey. He may be trying to construct momentum but it is done to a detriment of coherent story telling. It baffles me the praise Oppenheimer in particular has received, there's so many creative and technical choices that are so jarring. It feels like an academic text book masquerading as a film with visual story telling as an after thought. But i'm in extreme minority. Perhaps time will change my opinion, or the consensus.
I love this channel. The only film critique channel on TH-cam worth watching. Literally THE ONLY ONE.
I have to thank you, your perspective on directing has teached me a lot to appreciate filmmaking on a more in depth analysis than just narrative which is the easiest to pin point when something is well and poorly done.
ppl like you - movie teachers and critics - should be the ones to select Oscar nominees. The Academy is a disgrace. i watched the Oscars decaying for the last 15 years. With great sadness. Oscars use to mean something. Nowadays it seems like the Academy doesn't even watch these movies, like if they only read the synopsis or something. Not to mention they would't even know good directing if they saw one. Movie industry needs more people who know how to analyse good directing, good screenwriting, good acting. The audience needs them. Someone who will help us elevate our taste... not just satisfy our lowest needs for entertainment. Thank you for your channel. i love it. I'm always waiting for the next video :)
I learn so much from your videos!
You make me a more perceptive cinephile.
And I laughed out loud several times- what a delightful wit and sense of humor .
You manage to critique these films and directors without insulting them .
I love you, Moviewise.
9:55 Holy shit I can't unsee this now.
Now I know why I thought KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON was my favorite movie of the year, and why I thought OPPENHEIMER wasn't much more enjoyable than FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY from way back in 1989.
When I was in college, I took an "Understanding Film" course. It really improved my appreciation of filmmaking, and taught me how to watch films. This channel is like a refresher course, renewing my appreciation for what goes into a film, what makes a film good, and what to look for. Really great channel!
Thank for this video! It's very educational. I don't think I can notice these sort of details when watching a movie for the first time (I'm too invested in the story), but I'll definitely notice them when re-watching it! Framing, camera movement, the actions of extras in the background... These seem like perfect details to pick up on when you want to understand the movie better.
Great instructive comparison of Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon.
Lanthimos's fisheye fetish is tiresome to me, though I enjoyed the movie.
I loved the look of Anatomy of a Fall. I really don't need every movie to look like a classical painting. 'Who'd want to watch that?' Me. I love that candid photographic style. I can't justify that, but that's the point: your view here is just as subjective. I really like your point about how the style fits the story and theme, though.
But fantastic analysis of The Zone of Interest. As you were going through it, I was thinking of Playtime and Ozu, so it was great to find you were leading us there all along - and to learn the term 'parametric storytelling'.
Check out David Bordwell’s Narration in the Fiction Film. Parametric Narration is a fascinating and highly complicated subject. And thanks for the comment!
@@Moviewise And thanks much for the recommendation! I'll definitely follow up on it.
Great video as always. I used to notice direction and editing a bit before, but you have taken me to a whole new level. Can't wait for the next one!
Where have you been all my cinephile life?!😍 AMAZING VIDEO!
Thank you Moviewise, this has helped to make better blocking framing choices for upcoming projects
Fascinating. As usual, you give the viewer a new perspective, and a new way of watching and judging the quality of a film.
I haven't seen Oppenheimer yet (I've had a lot going on) so when you showed the 4 second clip of Opp and his lawyer, I legitimately thought our focus was meant to shift towards the man on the far right getting up and walking away. That scene was so poorly blocked I didn't even know RDJ was there!
Well done. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’ve learned more about cinema from you than any other source. I really appreciate what you do and how you do it. Bravo!
Let me also add please. You said once that you’d reveal your identity and some other nonsense. Please don’t. Your mystique is part of the fun of your show. Think of other TH-camrs that operate in your space. Is it better that I know who Mr. Plinkett is? The Critical Drinker? No! Nein! It’s better if they don’t let their identities be known. It’s better to be the character. Let your accent remain a mystery. Who cares where you are from or what your politics are or what you look like. Let me imagine you as a fantasy. Something that exists only as an intellect and a voice. You are perfect the way you are. Never change.
Man i remember your Tar review and Oppenheimer is seems just like an anti thesis of that film
Tar is Like you said "spacious" + long takes + extremely character focused with super subtle hinting in its dialogues
Oppy just spazzes out with cuts, the shots are cramped and well the characters seem pretty hollow to me with there being an exposition bomb every minute of the film
This video is very helpful for people like me who dont notice or know much about cinematography. Tells me how much thinking goes into the camera work.
Exposition bombs are Nolan's specialty. 99% of the dialogue in Inception is someone explaining something to someone else or doing an "as you know" to remind the audience of something.
I don't think you're watching Moviewise's videos, because if you were, you'd know that he praised Oppenheimer's script as the best of all this year's Oscar-nominated screenplays.
@@gileadeandradesilva ik I saw that. Never said he didn't say that though did I?
@@LordBaktor yeah thats why it was nominated for best screenplay
@@sandeepdas3526 Am I under any obligation to agree with the Academy's decisions or do I have a right to form and express my own opinion on this matter?
This channel not having more subscribers is down right criminal, so here's a comment and a like. I'm doing my part.
I absolutely love the transition to the "Like...Subscribe...patreon". You are always entertaining in how you put that stuff in!
Just discovered your channel, well as a keen film student I can say I found a gold mine. You Rock. Thank you for your content. 😍😍🔥🔥🔥
I learn so much from this channel.
Got to learn so much in a single video. Great video, keep the good work ❤
this was absolutely fantastic. thank you!
Everytime I get a new Moviewise video I feel like Christmas.
This channel is astonishingly good
Your videos have the cumulative effect of a solid introductory course in Cinema Studies. Thank you…
I was always confused when a movie was nominated for best picture, but the director missed out. This video is very informative on this issue.
Yes!! You did it. Very good analysis, I was kind of expecting you don't liking Nolan's direction. I can't feel engaged by the images of any of his movies. Did you read Bordwell's little book on him? He talks how Nolan isn't very interesting in style, and great at cross-cutting narrative. So sad that he died today, one of the bests we had.
I haven't watched Zone of Interest yet, but your analysis got me very excited to do it, probably I'll watch this weekend.
I really got tired of Lanthimos directing in Poor Things. As for Anatomy of the Fall I really liked the narrative, especially the son's drama; but I kind agree with your take on the directing (it was the thing that didn't let me like more), some details I was even able to chatch it, but I still think is kind of effective. Well, Marty, what can i say?
This dude is a fucking genius
Do you have a letterboxd sir? I'd love to read your reviews
You've made me start appreciating Killers of the Flower Moon.
Huh? You didn't appreciate it before this video?
@@Largentina. Not so much. The runtime and story felt tedious that I stopped even caring about the cinematography.
Case and point, we need to bring back the intermission. Oppenheimer could have used the extra 30 minutes to flash things out. Killers would have been easier to take it with a break.@@IcarusSuite
@@IcarusSuite Jesus Christ
so, this video was great, and I will watch it several times to extract as much knowledge as I can, but what I really want to know is how good the directing was on a scale of super cool dance moves
Nolan’s issue is he doesn’t utilise tonal variation. Each moment must escalate and outdo the last one until we are being foghorned in the face in an epic finale. The problem with that approach is how do you follow the cataclysm of man splitting the atom, the dropping of the bomb, with litigation in Judge Judy small claims court?
Nolan’s verbose cinematic language seemed silly and clumsy when transposed in these small back rooms.
Funnily enough if he had subverted the very style that’s become his signature I think the final act could’ve provide a more emotional and unexpected kick in the guts. Static wide shots, long takes, minimal score. There’s something so undignified and dreadful about this intriguing and intelligent figure being slowly dragged through mundane legal proceedings after everything he’s managed to do. That’s an intriguing story structure but better served through a drastic tonal change.
Thank you Moviewise!
Cut to: Nolan winning the Oscar.
I honestly do not understand the obsession with Oppenheimer. The dialogue is robotic, the cuts are weird, and as you just showed us, the blocking is horrible. Is it just because it is Nolan and the budget is big? He isn’t even able to direct a romantic scene.
Important subject, seriously examined + billion in box office = Oscar gold
I didn't notice the intricate framing and blocking at all while watching Killers of the Flower Moon, but I spent a lot of time asking why so much of the film was made up of shot-reverse shot dialogue scenes in close ups and mid shots. It turns out the stuff I was looking for was all there, but either went over my head or was just invisible to me, which I suppose means it did its job and I was wrapped up in the story during those parts. Very clever.
Looking at Christopher Nolan's haphazard blocking, it's interesting to think that Steven Spielberg was the first person to watch Oppenheimer in 70mm. He declared his love for it, but I wonder what goes through his mind when he clearly has, and wants to preserve, something that the filmmaker who he is praising doesn't have.
Nevertheless, I have to say that the pacing and structure of Oppenheimer is very much to my tastes. I often don't like Nolan's overbearing soundtracks and undisciplined cutting, but in this film I thought it built up a symphonic sense of despair that swept me right up and brought me to leave the cinema despondent about whatever future we might have. So, it was my favourite film of the year by far.
Your videos are impeccable! Your comedy is too good.
I love this walkthrough and that you aren't affraid to point out bad compositing. But I gotta' say a well-shot and well-composited movie does not automatically make it a great movie. At the end of the day it's about telling a great story, which is of course subjective in contrary to great craftmanship.
Really strange takes in this video. You seem like you're coming at this from more of a cinematographer's standpoint as opposed to a director's standpoint. You clearly seem to have a very big bias towards meticulously storyboarded filmmaking, which is fine, but claiming it's the only valid style of filmmaking is just reductive and a bit obnoxious. Directing isn't just about making a shot look pretty or clean, it's about serving the story and experience of the film in whatever way that may be. You are essentially removing the part that makes films worth analyzing, which is intention. Anatomy of a Fall could've been meticulously framed and blocked, sure, but what would that achieve outside of looking a bit prettier? It would've betrayed the themes of the film by putting us firmly into a stylized reality where everyone can see everything. The whole thing would've felt choreographed, which for this film would've completely ruined it. Similarly with Nolan's style, Nolan does not storyboard his films. But that doesn't mean he isn't choosing his shots and making interesting choices. He largely wants Oppenheimer to be a subjective experience, putting us very firmly into Oppenheimer's perspective in the color-scenes and Strauss's perspective in the B&W scenes. It's not going for something meticulously blocked because it doesn't have to. It's a very internal film that is playing on subjective experiences of time and memory, creating the feeling of an atomic bomb blowing up but put into cinematic form. There is not an objective right way to do this, all that matters is whether or not something serves the tone, vision and story of the work at hand. Don't ask what it is, ask what it does. Just really bafflingly bad takes here, sorry. You're allowed to have a personal preference but don't start treating your taste as a fact. Directing is not just blocking - it's working with actors, weaving a narrative throughline, crafting an atmosphere, determining a pace, communicating with each department of a film and getting everyone on the same page to craft a specific vision.
And no matter how each film was made you’d still praise it as the right choice. A rationalization can always be made to justify any creative choice. If you have no basis of quality you simply accept everything that’s given to you.
I get this, but I have to say the cinematographer's standpoint is normally approved by the director. All things printed on screen should be the director's standpoint.
Justine Triet followed the Beaux Arts school as an aspirant painter. She made her debut as a documentary director, then switched to fiction with 'la bataille de Solferino' in 2013. It is a low budget film where Triet mixed real world capture with scenarized plans.
Poor Things needing to break the 180-degree rule three times for a shot of someone eating gives me Taken-3-needing-fourteen-shots-to-show-someone-jumping-a-fence vibes
Excellent work, thank you.
This opened my eyes to a lot of what makes directing well directing. But narrative will always be what will makes movies great. That’s the mark of a true great director to me. Obviously, the coupling of the writing with shot composition is important for the pacing and overall vibe, but at the end of the day, it’s all subjective, so lets keep it that way.
It's funny because it's true. Well done 👏
All those Lanthimos zooms! Jean Rollin was famous for his zooms, wasn't he? Maybe a deep dive into the demi-monde, the seedy world of B-movies, would make a fun video essay?
Zooms were insanely common in the late 60s and early 70s. Almost every director was using it, specially in Europe
I think most talk about visuals is dominated by how an image looks on an aesthetic level. There's not enough focus on staging and also how shots can cut together. Recently, I've noticed far more films with shots that just don't work next to each other in an unintentional way (it's a major problem in my own work too, to be fair).
this is my favorite video ever
Nice vid. Let's all remember though that all this is easier said than done. It is the director's vision, yes. But it takes the collaboration of many departments to get the beauty of something like Flowers.... There's a reasom why many, if not most, if not all directors work with the same teams of people, especially the camera department....DoP, etc. It's hard as hell to find the right people to vibe with that get your vision and add to that vision.
I'm curious what you think of Maestro's direction. A lot of interesting shot choices and framing devices but it seems like Cooper is just playing with directing toys without trying to achieve a greater purpose.
What is the movie he mentions at 25:40 ??
Viv ca vie? Vive ca vive? Vee sa vee?
This is a master class for directing
even lesser scorsese work completely smokes all the other 4
Thank you @Moviewise because this excellent video had perfect release timing. Most of the "film critics" I follow were barking about Denis Villeneuve's comments about preferring great shots over dialogue, and this video is the perfect antidote. Also, one more difference in the opening comparison: does Chris Nolan get his ideas for aperture settings from Zack Snyder? Can we get some depth of field please?
Can you provide a list of films and other sources that you used to learn these things?
If I ever direct a film in my next life, I'd definitely learn from Martin Scorsese, Billy Wilder, William Wyler (if that's correct) and many directors that you've mentioned.
Oh btw, because of you, I cannot enjoy most films or tv series due to........many terrible blocking.
More Directing Videos. They are perfection
Moviewise speaks - we listen
That was so fascinating. Thank you. I think we register many of these jarring shots and cuts on a subconscious level, without realising it. I think back to Scorsese’s earliest successful movies and wonder if these rules apply to his blocking and composition and I’m reminded of how the film Taxi Driver went over schedule and over budget just to get one shot for the climax of the movie. They removed part of a ceiling and put tracks through it, just so the camera could pan in an arch over the characters, looking down into the scene of Travis Bickle’s carnage below after the police officer enters.
It’s as though the officer is stunned into an out of body experience. But it’s also a way for the viewer to step back and see a more collective image of this stunned officer, the crying girl and the suicidal Bickle, without taking you out of the flow. I can see how he agonised over shots like those and why they mattered so much to him. Before he could command such blank cheques as he gets now, it’s impressive to reflect back on such artistic achievement.
You sir, have given me fresh eyes with which to appreciate the genius of one of my favourite directors. And I am grateful.
You should have half a million subscribers. At least you have gained 5k in the past months.
Thank you yet another fantastic video! One not though - Nolan's poor use of the vertical aspects of the frame are intentional. I heard Hoyte van Hoytema feels he has to stuff everything in the middle of the frame because IMAX movies shown in non-IMAX theaters will have the sides cropped a bit. No the real question in my mind is why in the "?%&!# would you shoot in IMAX? It costs about 1000 dollars a minute (not exaggerating here) and for my money, Carol, shot on 16 mm looks as good, if not better than, Oppenheimer. How are we this obsessed with resolution still?
I really respect the fact that your criticism constantly brings us back to the director's technical ability even though in my subjective opinion you occasionally over value formal qualities at the risk of undervaluing the responsibility the director has for protecting continuity and maintaining suspension of disbelief. Anyway, thanks for making us all into smarter audiences!
Excellent video. I'm totally agree. Marty being the greatest living director.
In your response to the frame being overly centered in Oppenheimer, Hoyte van Hoytema, DP for Oppenheimer explain that when shooting with IMAX cameras the projection is really curved so attempting to use the entire frame is pointless because it forces audience to stretch and lose themselves tryna find certain details in the frame. He says that it more of a 3D, or “you’re right there” vibe they were trying to give. It’s an interview on TH-cam where he said this.
You can still frame for the centre but dress the rest of the frame, and give some depth. Mad Max does this wonderfully, everything is centre framed, on the eyes, but the whole frame looks spectacular.
that shot at 5:09 breaks my brain, how do they stay consistent with the right side lighting. It can't be overhead lights the shadow angles look accurate to the window as a light source
I find your love to cinema an inspiration to be a more conscious (and hopefully better) filmmaker. You pinpointed all what’s wrong with Oppenheimer cinematography. I guess IMAX is lobbying hard this year. “Anatomy of a Fall” feels almost like a n episode of “The Office”. I was waiting for someone to break the fourth wall at some point. I Loved the cinematography of “Flowers of the Killer Moon” but I’m a nineties kid who grew up watching skateboard videos shot on fisheye, so my heart is with “Poor Things”. But “The Zone of Interest” tastefully whoops some asses here. Thank you very much. God bless.
Thank you moviewise
I heard that the budget and the filming schedule on Oppenheimer was tight as violin string. Apple made a fortune on laptops so they can afford to be an art patron but for Universal film is business. They cannot overspend.
buuut
There are some moments in Oppenheimer where I can't believe no one on set offered to fix them with minimum effort. When Kitty and Robert go horse riding they put the reins on the bushes instead of tying them.
Jean has to get out of bed, pick up a random book from the shelf, in a language she doesn't know, open a random page and ask Robert to read a quote that just happends to be the quote.
Wouldn't it make more sense to put the book near the bed to suggest Robert is reading it? Add a bookmark, some notes to show he is learning the language? Maybe underline the quote so that Jean would want to know why it is important to him?
Thanks for this inciteful and funny education on film composition etc. Subbed! Have a great day. 🎉
Can you do a video on what makes good editing or good sound design? Editing is the third most important part of movie making and I think not enough film analysers break it down well. Also, who are your favourite film critics?
So much to learn from u n your channel
Came for the Scorsese praise, stayed for the Nolan mauling 🤣🤣
Would be curious to see your analysis of There Will Be Blood.
Super helpful analysis, in particular the analysis of Scorcese.
I am not a movie expert, but coming from a photography and design perspective I am not quite sure why you consider empty space as something bad, when analysing Nolan? It creates a different mood and gives room for breathing.
Great stuff!
What is the name of the violin song?
Great stuff, as usual.
I think the point of that 4 second take was to put the focus entirely on Oppenheimer's dismissive reaction to his lawyer saying that he might've taken in too far. Given that scene is in color and all color scenes are supposed to be from Oppenheimer's subjective perspective, this made sense to me. We also see that same scene multiple times throughout the film, from different angles, different close ups and both in color and in black and white. Strauss saw it as a humiliation, Oppenheimer intended it as one but was arrogant enough to revel in it and enjoy it and believe that it wouldn't backfire.
On your point of the jarring editing. I've seen this criticism a lot and I totally get this isn't everyone's style. But to me, the frantic, messy editing is a strength of the movie. So much of the film feels like memory. We're watching Oppenheimer remembering his life story and watching him go through key memories of his life in his head. I don't know about you, but whenever I look back at my life in my head or recall certain memories, the images I see are series of rapid, disorganised and frantic images. The editing of this film is exactly how memory feels to me. It gives the whole film a contemplative and meditative quality. Which is why I found it to be so incredibly immersive. Nolan wanted to put us right into Oppenheimer's head. The rapid editing played a huge role in that imo. It also represented just how eventful and full of turmoil Oppenheimer's life was. The editing helped me understand just how difficult it must've been for him to deal with so many changes in a short amount of time.
That same style of editing also helped the court room drama in the 2nd half of the film. The way it was edited and paced made it feel like an action movie. Which made the 3hr runtime fly past by me as if it was 2hrs long. One of the best paced films I've seen in recent years. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.
I disagree because, if we were to be drawn to Opp’s reaction the focus wouldve been on him and not the background. The lawyer’s look is what is being communicated in the scene visually. Had the camera, for example, zoomed on Opp’s face subtly after he glances it would visually show us the narrative you are talking about. Otherwise i think you have a point that sometimes moviewise has some takes that are more about preference. He’s still the goat of film analysis on youtube
Watch JFK (which he himself has analyzed in other videos) and you'll realize how fast-paced editing isn't a problem in itself, but depends on how it's handled. Every cut of JFK has a purpose, a meaning, a reason for being there. And above all, it doesn't cut from all possible angles with camera movements that have no beginning or end; indeed, sometimes he breaks up long-takes with quick flashbacks. In Oppenheimer everything is more approximate and vague... It's difficult to make it clear with a comment, the best thing is to see JFK and Oppenheimer a short time apart to understand it. But in short, Oppenheimer's editing draws a lot of attention to itself, while JFK manages to create this "fluid" and organic flow of images.
@@bordidellapizza I've seen JFK, it's also one of my all time favourites because of the way it's edited and so tightly paced. When I came out of my first viewing of Oppenheimer I had to immediately think of JFK as both films have a lot of similarities. I think Nolan and his editor did a good job echoing that same style of editing, especially in the court room drama part of the film. For example that cross cut scene where Oppenheimer meets Pash was so well cut in terms of tension and suspense. But also the cross cutting of Oppenheimer's security hearing with Strauss senate confirmation was so well executed and put together and worked on so many levels, my favourite being that it worked as an analogy for the mutual assured destruction in a nuclear arms race.
I think the vagueness you mentioned could be more due to the highly subjective nature of the film. We never get to see an objective pov. It's either Oppenheimer's perspective or Strauss'. Which means we don't necessarily get to always see the full picture. JFK on the other hand is interested in telling a more objective story. Ironically enough, despite it's attempt at this objective storytelling JFK is far more historically inaccurate than Oppenheimer with its highly subjective storytelling. But that's a different discussion.
I really believe that Oppenheimer is an editing masterclass. Condensing that huge amount of information and the sheer scope and magnitude of Oppenheimer's story into 3hrs was no easy challenge. I think they pulled it off as best as one could.
@@daftyfunky I agree that the scene with Pash has tension, but it has tension because of how it was written and conceived. The implementation from my point of view remains a problem.
In the room with Oppy, Pash and the guy at the table (I don't remember his name), three shots were enough: shot/reverse shot and two shots. Instead Nolan includes a single two shot with an insignificant movement to the right, because it has no beginning and end (why move the camera, then?) and shots of characters that have nothing to do with it: what's the point of that half-length shot of two 2 seconds on the defense attorney in that scene? What's the point of all those shots of the guy at the table if he doesn't say/do anything and just listens? He doesn't even react! He has the same expression all the time.
It's details like these that disturb and don't let the tension build organically. Without those insignificant shots and with a little more refined editing, the scene would have been truly perfect. And anyway this concerns the whole film, not just this scene. Even in the courtroom scenes, how many "insignificant" cuts and shots (i.e. those that are so short that they provide neither information, a character's emotional state, or add to the atmosphere) that are held for only milliseconds? What purpose do they serve?
Every time I see it all I think about is how it could have been so much better if it had been refined here and there. And I agree that the editing is excellent! Because it unites scenes and creates absurd and fantastic connections... But at the same time it's the worst part of the film.
Another great video. What does parametric mean in this context?
Good work as usual x
Each film has its own essence and style that has to reinforce the idea of the script, it has nothing to do with aesthetics, unless the film needs it.
I agree that KOTFM is very beautiful, because it is what Martin Scorcece wants to show, the counterpoint between the beautiful world of the Osage and how it is stained by the colonizers.
Oppenheimer is loud and chaotic, reflecting the point of view of our protagonist, dazed, tired, complicated. (that includes the excessive use of music, I consider it reinforces this idea. The fact that there is too much dialogue and that it is not audible at times strengthens this idea, Oppenheimer is stunned by so many voices, noises, sounds that as spectators also stun us).
Anatomy of a Fall doesn't look bad, you're just expecting to see it as if it were filmed traditionally, the movie is more about confusion, bias, and just like Oppenheimer; of chaos, is what the images mean, not of the images themselves.
About Poor Things and Zone of the Interest, I'm not going to say anything other than, not all cinema has to look, sound or feel good (like Scorcece does), it's no use putting them side by side, just for the fact that which are very different directorial points of view, KOTFM is realistic in the romantic sense, Zone of the Interest is realistic in the crude sense and Poor Things is a crazy fantasy through the eyes of a childlike protagonist, very different.
I think your criticism is somewhat flat on all movies, including KOTFM, it comes down to whether it looks good or not, whether it fills the frame or not. Direction is treating a film as a whole, not just from the image, you are simply talking about composition and blocking.
I love these 5 movies, I don't think any of them are better than the other in any area, I think that instead of policing the differences and taking a stance of "this is better than that", it's about celebrating the diversity that cinema can offer (and we are only talking about Oscar movies, where diversity is well restricted)
Sorry for the long comment, I don't plan to be hostile, I just would like us the public to raise the level of film criticism.
Can you please analyze Tarantino?
Ok, look. Your videos are great, and I can't get enough of them. I think you should dispense with eating, sleeping, a job, family, and churn out 2 of them per day just to entertain me - ok? Get to it.
(and yeah, I've watched some of your recommendations - they're good, but not as entertaining as your videos about them)
This is why there shouldn't just be one Best Picture award: then Oppenheimer could win Best Production and KOTFM or The Zone of Interest could win Best Artistic Feature.
I always wondered which films would have won that category across history if the Oscars had kept it.
Love your style and analysis! However I don’t think that a more evenly-filled, meticulously framed composition is inherently better. This is just one of many approaches and styles.
Very thorough analysis. High standard as always. Funny and pleasant to watch. No vomitting guy a tiny disappointment
Amen! The same happens in literature. People obsess about meaning while sentence structure, rhyme and technique fall to the wayside. O tempore o mores.
Another great lesson on film making. Watching your videos I have come to the conclusion that how I feel and react to a film has a lot to do with how it’s all put together as well as the story or subject matter. Poor Things felt uneasy and disorientating watching but I loved the story. KOTFM was a joy to behold and very educational on the history of that period. Oppenheimer was like being bombarded with sound/dialogue/images and my brain got frazzled trying to keep up but I was fascinated by how such a monstrous weapon came about. I can’t wait for your next instalment so I can learn more.