Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin and Hobbes, drew a picture titled, "How it's done! The creative process explained." In it, he drew himself sitting in front of a blank piece of paper on a big easel, drooling like a moron. I don't think the process has ever been captured so perfectly before or since.
The “what’s your excuse?” line plus the gym weights sound made me laugh for a whole minute! Hahaha plus the image of her brain seeing his arms. Amazing callback! Let’s get *you* in Hollywood, Moviewise!
This is a problem I’ve tried to show, and have thought deeply about. Amadeus was the one that came to my mind as such a perfect example. Salieri hears Mozart’s music, explains why it’s so amazing, and the musicians are thinking, “guess I’ll go smoke on my break,” because no one else gets how amazing it is. Oppenheimer frustrated me, trying to show how smart he was. Better to have someone like Einstein congratulate him on some problem, because smart knows smart. I have to rewatch Mishima, which I haven’t seen since it came out, and I was in college. I listen to the soundtrack often, and love it. But only now do I know enough about Japanese history to understand the alien mental planet he was coming from. So glad I found your channel. Very insightful, and I think a worthy successor to Every Frame a Painting, another favorite
My favorite "creative genius" movie is "Pollock" by Ed Harris. It shows him getting tired of the very art which earned him the label of genius. He falls into despair because he can see his own limitations. And Harris does his own stunt as a drunk with a case of beer falling off a bicycle.
I really did enjoy A Beautiful Mind back when it was released, have not watched it again since, but you made me want to. Not sure about a portrayal of genius, but about portraying a creative mind gone wild, I enjoyed "Adaptation" quite a lot, and I want to give that one a fresh watch also, since it feels ages ago that it came out and I watched it. OK, a third one, and I am cheating again, but it is one of my favourite movies ever, is a small production and a comedy, and while it is not ABOUT genius, I find that it has at least some sparks of genius. What it is really about, however, is THE CREATIVE PROCESS at work, although it is a collective one here: "Living in Oblivion". Now, I would love to see a video by you on "How best to portray the creative process in a movie". Which are your favourite movies displaying THAT, I wonder.
Yet again I find myself watching your videos in the sauna after the gym! It’s brain candy and I applaud the effort you’ve put into my favorite channel! Moviewise rocks!
Mike Leigh's "Mr. Turner" and Paolo Sorrentino's "Youth" (to a lesser extent but still) come to mind as great representations of creative genius. I've heard very good things about "Edvard Munch" (1974) by Peter Watkins and Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev," but haven't seen them yet.
weird... I have Mishima and Prospero on my laptop... fave line in your video "ah- movies- sometimes you are the world's worst teacher"- also love the Bender quote "blackjack and hookers"... Schrader was presented with restrictions about what he could present in Mishima's life by the estate, so he chose to use pieces of his "fiction" in highly stylized manner to fill in the gaps. a case of limitations inspiring creative solutions... a further show of genius. Plus one key element inspiring Prospero's Books was an earlier quote Greenaway noted - that Gielgud had the perfect voice for Shakespeare; the clarity of his diction and tone helped "reveal" the sense of Shakespeare's lines when even the words were opaque. this is why Gielgud speaks the majority of dialogue in his magical kingdom, until the final act and they re-enter the real world. Prospero himself was based in small part on dr John Dee, an alchemist and astrologer to the court of Queen Elizabeth, who was known primarily as a possessor of books... another nifty detail in the tapestry... I saw Prospero twice in the one week it was in a theatre on first release...
You had me at -Mishima-, a tragically overlooked cinema of art ''about'' an artist of culture. ...This discussion warrants observations on the directors and their processes as well. -Mishima- moves us with the sense that Schrader created with a latitude to explore an evolution of set designs, that he and Glass allowed themselves to breathe through the scoring together, Schrader and Ken Ogata (along with other actors) found a process... -Prospera- is lovely, and yet lacks the form that would have made it truly beautiful, like -Mishima-. There is the sense that Greenaway, having committed to a menagerie of artists, somewhat surrendered to how art pieces would arrive in the elements, randomness became the brush for laying these pieces upon the narrative. -Beautiful Mind- is solid modern work. Howard, as he will, made a nicely structured work. He did the good job as it were, yet he never relaxes us into the humanity of John Nash and we are retained to a film that feels like a production kept on schedule. -Queen's Gambit- is decent television, especially within the context of the recent offerings. Anya Taylor-Joy hits a crisp note. Then she holds it this barely exploring other notes within the key (let alone other keys) and like a precocious talent she won't relent from her ''look at me" tenor. No one wants to hear an entire opera of E6, even with the clearest head, and this was no E6. To be fair, the writing and directing hemmed in Anya's character - who traversed unaffected through death, rote passions, and of course the inevitable triumph. While we speak here of form, rather than subject, it becomes difficult to ignore that QG is the only one to ignore the actual genius (are these not to be appreciations of The Genius?) - Bobby Fischer, for having actually pierced the heart of the Cold War, deserves better than QB's seductive mockery. -Oppenheimer- could displace QB, among others...
Cassevetes' "Opening Night" is one of the best movies about creativity and creative genius around. It's homage picture "Birdman" is also another one and brags a great performance by Keaton. Thanks as always for your incredible gift! I'm a big fan of "Hugo" as well! Love your picks here. Much appreciated.
It had no excuse not to be, given that Brian May and Roger Taylor were directly involved in it. But they were more interested in making themselves look good than in making an accurate movie about Freddie.
@@GregJamesMusic Bri & Roger had very little to do with that. They weren't asked about anything, just given the script to approve, they were guests during some of the makings & that's it. For example Brian mentioned his favorite scene didn't make into the movie. A scene that would show a closer look at Freddie.
I think the thing keeping this excellent of a channel behind is just the thumbnail. Improve thumbnail, make it catchy , modest and high quality and this channel will explode as it should
Flash of Genius is pretty good. The guy who invented the multi-speed windshield wiper and got screwed over. I love the documentaries on Star Wars and Industrial Light and Magic. And some Pixar documentaries. You can see the Iterations and problem solving. You can even watch the bad animatics of Pixar films before they refined them and alternate takes and outtakes from Star Wars and even read earlier drafts of the Star Wars script that are radically different, but have germs of what would become awesome.
i dunno about queens hambit.. kinda lost interest in the movie when I found out it was not based on real life but just some wild tale.. i guess a movie about a genius can only be made by someone who is also a genius. if the creative aint smart then the character also aint smart
Generally I'm not a fan of the genius genre because they all have the same eye-rolling level tropes. Geniuses are anti-social jerks that stare at something until they solve it. i believe in Edison's quote: Genius Is One Percent Inspiration, Ninety-Nine Percent Perspiration. Geniuses may have an idea, but it takes working and making mistakes over and over again to accomplish their goal. Einstein didn't just think of relativity and then BAM publish his work. He worked the math and details of it for years. Every single great work of art has at least one draft underneath that was painted over. Geniuses work until they get it right, making mistakes and errors and learning from them. That's effort, that drive, is what makes them unique.
John Nash really was buff and was proud of how strong he was. However the discussions of his ideas were wrong headed nonsense. The director talked once how proud he was to explain Nash equilibrium. It was pathetic. The greatest part of the movie was movie Nash's mix of overweening self confidence and needy self doubt. This is common to many good academics. Rule of genius : if you're going to waste time explaining theory Get the Theory Right! Or don't bother
Copying Beethoven 2006 has some interesting takes (parts of it, ''Moonlighting'' especially 😄), Andrei Rublev please, revise your Tarkovsky 😉, Le mystère Picasso worthy of mention, and check this one - Il peccato - Il furore di Michelangelo (Sin) 2019😉....But another great video, thank you
I do find the screenplay rather over-sentimental at times, but I am definetely a fan of Ron Howard's directing. It's endlessly more inventive than what you find in typical biopics and makes the film deserve better appreciation.
How 'bout the anti-creative non-genious? Woody Allen's 'Interiors', a strange homage to Bergman that misses the point. Also the young sister played by Mary Beth Hurt that wanted to be an artist but couldn't determine what to say or how to say it. Not a big movie, but viewed through this lens it's quite an unintentional treatise on **wanting** to be creative and struggling to resign oneself to mediocrity.
Cronenberg's films are unique, however they are also borderline made for TV. Placing his films next to other films that have stronger hold on pushing the limits of cinema is difficult.
@@hank0365 well, that's an overgeneralisation. I'd say Naked Lunch is obviously a cinematic jewel, among other Cronenberg's movies, like Eastern Promises, Maps to the Stars, A Dangerous Method
Howard makes the awful mistake of showing a representation of something, and then verbally explaining it. That's why you are wrong about a Beautiful Mind. He thinks his audience is just smart enough to notice something, but not enough to understand it. Something similar happens in very bad comedy. Take Austin Powers for example... He tells a joke, we get the joke, the character then EXPLAINS the joke. And, sometimes, the joke is told once again, just to drive it into the ground.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D2 | Fall | ต้องรักษาฟอร์ม อย่ายอมให้ใครแซง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/x38QsGn7A3M/mqdefault.jpg)
Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin and Hobbes, drew a picture titled, "How it's done! The creative process explained." In it, he drew himself sitting in front of a blank piece of paper on a big easel, drooling like a moron. I don't think the process has ever been captured so perfectly before or since.
The “what’s your excuse?” line plus the gym weights sound made me laugh for a whole minute! Hahaha plus the image of her brain seeing his arms. Amazing callback! Let’s get *you* in Hollywood, Moviewise!
This is a problem I’ve tried to show, and have thought deeply about. Amadeus was the one that came to my mind as such a perfect example. Salieri hears Mozart’s music, explains why it’s so amazing, and the musicians are thinking, “guess I’ll go smoke on my break,” because no one else gets how amazing it is. Oppenheimer frustrated me, trying to show how smart he was. Better to have someone like Einstein congratulate him on some problem, because smart knows smart.
I have to rewatch Mishima, which I haven’t seen since it came out, and I was in college. I listen to the soundtrack often, and love it. But only now do I know enough about Japanese history to understand the alien mental planet he was coming from.
So glad I found your channel. Very insightful, and I think a worthy successor to Every Frame a Painting, another favorite
My favorite "creative genius" movie is "Pollock" by Ed Harris. It shows him getting tired of the very art which earned him the label of genius. He falls into despair because he can see his own limitations. And Harris does his own stunt as a drunk with a case of beer falling off a bicycle.
I really did enjoy A Beautiful Mind back when it was released, have not watched it again since, but you made me want to.
Not sure about a portrayal of genius, but about portraying a creative mind gone wild, I enjoyed "Adaptation" quite a lot, and I want to give that one a fresh watch also, since it feels ages ago that it came out and I watched it.
OK, a third one, and I am cheating again, but it is one of my favourite movies ever, is a small production and a comedy, and while it is not ABOUT genius, I find that it has at least some sparks of genius. What it is really about, however, is THE CREATIVE PROCESS at work, although it is a collective one here:
"Living in Oblivion".
Now, I would love to see a video by you on "How best to portray the creative process in a movie".
Which are your favourite movies displaying THAT, I wonder.
Yet again I find myself watching your videos in the sauna after the gym! It’s brain candy and I applaud the effort you’ve put into my favorite channel! Moviewise rocks!
Camille Claudel, The Wind Rises, Shadowlands (despite not really showing the writing genius as such) and the recent Oppenheimer.
Camille Claudel is a great movie!
You may not have a huge audience but judging by the comments it is a smart, informed one. Keep up the great insights.
Mike Leigh's "Mr. Turner" and Paolo Sorrentino's "Youth" (to a lesser extent but still) come to mind as great representations of creative genius.
I've heard very good things about "Edvard Munch" (1974) by Peter Watkins and Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev," but haven't seen them yet.
"Andrei Rublev," is an amazing film!
weird... I have Mishima and Prospero on my laptop... fave line in your video "ah- movies- sometimes you are the world's worst teacher"- also love the Bender quote "blackjack and hookers"... Schrader was presented with restrictions about what he could present in Mishima's life by the estate, so he chose to use pieces of his "fiction" in highly stylized manner to fill in the gaps. a case of limitations inspiring creative solutions... a further show of genius. Plus one key element inspiring Prospero's Books was an earlier quote Greenaway noted - that Gielgud had the perfect voice for Shakespeare; the clarity of his diction and tone helped "reveal" the sense of Shakespeare's lines when even the words were opaque. this is why Gielgud speaks the majority of dialogue in his magical kingdom, until the final act and they re-enter the real world. Prospero himself was based in small part on dr John Dee, an alchemist and astrologer to the court of Queen Elizabeth, who was known primarily as a possessor of books... another nifty detail in the tapestry... I saw Prospero twice in the one week it was in a theatre on first release...
Thank you. - Shrader's process suggests an exercise of "What if aspects/elements of a story had to be replaced.....?"
Another trick to writing intelligent characters is having them quickly come up with an idea or solution that took you weeks to figure out.
You had me at -Mishima-, a tragically overlooked cinema of art ''about'' an artist of culture.
...This discussion warrants observations on the directors and their processes as well.
-Mishima- moves us with the sense that Schrader created with a latitude to explore an evolution of set designs, that he and Glass allowed themselves to breathe through the scoring together, Schrader and Ken Ogata (along with other actors) found a process...
-Prospera- is lovely, and yet lacks the form that would have made it truly beautiful, like
-Mishima-. There is the sense that Greenaway, having committed to a menagerie of artists, somewhat surrendered to how art pieces would arrive in the elements, randomness became the brush for laying these pieces upon the narrative.
-Beautiful Mind- is solid modern work. Howard, as he will, made a nicely structured work. He did the good job as it were, yet he never relaxes us into the humanity of John Nash and we are retained to a film that feels like a production kept on schedule.
-Queen's Gambit- is decent television, especially within the context of the recent offerings. Anya Taylor-Joy hits a crisp note. Then she holds it this barely exploring other notes within the key (let alone other keys) and like a precocious talent she won't relent from her ''look at me" tenor. No one wants to hear an entire opera of E6, even with the clearest head, and this was no E6. To be fair, the writing and directing hemmed in Anya's character - who traversed unaffected through death, rote passions, and of course the inevitable triumph. While we speak here of form, rather than subject, it becomes difficult to ignore that QG is the only one to ignore the actual genius (are these not to be appreciations of The Genius?) - Bobby Fischer, for having actually pierced the heart of the Cold War, deserves better than QB's seductive mockery.
-Oppenheimer- could displace QB, among others...
Cassevetes' "Opening Night" is one of the best movies about creativity and creative genius around. It's homage picture "Birdman" is also another one and brags a great performance by Keaton. Thanks as always for your incredible gift! I'm a big fan of "Hugo" as well! Love your picks here. Much appreciated.
You are a genius bro... 😊
mr. genius burned almost everyone else by >seemingly< burning his own view counts. nicely done
The Aviator shows a little of it
Edvard Munch (1974) is one of the better films about an artist's creative process.
Powerful movie
that's what I wanted Bohemian Rhapsody to be.
Me too, man, me too…
It had no excuse not to be, given that Brian May and Roger Taylor were directly involved in it. But they were more interested in making themselves look good than in making an accurate movie about Freddie.
@@GregJamesMusic Bri & Roger had very little to do with that. They weren't asked about anything, just given the script to approve, they were guests during some of the makings & that's it. For example Brian mentioned his favorite scene didn't make into the movie. A scene that would show a closer look at Freddie.
I think the thing keeping this excellent of a channel behind is just the thumbnail. Improve thumbnail, make it catchy , modest and high quality and this channel will explode as it should
Each video has its own thumbnail, and I imagine coming up with a click happy one is not easy...
Flash of Genius is pretty good. The guy who invented the multi-speed windshield wiper and got screwed over.
I love the documentaries on Star Wars and Industrial Light and Magic. And some Pixar documentaries. You can see the Iterations and problem solving. You can even watch the bad animatics of Pixar films before they refined them and alternate takes and outtakes from Star Wars and even read earlier drafts of the Star Wars script that are radically different, but have germs of what would become awesome.
I wonder how you feel about 'Mr.Robot',
The show has very unorthodox directing style.
Seven percent solution, Sherlock meets Freud movie has funny ways to try to show genius.
A genius of a film analyst creates a TH-cam channel.
You're a fricken genius, movie wise..
Spike Lee’s Mo’ Better Blues
That main theme. I think Spikes dad wrote it?
Stuck in my head forever
@@geoffhoutman1557 yes - fantastic sequence where he plays it live…
Speaking of movies about chess, have you ever seen 'The Luzhin Defense' (an adaptation of Nabokov)?
Except PB, the other three perform genius with (mostly) no jokes. Is that fair or even accurate? Are geniuses such serious people?
Brian Wilson is my favourite genius but Paul Dano really overdid his performance of him, which he is wont to do.
i dunno about queens hambit.. kinda lost interest in the movie when I found out it was not based on real life but just some wild tale.. i guess a movie about a genius can only be made by someone who is also a genius. if the creative aint smart then the character also aint smart
Generally I'm not a fan of the genius genre because they all have the same eye-rolling level tropes. Geniuses are anti-social jerks that stare at something until they solve it. i believe in Edison's quote: Genius Is One Percent Inspiration, Ninety-Nine Percent Perspiration. Geniuses may have an idea, but it takes working and making mistakes over and over again to accomplish their goal. Einstein didn't just think of relativity and then BAM publish his work. He worked the math and details of it for years. Every single great work of art has at least one draft underneath that was painted over. Geniuses work until they get it right, making mistakes and errors and learning from them. That's effort, that drive, is what makes them unique.
Good Will Hunting
6:50 oh yeh all girls interested in geniuses…
John Nash really was buff and was proud of how strong he was. However the discussions of his ideas were wrong headed nonsense. The director talked once how proud he was to explain Nash equilibrium. It was pathetic. The greatest part of the movie was movie Nash's mix of overweening self confidence and needy self doubt. This is common to many good academics. Rule of genius : if you're going to waste time explaining theory Get the Theory Right! Or don't bother
7:51 I hate you for doing that. My ears bleeding. 😭😭😭😭
The Queen's Gambit is something I would never watch because of Anya Taylor-Joy, a vacant doll that never closes her mouth.
How would you rate Oppenheimer for this?
The film wasn't Kenough.
Was Robert Oppenheimer a genius? If so, how does Oppenheimer fit in? Eh, I thought it was overrated.
The crow (1993)
Copying Beethoven 2006 has some interesting takes (parts of it, ''Moonlighting'' especially 😄), Andrei Rublev please, revise your Tarkovsky 😉, Le mystère Picasso worthy of mention, and check this one - Il peccato - Il furore di Michelangelo (Sin) 2019😉....But another great video, thank you
Are you a fan of A Beautiful Mind? Lots of online critics and film commentators are trashing it lately.
I do find the screenplay rather over-sentimental at times, but I am definetely a fan of Ron Howard's directing. It's endlessly more inventive than what you find in typical biopics and makes the film deserve better appreciation.
A genius 👀 sees the 🍃 leaf, not the forest. It's that simple.
How 'bout the anti-creative non-genious? Woody Allen's 'Interiors', a strange homage to Bergman that misses the point. Also the young sister played by Mary Beth Hurt that wanted to be an artist but couldn't determine what to say or how to say it. Not a big movie, but viewed through this lens it's quite an unintentional treatise on **wanting** to be creative and struggling to resign oneself to mediocrity.
Then there's 'Ed Wood.'
How about David Cronenberg's Naked Lunch?
Cronenberg's films are unique, however they are also borderline made for TV. Placing his films next to other films that have stronger hold on pushing the limits of cinema is difficult.
@@hank0365 well, that's an overgeneralisation. I'd say Naked Lunch is obviously a cinematic jewel, among other Cronenberg's movies, like Eastern Promises, Maps to the Stars, A Dangerous Method
The best expression of intelligence in music is a complex fugue, not a lazy dumb monotonous figure.
Howard makes the awful mistake of showing a representation of something, and then verbally explaining it. That's why you are wrong about a Beautiful Mind. He thinks his audience is just smart enough to notice something, but not enough to understand it.
Something similar happens in very bad comedy. Take Austin Powers for example... He tells a joke, we get the joke, the character then EXPLAINS the joke. And, sometimes, the joke is told once again, just to drive it into the ground.
LOL I always disliked "A beautiful mind". Now I can add some arguments to mine. THX
Upvoted but The Queen's Gambit still sucks.
But Amadeus is not a freaking true story!!! It’s utter garbage. It’s like making a movie about how flat the earth is.