A quote from the movie : "I'm focusing on framing. A proper frame not only draws the eye into a picture; but keeps it there longer, dissolving the barrier between the subject and the outside of the frame"
this is such a fresh analysis on nightcrawler that focuses on perspectives / who's behind the camera. the other ones are trying to make it more of an existential argument.
Wow. This was super insightful. I've seen this movie twice and I've never noticed that a lot of the action in the third act is shown through Lou's camera. Man, that preaches. Good stuff, dude. Keep it up. :)
Finally someone picked out the reason why I love this Nightcrawler so much and think most of the people didn't notice the genius that Dan gilroy shows in the movie. Loved the video❤️
The shift in perspective really got to me in such a uniquely visceral way the first time I watched the movie...and I had no idea what had actually technically changed. Thank you for putting it together so succinctly!
One of if not my favorite film. This movie doesnt disturb for me it is so enthusiastic. There are so many directions you can look into this film and I love all of them.
To be honest, when I watched this film for the first time, in 2015, I thought: what is this strange profession? what is this strange title for the movie? Now, looking at what is happening in the world and in the media, I want to say: Guys, you are great, you showed everything correctly in this film. This is what journalism and reporting has now become. You show violence, murder, take out all the dirt and throw it out on the viewer, let him eat. What does the viewer do? He goes to other places, to alternative media that tell something good. Which give a ray of hope, faith and goodness to the fact that justice, and these are not just words. Justice is life principles. The fact that justice is not just the name of a team of fictional superheroes that do not exist, but this is how everything should be in the world. Honestly and rightly, justly.
"This is what journalism and reporting has now become." You know, they took a picture of Jessie James' corpse and sold copies as postcards. Very popular stuff. Things have always been this way.
I saw the movie recommended, watched it's trailer, got an uneasy feeling and decided to just read the plot on wikipedia. I don't enjoy feeling emotions regarding the fucked up things in the world that people do. I don't research beheading videos or cat torture. I want to stay away from emotionally remembering that humanity is capable of horrible things, even as I want to be intellectually informed about what they are. It's like I think of who I would be if I watched more of this stuff and want to avoid ever being that person. It's not disgust, it's like a desire for emotional safety. Loved the video!
Thanks for the follow on twitter. Really enjoyed your analysis in this video on one of the best films, in my humble opinion, of 2014. I look forward to more video essays from you!
Hey, Thomas! I've been watching your essays and it's great to see how much you've improved in expressing yourself in your latest videos; this essay was great, but from your writing to sound/visuals it's all gotten better and better! I'd like to challenge you to create an essay on a documentary you enjoyed! Cheers! P.S. Please make a Patreon page so I can throw a couple bucks your way!
Thanks! I'm glad you've been enjoying them. I hope I continue to get even better, that's the goal anyway. There have been a few documentaries recently that I've considered discussing, I'll definitely give it some more thought. I actually just setup a Patreon this week: www.patreon.com/thomasflight I'll be announcing the official launch soon and I plan to develop the rewards as it grows, but you can definitely hop on board now!
The junkyard mirrors the news station. The owner know that Lou is robbing the metal, but just accept because of the money he could get. Collective guilt!
4:28 i freaking agree with your friend, i paused the film several times thinking that i don't want to see it , but finished it becuase i need films to quote for school stuff..
I agree with everything said in this essay until the last 30 seconds. We don’t avoid blame by turning off our intake. Just like how we don’t become better citizens by ignoring the news or how we don’t engage in culture by shutting off the TV. What we do need to do is be intentional with how and where we give our attention. Become an informed citizen, engage in creative and compelling media, and watch movies like this trying to understand the themes and meaning the creators are trying to convey.
Yep, that's a good analysis. It's comparable to view Lou as a corporation, and likewise, come to conclusion that if there was no demand for what he does, there would be no need to do what he does (supply). Why do we still have sweat shop around the world? Because we really like our cheap clothes, etc etc.
Yes, the viewers drive up demand but the viewer also assumes that car crash footage was obtained in an ethical fashion. So no, the viewer is nothing like Bloom.
> the viewer is nothing like Bloom. The video-narrator also excludes the environments in which a person grows-up. A LOT of kids are abused, and seeing someone ELSE get abused can bring a sense of satisfaction. It's a f---ed cycle of violence.
at first i didn't buy this because i thought he was describing something that was obvious, like its not subtle to attack 24 news, but then when he made the point about how the film eventually grows to encompass cinematography, that was a good point, i liked it
This along with Funny Games makes a nice statement about violence and how we consume it. Maybe even The Purge movies but obviously they are not as transcendent.
3:49 Hmm. Isn't that just a direct, almost frame-by-frame, lift from John McNaughton's, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (as I understand it a shot made with the explicit intention of getting the audience to walk out).
Good essay, and you make a compelling point, but I think there's actually another, better way to interpret the intentions of the film. I don't see it so much as an indictment of the viewer, but an attack on the system of capitalism. Lou Bloom as a character is essentially a personification of capitalism's core principles. He's smart and ambitious, he develops a skill that meets a demand of the market, and sells the product he creates for a profit, while exploiting the misery of others, as well as the labor and well-being of his employee, while out-maneuvering his competition. He takes emotion and morality out of the equation, and functions as a perfect microcosm of capitalism. He operates according to capitalism's principles. Everything has a value. Everything can be negotiated. Everything can be converted into capital. And, as you correctly mention in the essay, Bloom is indeed a sociopath. That's why the film is so disturbing, I think, because its underlying point is that capitalism, the economic system we all live under, is sociopathic at its core. If we as an audience observe Lou Bloom and are horrified, as we should be, then what does that say about capitalism itself? Because when you take capitalism's core principles and create a character that strictly adheres to those principles without emotion or morality, you end up with a sociopath. That should make us all fundamentally question the economic system our society operates under, rather than just forcing each of us to ask if we're complicit in helping Lou Bloom exist. In other words, rather than seeing it through a more limited, individualistic lens, I think the film is making a larger point about the nature of the systems that govern our society.
Thats so funny that your friend turned it off. The first time I attempted to watch it i turned it off at the scene where he first starts recording at the car crash. I was *completely* repulsed, glad to know I wasn't the only one who had that reaction, lol!!!
it's curious, there are a lot of video essays about Nightcrawler but all are totally diferent. I was searching channels like these but in Spanish and i couldn't found anyone so i make one! afortunately i saw this great video and i have to congratulate your work, keep grow it!!
Reminds me of a movie that I believe created the perfect insult by hurting real animals in its production... it's showing the world is ugly of suffering by inflicting ugly on it... but this shows the limit of self-reflection, like Nightcrawler, the proper response is to not buy it, not consume the content - the proper response to Nightcrawler as you say is to turn it off. I'm a bit conflicted if I'd call it a good movie or not... if we move beyond self-irony, self-reflection, it serves no purpose but be a product of that limited disempowered state of mind...
I have the same feeling. I think ultimately Nightcrawler does more to point us towards the tendency within ourselves to consume these kinds of things and how that feeds the consumption of the real thing. Like I said in the essay I don't think Nightcrawler and it's viewers are "innocent" but it's still fiction, and I feel, still better perhaps than viewing actual exploitative nightly news. Unlike the movie that was hurting real animals, Nightcrawler didn't hurt real people, and if it awakens some people to their tendencies to consume violent content and keeps them from indulging in the future, it might have a net positive impact.
@@ThomasFlight I don't like the movie and here's why. For the record, I thought the movie was well executed. But I think it had ultimately the same theme as Network without nearly the amount of subtlety, sharp satire, or impact, and it's yet another movie where a terrible person doing terrible things gets everything they want. The movie rides on a shallow wave of appearing "edgy" but honestly, it doesn't say anything of substance. It's just an excuse to show sociopathic behavior being rewarded. And what it does end up saying is actually harmful. Obviously a good portion of the audience understands that Lou is a sociopath and he is a terrible person. But I don't doubt that many people see Lou and think, "Wow, he's extremely powerful and he got everything he wanted." And not only is that dangerous and likely influential to a very REAL sect of entitled men out there, it's also wrong. When you think about it, Lou is extremely powerful. He manages to turn an underperforming news station's radio around. He singlehandedly creates his business. He is able to control Nina's personal and professional life, as well as Rick's. He also ends up controlling an entire murder investigation as well as choreograph the deaths of at least four (I think) people. That is a very tempting and exciting idea. There's no denying it - some people will leave this movie being admiring of Lou and thinking that they as a single person can wield that much power over a community and the media. No, this movie isn't for me. If you want a sharp and biting commentary on the perils of news as entertainment, watch Sidney Lumet's Network instead, which does a better job as portraying the power of the SYSTEM being at fault, not the power of one man.
Great video essay ! Really good for a first one ! What are some of your favorite directors ? What equipement do you use to make those essays (micro, Premiere ?) ? Keep up the good work
Thanks! There's so many I love, but if I had to list a few that I have particular fondness for I'd probably say Wes Anderson, Derek Cianfrance, and Shane Carruth.
I actually turned it down after an hour in. It was the first time I've done that while watching a movie but I was feeling so uncomfortable. But now I'm curious to see that transition on third act so I'm thinking if I should give it a another try.
I also turned it off mid way through. At some point I could no longer identify with it and was disgusted. It was a very hard watch for me. I ultimately finished it when a friend of mine spoke highly of the ending and it was worth seeing how it resolved.
I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. I don't feel "blame" for being human and, therefore, morbidly curious. But I do find evident the difference between exploring someone's real pain and the artistic fictional representation of such a thing.
Agree the leap he makes at 3:53 I just don't go along with. Fake is not the same as real exactly because fake doesn't require the negative effects that real does that this movie depicts. "we are all complicit in the wrongs along the way" great. No wrongs were done to make the movie so I am complicit in nothing.
@@helderboymh Exactly. I wouldn't pay for someone to break the law to fight crime but I've paid to watch Batman movies. I wouldn't be happy to know that someone bent on revenge is on a murder spree, but I'm happy everytime Tarantino releases a new movie. I wouldn't voluntarily board a mine cart and run it over a broken track that's about to take a drop 100 feet high, but I take a ride on rollercoasters everytime I can. The difference being that the mine cart would actually crash and kill me, but the rollercoaster will just fake it without any real life consequences. More often than not, people can distinguish their entertainment from real life.
mmm, no. You aren't complicit by merely watching a film. You are the problem when you compare fiction to the horrors of reality. However parallel film horrors are to reality; reality created it first. To turn off a film with a bold social commentary to tell and you come out learning nothing then you are part of the problem.
I don't disagree with your thesis, which I understand to be: "We can't just judge Lou. We have to judge the system and its various actors who create the demand for Lou's actions to thus become profitable." But I really disagree with the idea that "We as the viewer [of the movie Nightcrawler] are just as complicit." At 2:09, you say, "We the viewers lean in with the same curiosity that causes Lou to stop at the car accident." The director is making us do that. And it's not a wrong choice by the director - they are trying to make us captive to Lou's actions. But literally the entire movie is shot through Lou - it's completely focused on him. I don't even know if there is a scene in the movie without him. There is no "other" perspective that we're even invited to see. But I understand that that was the director's intent. Again, I agree with your thesis. I just disagree with you saying the act of watching this movie is the same as this thesis, unless you as a viewer were getting really giddy and excited to see a bloody home invasion or shootout. I don't think that we as a viewer of this movie, watching the actions of the only character this movie is shot through, is equivalent to "we" as consumers of news television consuming explicit and bloody content. It was a choice the DIRECTOR made.
A great analysis. But I would beg to differ. I don't think watching live news on TV and watching movies can be equated. Many people watched it because it is simply a good movie. It has a great performance by a very talented actor, and the screenplay is amazing. And that is also the reason why most "horror" or "thriller" movies bomb at the box office. People are not as interested in a "criminal" themed movie as much as they are in how well the story is presented to them.
And also your dialog is very relaxed and subtle; while I can clearly understand you maybe a slight bit (not a lot just a little) of excitement, emphasis, enthusiasm could be useful. You're in the right direction with the content, now help us believe in it as much as you do through your dialogue. Just my thought mate...but I'm no more than a comment on a screen...
Not really buying this narrative of the movie. Even if it was director's intention it is kind of a farce just like people explaining Inglorious Bastards as a way for Tarantino to criticize viewer for liking violence (while Tarantino himself loves it and defends it??). And you definitely can't equate a fictional violence and a real violence, thus a viewer of a fictional film has nothing to be blamed for.
It's not about blame. Consumerism is not the real problem. Corporate monopolization of the mainstream media and its master, the system of capitalism, dictate programming, methodology, and use value; not the viewer.
We do enjoy a performance, don't we? Gladiator 2 is coming and it's so funny how it became what the first criticised. A big, unnecessary, bloody performance made to entertain us.
You want "Nightcrawler Incriminates Its Viewers". "Its" is the possessive and "it's" is the contraction. Title case will capitalize it. It doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the video, but you seem like a guy that wants to give off a professional vibe, and it's a lot easier to maintain that image when you follow proper English grammar and title case. Looking forward to the next video.
@@reelcinemavideoessays ohh well just usually when someone uses that phrase in that way they mean to say that it tells you something that goes beyond what they they said. Like: Amazon won't pay for better safety equipment, really tells you something about people running the company. And then what it tells you is that they value money more then the health of their employees. Something like that.
@@reelcinemavideoessays I was just asking man, I didn't mean it bad in anyways, no need to be hostile. I was merely trying to understand what you were saying here. What, if anything, you are implying with it I can think and speculate myself but why should I and risk being incorrect when I can just ask you. If I understand you one is to take the statement at face Value, is that correct?
Lou is just a man who is trying to make his way in life,I don’t find him gross or disgusting or creepy, what I do think however is that he is definitely ruthless & hungry & cutthroat and you tell this the way he hires and works with rick but what this film proofs is if you actually want to get anywhere in life you have to be this way although you should be kind to people and treat them the same way you would like to be treated we can’t be holding everybody’s hand all the time, singing kumbaya round the camp fire because life unfortunately doesn’t sing kumbaya and it’s not your friend and it definitely dose not have a camp fire
Everybody is ripping off nerd writer and nerd writer is ripping off those that came before him. Rob ager, renegade cut, every frame a painting, now you see it, what it all meant, malmrose projects, sean mcdougall, adrian Castillo, everybody is jumping on this narcissistic train of educational videos.
A quote from the movie : "I'm focusing on framing. A proper frame not only draws the eye into a picture; but keeps it there longer, dissolving the barrier between the subject and the outside of the frame"
awesome catch!!!!
this is such a fresh analysis on nightcrawler that focuses on perspectives / who's behind the camera. the other ones are trying to make it more of an existential argument.
Honestly, sometimes a short video essay like this is exactly what I need. Subbed
Wow. This was super insightful. I've seen this movie twice and I've never noticed that a lot of the action in the third act is shown through Lou's camera. Man, that preaches. Good stuff, dude. Keep it up. :)
Finally someone picked out the reason why I love this Nightcrawler so much and think most of the people didn't notice the genius that Dan gilroy shows in the movie. Loved the video❤️
Dan Gilroy is genius. Can't wait for his new film.
Thomas Flight And it's also with Jake Gyllenhaal and Rene Russo😍
Wow. Very well written analysis. Great perspective on focusing on the viewer rather than on the story or hidden details. A proper video essay.
Precise, to the point, intelligent and you raised my awareness of the layers in this movie. Subbed immediately!
The shift in perspective really got to me in such a uniquely visceral way the first time I watched the movie...and I had no idea what had actually technically changed. Thank you for putting it together so succinctly!
One of if not my favorite film. This movie doesnt disturb for me it is so enthusiastic. There are so many directions you can look into this film and I love all of them.
To be honest, when I watched this film for the first time, in 2015, I thought: what is this strange profession? what is this strange title for the movie?
Now, looking at what is happening in the world and in the media, I want to say: Guys, you are great, you showed everything correctly in this film.
This is what journalism and reporting has now become.
You show violence, murder, take out all the dirt and throw it out on the viewer, let him eat. What does the viewer do? He goes to other places, to alternative media that tell something good.
Which give a ray of hope, faith and goodness to the fact that justice, and these are not just words. Justice is life principles.
The fact that justice is not just the name of a team of fictional superheroes that do not exist, but this is how everything should be in the world. Honestly and rightly, justly.
"This is what journalism and reporting has now become."
You know, they took a picture of Jessie James' corpse and sold copies as postcards. Very popular stuff.
Things have always been this way.
What a great video essay, can't believe it's the first on your channel.
You are very talented
I saw the movie recommended, watched it's trailer, got an uneasy feeling and decided to just read the plot on wikipedia. I don't enjoy feeling emotions regarding the fucked up things in the world that people do. I don't research beheading videos or cat torture. I want to stay away from emotionally remembering that humanity is capable of horrible things, even as I want to be intellectually informed about what they are. It's like I think of who I would be if I watched more of this stuff and want to avoid ever being that person. It's not disgust, it's like a desire for emotional safety.
Loved the video!
Thomas, this was awesome! Incredible insights that I had never considered. More of these!
Thanks Ryan! This is definitely the first of many!
Thanks for the follow on twitter. Really enjoyed your analysis in this video on one of the best films, in my humble opinion, of 2014. I look forward to more video essays from you!
Hey, Thomas! I've been watching your essays and it's great to see how much you've improved in expressing yourself in your latest videos; this essay was great, but from your writing to sound/visuals it's all gotten better and better! I'd like to challenge you to create an essay on a documentary you enjoyed! Cheers! P.S. Please make a Patreon page so I can throw a couple bucks your way!
Thanks! I'm glad you've been enjoying them. I hope I continue to get even better, that's the goal anyway. There have been a few documentaries recently that I've considered discussing, I'll definitely give it some more thought.
I actually just setup a Patreon this week: www.patreon.com/thomasflight I'll be announcing the official launch soon and I plan to develop the rewards as it grows, but you can definitely hop on board now!
Wow. I really enjoyed Nightcrawler but I couldn't say why. Thanks for putting it into words for me! Liked and subbed!
On point! Well said my friend. For some reason I wasn't subscribed before, so, SUBSCRIBED!!
UGHHH I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS you covered my two favorites, The Place Beyond The Pines and Nightcrawler and I love these videos keep it up!!!!!!!
Thanks! More coming soon.
The junkyard mirrors the news station. The owner know that Lou is robbing the metal, but just accept because of the money he could get. Collective guilt!
Good Work. One of very few videos I find on r/Filmmaker that is genuinely well put together. Keep up the good work dude.
4:28 i freaking agree with your friend, i paused the film several times thinking that i don't want to see it , but finished it becuase i need films to quote for school stuff..
I agree with everything said in this essay until the last 30 seconds. We don’t avoid blame by turning off our intake. Just like how we don’t become better citizens by ignoring the news or how we don’t engage in culture by shutting off the TV. What we do need to do is be intentional with how and where we give our attention. Become an informed citizen, engage in creative and compelling media, and watch movies like this trying to understand the themes and meaning the creators are trying to convey.
you will blow up in subs, buddy
That would be cool.
I hope he does.
Hi Im from the future
he does
@@kennethha416 told you so!
Yep, that's a good analysis. It's comparable to view Lou as a corporation, and likewise, come to conclusion that if there was no demand for what he does, there would be no need to do what he does (supply). Why do we still have sweat shop around the world? Because we really like our cheap clothes, etc etc.
How does this only have 6k views, it's stellar commentary
Keep these coming!
Yes, the viewers drive up demand but the viewer also assumes that car crash footage was obtained in an ethical fashion.
So no, the viewer is nothing like Bloom.
> the viewer is nothing like Bloom.
The video-narrator also excludes the environments in which a person grows-up. A LOT of kids are abused, and seeing someone ELSE get abused can bring a sense of satisfaction. It's a f---ed cycle of violence.
at first i didn't buy this because i thought he was describing something that was obvious, like its not subtle to attack 24 news, but then when he made the point about how the film eventually grows to encompass cinematography, that was a good point, i liked it
great analysis
Nice work, you earned a subscriber today!
Thank you! I appreciate each viewer.
Exactly, I find some weird connections between Nightcrawler and Natural Born killers. All centered about the media.
I love how Jesse Eisenberg narrated this video
This along with Funny Games makes a nice statement about violence and how we consume it. Maybe even The Purge movies but obviously they are not as transcendent.
You just earned youself a sub. Great commentary on this theme.
You might want to raise your voiceover volume though.
3:49 Hmm. Isn't that just a direct, almost frame-by-frame, lift from John McNaughton's, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (as I understand it a shot made with the explicit intention of getting the audience to walk out).
Very wonderful and enlightening work
Good analysis. You got my sub!
Glad to have you aboard!
my fav night crawler vid i’ve watched so far, AWESOME!!!!!!!!
Good essay, and you make a compelling point, but I think there's actually another, better way to interpret the intentions of the film. I don't see it so much as an indictment of the viewer, but an attack on the system of capitalism. Lou Bloom as a character is essentially a personification of capitalism's core principles. He's smart and ambitious, he develops a skill that meets a demand of the market, and sells the product he creates for a profit, while exploiting the misery of others, as well as the labor and well-being of his employee, while out-maneuvering his competition. He takes emotion and morality out of the equation, and functions as a perfect microcosm of capitalism. He operates according to capitalism's principles. Everything has a value. Everything can be negotiated. Everything can be converted into capital. And, as you correctly mention in the essay, Bloom is indeed a sociopath. That's why the film is so disturbing, I think, because its underlying point is that capitalism, the economic system we all live under, is sociopathic at its core. If we as an audience observe Lou Bloom and are horrified, as we should be, then what does that say about capitalism itself? Because when you take capitalism's core principles and create a character that strictly adheres to those principles without emotion or morality, you end up with a sociopath. That should make us all fundamentally question the economic system our society operates under, rather than just forcing each of us to ask if we're complicit in helping Lou Bloom exist. In other words, rather than seeing it through a more limited, individualistic lens, I think the film is making a larger point about the nature of the systems that govern our society.
It is like Killing Them Softly in that regard.
Fedrev Revfed Such a great point.
i completely agree!
You're a smart guy, very insightful critique.
Thats so funny that your friend turned it off. The first time I attempted to watch it i turned it off at the scene where he first starts recording at the car crash. I was *completely* repulsed, glad to know I wasn't the only one who had that reaction, lol!!!
I want Thomas to react to this
We shouldn't indulge ourselves in getting entertainment out of violence, that's the only way you can avoid blame!
Tarantino left the video.
Ive been diagnosed with being a sociopath... i identify with him so much. Not the whole killing stuff, obviously.
great video. nightcrawler is in my all time 10 list
it's curious, there are a lot of video essays about Nightcrawler but all are totally diferent.
I was searching channels like these but in Spanish and i couldn't found anyone so i make one!
afortunately i saw this great video and i have to congratulate your work, keep grow it!!
Just Another GUY with a Camera prueba a Dayo que es más de videojuegos pero tiene sus cosillas en el cine.
Reminds me of a movie that I believe created the perfect insult by hurting real animals in its production... it's showing the world is ugly of suffering by inflicting ugly on it...
but this shows the limit of self-reflection, like Nightcrawler, the proper response is to not buy it, not consume the content - the proper response to Nightcrawler as you say is to turn it off.
I'm a bit conflicted if I'd call it a good movie or not... if we move beyond self-irony, self-reflection, it serves no purpose but be a product of that limited disempowered state of mind...
I have the same feeling. I think ultimately Nightcrawler does more to point us towards the tendency within ourselves to consume these kinds of things and how that feeds the consumption of the real thing. Like I said in the essay I don't think Nightcrawler and it's viewers are "innocent" but it's still fiction, and I feel, still better perhaps than viewing actual exploitative nightly news. Unlike the movie that was hurting real animals, Nightcrawler didn't hurt real people, and if it awakens some people to their tendencies to consume violent content and keeps them from indulging in the future, it might have a net positive impact.
@@ThomasFlight I don't like the movie and here's why. For the record, I thought the movie was well executed. But I think it had ultimately the same theme as Network without nearly the amount of subtlety, sharp satire, or impact, and it's yet another movie where a terrible person doing terrible things gets everything they want. The movie rides on a shallow wave of appearing "edgy" but honestly, it doesn't say anything of substance. It's just an excuse to show sociopathic behavior being rewarded. And what it does end up saying is actually harmful. Obviously a good portion of the audience understands that Lou is a sociopath and he is a terrible person. But I don't doubt that many people see Lou and think, "Wow, he's extremely powerful and he got everything he wanted." And not only is that dangerous and likely influential to a very REAL sect of entitled men out there, it's also wrong. When you think about it, Lou is extremely powerful. He manages to turn an underperforming news station's radio around. He singlehandedly creates his business. He is able to control Nina's personal and professional life, as well as Rick's. He also ends up controlling an entire murder investigation as well as choreograph the deaths of at least four (I think) people. That is a very tempting and exciting idea. There's no denying it - some people will leave this movie being admiring of Lou and thinking that they as a single person can wield that much power over a community and the media. No, this movie isn't for me. If you want a sharp and biting commentary on the perils of news as entertainment, watch Sidney Lumet's Network instead, which does a better job as portraying the power of the SYSTEM being at fault, not the power of one man.
Bravo this was amazing. Instant sub.
The ownership of private companies is the result of the lack of morality in our society.
Great video essay ! Really good for a first one ! What are some of your favorite directors ? What equipement do you use to make those essays (micro, Premiere ?) ?
Keep up the good work
Thanks! There's so many I love, but if I had to list a few that I have particular fondness for I'd probably say Wes Anderson, Derek Cianfrance, and Shane Carruth.
Oh and I forgot to add that I used Premiere Pro for this video, which is where I do most of my editing.
I actually turned it down after an hour in. It was the first time I've done that while watching a movie but I was feeling so uncomfortable.
But now I'm curious to see that transition on third act so I'm thinking if I should give it a another try.
I also turned it off mid way through. At some point I could no longer identify with it and was disgusted. It was a very hard watch for me. I ultimately finished it when a friend of mine spoke highly of the ending and it was worth seeing how it resolved.
More! Give us more!
Fascinating insight. Subscribed!
you sir are a genius
Interesting take. This movie is one of my faves
Excellent video. Subscribed!
I see your point, but I respectfully disagree.
I don't feel "blame" for being human and, therefore, morbidly curious.
But I do find evident the difference between exploring someone's real pain
and the artistic fictional representation of such a thing.
Agree the leap he makes at 3:53 I just don't go along with.
Fake is not the same as real exactly because fake doesn't require the negative effects that real does that this movie depicts.
"we are all complicit in the wrongs along the way" great. No wrongs were done to make the movie so I am complicit in nothing.
@@helderboymh Exactly.
I wouldn't pay for someone to break the law to fight crime but I've paid to watch Batman movies.
I wouldn't be happy to know that someone bent on revenge is on a murder spree,
but I'm happy everytime Tarantino releases a new movie.
I wouldn't voluntarily board a mine cart and run it over a broken track that's about to take a drop 100 feet high,
but I take a ride on rollercoasters everytime I can.
The difference being that the mine cart would actually crash and kill me,
but the rollercoaster will just fake it without any real life consequences.
More often than not, people can distinguish their entertainment from real life.
Your work is amazing so good please more content!!!!!
Great video！Thank you, I learned a lot !
Bloom was best suited to be a stock broker
Great Job!
Could say the movie also touches on the same subject as "Nope"
Thank you for your good content.
mmm, no. You aren't complicit by merely watching a film. You are the problem when you compare fiction to the horrors of reality. However parallel film horrors are to reality; reality created it first. To turn off a film with a bold social commentary to tell and you come out learning nothing then you are part of the problem.
people love a spectacle
I don't disagree with your thesis, which I understand to be: "We can't just judge Lou. We have to judge the system and its various actors who create the demand for Lou's actions to thus become profitable." But I really disagree with the idea that "We as the viewer [of the movie Nightcrawler] are just as complicit." At 2:09, you say, "We the viewers lean in with the same curiosity that causes Lou to stop at the car accident." The director is making us do that. And it's not a wrong choice by the director - they are trying to make us captive to Lou's actions. But literally the entire movie is shot through Lou - it's completely focused on him. I don't even know if there is a scene in the movie without him. There is no "other" perspective that we're even invited to see. But I understand that that was the director's intent. Again, I agree with your thesis. I just disagree with you saying the act of watching this movie is the same as this thesis, unless you as a viewer were getting really giddy and excited to see a bloody home invasion or shootout. I don't think that we as a viewer of this movie, watching the actions of the only character this movie is shot through, is equivalent to "we" as consumers of news television consuming explicit and bloody content. It was a choice the DIRECTOR made.
I think you have to have a conscience first or remotely feel guilty about other people's actions to be able to take any blame; which, I do not
Excellent deconstruction.
Am I the only person who thinks this analogous to Peeping Tom? In the aspect of cinematic self inquiry.
Fantastic!
A great analysis. But I would beg to differ. I don't think watching live news on TV and watching movies can be equated. Many people watched it because it is simply a good movie. It has a great performance by a very talented actor, and the screenplay is amazing. And that is also the reason why most "horror" or "thriller" movies bomb at the box office. People are not as interested in a "criminal" themed movie as much as they are in how well the story is presented to them.
Great movie, excellent insights
The last 10 minutes leads me to believe a sequel could come someday.
I hope not.
The right people need to be in power, that has to be ensured by the public
What are you trying to say about Nightcrawler's perspective in avoiding it? I am confused.
watching is participation
And also your dialog is very relaxed and subtle; while I can clearly understand you maybe a slight bit (not a lot just a little) of excitement, emphasis, enthusiasm could be useful.
You're in the right direction with the content, now help us believe in it as much as you do through your dialogue.
Just my thought mate...but I'm no more than a comment on a screen...
Thanks for the feedback!
Not really buying this narrative of the movie. Even if it was director's intention it is kind of a farce just like people explaining Inglorious Bastards as a way for Tarantino to criticize viewer for liking violence (while Tarantino himself loves it and defends it??). And you definitely can't equate a fictional violence and a real violence, thus a viewer of a fictional film has nothing to be blamed for.
the smell of blood.
Man I love this movie!
It's not about blame. Consumerism is not the real problem. Corporate monopolization of the mainstream media and its master, the system of capitalism, dictate programming, methodology, and use value; not the viewer.
Cogent
We do enjoy a performance, don't we? Gladiator 2 is coming and it's so funny how it became what the first criticised. A big, unnecessary, bloody performance made to entertain us.
You want "Nightcrawler Incriminates Its Viewers".
"Its" is the possessive and "it's" is the contraction. Title case will capitalize it.
It doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the video, but you seem like a guy that wants to give off a professional vibe, and it's a lot easier to maintain that image when you follow proper English grammar and title case.
Looking forward to the next video.
Whoops! Fixed it. Thanks.
It's so fascinating how we are attracted to characters like Lou who are morally corrupt. Tells you something about humanity.
Okay, go head. What does it say.
@@helderboymh It tells you humans are attracted to morally corrupt characters. Like I said.....How are you confused?
@@reelcinemavideoessays ohh well just usually when someone uses that phrase in that way they mean to say that it tells you something that goes beyond what they they said.
Like: Amazon won't pay for better safety equipment, really tells you something about people running the company.
And then what it tells you is that they value money more then the health of their employees.
Something like that.
@@helderboymh I guess I shouldn't have expected someone reading my comment to do any deeper thinking on their own. Foolish of me.
@@reelcinemavideoessays I was just asking man, I didn't mean it bad in anyways, no need to be hostile.
I was merely trying to understand what you were saying here. What, if anything, you are implying with it
I can think and speculate myself but why should I and risk being incorrect when I can just ask you.
If I understand you one is to take the statement at face Value, is that correct?
I turned it off because it was just boring. Interesting reviews though.
Nightcrawler Inseminates Its Viewers
Woah
Lou is just a man who is trying to make his way in life,I don’t find him gross or disgusting or creepy, what I do think however is that he is definitely ruthless & hungry & cutthroat and you tell this the way he hires and works with rick but what this film proofs is if you actually want to get anywhere in life you have to be this way although you should be kind to people and treat them the same way you would like to be treated we can’t be holding everybody’s hand all the time, singing kumbaya round the camp fire because life unfortunately doesn’t sing kumbaya and it’s not your friend and it definitely dose not have a camp fire
I mean Jesus Christ am I only one finding myself identifying with Lou as well as seem doing this job I must be terrible lol
Everybody is ripping off nerd writer and nerd writer is ripping off those that came before him. Rob ager, renegade cut, every frame a painting, now you see it, what it all meant, malmrose projects, sean mcdougall, adrian Castillo, everybody is jumping on this narcissistic train of educational videos.