Preproduction- What makes a movie a masterpiece?--There Will Be Blood and Metamodern Film Critique
|
This is my favorite shot in all of cinema. Video quote: the
shot Simple, clean, effective. While this is a shot has some obvious
merits, explaining beyond those basic merits requires explaining what makes a
“perfect” movie. Many people have presented theories on what makes a movie
great with Roger Ebert proposing the specific vision of the director is the
most important quality. Or many critics judging based on the way a film achieves
its purpose. There are countless theories each with their own problems But I feel cinematic perfection should be judged based on three
formal criteria. First: All individual aspects of the movie need to be working at the
top of their game. Defined by a combination of those elements serving a narrative
purpose and ascetic beauty. While there are movies that have great cinematography, Acting,
Writing, Sound Design, Editing, Directing…Ect. But it is rare a movie have
every individual aspect of that movie working at a true top tier, with the
clearest example being the silence of the lambs. Video quote: TBD Explain Chosen Clip Second: All the cinematic elements need to be going in the same
direction. When you learn how to make movies the analytic purpose of each element
is explained with examples of great uses in isolation, but it is rare all of
these elements combine towards a singular vision. This is best explained
through example, and we will return to There Will Be Blood Video Quote: The
not taking the contract scene In this scene every individual aspect is combining towards the idea
that Danial is in complete control. The sound forms itself around his voice.
The camera stops and starts according to his movement. The actor portrays a
complete sense of control. The film cuts around his movements. Every film
element is formed around the singular idea of establishing Danial as a man
who understands what he is doing in an absolute sense. Finally: the movie needs to have an understanding of the conventions and
navigate those conventions to its own advantage. People have watched many
films, so ignoring other films would be foolish. Instead of ignoring
conventions filmmakers need to understand the conventions and make a purposeful
choice to follow, break, or synthesis those conventions to create meaning. A
clear example of this can be seen in the way Get Out navigates the horror genre to create additional meaning
about coded American racism. Or Starship
Troopers’ understanding of the War genre and propaganda technical elements
to display the inherently fascistic nature of war movies. Or the editing
choices in Serpico. Or Lady Bird following the conventions until the last
moments to its advantage. Or the choice to make Dr. Strangelove a comedy. Or
every choice in Phantom Thread Video Quote-
Toast scene Phantom Thread is a movie that understands every small choice it is
making. Like all of Paul Thomas Anderson’s movies it is deeply Intentional Video Quote-
Behind the scenes of I Feel bad someone had to paint that. The film purposefully breaks hallmark rules like the 180 or 30 degree
rules both of which create tension. The plot is perfectly formulaic when it
needs to be, but breaks away from audience expectations in interesting and
exciting ways. While not a perfect movie, this movie is the best example of
understanding the cinematic form and abusing that understanding. By combining these three aspects a movie can achieve “perfection”.
Now I know what you’re thinking “what a modernist twerp trying to quantify
movies” But there is a difference between a perfect and favorite movies. And
really this gets into the bigger problem between objectivism and subjectivism
in art criticism. Here are lists of my top films objectively and subjectively. Show lists of
top Objective and subjective films and comment on those lists People rarely separate those lists because we have lived in a world
of purely subjective, post-postmodern film analysis of a majority of film
history. While subjectivism has given us many great directors and films, it
is not an approach without flaw. For example I don’t think Lolita would be as
well know as it is if it came out in a subjective world. Even though it is a
technical masterpiece of literature, It is not an enjoyable book in any way.
Subjective critique can make people ignore masterpieces, for example Holy
Motors is often overlooked as one of the classic films of the last decade,
largely because it is not in any way an easy or entertaining movie to watch. Additionally
when awards bodies give out awards more based on subjective interpretation
and not objective quality awards are given to less deserving movies this can
be seen in the 2005 Oscar going to Crash over Brokeback Maintain or the 2018
Oscar going to Green book over Black KKKlansman or Sorry to Bother You. And
these awards are significant because they determine what gets funding. I’m not saying Objective critique needs to be held as the new
standard with subjective critique being put to the dust bin of history, no
critical extreme can exist on its own. No, I’m advocating for a synthesis
between subjective and Objective critique to determine movie quality. A new
Metamodern film critique Insert basic explanation
of metamodernism Here is my list from a metamodern prospective. Show third List
And now to return back to where we started. This shot happens to be perfect encapsulating the ideals of cinematography, sound design, acting, directing, all of those basic elements. Those elements are unidirectional. And those elements understand the cinematic conventions in the traditional pacing of an action scene. But, its something more than that. A certain unexplainable part of me loves this scene for reasons beyond traditional one word after the other human language. |
Comments
Post a Comment