Production-What makes a movie a masterpiece?--There Will Be Blood and Metamodern Film Critique
Since the pre-production post I have finished the script, recorded the audio, and began collecting the clips I will be using from YouTube.
Completed Script:
|
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 has
every individual aspect of that movie working at a true top tier, with the
clearest example being the silence of the lambs. Video quote:
Opening scene This scene has textbook acting, directing, cinematography, writing,
editing, sound design…everything. These is no choice that is not original and
evocative, while simultaneously not overtaking the other choices. 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 of a teen
comedy 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 cinematic rules such as the 180
and 30 degree rules. 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 movie. 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 As you can see there are some similarities between these lists with “Being
John Malcovich”, “The Big Lebowski” and “There Will Be blood” showing up on
both lists, Equally Synecdoche new York the number one on my Subjective list
does not appear on the objective list what-so-ever. 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 and the 2018 Oscar going to Green book over Black KKKlansman or
Sorry to Bother You. The Oscars are highly predictable in the movies they
award because they have a few themes and styles they have attached to, which
in turn means more films of those styles will be rewarded, creating a cycle
of similar subjective analysis. These awards are significant because they
determine what gets funding and what gets made. I’m not saying Objective critique needs to be held as the new
standard with subjective critique being thrown away, no critical extreme can
exist on its own. Rather, I’m advocating for a synthesis between subjective
and Objective critique to determine movie quality. A new Metamodern film
critique. Metamodernism can be
described as a midpoint between the scientific descriptivism of modernist objectivism,
and the cynical deconstruction of postmodern subjectivism. The key idea
behind metamodernism is that truth can be achieved by holding two
contradictory ideas as equally true at the same time, a distinct both/and
logic. Applied onto criticism this means incorporating both the objective quality
of a film and your subjective enjoyment of it into the assessment, for
example I think Death Becomes Her is one of the most fun and enjoyable movies
ever made and also recognize that it is not a good movie. Furthermore,
metamodern critique means going away from the binary critical approach
provided by both modernists and postmodernists in which there is only
variations on “good” and “bad”, instead allowing a movie to be simply
interesting or unique, allowing these to be the description of the piece
instead of working as modifiers on the binary. Through this approach towards
film analysis we can display a far wider amount of art, incorporating
filmmakers who are left out in both of the previous extremes. As a reminder
this is what my separated lists looks like And 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, it’s something more than that. A certain
unexplainable part of me loves this scene for reasons beyond traditional one
word after the other human language. |
Black slate Video quote More TWBB montage What makes a movie “perfect” Montage to match the elements said- specifics TBD |
Comments
Post a Comment