Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by slaytonf

  1. 6 hours ago, NipkowDisc said:

    I expect Godzilla vs Kong to ultimately disappoint because of the liberal hollywood film makers' bias against Godzilla. They have probably favored Kong because they see him as a liberal giant hairy monster and effiminate hairy ape who can be cajoled by some dam kid while they see Godzilla as a big bad unrepentively destructive reptile Republican,


  2. 1 hour ago, NipkowDisc said:

    saying you're not going to promote christianity is just the cute liberal way of being anti-christian.

    we get it.



    Does that mean also that not promoting corgis is just a way of being anti-corgi?

  3. 13 hours ago, TopBilled said:

    Huge crowds (the twitterati) take to the internet.

    Bunches of people twittering hardly seems worthy of the ominous consequences portended by 32 point boldface type (yawn.)  What a letdown.  I thought at least a Congressional investigation, with the Gang of Four hauled up before glowering Representatives. 

    By the way, how huge?  Like, a dozen? 

    Again, what's so extreme about saying racism, sexism, and bigotry is bad?  I think you are exhibiting your extremism.

    • Sad 1
  4. On 3/26/2021 at 8:37 PM, LuckyDan said:

    I'm thinking poor direction shows more than attentive, careful direction. If an actor looks bad, if scenes don't match, if shadows are being thrown unnaturally all over the place, the director should have spotted it and fixed it. 

    And that can be discerned by the viewer as he is watching the movie, which is what I am curious about. What are the immediately noticeable marks of a good director? As opposed to those which can be discerned after considering a body of work.

    For me, bad direction isn't more apparent, because I don't waste my time watching the movie.  What discerning good direction comes down to is art, what makes a good picture.  Directing well is the same as making a good picture, at 32 frames per second.  You can tell when a director is aware of how to compose a picture, how it's put together, what lines are formed by the objects, how they are balanced (or imbalanced), how foreground, middleground and background relate to each other, how movement ties the whole shot together, how light and sound are used.  For openers, here's this:


    Everyone knows the opening shot of The Searchers (19566).  When Martha opens the door to the Edwards' homestead, Ford is literally opening the movie, like opening the cover to a book.  He's playing with proportion, too.  Trimming the wide screen to the doorway--about the same proportions, only stood on end.  He's framing a picture.  Making the interior black heightens the effect of the light and color outside.  Opening the door is a revelation, a discovery.  The camera follows Martha, bringing us with her out of the house, into the story.  That's somebody who knows how to take a picture.

    Michael Powell does likewise in I Know Where I'm Going! (1945), though it's not the opening shot:


    Apropos, that movie has one of the great entrances:


    Pamela Brown, as Catroina, comes home to people waiting for her return.  The silhouetting, the angles, the axis of movement perpendicular to the screen, convey energy, surprise, wonder, and reinforce the joy at the reunion of the two friends.  I don't know why the link hasn't embedded.

    Here's a scene from Once Upon a Time in the West (1968),  directed by Sergio Leone:


    Leone is also playing with proportion, making the window similar to the screen.  He's framing a picture.  By keeping us out of the action, he paradoxically draws us into it, an otherwise mundane exchange of Jill finding out where the McBain place is.  Then he magnificently raises us (aided by Ennio Morricone's score), gives us the power of flight, and makes the view of a shabby dirt-paved town a revelation.  Again, I can't say why the link didn't embed.

    Here's one last example of what thrills me when I see good direction.  From Baby Face (1933), directed by Alfred E. Green:

    Barbara Stanwyck as Lily surveys the scene of destruction after her former lover kills her current one, then himself.  The scene is a masterful example of understatement.  Her impassive study of the scene, acting more as a guide through it than an interpreter, allows the audience to absorb the shock without any filter.  Thankfully someone had the insight to have no music.  This concentrates the attention on the visuals and heightens the sense of the enormity of what happened.  

    There is a technique in pottery called burnishing.  Before firing, a dried pot is rubbed with a smooth pebble, compacting and hardening the surface clay and giving it a sheen.  Whenever I see Ms. Stanwyck standing in profile in front of the shut door, hair permed, immaculately made up, she always appears to me as highly burnished.  The ultimate attainment of her relentless program of self-transformation.  Exquisitely hard surfaced--hollow inside.  Completely detached from the scene, unconcerned about what has happened.  The perfect Nietzschean hero.

    That's how I tell a movie is well directed.

    • Like 1
  5. It's surprising to see how people will stand Shaw's work on its head, stretch it, turn it inside out,  contort and distort it, read any manner of things onto it, including misogyny, and homosexuality (!), even accuse him of being wrong,  wrong about his own creation!, in order to maintain their sentimental preferences.  Just because a man lives alone does not mean he is a homosexual, even in a play.  Henry Higgins is not a misogynist, he is a God damned conceited egotistical bastard.  The idea of going out of his way to have a hatred for women as separate from his disdain for humanity in general would strike him as absurd.  The play is not about his change as a person.  In fact he boasts of his inflexibility in his final confrontation with Eliza.  And that is why he loses her in the end.  The contrived ending of the happy-enders of the movies would only seem reasonable to people lost in a trance of sentimentality, instead of what it really is:  a violation and self-betrayal of everything she has worked and suffered for.  The idea she would go through the extraordinary ordeal she did only to jump from one condition of servitude to another is unthinkable for her.  She was a capable person, with a desire to improve her condition, an eye for the main chance, and the drive to go after an opportunity when she saw it.  That's why she went after Freddie.  She could do something with him.  She could do nothing with Henry Higgins. 

    • Like 1
  6. 12 hours ago, Swithin said:


    Yeah, sure.  That's a nun.

    12 hours ago, Dargo said:




    And who is nothing like Sophia Loren.

    10 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    She of course looked nothing like Sophia Loren,

    Thanks for making my point.

    5 hours ago, Fedya said:


    Who is nothing like Sophia Loren.

    5 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:


    Who is less believable as a nun than Sophia Loren.

    3 hours ago, SansFin said:


    Is Olalla Oliveros chopped liver? 


    A woman, a sexy beautiful woman.  But not Woman.

    3 hours ago, SansFin said:



    Not believable as a nun,  And who is nothing like Sophia Loren.

© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...