[ SECRET POST #2946 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2946 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 038 secrets from Secret Submission Post #421.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[cushlamochree]

I'm not sure I agree. I mean, the style/substance distinction is real tricky, but I don't think it makes sense to say only style matters, if we're using a loose definition.

I also don't like the style of Sherlock personally but that's a separate matter probably.

[making_excuses]

And as my Film and TV analysis professor described a director as a "style over substance" kind of films and that was not a completely positive thing, yes the films look pretty, but are they any good?

Style is most definitively the most important thing in Film, it is quite important yes. And when we talked about "Hollywood" style that is actually the most difficult one, when you don't notice the camera/lighting/settings as such. So in filmmaking terms making something just visually pretty is not that high on the ranking on what makes visual media good.

And yeah Sherlock is actually a bit too stylised quite a lot of the time for my tastes, Hannibal is the same. I don't want to focus on the set, I want to focus on the characters and the plots. But then again that is a everyone is different thing and people like different stuff.

wow that was a late reply. I meant to write it this morning, but I didn't have time.

Edit: Brian DePalma is the director we where talking about, very very pretty films. Also very silent, but not necessarily the best plots.

[cushlamochree]

Yes, I definitely agree.

That's definitely very true of DePalma I think. Like, with The Untouchables, it's hardly a great plot or anything, but damn if that scene in the train station doesn't look amazing. Although I admit I haven't seen enough of his work to really comment.

Another director who comes to mind - and I was talking about this with potato, I think, a couple weeks ago - is Kubrick, where I feel like his movies are technically incredible and beautiful and just perfectly proportioned and balanced masterpieces, but also very empty (whereas potato really likes his films for that technical brilliance). You could also probably talk about Malick in the same terms. They both make these fascinating, beautiful, intellectual films, but I just don't ultimately agree with the basic method of it.