Putting your favourites at the beginning and the end of the video so that the viewer leaves with positive feelings? I give you an oscar for best screenplay.
You should do more Martin Scorsese cinematography videos. It’s wild how much detail that old wizard stuffs in his films and never a frame or second wasted.
Yup, ever since Tony stopped uploading I yearned for a channel that focuses more on the visual/techinal side of things and not just the story. Finding this channel a couple of weeks ago was a treat.
Started watching the TV-series "Marriage" with Sean Bean, and was glad to realise how much I noticed the terrible blocking and framing. You're a great teacher, Mr. Moviewise!
On the positive side, with 'Shōgun" director Jonathan van Tulleken's framing and blocking, thanks to moviewise, gained a new appreciation of his contribution.
"His wideshots are a mouthwatering lesson on cinematic composition." -- Moviewise on Scorsese. This is all I've been trying to say. This is all Spielberg meant when he told Martin Scorsese that Killers of the Flower Moon is his masterpiece. It's his best directing ever. Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver are all amateur night at the Apollo when compared to KOTFM. The Departed is a distant second. He was on fire with his latest movie, on some Kobe scoring 80 ish. Who cares that it's long? Every shot was so well composed. No amount of running can take away from that. People are getting off on Nolan and complaining about Scorsese merely because they wouldn't know good directing if it fell on their heads like an anvil for the sky. He will lose to the lesser Oppenheimer. But goddamn. There's an obvious best director of the year and it isn't going to be appreciated. Thank you, Moviewise.
@@snair4548The Oscars don't mean much except for leaving a trail to investigate past works. Though, the rest of that comment is exactly the type of comment that is the problem with film. Deification of the director and the blinding of his faults because of the Cult of the Auteur.
David Bordwell passed away today, I see you referenced him in the description, an indispensable figure to cinema theory and appreciation. He will live on in his works, which will hopefully continue to be read and seen by future generations.
So regarding the central framing of Oppenheimer, Hoyta Van Hoytema has talked about the reason being that IMAX is just so large that it's actually distracting having to look from left to right, so central framing becomes the main focus. Similar to what George Miller did with Fury Road. However the awkwardness and blocking (literally) of actors in key moments is quite sloppy at times.
But George Miller did it with the intention of making the action scenes readable; for Oppenheimer it seems more like: "We have to do it like this otherwise it will be bad for those who see the film in IMAX". Clear, but most people (and the future survival of the film) will not be in IMAX, but on a wide format... In addition to the fact that there are scenes shot both in IMAX and on 65mm film, and even those in film have a central framing... But here there is no complex action scene, they are characters talking and seeing 3 hours of characters all talking in the center of the framing is a bit boring visually... Not even Wes Anderson or Peter Greenaway!
I've never finished one of your videos without feeling like I just had one of the best film lessons ever. Your explanations are thorough and detailed yet easily understandable. Great work man
Nobody tears a movie “a new one” by saying something negative or nasty. And why would you, anyway? I’ve never once had that feeling or desire watching a movie.
I have to thank you, your perspective on directing has teached me a lot to appreciate filmmaking on a more in depth analysis than just narrative which is the easiest to pin point when something is well and poorly done.
I really enjoy your videos and think this one is strong as well. And while I think you bring up many valid points, I think every film on this list has a unique visual style that is well catered to its subject matter. This goes back to your video on cinematic staging/blocking and your desire to have films return to a more elegant and crisp form of visual storytelling, which I agree is fantastic, but at the same time, I think using that template as a rubric for everything is detrimental. Filmmaking has definitely become more visually progressive as formats have changed, and I think it's only natural that filmmakers use these tools to say something that couldn't be said before. Nolan for example has never really concerned himself with 'painterly' framing or anything like that, he shoots for the edit and tries to develop a momentum and compliment whatever narrative tricks he is utilizing. This is a function of personal style and trumps a traditional way of viewing framing/composition. The same goes for Triet's documentary-esque style; it is what the film needs, and I think she uses it to say something interesting about the artifice of what we deem to be authentic. And yes, Scorsese's work in Killers is still great; he does it like the masters of old, and it works like a charm. My point being is that there is room for everything; I personally wouldn't hold someone like Cassavetes to the same standard that I would John Ford. Their styles are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but both effectively enhance the kinds of stories they want to tell. Anyways, I really think you have some great points in this video (the Poor Things extra's criticism was one that I thought was particularly sharp). I will continue to watch!
Just to counter your point on Nolan's framing/blocking. I have also heard the same said of him elsewhere which I still don't understand, because for me I don't see it on screen. His camera work often feels sloppy and unmotivated and confusing. One of my big issues with Oppenheimer is I couldn't follow the drive from scene to scene was, couple that with the constant over bearing sound design, I just wasn't having a good or immersive experience, in fact the opposite. I was getting irritated that I wasn't being brought on a journey. He may be trying to construct momentum but it is done to a detriment of coherent story telling. It baffles me the praise Oppenheimer in particular has received, there's so many creative and technical choices that are so jarring. It feels like an academic text book masquerading as a film with visual story telling as an after thought. But i'm in extreme minority. Perhaps time will change my opinion, or the consensus.
When I was in college, I took an "Understanding Film" course. It really improved my appreciation of filmmaking, and taught me how to watch films. This channel is like a refresher course, renewing my appreciation for what goes into a film, what makes a film good, and what to look for. Really great channel!
I learn so much from your videos! You make me a more perceptive cinephile. And I laughed out loud several times- what a delightful wit and sense of humor . You manage to critique these films and directors without insulting them .
ppl like you - movie teachers and critics - should be the ones to select Oscar nominees. The Academy is a disgrace. i watched the Oscars decaying for the last 15 years. With great sadness. Oscars use to mean something. Nowadays it seems like the Academy doesn't even watch these movies, like if they only read the synopsis or something. Not to mention they would't even know good directing if they saw one. Movie industry needs more people who know how to analyse good directing, good screenwriting, good acting. The audience needs them. Someone who will help us elevate our taste... not just satisfy our lowest needs for entertainment. Thank you for your channel. i love it. I'm always waiting for the next video :)
I think Nolan changing the aspect ratio in such an abrupt way is a symptom of a problem in his directing, which is he prefers to change the aspect ratio to hide the blank spaces in the frame instead of thinking of creative composition like Scorsese does. In this sense, Scorsese is the most talented director and the one with a more complex visual style, meanwhile Nolan choose the easy answer in his cinematography
Regarding my comment, I think the problem with Nolan's style will play in his favor in the Oscars, as he will excuse the aspect ratio thing not as a problem but as a creative decision and part of his style, which might fool someone who's not visually trained in cinematography (and might as well be his style) and for that he will receive extra points in the academy.
The aspect ratio switching is technical not artistic. I suspect if he could Nolan would shoot an entire movie in IMAX but it just isn't feasible (yet).
@@richardcahill1234 Then he should just shoot the non-spectacle scenes in regular spherical 4-Perf Super 35 and forgo the pointless “ShitScope” (as the orator of this great channel calls it) in his movies. Or if he wants his Hi-Fidelity, VistaVision. VistaVision is ten times as viable as 65mm IMAX. It uses regular 35mm film, is twice the definition of Super 35, has a versatile aspect ratio (1.50:1, easily cropped to 1.43:1) and over 70+ movies back in the day were shot entirely with the format.
Yeah he should crop both formats to a single ratio, and compose for that target. Unlike in Everything Everywhere Etc, in Nolan's movies the aspect ratio changes don't play any role in storytelling, and they're not even interesting visually. They're just a technical byproduct that should have been ironed out - like any other technical artifact. Film formats seem to give him too much of a hard on and he can't be bothered straightening the bump in his pants.
@@fredscallietsoundman9701 Putting this on a t-shirt "Film formats seem to give him too much of a hard on and he can't be bothered straightening the bump in his pants."
Now I know why I thought KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON was my favorite movie of the year, and why I thought OPPENHEIMER wasn't much more enjoyable than FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY from way back in 1989.
Thank for this video! It's very educational. I don't think I can notice these sort of details when watching a movie for the first time (I'm too invested in the story), but I'll definitely notice them when re-watching it! Framing, camera movement, the actions of extras in the background... These seem like perfect details to pick up on when you want to understand the movie better.
I haven't seen Oppenheimer yet (I've had a lot going on) so when you showed the 4 second clip of Opp and his lawyer, I legitimately thought our focus was meant to shift towards the man on the far right getting up and walking away. That scene was so poorly blocked I didn't even know RDJ was there!
Well done. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’ve learned more about cinema from you than any other source. I really appreciate what you do and how you do it. Bravo!
Let me also add please. You said once that you’d reveal your identity and some other nonsense. Please don’t. Your mystique is part of the fun of your show. Think of other RUclipsrs that operate in your space. Is it better that I know who Mr. Plinkett is? The Critical Drinker? No! Nein! It’s better if they don’t let their identities be known. It’s better to be the character. Let your accent remain a mystery. Who cares where you are from or what your politics are or what you look like. Let me imagine you as a fantasy. Something that exists only as an intellect and a voice. You are perfect the way you are. Never change.
Nolan’s issue is he doesn’t utilise tonal variation. Each moment must escalate and outdo the last one until we are being foghorned in the face in an epic finale. The problem with that approach is how do you follow the cataclysm of man splitting the atom, the dropping of the bomb, with litigation in Judge Judy small claims court? Nolan’s verbose cinematic language seemed silly and clumsy when transposed in these small back rooms. Funnily enough if he had subverted the very style that’s become his signature I think the final act could’ve provide a more emotional and unexpected kick in the guts. Static wide shots, long takes, minimal score. There’s something so undignified and dreadful about this intriguing and intelligent figure being slowly dragged through mundane legal proceedings after everything he’s managed to do. That’s an intriguing story structure but better served through a drastic tonal change.
Man i remember your Tar review and Oppenheimer is seems just like an anti thesis of that film Tar is Like you said "spacious" + long takes + extremely character focused with super subtle hinting in its dialogues Oppy just spazzes out with cuts, the shots are cramped and well the characters seem pretty hollow to me with there being an exposition bomb every minute of the film This video is very helpful for people like me who dont notice or know much about cinematography. Tells me how much thinking goes into the camera work.
Exposition bombs are Nolan's specialty. 99% of the dialogue in Inception is someone explaining something to someone else or doing an "as you know" to remind the audience of something.
I don't think you're watching Moviewise's videos, because if you were, you'd know that he praised Oppenheimer's script as the best of all this year's Oscar-nominated screenplays.
@@sandeepdas3526 Am I under any obligation to agree with the Academy's decisions or do I have a right to form and express my own opinion on this matter?
Yes!! You did it. Very good analysis, I was kind of expecting you don't liking Nolan's direction. I can't feel engaged by the images of any of his movies. Did you read Bordwell's little book on him? He talks how Nolan isn't very interesting in style, and great at cross-cutting narrative. So sad that he died today, one of the bests we had. I haven't watched Zone of Interest yet, but your analysis got me very excited to do it, probably I'll watch this weekend. I really got tired of Lanthimos directing in Poor Things. As for Anatomy of the Fall I really liked the narrative, especially the son's drama; but I kind agree with your take on the directing (it was the thing that didn't let me like more), some details I was even able to chatch it, but I still think is kind of effective. Well, Marty, what can i say?
so, this video was great, and I will watch it several times to extract as much knowledge as I can, but what I really want to know is how good the directing was on a scale of super cool dance moves
Case and point, we need to bring back the intermission. Oppenheimer could have used the extra 30 minutes to flash things out. Killers would have been easier to take it with a break.@@IcarusSuite
Justine Triet followed the Beaux Arts school as an aspirant painter. She made her debut as a documentary director, then switched to fiction with 'la bataille de Solferino' in 2013. It is a low budget film where Triet mixed real world capture with scenarized plans.
I think most talk about visuals is dominated by how an image looks on an aesthetic level. There's not enough focus on staging and also how shots can cut together. Recently, I've noticed far more films with shots that just don't work next to each other in an unintentional way (it's a major problem in my own work too, to be fair).
This opened my eyes to a lot of what makes directing well directing. But narrative will always be what will makes movies great. That’s the mark of a true great director to me. Obviously, the coupling of the writing with shot composition is important for the pacing and overall vibe, but at the end of the day, it’s all subjective, so lets keep it that way.
Poor Things needing to break the 180-degree rule three times for a shot of someone eating gives me Taken-3-needing-fourteen-shots-to-show-someone-jumping-a-fence vibes
I'm curious what you think of Maestro's direction. A lot of interesting shot choices and framing devices but it seems like Cooper is just playing with directing toys without trying to achieve a greater purpose.
that shot at 5:09 breaks my brain, how do they stay consistent with the right side lighting. It can't be overhead lights the shadow angles look accurate to the window as a light source
Great instructive comparison of Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon. Lanthimos's fisheye fetish is tiresome to me, though I enjoyed the movie. I loved the look of Anatomy of a Fall. I really don't need every movie to look like a classical painting. 'Who'd want to watch that?' Me. I love that candid photographic style. I can't justify that, but that's the point: your view here is just as subjective. I really like your point about how the style fits the story and theme, though. But fantastic analysis of The Zone of Interest. As you were going through it, I was thinking of Playtime and Ozu, so it was great to find you were leading us there all along - and to learn the term 'parametric storytelling'.
Check out David Bordwell’s Narration in the Fiction Film. Parametric Narration is a fascinating and highly complicated subject. And thanks for the comment!
All those Lanthimos zooms! Jean Rollin was famous for his zooms, wasn't he? Maybe a deep dive into the demi-monde, the seedy world of B-movies, would make a fun video essay?
I love this walkthrough and that you aren't affraid to point out bad compositing. But I gotta' say a well-shot and well-composited movie does not automatically make it a great movie. At the end of the day it's about telling a great story, which is of course subjective in contrary to great craftmanship.
I didn't notice the intricate framing and blocking at all while watching Killers of the Flower Moon, but I spent a lot of time asking why so much of the film was made up of shot-reverse shot dialogue scenes in close ups and mid shots. It turns out the stuff I was looking for was all there, but either went over my head or was just invisible to me, which I suppose means it did its job and I was wrapped up in the story during those parts. Very clever. Looking at Christopher Nolan's haphazard blocking, it's interesting to think that Steven Spielberg was the first person to watch Oppenheimer in 70mm. He declared his love for it, but I wonder what goes through his mind when he clearly has, and wants to preserve, something that the filmmaker who he is praising doesn't have. Nevertheless, I have to say that the pacing and structure of Oppenheimer is very much to my tastes. I often don't like Nolan's overbearing soundtracks and undisciplined cutting, but in this film I thought it built up a symphonic sense of despair that swept me right up and brought me to leave the cinema despondent about whatever future we might have. So, it was my favourite film of the year by far.
Thank you yet another fantastic video! One not though - Nolan's poor use of the vertical aspects of the frame are intentional. I heard Hoyte van Hoytema feels he has to stuff everything in the middle of the frame because IMAX movies shown in non-IMAX theaters will have the sides cropped a bit. No the real question in my mind is why in the "?%&!# would you shoot in IMAX? It costs about 1000 dollars a minute (not exaggerating here) and for my money, Carol, shot on 16 mm looks as good, if not better than, Oppenheimer. How are we this obsessed with resolution still?
You're so right about Christopher Nolan, who is not fluent in any cinematic language. The medium does not suit him, or vice-versa. He doesn't seem to know what to do with a frame or how to cut images together to create a feeling of three-dimensional space. He's strictly two-dimensional. Does that make him a BAD director? Maybe. But that's a value judgment. It makes more sense to simply point out how his moment-by-moment choices are generally... crude, unimaginative and inexpressive. Lazy, even. I found "Oppenheimer" -- which keeps poking you in the eye to get your attention -- frustratingly dull, whereas Jonathan Glazer's in "Zone of Interest" (a movie in which very little happens -- in narrative terms or within the frame, because it's all about what the viewer and the characters are NOT seeing -- or choosing not to see) sucked me right in and held me rapt. "Oppenheimer" is all on the surface, "Zone of Interest" is about what's going on beneath it, outside the frame, or in the distance beyond what we can see...
If I ever direct a film in my next life, I'd definitely learn from Martin Scorsese, Billy Wilder, William Wyler (if that's correct) and many directors that you've mentioned. Oh btw, because of you, I cannot enjoy most films or tv series due to........many terrible blocking.
I honestly do not understand the obsession with Oppenheimer. The dialogue is robotic, the cuts are weird, and as you just showed us, the blocking is horrible. Is it just because it is Nolan and the budget is big? He isn’t even able to direct a romantic scene.
I really respect the fact that your criticism constantly brings us back to the director's technical ability even though in my subjective opinion you occasionally over value formal qualities at the risk of undervaluing the responsibility the director has for protecting continuity and maintaining suspension of disbelief. Anyway, thanks for making us all into smarter audiences!
Nice vid. Let's all remember though that all this is easier said than done. It is the director's vision, yes. But it takes the collaboration of many departments to get the beauty of something like Flowers.... There's a reasom why many, if not most, if not all directors work with the same teams of people, especially the camera department....DoP, etc. It's hard as hell to find the right people to vibe with that get your vision and add to that vision.
Can you do a video on what makes good editing or good sound design? Editing is the third most important part of movie making and I think not enough film analysers break it down well. Also, who are your favourite film critics?
That was so fascinating. Thank you. I think we register many of these jarring shots and cuts on a subconscious level, without realising it. I think back to Scorsese’s earliest successful movies and wonder if these rules apply to his blocking and composition and I’m reminded of how the film Taxi Driver went over schedule and over budget just to get one shot for the climax of the movie. They removed part of a ceiling and put tracks through it, just so the camera could pan in an arch over the characters, looking down into the scene of Travis Bickle’s carnage below after the police officer enters. It’s as though the officer is stunned into an out of body experience. But it’s also a way for the viewer to step back and see a more collective image of this stunned officer, the crying girl and the suicidal Bickle, without taking you out of the flow. I can see how he agonised over shots like those and why they mattered so much to him. Before he could command such blank cheques as he gets now, it’s impressive to reflect back on such artistic achievement. You sir, have given me fresh eyes with which to appreciate the genius of one of my favourite directors. And I am grateful.
Hey if I sent you my short film what would it take to get a critique? I love your opinions but I’m developing my intentionality in blocking and framing…
Completely disagree about criticisms in Poor Things. A lot of what you described regarding extras was situational to the scene, and the framing with mark/emma was purposeful and not incorrect.
Thank you @Moviewise because this excellent video had perfect release timing. Most of the "film critics" I follow were barking about Denis Villeneuve's comments about preferring great shots over dialogue, and this video is the perfect antidote. Also, one more difference in the opening comparison: does Chris Nolan get his ideas for aperture settings from Zack Snyder? Can we get some depth of field please?
Hi! I really want to know what are thou thinking about this polish movie "Chłopi". The Peasants 2023. In Poland everybody were counting on his Oscar chances, but it turned out that they had miscalculated. But still its piece of good cinema
I remember watching Killers of the Flower Moon and just being blown away by the quality of the screen. Not so much the story. But Marty really used every bit of the frame. The budget for this movie felt insane. You can't believe it was only made for $200m. Glad Moviewise agrees. Couldn't stand Oppenheimer though. Holy crap. The editing and pacing of that film was laughable. Just one series of montages layered on another and another.
Ok, look. Your videos are great, and I can't get enough of them. I think you should dispense with eating, sleeping, a job, family, and churn out 2 of them per day just to entertain me - ok? Get to it. (and yeah, I've watched some of your recommendations - they're good, but not as entertaining as your videos about them)
This is why there shouldn't just be one Best Picture award: then Oppenheimer could win Best Production and KOTFM or The Zone of Interest could win Best Artistic Feature.
I think you are far too close minded about oppenheimer. It's diffrent to killers of the flower moon. it's shot for imax so of course it's really center framed, imax is far too big for you eyes to get the full composition of an image. to add to that I watched killers of the flower moon in cinema in imax and it was one of the worse ways to experience that film, really forces your eye to move a great distance. I kinda agree about the changes of aspect ratio being too unmotivated (though they are barley felt in imax I must say), but I defenitly disagree with the editing being too quick and too much music. oppenheimer is, as you mentioned, kind of a film that all of it is edited like a montage, but that's not a bad thing. In my opinion it works becuse while information delivered is reduced each edit carries a feeling that is strong. While images may not stay on screen for that long they can still carry within your mind and feel like a flashes of rememberence. I think the editing just works as granting the film a feeling of emotional trancedence and also the majority of the film's beauty comes from the images' texture and the cinematography, not really it's quite simple but effective compositions, and I don't think that's a bad thing. The example you gave with strauss can be seen as quite a fail though, but also oppenheimer's big head (ego) blocking strauss in his own prespective can be argued to be the point. about the music as said before the whole film was supposed to be carried by emotion through editing and through the music, I think it does so brilliantly.
The interpretation on that horrendous shot could have been valid if the film had relied so much on individual shots, but this is not the case. It is clear that each shot is shot "to be shot" and not for a specific reason of cinematographic grammar and language. The editing may reflect Oppenheimer's fragmentation, certainly, but this does not take away the fact that rhythm exists even in a fast editing. Watch JFK and you'll realize how each cut serves a purpose and has a precise and sustained pace, even though those are almost constant too. Oppenheimer is much more approximate and vague.
I think IMAX like 3D is too niche. Try finding an IMAX cinema & then paying double for a ticket. There are just 3 IMAX @ 1:43 in UK and only 30 in the world thus to shoot a film for a mass audience that few can see the full picture is pointless or vanity.
@bordidellapizza you're saying the rythem of the movie's editing is wrong? If so I really disagree, the film's nothing if not a masterclass at pacing and rythem of editing and how it sweeps you off your feet. I agree that not every edit is done with clarity and purpose, it's done for the sake of the viewer and I think it succeeds.
In your response to the frame being overly centered in Oppenheimer, Hoyte van Hoytema, DP for Oppenheimer explain that when shooting with IMAX cameras the projection is really curved so attempting to use the entire frame is pointless because it forces audience to stretch and lose themselves tryna find certain details in the frame. He says that it more of a 3D, or “you’re right there” vibe they were trying to give. It’s an interview on RUclips where he said this.
You can still frame for the centre but dress the rest of the frame, and give some depth. Mad Max does this wonderfully, everything is centre framed, on the eyes, but the whole frame looks spectacular.
I find your love to cinema an inspiration to be a more conscious (and hopefully better) filmmaker. You pinpointed all what’s wrong with Oppenheimer cinematography. I guess IMAX is lobbying hard this year. “Anatomy of a Fall” feels almost like a n episode of “The Office”. I was waiting for someone to break the fourth wall at some point. I Loved the cinematography of “Flowers of the Killer Moon” but I’m a nineties kid who grew up watching skateboard videos shot on fisheye, so my heart is with “Poor Things”. But “The Zone of Interest” tastefully whoops some asses here. Thank you very much. God bless.
Hey, your perspective about direction in filmmaking is always interesting, and the same thing is true for this video. I just wanted to know your opinion about one thing that you said in the OPPENHIEMER part. You said that all the shots are centered too much, but I was listening to one of the videos where Hoyte van Hoytema was talking about the centered puncher shots (the most important thing in the frame for IMAX composition), as it's for Imax screens that are curved, so you have to block and stage according to that, so maybe if we see the film in the medium (Imax) that the director wants us to see, the blocking would make more sense. What do you think about that?
I didn’t say all the shots were centered too much, on the contrary. I said many were, many gave the impression of being cropped, and a few used the length of the screen well. Curved screens became common in the 50s to reduce image distortion in widescreen movies. Since the projector’s light needs to travel different distances to reach the flat screen it caused distortion on the sides because they were farther from the projector. Curved screens were used to minimize that distance. IMAX is nothing new in that regard and huge curved screens never stopped filmmakers from making wide images.
Yes, it's true that curved screens are not new, and perhaps Oppenheimer hasn't used the vertical elements. However, in the video, you mentioned 'center framing taken to extreme,' and the left and right spaces are not utilized. After that, there was a comparison with 'Killers of the Flower Moon.' So, what I can infer is that 'Killers of the Flower Moon' is not shot in IMAX; they are using the standard method. Therefore, the framing is like that. But Oppenheimer is specifically for IMAX, so the comparison between these two for composition is like comparing apples and oranges. Maybe it would be better if we compared it with a movie that is also shot with IMAX and intended by the director to be seen in IMAX. I have a personal experience of watching a film that was not meant for IMAX (which is 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse'), and what happened was that I had to consciously move my head left or right to notice the details. It was a little jarring for me as it distracted me from immersing into the movie.@@Moviewise
@@krishnsagar1276 Don't forget that Oppenheimer has plenty of shots that use the sides of the frame (06:52). Teller calling attention on the right (09:17) particularly invites the eye. Center framing is not a consistent excuse.
It is to be noticed that whenever the frame is full, it is on shots where the movement of actors is static, and this makes sense for Imax, and the actors who are speaking are most of the time center-framed; when the teller calls attention and a shot is cut to him, he is center-framed. During the meeting of the family where everyone is centered, the actors are moving, and maybe if they were occupying the whole screen, it would be jarring for the audience who is watching it in imax. The main thing is that if it is shot for IMAX, then we should compare it with a movie that is also shot in IMAX, and secondly, if a director can perfectly compose (its subjective) for some scenes, and then in some scenes you think that it's not composed properly, maybe there can be some reason behind it, which I think is that they are aiming for IMAX. @@Moviewise
Oppenheimer is not competing with other films shot on Imax, though. It’s competing with these ones so it should be compared to these ones when discussing this category.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Putting your favourites at the beginning and the end of the video so that the viewer leaves with positive feelings? I give you an oscar for best screenplay.
The poop sandwich. Ole management tactics.
You should do more Martin Scorsese cinematography videos. It’s wild how much detail that old wizard stuffs in his films and never a frame or second wasted.
Scorsese seems like a natural fit for his "Why It's A Classic" series.
I love moviewise's passing stab "such an artist gets to decide what is cinema and what isn't" 8-D
I was afraid at first that we won't get anything close to classic cinema. Didn't think of Scorsese immediately
Check out the channel in depth cine!
This channel is the new Every Frame A Painting. The amount of knowledge and passion you put in, man... it's just great.
I think is even better
Yup, ever since Tony stopped uploading I yearned for a channel that focuses more on the visual/techinal side of things and not just the story. Finding this channel a couple of weeks ago was a treat.
Started watching the TV-series "Marriage" with Sean Bean, and was glad to realise how much I noticed the terrible blocking and framing. You're a great teacher, Mr. Moviewise!
Hope you notice some excellent framing and blocking in the future!
On the positive side, with 'Shōgun" director Jonathan van Tulleken's framing and blocking, thanks to moviewise, gained a new appreciation of his contribution.
It's a blessing and a curse to develop a refined taste. From now on, you'll no longer be able to simply enjoy a movie. 😂😭
"His wideshots are a mouthwatering lesson on cinematic composition." -- Moviewise on Scorsese.
This is all I've been trying to say. This is all Spielberg meant when he told Martin Scorsese that Killers of the Flower Moon is his masterpiece. It's his best directing ever. Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver are all amateur night at the Apollo when compared to KOTFM. The Departed is a distant second. He was on fire with his latest movie, on some Kobe scoring 80 ish. Who cares that it's long? Every shot was so well composed. No amount of running can take away from that.
People are getting off on Nolan and complaining about Scorsese merely because they wouldn't know good directing if it fell on their heads like an anvil for the sky.
He will lose to the lesser Oppenheimer. But goddamn. There's an obvious best director of the year and it isn't going to be appreciated.
Thank you, Moviewise.
i'm not sure if you're telling that he continuously improved all his life or that he finally learned how to direct as an octogenarian.
If it helps, Scorsese has long transcended the Oscars. Even when he feld the need for their approval and validation, he was too big for them
@@snair4548The Oscars don't mean much except for leaving a trail to investigate past works. Though, the rest of that comment is exactly the type of comment that is the problem with film. Deification of the director and the blinding of his faults because of the Cult of the Auteur.
I still support Nolan’s Oscar simply because it’s long overdue.
@user-pi8qw9jj7h How is my comment the problem with film? I'm not even a Scorsese Stan.
David Bordwell passed away today, I see you referenced him in the description, an indispensable figure to cinema theory and appreciation. He will live on in his works, which will hopefully continue to be read and seen by future generations.
I was shocked to find out today. No other person influenced so much my manner of looking at and explaining filmmaking.
So regarding the central framing of Oppenheimer, Hoyta Van Hoytema has talked about the reason being that IMAX is just so large that it's actually distracting having to look from left to right, so central framing becomes the main focus. Similar to what George Miller did with Fury Road. However the awkwardness and blocking (literally) of actors in key moments is quite sloppy at times.
But George Miller did it with the intention of making the action scenes readable; for Oppenheimer it seems more like: "We have to do it like this otherwise it will be bad for those who see the film in IMAX". Clear, but most people (and the future survival of the film) will not be in IMAX, but on a wide format... In addition to the fact that there are scenes shot both in IMAX and on 65mm film, and even those in film have a central framing... But here there is no complex action scene, they are characters talking and seeing 3 hours of characters all talking in the center of the framing is a bit boring visually... Not even Wes Anderson or Peter Greenaway!
I've never finished one of your videos without feeling like I just had one of the best film lessons ever. Your explanations are thorough and detailed yet easily understandable. Great work man
I remember seeing that scene from Oppenheimer and hoping Moviewise would tear it a new one some day.
Nobody tears a movie “a new one” by saying something negative or nasty. And why would you, anyway? I’ve never once had that feeling or desire watching a movie.
@@MrShakespearefan it’s not inherently negative to criticize something, especially in regards to art.
You are a film school moviewise!! Love you.
9:55 Holy shit I can't unsee this now.
yeah that was so bad.
I think I never even realized the we are supposed to look at the background
I have to thank you, your perspective on directing has teached me a lot to appreciate filmmaking on a more in depth analysis than just narrative which is the easiest to pin point when something is well and poorly done.
I love this channel. The only film critique channel on RUclips worth watching. Literally THE ONLY ONE.
I really enjoy your videos and think this one is strong as well. And while I think you bring up many valid points, I think every film on this list has a unique visual style that is well catered to its subject matter. This goes back to your video on cinematic staging/blocking and your desire to have films return to a more elegant and crisp form of visual storytelling, which I agree is fantastic, but at the same time, I think using that template as a rubric for everything is detrimental. Filmmaking has definitely become more visually progressive as formats have changed, and I think it's only natural that filmmakers use these tools to say something that couldn't be said before. Nolan for example has never really concerned himself with 'painterly' framing or anything like that, he shoots for the edit and tries to develop a momentum and compliment whatever narrative tricks he is utilizing. This is a function of personal style and trumps a traditional way of viewing framing/composition. The same goes for Triet's documentary-esque style; it is what the film needs, and I think she uses it to say something interesting about the artifice of what we deem to be authentic. And yes, Scorsese's work in Killers is still great; he does it like the masters of old, and it works like a charm. My point being is that there is room for everything; I personally wouldn't hold someone like Cassavetes to the same standard that I would John Ford. Their styles are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but both effectively enhance the kinds of stories they want to tell. Anyways, I really think you have some great points in this video (the Poor Things extra's criticism was one that I thought was particularly sharp). I will continue to watch!
Everything I wanted to say. Seconded.
Just to counter your point on Nolan's framing/blocking. I have also heard the same said of him elsewhere which I still don't understand, because for me I don't see it on screen. His camera work often feels sloppy and unmotivated and confusing. One of my big issues with Oppenheimer is I couldn't follow the drive from scene to scene was, couple that with the constant over bearing sound design, I just wasn't having a good or immersive experience, in fact the opposite. I was getting irritated that I wasn't being brought on a journey. He may be trying to construct momentum but it is done to a detriment of coherent story telling. It baffles me the praise Oppenheimer in particular has received, there's so many creative and technical choices that are so jarring. It feels like an academic text book masquerading as a film with visual story telling as an after thought. But i'm in extreme minority. Perhaps time will change my opinion, or the consensus.
When I was in college, I took an "Understanding Film" course. It really improved my appreciation of filmmaking, and taught me how to watch films. This channel is like a refresher course, renewing my appreciation for what goes into a film, what makes a film good, and what to look for. Really great channel!
I learn so much from your videos!
You make me a more perceptive cinephile.
And I laughed out loud several times- what a delightful wit and sense of humor .
You manage to critique these films and directors without insulting them .
ppl like you - movie teachers and critics - should be the ones to select Oscar nominees. The Academy is a disgrace. i watched the Oscars decaying for the last 15 years. With great sadness. Oscars use to mean something. Nowadays it seems like the Academy doesn't even watch these movies, like if they only read the synopsis or something. Not to mention they would't even know good directing if they saw one. Movie industry needs more people who know how to analyse good directing, good screenwriting, good acting. The audience needs them. Someone who will help us elevate our taste... not just satisfy our lowest needs for entertainment. Thank you for your channel. i love it. I'm always waiting for the next video :)
I think Nolan changing the aspect ratio in such an abrupt way is a symptom of a problem in his directing, which is he prefers to change the aspect ratio to hide the blank spaces in the frame instead of thinking of creative composition like Scorsese does.
In this sense, Scorsese is the most talented director and the one with a more complex visual style, meanwhile Nolan choose the easy answer in his cinematography
Regarding my comment, I think the problem with Nolan's style will play in his favor in the Oscars, as he will excuse the aspect ratio thing not as a problem but as a creative decision and part of his style, which might fool someone who's not visually trained in cinematography (and might as well be his style) and for that he will receive extra points in the academy.
The aspect ratio switching is technical not artistic. I suspect if he could Nolan would shoot an entire movie in IMAX but it just isn't feasible (yet).
@@richardcahill1234 Then he should just shoot the non-spectacle scenes in regular spherical 4-Perf Super 35 and forgo the pointless “ShitScope” (as the orator of this great channel calls it) in his movies. Or if he wants his Hi-Fidelity, VistaVision.
VistaVision is ten times as viable as 65mm IMAX. It uses regular 35mm film, is twice the definition of Super 35, has a versatile aspect ratio (1.50:1, easily cropped to 1.43:1) and over 70+ movies back in the day were shot entirely with the format.
Yeah he should crop both formats to a single ratio, and compose for that target. Unlike in Everything Everywhere Etc, in Nolan's movies the aspect ratio changes don't play any role in storytelling, and they're not even interesting visually. They're just a technical byproduct that should have been ironed out - like any other technical artifact. Film formats seem to give him too much of a hard on and he can't be bothered straightening the bump in his pants.
@@fredscallietsoundman9701 Putting this on a t-shirt "Film formats seem to give him too much of a hard on and he can't be bothered straightening the bump in his pants."
Great video as always. I used to notice direction and editing a bit before, but you have taken me to a whole new level. Can't wait for the next one!
Now I know why I thought KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON was my favorite movie of the year, and why I thought OPPENHEIMER wasn't much more enjoyable than FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY from way back in 1989.
Thank for this video! It's very educational. I don't think I can notice these sort of details when watching a movie for the first time (I'm too invested in the story), but I'll definitely notice them when re-watching it! Framing, camera movement, the actions of extras in the background... These seem like perfect details to pick up on when you want to understand the movie better.
I love you, Moviewise.
Where have you been all my cinephile life?!😍 AMAZING VIDEO!
This channel is astonishingly good
Fascinating. As usual, you give the viewer a new perspective, and a new way of watching and judging the quality of a film.
Thank you Moviewise, this has helped to make better blocking framing choices for upcoming projects
What is the movie he mentions at 25:40 ??
Viv ca vie? Vive ca vive? Vee sa vee?
I haven't seen Oppenheimer yet (I've had a lot going on) so when you showed the 4 second clip of Opp and his lawyer, I legitimately thought our focus was meant to shift towards the man on the far right getting up and walking away. That scene was so poorly blocked I didn't even know RDJ was there!
Well done. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’ve learned more about cinema from you than any other source. I really appreciate what you do and how you do it. Bravo!
Let me also add please. You said once that you’d reveal your identity and some other nonsense. Please don’t. Your mystique is part of the fun of your show. Think of other RUclipsrs that operate in your space. Is it better that I know who Mr. Plinkett is? The Critical Drinker? No! Nein! It’s better if they don’t let their identities be known. It’s better to be the character. Let your accent remain a mystery. Who cares where you are from or what your politics are or what you look like. Let me imagine you as a fantasy. Something that exists only as an intellect and a voice. You are perfect the way you are. Never change.
this was absolutely fantastic. thank you!
I learn so much from this channel.
I absolutely love the transition to the "Like...Subscribe...patreon". You are always entertaining in how you put that stuff in!
Nolan’s issue is he doesn’t utilise tonal variation. Each moment must escalate and outdo the last one until we are being foghorned in the face in an epic finale. The problem with that approach is how do you follow the cataclysm of man splitting the atom, the dropping of the bomb, with litigation in Judge Judy small claims court?
Nolan’s verbose cinematic language seemed silly and clumsy when transposed in these small back rooms.
Funnily enough if he had subverted the very style that’s become his signature I think the final act could’ve provide a more emotional and unexpected kick in the guts. Static wide shots, long takes, minimal score. There’s something so undignified and dreadful about this intriguing and intelligent figure being slowly dragged through mundane legal proceedings after everything he’s managed to do. That’s an intriguing story structure but better served through a drastic tonal change.
Thank you Moviewise!
Do you have a letterboxd sir? I'd love to read your reviews
Your videos have the cumulative effect of a solid introductory course in Cinema Studies. Thank you…
Man i remember your Tar review and Oppenheimer is seems just like an anti thesis of that film
Tar is Like you said "spacious" + long takes + extremely character focused with super subtle hinting in its dialogues
Oppy just spazzes out with cuts, the shots are cramped and well the characters seem pretty hollow to me with there being an exposition bomb every minute of the film
This video is very helpful for people like me who dont notice or know much about cinematography. Tells me how much thinking goes into the camera work.
Exposition bombs are Nolan's specialty. 99% of the dialogue in Inception is someone explaining something to someone else or doing an "as you know" to remind the audience of something.
I don't think you're watching Moviewise's videos, because if you were, you'd know that he praised Oppenheimer's script as the best of all this year's Oscar-nominated screenplays.
@@gileadeandradesilva ik I saw that. Never said he didn't say that though did I?
@@LordBaktor yeah thats why it was nominated for best screenplay
@@sandeepdas3526 Am I under any obligation to agree with the Academy's decisions or do I have a right to form and express my own opinion on this matter?
Got to learn so much in a single video. Great video, keep the good work ❤
This dude is a fucking genius
Your videos are impeccable! Your comedy is too good.
Yes!! You did it. Very good analysis, I was kind of expecting you don't liking Nolan's direction. I can't feel engaged by the images of any of his movies. Did you read Bordwell's little book on him? He talks how Nolan isn't very interesting in style, and great at cross-cutting narrative. So sad that he died today, one of the bests we had.
I haven't watched Zone of Interest yet, but your analysis got me very excited to do it, probably I'll watch this weekend.
I really got tired of Lanthimos directing in Poor Things. As for Anatomy of the Fall I really liked the narrative, especially the son's drama; but I kind agree with your take on the directing (it was the thing that didn't let me like more), some details I was even able to chatch it, but I still think is kind of effective. Well, Marty, what can i say?
so, this video was great, and I will watch it several times to extract as much knowledge as I can, but what I really want to know is how good the directing was on a scale of super cool dance moves
Everytime I get a new Moviewise video I feel like Christmas.
Just discovered your channel, well as a keen film student I can say I found a gold mine. You Rock. Thank you for your content. 😍😍🔥🔥🔥
You've made me start appreciating Killers of the Flower Moon.
Huh? You didn't appreciate it before this video?
@@Largentina. Not so much. The runtime and story felt tedious that I stopped even caring about the cinematography.
Case and point, we need to bring back the intermission. Oppenheimer could have used the extra 30 minutes to flash things out. Killers would have been easier to take it with a break.@@IcarusSuite
@@IcarusSuite Jesus Christ
Justine Triet followed the Beaux Arts school as an aspirant painter. She made her debut as a documentary director, then switched to fiction with 'la bataille de Solferino' in 2013. It is a low budget film where Triet mixed real world capture with scenarized plans.
Can you provide a list of films and other sources that you used to learn these things?
I think most talk about visuals is dominated by how an image looks on an aesthetic level. There's not enough focus on staging and also how shots can cut together. Recently, I've noticed far more films with shots that just don't work next to each other in an unintentional way (it's a major problem in my own work too, to be fair).
This opened my eyes to a lot of what makes directing well directing. But narrative will always be what will makes movies great. That’s the mark of a true great director to me. Obviously, the coupling of the writing with shot composition is important for the pacing and overall vibe, but at the end of the day, it’s all subjective, so lets keep it that way.
Poor Things needing to break the 180-degree rule three times for a shot of someone eating gives me Taken-3-needing-fourteen-shots-to-show-someone-jumping-a-fence vibes
I'm curious what you think of Maestro's direction. A lot of interesting shot choices and framing devices but it seems like Cooper is just playing with directing toys without trying to achieve a greater purpose.
that shot at 5:09 breaks my brain, how do they stay consistent with the right side lighting. It can't be overhead lights the shadow angles look accurate to the window as a light source
Excellent work, thank you.
I was always confused when a movie was nominated for best picture, but the director missed out. This video is very informative on this issue.
Great instructive comparison of Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon.
Lanthimos's fisheye fetish is tiresome to me, though I enjoyed the movie.
I loved the look of Anatomy of a Fall. I really don't need every movie to look like a classical painting. 'Who'd want to watch that?' Me. I love that candid photographic style. I can't justify that, but that's the point: your view here is just as subjective. I really like your point about how the style fits the story and theme, though.
But fantastic analysis of The Zone of Interest. As you were going through it, I was thinking of Playtime and Ozu, so it was great to find you were leading us there all along - and to learn the term 'parametric storytelling'.
Check out David Bordwell’s Narration in the Fiction Film. Parametric Narration is a fascinating and highly complicated subject. And thanks for the comment!
@@Moviewise And thanks much for the recommendation! I'll definitely follow up on it.
Cut to: Nolan winning the Oscar.
All those Lanthimos zooms! Jean Rollin was famous for his zooms, wasn't he? Maybe a deep dive into the demi-monde, the seedy world of B-movies, would make a fun video essay?
Zooms were insanely common in the late 60s and early 70s. Almost every director was using it, specially in Europe
I love this walkthrough and that you aren't affraid to point out bad compositing. But I gotta' say a well-shot and well-composited movie does not automatically make it a great movie. At the end of the day it's about telling a great story, which is of course subjective in contrary to great craftmanship.
I didn't notice the intricate framing and blocking at all while watching Killers of the Flower Moon, but I spent a lot of time asking why so much of the film was made up of shot-reverse shot dialogue scenes in close ups and mid shots. It turns out the stuff I was looking for was all there, but either went over my head or was just invisible to me, which I suppose means it did its job and I was wrapped up in the story during those parts. Very clever.
Looking at Christopher Nolan's haphazard blocking, it's interesting to think that Steven Spielberg was the first person to watch Oppenheimer in 70mm. He declared his love for it, but I wonder what goes through his mind when he clearly has, and wants to preserve, something that the filmmaker who he is praising doesn't have.
Nevertheless, I have to say that the pacing and structure of Oppenheimer is very much to my tastes. I often don't like Nolan's overbearing soundtracks and undisciplined cutting, but in this film I thought it built up a symphonic sense of despair that swept me right up and brought me to leave the cinema despondent about whatever future we might have. So, it was my favourite film of the year by far.
More Directing Videos. They are perfection
What is the name of the violin song?
Thank you yet another fantastic video! One not though - Nolan's poor use of the vertical aspects of the frame are intentional. I heard Hoyte van Hoytema feels he has to stuff everything in the middle of the frame because IMAX movies shown in non-IMAX theaters will have the sides cropped a bit. No the real question in my mind is why in the "?%&!# would you shoot in IMAX? It costs about 1000 dollars a minute (not exaggerating here) and for my money, Carol, shot on 16 mm looks as good, if not better than, Oppenheimer. How are we this obsessed with resolution still?
You're so right about Christopher Nolan, who is not fluent in any cinematic language. The medium does not suit him, or vice-versa. He doesn't seem to know what to do with a frame or how to cut images together to create a feeling of three-dimensional space. He's strictly two-dimensional. Does that make him a BAD director? Maybe. But that's a value judgment. It makes more sense to simply point out how his moment-by-moment choices are generally... crude, unimaginative and inexpressive. Lazy, even. I found "Oppenheimer" -- which keeps poking you in the eye to get your attention -- frustratingly dull, whereas Jonathan Glazer's in "Zone of Interest" (a movie in which very little happens -- in narrative terms or within the frame, because it's all about what the viewer and the characters are NOT seeing -- or choosing not to see) sucked me right in and held me rapt. "Oppenheimer" is all on the surface, "Zone of Interest" is about what's going on beneath it, outside the frame, or in the distance beyond what we can see...
If I ever direct a film in my next life, I'd definitely learn from Martin Scorsese, Billy Wilder, William Wyler (if that's correct) and many directors that you've mentioned.
Oh btw, because of you, I cannot enjoy most films or tv series due to........many terrible blocking.
Moviewise speaks - we listen
I honestly do not understand the obsession with Oppenheimer. The dialogue is robotic, the cuts are weird, and as you just showed us, the blocking is horrible. Is it just because it is Nolan and the budget is big? He isn’t even able to direct a romantic scene.
Important subject, seriously examined + billion in box office = Oscar gold
I really respect the fact that your criticism constantly brings us back to the director's technical ability even though in my subjective opinion you occasionally over value formal qualities at the risk of undervaluing the responsibility the director has for protecting continuity and maintaining suspension of disbelief. Anyway, thanks for making us all into smarter audiences!
Great stuff, as usual.
Great vid again. The best.
It's funny because it's true. Well done 👏
Nice vid. Let's all remember though that all this is easier said than done. It is the director's vision, yes. But it takes the collaboration of many departments to get the beauty of something like Flowers.... There's a reasom why many, if not most, if not all directors work with the same teams of people, especially the camera department....DoP, etc. It's hard as hell to find the right people to vibe with that get your vision and add to that vision.
Can you do a video on what makes good editing or good sound design? Editing is the third most important part of movie making and I think not enough film analysers break it down well. Also, who are your favourite film critics?
Thanks for this inciteful and funny education on film composition etc. Subbed! Have a great day. 🎉
That was so fascinating. Thank you. I think we register many of these jarring shots and cuts on a subconscious level, without realising it. I think back to Scorsese’s earliest successful movies and wonder if these rules apply to his blocking and composition and I’m reminded of how the film Taxi Driver went over schedule and over budget just to get one shot for the climax of the movie. They removed part of a ceiling and put tracks through it, just so the camera could pan in an arch over the characters, looking down into the scene of Travis Bickle’s carnage below after the police officer enters.
It’s as though the officer is stunned into an out of body experience. But it’s also a way for the viewer to step back and see a more collective image of this stunned officer, the crying girl and the suicidal Bickle, without taking you out of the flow. I can see how he agonised over shots like those and why they mattered so much to him. Before he could command such blank cheques as he gets now, it’s impressive to reflect back on such artistic achievement.
You sir, have given me fresh eyes with which to appreciate the genius of one of my favourite directors. And I am grateful.
You should have half a million subscribers. At least you have gained 5k in the past months.
Another great video. What does parametric mean in this context?
So much to learn from u n your channel
even lesser scorsese work completely smokes all the other 4
this is my favorite video ever
Excellent video. I'm totally agree. Marty being the greatest living director.
Good work as usual x
Hey if I sent you my short film what would it take to get a critique? I love your opinions but I’m developing my intentionality in blocking and framing…
Completely disagree about criticisms in Poor Things. A lot of what you described regarding extras was situational to the scene, and the framing with mark/emma was purposeful and not incorrect.
Thank you moviewise
Thank you @Moviewise because this excellent video had perfect release timing. Most of the "film critics" I follow were barking about Denis Villeneuve's comments about preferring great shots over dialogue, and this video is the perfect antidote. Also, one more difference in the opening comparison: does Chris Nolan get his ideas for aperture settings from Zack Snyder? Can we get some depth of field please?
This is a master class for directing
Would be curious to see your analysis of There Will Be Blood.
Amazing thanks for your work!
Great stuff!
Hi! I really want to know what are thou thinking about this polish movie "Chłopi". The Peasants 2023. In Poland everybody were counting on his Oscar chances, but it turned out that they had miscalculated. But still its piece of good cinema
Can you please analyze Tarantino?
I remember watching Killers of the Flower Moon and just being blown away by the quality of the screen. Not so much the story. But Marty really used every bit of the frame. The budget for this movie felt insane. You can't believe it was only made for $200m. Glad Moviewise agrees.
Couldn't stand Oppenheimer though. Holy crap. The editing and pacing of that film was laughable. Just one series of montages layered on another and another.
Ok, look. Your videos are great, and I can't get enough of them. I think you should dispense with eating, sleeping, a job, family, and churn out 2 of them per day just to entertain me - ok? Get to it.
(and yeah, I've watched some of your recommendations - they're good, but not as entertaining as your videos about them)
This is why there shouldn't just be one Best Picture award: then Oppenheimer could win Best Production and KOTFM or The Zone of Interest could win Best Artistic Feature.
I always wondered which films would have won that category across history if the Oscars had kept it.
I think you are far too close minded about oppenheimer. It's diffrent to killers of the flower moon. it's shot for imax so of course it's really center framed, imax is far too big for you eyes to get the full composition of an image. to add to that I watched killers of the flower moon in cinema in imax and it was one of the worse ways to experience that film, really forces your eye to move a great distance. I kinda agree about the changes of aspect ratio being too unmotivated (though they are barley felt in imax I must say), but I defenitly disagree with the editing being too quick and too much music. oppenheimer is, as you mentioned, kind of a film that all of it is edited like a montage, but that's not a bad thing. In my opinion it works becuse while information delivered is reduced each edit carries a feeling that is strong. While images may not stay on screen for that long they can still carry within your mind and feel like a flashes of rememberence. I think the editing just works as granting the film a feeling of emotional trancedence and also the majority of the film's beauty comes from the images' texture and the cinematography, not really it's quite simple but effective compositions, and I don't think that's a bad thing. The example you gave with strauss can be seen as quite a fail though, but also oppenheimer's big head (ego) blocking strauss in his own prespective can be argued to be the point. about the music as said before the whole film was supposed to be carried by emotion through editing and through the music, I think it does so brilliantly.
The interpretation on that horrendous shot could have been valid if the film had relied so much on individual shots, but this is not the case. It is clear that each shot is shot "to be shot" and not for a specific reason of cinematographic grammar and language. The editing may reflect Oppenheimer's fragmentation, certainly, but this does not take away the fact that rhythm exists even in a fast editing. Watch JFK and you'll realize how each cut serves a purpose and has a precise and sustained pace, even though those are almost constant too. Oppenheimer is much more approximate and vague.
I think IMAX like 3D is too niche. Try finding an IMAX cinema & then paying double for a ticket. There are just 3 IMAX @ 1:43 in UK and only 30 in the world thus to shoot a film for a mass audience that few can see the full picture is pointless or vanity.
Is this Nolan writing?
@bordidellapizza you're saying the rythem of the movie's editing is wrong? If so I really disagree, the film's nothing if not a masterclass at pacing and rythem of editing and how it sweeps you off your feet. I agree that not every edit is done with clarity and purpose, it's done for the sake of the viewer and I think it succeeds.
In your response to the frame being overly centered in Oppenheimer, Hoyte van Hoytema, DP for Oppenheimer explain that when shooting with IMAX cameras the projection is really curved so attempting to use the entire frame is pointless because it forces audience to stretch and lose themselves tryna find certain details in the frame. He says that it more of a 3D, or “you’re right there” vibe they were trying to give. It’s an interview on RUclips where he said this.
You can still frame for the centre but dress the rest of the frame, and give some depth. Mad Max does this wonderfully, everything is centre framed, on the eyes, but the whole frame looks spectacular.
I find your love to cinema an inspiration to be a more conscious (and hopefully better) filmmaker. You pinpointed all what’s wrong with Oppenheimer cinematography. I guess IMAX is lobbying hard this year. “Anatomy of a Fall” feels almost like a n episode of “The Office”. I was waiting for someone to break the fourth wall at some point. I Loved the cinematography of “Flowers of the Killer Moon” but I’m a nineties kid who grew up watching skateboard videos shot on fisheye, so my heart is with “Poor Things”. But “The Zone of Interest” tastefully whoops some asses here. Thank you very much. God bless.
Curious which films you think would be more worthy of a nom than some of these.
Very thorough analysis. High standard as always. Funny and pleasant to watch. No vomitting guy a tiny disappointment
Hey, your perspective about direction in filmmaking is always interesting, and the same thing is true for this video. I just wanted to know your opinion about one thing that you said in the OPPENHIEMER part. You said that all the shots are centered too much, but I was listening to one of the videos where Hoyte van Hoytema was talking about the centered puncher shots (the most important thing in the frame for IMAX composition), as it's for Imax screens that are curved, so you have to block and stage according to that, so maybe if we see the film in the medium (Imax) that the director wants us to see, the blocking would make more sense. What do you think about that?
I didn’t say all the shots were centered too much, on the contrary. I said many were, many gave the impression of being cropped, and a few used the length of the screen well.
Curved screens became common in the 50s to reduce image distortion in widescreen movies. Since the projector’s light needs to travel different distances to reach the flat screen it caused distortion on the sides because they were farther from the projector. Curved screens were used to minimize that distance.
IMAX is nothing new in that regard and huge curved screens never stopped filmmakers from making wide images.
Yes, it's true that curved screens are not new, and perhaps Oppenheimer hasn't used the vertical elements. However, in the video, you mentioned 'center framing taken to extreme,' and the left and right spaces are not utilized. After that, there was a comparison with 'Killers of the Flower Moon.' So, what I can infer is that 'Killers of the Flower Moon' is not shot in IMAX; they are using the standard method. Therefore, the framing is like that. But Oppenheimer is specifically for IMAX, so the comparison between these two for composition is like comparing apples and oranges. Maybe it would be better if we compared it with a movie that is also shot with IMAX and intended by the director to be seen in IMAX. I have a personal experience of watching a film that was not meant for IMAX (which is 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse'), and what happened was that I had to consciously move my head left or right to notice the details. It was a little jarring for me as it distracted me from immersing into the movie.@@Moviewise
@@krishnsagar1276 Don't forget that Oppenheimer has plenty of shots that use the sides of the frame (06:52). Teller calling attention on the right (09:17) particularly invites the eye. Center framing is not a consistent excuse.
It is to be noticed that whenever the frame is full, it is on shots where the movement of actors is static, and this makes sense for Imax, and the actors who are speaking are most of the time center-framed; when the teller calls attention and a shot is cut to him, he is center-framed. During the meeting of the family where everyone is centered, the actors are moving, and maybe if they were occupying the whole screen, it would be jarring for the audience who is watching it in imax. The main thing is that if it is shot for IMAX, then we should compare it with a movie that is also shot in IMAX, and secondly, if a director can perfectly compose (its subjective) for some scenes, and then in some scenes you think that it's not composed properly, maybe there can be some reason behind it, which I think is that they are aiming for IMAX.
@@Moviewise
Oppenheimer is not competing with other films shot on Imax, though. It’s competing with these ones so it should be compared to these ones when discussing this category.