Ha, I love it too. Like when I noticed the crook in the Hitchcock movie was wearing blackface, I was just waiting for him to virtue-signal about how bad and outdated it is, as if viewers don't already know--but he keeps his eyes well focused on the craft.
After Zach Snyder's Justice League, I have a completely different view on his works. Also, he's in love with 4:3 and gave me a real appreciation for it. After seeing his Justice League version, I can't unsee how every recent movie cuts off people's heads. CinemaScope is supposed to take the full frame and make it anamorphic. Now, all they do is chop off the top and bottom. It sucks. Instead of feeling wider, it feels claustrophobic.
Maybe "why" might be a good question. From my cinema school, only the Elamidam students survived. A few others were far superior storytellers and even knew better how to put an idea in a frame but teachers were too happy to get the crane out and producers prefered the flashy ones anyway. There's only one way to breed classicism : to learn among other professionals and to climb the ladder as you show expertise. But our time worships the mavericks.
@@Tyler12905 when you're starting from zero, go full elamidam! you are trying to learn, and if you only attempt classical styles, of course it can go great, but it restricts your scope of creativity. once you've gained some skil and confidence, that is when you worry about climbing the ladder, atleast thats what i think moderation is key
The first time I realized you can over-direct a movie, I was watching Elvis by Baz Luhrman. I just wasn't able to put it into words, all I knew was, watching it felt like my sense of sight and hearing are being bombarded every 0,5 second. It was nauseating.
That's baz luhrman in a nutshell. Elvis felt like a trailer thats lasted over 2 hours. It seems like with each movie he actually gets worse in this sense.
Absolutely loved it nd that style of cinema, sometimes film critics obsess too much on the "why", forgetting that film is just like every other art where the feeling evoked by the aesthetic quality of is just as important as the "why". i dont give a shit if finchers camera moves in panic room lacks a definite "why", it has no fault to me because its soo much fun jan, get it.
@@afrosymphony8207 I'm sorry, but I might be one of Fincher's biggest fans, but even I can tell that shot in panic room, while cool aesthetically, is just stylistic brain numbing over substance and proper marrative. I usually don't agree with many things this channel says, while I understand whereany of his critiques are coming from, I see many as too extreme and coming from a big love to the past and denial of present forms. But this video is spot on to me. And I don't think it's wrong for a director to somrtimes use a shot like the one from panic room. But you need to be conscious of the type of movie you're making. Fincher has said many times that panic room, along with the game, is just a popcorn movie to entertain, nothing more, so I think he was pretty conscious and intentional about it. On the other hand, I genuinely can't defend elvis, it's not about me overthinking the why of each shot, it's about hating the editing which doesn't let you appreciate any single moment even for a few seconds and shows you each moment as a footnote in his life yet expects you to be fully moved by each different emotion with the help of overdramatized shots and music, while the only thing needed for people to actually feel the importance of each moment is to actually give time to each sequence. Focus on less sequences but make each one last a bit longer.
@@afrosymphony8207 I'm sorry, but I might be one of Fincher's biggest fans, but even I can tell that shot in panic room, while cool aesthetically, is just stylistic brain numbing over substance and proper marrative. I usually don't agree with many things this channel says, while I understand whereany of his critiques are coming from, I see many as too extreme and coming from a big love to the past and denial of present forms. But this video is spot on to me. And I don't think it's wrong for a director to somrtimes use a shot like the one from panic room. But you need to be conscious of the type of movie you're making. Fincher has said many times that panic room, along with the game, is just a popcorn movie to entertain, nothing more, so I think he was pretty conscious and intentional about it. On the other hand, I genuinely can't defend elvis, it's not about me overthinking the why of each shot, it's about hating the editing which doesn't let you appreciate any single moment even for a few seconds and shows you each moment as a footnote in his life yet expects you to be fully moved by each different emotion with the help of overdramatized shots and music, while the only thing needed for people to actually feel the importance of each moment is to actually give time to each sequence. Focus on less sequences but make each one last a bit longer.
@@afrosymphony8207 one of my favorite directors is danny boyle, and I'm sure many people would argue he over directs. But I believe he chooses his movie scripts often very deliberately and his stories suit his style. Trainspotting is great, how it's directed puts you in the shoes of the main characters and shows you how ignorant they are of the dangers they are putting themselves through. But elvis is supposed to be a big drama of a real life, but I can't take it seriously because it's treated so bombastically
Aw, that shot in 'Panic Room' is just perfection. It continues to inspire me. Sometimes, a shot can be purely experiential, a beautiful and innovative moment that inspires others. But here, it's more than that - the long take creates a sense of intrusion happening in real-time, making our characters vulnerable without the safety of editor cuts. And the lock, the coffee pot, etc. - they all contribute to the rhythm necessary for the long take shot.
I appreciate both styles very strongly as they provide contrast... sometimes I do get a little weary of the newest and most modern directors who are showy and call attention to their work... But by and large I think we need both styles.. that being said favorite 'showy' director would still have to be Brian De Palma.
The Quick and the Dead is my favorite example of ELAMIDAM. The story is utterly absurd and divorced from reality, so Sam Raimi compensates by using absolutely every trick he can possibly think of (which is quite a lot) to distract you from it. Almost every shot in the movie has something going on. It's nowhere near his best movie but it's just...interesting.
Not based on a book (there was another movie with Tom Selleck, I think, that was based on that novel). Raimi's is a spaghetti western imitation in which Sharon Stone plays a gunfighter taking part in a quick-draw tournament to get revenge on Gene Hackman. Also has Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio.
Sam Raimi's "ELAMIDAM" on the "Take the f*ck!ng elephant!!!" scene from Darkman is absolute perfection! On the other hand, having not seen Panic Room, those stylized shots are the most embarrassing crap I ever witnessed, at least out of context. Is it a comedy or something?
Of course it’s not just movies. Modern TV shows are rampant with it. To my eye, it makes a director look like they lack confidence in the story. Like they are trying to give the illusion of action or tension or movement because there just isn’t any. I saw a few scenes of a TV show the other day where the cast was simply engaged in dialog, but every exchange was shown with shaky closeups and angled shots. It was unnecessary. Looked like the cameraman was having a medical emergency. Started to give me a headache. Shaking, tilting, panning, zooming…all for some verbal dialog in a room.
Also you should look up the work of the famous film theoretic David Bordwell. Back in the 1980s (of course a lot of time have passed since then) he put movies into four categories based on their narrative style: The classical style (basically what you covered under "invisible directing") The modernist style (the arthouse movies from the late 1950s onwards) The Soviet formalist style The parametric style
Favourite showy directors for me are Welles, Kubrick, Scorcese (though his films suffer as much from it, especially as he is a cold director, and his best are a mesh of perfect subject matter to style). None-showy: Lubitsch, Ford, Capra, Preston Sturges, Ophuls Others mix the two; Wyler, Wilder, Lean, Hitchcock, Coppola, Powell and Pressburger, Spielberg - who use it the way a close-up should be used, sparingly and acutely. I'm so involved in the story through the classical style that I'm captivated and the flourishes seem perfect (the aircraft scene in Best Years of Our Lives, the fall down the stairs in The Lost Weekend, Pip falling into a delirium in Great Expectations, with hand held camera-work and the throbbing sound).
Steven Spielberg - this is mostly a nostalgia vote and because he seems like a really good human being. Drew Barrymore says really good stuff about him from when she was a child actor. There were some kids who re-made an Indiana Jones movie and he sought them out to congratulate them. Lastly, when I was in elementary school we had an assignment to write some fan mail and I was the only kid in class to get something back. It was from his production company, but still he gets my vote every time. I wouldn’t think of him as super showy. He does a lot of action films so he kind of has to be. But when you reviewed the Oscar nominated directors of 2022 you pointed out how he went full ELAMIDAM on “West Side Story.”
I just cannot get enough of this channel. Now I've managed to "perfect" my screenwriting to the degree I know where I'm going, I needed some direction on, er, direction. I'll admit that on my budget these fancy camera moves (even Hitchcock's) are out of the question BUT I'm less afraid now of blocking. My latest short has three characters at a bar for the majority of the script, but now I'm more confident I can block it in a way that will tell the story - I'm thinking it more like a fixed stage where the camera is an audience member rather than dragging them through ... a keyhole? Really?
Just feels like a 'there are two types of people in this world'. There's countless ways to divide and distinguish directors and the comparison is more an explanation of particular styles than a catch-all division system to group directors into.
Learning of the existence of this channel, of this video essayist, may be compared to, after having wholly imbibed a bottle of fine red one learns there is another bottle yet. And fried pork.
My favorite showy director is David Lynch. My favorite unshowy director is Sidney Lumet. Although I am not quite sure if Lynch counts as a showy director. His shots are quite simple.
sometimes his camera will race to a goal or destination. he does one shot long takes, also his choice of music creates a distinctly Lynchian feel in every moment somehow. People move slowly and they are framed in consistant ways. great composition.
sometimes his camera will race to a goal or destination. he does one shot long takes, also his choice of music creates a distinctly Lynchian feel in every moment somehow. People move slowly and they are framed in consistant ways. great composition.
No, we don't need to move through the keyhole. But I don't know what we lost by going through it. Sometimes classical, sometimes ELAMIDAM; sometimes whiskey neat, sometimes on the rocks, sometimes in an old fashioned.
Both styles have their place and can be good or bad depending on who is doing it. I love the solid craftsmanship of classical films. But I also love Moulin Rouge!, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. My all-time favourite director is Georges Melies, so make of that what one will.
In defense of ELAMIDAM, I'd argue they're not always screaming look AT me, but maybe screaming look THROUGH me...look at how I see the world or wish it was. or maybe as a hopeless ELAMIDAM myself, I'm just lying to myself about why I like the visceral, tactile experience of those movies. what's wrong with a Flair-Gun being your weapon of choice? lolz
very necessary video!!! thanks a lot. any of my favourite showy ones, like Melville or Tarantino, feels invisible, meaning this that they make you believe the only way their stories would exist is through the way they tell them. others (lynch, gilliam...) just feel wanky to my taste. concerning invisible ones, the epitome to me is howard hawks, along with john ford.
I understand your point of view but I didn't pay for my cinema ticket to watch a play. Personally I love David Fincher's style. The impeccable movement of the camera which passes through the objects gives a point of view that is both omniscient and voyeuristic which is used extremely well in fight club, it gives the viewer the impression of seeing everything and that nothing escapes them, which further reinforces the surprise during the final plot twist. 🤩
Classic cinema is not filmed theater, it’s just not flashy. It does have camera movement, cuts, pans, zoom, etc. But the director doesn’t wave at the audience all the time shouting “hey, I’m here!”
Well, personally I find Baby Driver Wright's most stylish movie. It maxes out on everything I love about his movies. Except for Nick Frost and Simon Pegg but they are too British for it
What about straightforward storytelling (like it coulda been a play) in film like, say... "The Man From Earth", "12 Angry Men", "Rope", "My Dinner with Andre" or even "Mindwalk". I know those are basically conversations. All of which trapped me curious for a couple hours. No tricks. Should you allow a couple tricks, but still in the realistic approach and in the low-budget/ no-budget realm, I'd love to know where you stand on "Primer", "Coherence", "Exam", "The Decline Trilogy" (Dennis Arcan), "Tape" (basically any Richard Linklater movie). Those ones. How do you like them ?
7:31 no amount of this kind of Elamidam will ever be able to top Orson Wells and Herman J. Mankiewicz directing their camera through a neon sign in Citizen Kane.
I feel like I learned more about film analysis from your channel than I did on any supposed film theory book (which is mostly based on the stuff Harold Bloom warned us about). I should read David Bordwell and his freinds/contemporaries as they seem like the only ones who actually understand film.
From my POV you misunderstood the point. It's not just because you don't get it that should be labeled as cocky. Sometimes its not about the ego. Its just artists doing whats they always do (since daVinci or before)... Searching news ways to telling a story. Searching for new ways to impact the listener. Touching other layers. It's like to call Van Gogh a "Elamidam" artist. But, thanks for sharing man!
damn... you're demolishing every unnecessary thing my numbed out brain was consuming without a second thought I'm not sure if I like learning all this although, hej, in for a penny in for demolishing early david fincher
It’s still fine I think his point is just that these directors get too much recognition and people are missing the nuanced directors. It’s like loud acting vs subtle acting, both can be good but also have their moments
Just my humble personal opinion but Wes Anderson is one of the worst directors today. The only good movie he's ever made is Royal Tenenbaums. Most of his work is tedious over the top style over substance and in later years he seems to be so all over himself that his movies are basically about trying to "over-Wes Anderson" himself without anything meaningful to add or say.
I watched Asteroid City a few days ago and I think he's just repeating himself. The same strange animations, the same crazy colours, the same quirky characters. I loved The Life Aquatic too btw, some other movies were also alright. It's just time for him to reinvent himself
I appreciate the fact that you don't voice your personal assessment on every director and every film. And then you give a comprehensive list. Aces.
Ha, I love it too. Like when I noticed the crook in the Hitchcock movie was wearing blackface, I was just waiting for him to virtue-signal about how bad and outdated it is, as if viewers don't already know--but he keeps his eyes well focused on the craft.
@@heinoustentacles5719
I think MW might already understand that virtue signaling has no value.
After Zach Snyder's Justice League, I have a completely different view on his works. Also, he's in love with 4:3 and gave me a real appreciation for it.
After seeing his Justice League version, I can't unsee how every recent movie cuts off people's heads.
CinemaScope is supposed to take the full frame and make it anamorphic. Now, all they do is chop off the top and bottom. It sucks. Instead of feeling wider, it feels claustrophobic.
He's the worst DOP also. Look at all the dead pixels in Army Of The Dead
Maybe "why" might be a good question.
From my cinema school, only the Elamidam students survived. A few others were far superior storytellers and even knew better how to put an idea in a frame but teachers were too happy to get the crane out and producers prefered the flashy ones anyway.
There's only one way to breed classicism : to learn among other professionals and to climb the ladder as you show expertise.
But our time worships the mavericks.
It's the same thing everywhere. Modern culture has more affinity for hacks and showoffs than for competent, diligent professionals.
how should a person go about learning from other professionals and climbing the ladder to show expertise if they're starting from ground zero?
@@Tyler12905 when you're starting from zero, go full elamidam! you are trying to learn, and if you only attempt classical styles, of course it can go great, but it restricts your scope of creativity. once you've gained some skil and confidence, that is when you worry about climbing the ladder, atleast thats what i think
moderation is key
kind of like orson welles saying he was ignorant to what he could and couldnt do so he tried whatever he wanted @@theigman099
Amélie directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet is my favorite "look at me" film.
The first time I realized you can over-direct a movie, I was watching Elvis by Baz Luhrman. I just wasn't able to put it into words, all I knew was, watching it felt like my sense of sight and hearing are being bombarded every 0,5 second. It was nauseating.
That's baz luhrman in a nutshell. Elvis felt like a trailer thats lasted over 2 hours. It seems like with each movie he actually gets worse in this sense.
Absolutely loved it nd that style of cinema, sometimes film critics obsess too much on the "why", forgetting that film is just like every other art where the feeling evoked by the aesthetic quality of is just as important as the "why". i dont give a shit if finchers camera moves in panic room lacks a definite "why", it has no fault to me because its soo much fun jan, get it.
@@afrosymphony8207 I'm sorry, but I might be one of Fincher's biggest fans, but even I can tell that shot in panic room, while cool aesthetically, is just stylistic brain numbing over substance and proper marrative. I usually don't agree with many things this channel says, while I understand whereany of his critiques are coming from, I see many as too extreme and coming from a big love to the past and denial of present forms. But this video is spot on to me. And I don't think it's wrong for a director to somrtimes use a shot like the one from panic room. But you need to be conscious of the type of movie you're making. Fincher has said many times that panic room, along with the game, is just a popcorn movie to entertain, nothing more, so I think he was pretty conscious and intentional about it. On the other hand, I genuinely can't defend elvis, it's not about me overthinking the why of each shot, it's about hating the editing which doesn't let you appreciate any single moment even for a few seconds and shows you each moment as a footnote in his life yet expects you to be fully moved by each different emotion with the help of overdramatized shots and music, while the only thing needed for people to actually feel the importance of each moment is to actually give time to each sequence. Focus on less sequences but make each one last a bit longer.
@@afrosymphony8207 I'm sorry, but I might be one of Fincher's biggest fans, but even I can tell that shot in panic room, while cool aesthetically, is just stylistic brain numbing over substance and proper marrative. I usually don't agree with many things this channel says, while I understand whereany of his critiques are coming from, I see many as too extreme and coming from a big love to the past and denial of present forms. But this video is spot on to me. And I don't think it's wrong for a director to somrtimes use a shot like the one from panic room. But you need to be conscious of the type of movie you're making. Fincher has said many times that panic room, along with the game, is just a popcorn movie to entertain, nothing more, so I think he was pretty conscious and intentional about it. On the other hand, I genuinely can't defend elvis, it's not about me overthinking the why of each shot, it's about hating the editing which doesn't let you appreciate any single moment even for a few seconds and shows you each moment as a footnote in his life yet expects you to be fully moved by each different emotion with the help of overdramatized shots and music, while the only thing needed for people to actually feel the importance of each moment is to actually give time to each sequence. Focus on less sequences but make each one last a bit longer.
@@afrosymphony8207 one of my favorite directors is danny boyle, and I'm sure many people would argue he over directs. But I believe he chooses his movie scripts often very deliberately and his stories suit his style. Trainspotting is great, how it's directed puts you in the shoes of the main characters and shows you how ignorant they are of the dangers they are putting themselves through. But elvis is supposed to be a big drama of a real life, but I can't take it seriously because it's treated so bombastically
Aw, that shot in 'Panic Room' is just perfection. It continues to inspire me. Sometimes, a shot can be purely experiential, a beautiful and innovative moment that inspires others. But here, it's more than that - the long take creates a sense of intrusion happening in real-time, making our characters vulnerable without the safety of editor cuts. And the lock, the coffee pot, etc. - they all contribute to the rhythm necessary for the long take shot.
Also the fact that the camera is by no means restricted. We're not bound by physicality. I think it furthers that intrusive feeling.
Its awesome
Thanks. I shall go to the local DVD rental and ask for an ELAMIDAM section. It'll save me sooo much time!
This channel is better than most film schools
I appreciate both styles very strongly as they provide contrast... sometimes I do get a little weary of the newest and most modern directors who are showy and call attention to their work... But by and large I think we need both styles.. that being said favorite 'showy' director would still have to be Brian De Palma.
Film is a visual medium, i think directors showing off is what continues evolving the medium
The Quick and the Dead is my favorite example of ELAMIDAM. The story is utterly absurd and divorced from reality, so Sam Raimi compensates by using absolutely every trick he can possibly think of (which is quite a lot) to distract you from it. Almost every shot in the movie has something going on. It's nowhere near his best movie but it's just...interesting.
Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll give it a look. Is the story the Louise L’Amour book the Quick and the Dead? I read that one as a kid.
Not based on a book (there was another movie with Tom Selleck, I think, that was based on that novel). Raimi's is a spaghetti western imitation in which Sharon Stone plays a gunfighter taking part in a quick-draw tournament to get revenge on Gene Hackman. Also has Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio.
Sam Raimi's "ELAMIDAM" on the "Take the f*ck!ng elephant!!!" scene from Darkman is absolute perfection! On the other hand, having not seen Panic Room, those stylized shots are the most embarrassing crap I ever witnessed, at least out of context. Is it a comedy or something?
"ELAMIDAM." I spit out my soda!
Of course it’s not just movies. Modern TV shows are rampant with it. To my eye, it makes a director look like they lack confidence in the story. Like they are trying to give the illusion of action or tension or movement because there just isn’t any. I saw a few scenes of a TV show the other day where the cast was simply engaged in dialog, but every exchange was shown with shaky closeups and angled shots. It was unnecessary. Looked like the cameraman was having a medical emergency. Started to give me a headache. Shaking, tilting, panning, zooming…all for some verbal dialog in a room.
Also you should look up the work of the famous film theoretic David Bordwell. Back in the 1980s (of course a lot of time have passed since then) he put movies into four categories based on their narrative style:
The classical style (basically what you covered under "invisible directing")
The modernist style (the arthouse movies from the late 1950s onwards)
The Soviet formalist style
The parametric style
Wow. Haven’t heard that name since uni
Favourite showy directors for me are Welles, Kubrick, Scorcese (though his films suffer as much from it, especially as he is a cold director, and his best are a mesh of perfect subject matter to style).
None-showy: Lubitsch, Ford, Capra, Preston Sturges, Ophuls
Others mix the two; Wyler, Wilder, Lean, Hitchcock, Coppola, Powell and Pressburger, Spielberg - who use it the way a close-up should be used, sparingly and acutely. I'm so involved in the story through the classical style that I'm captivated and the flourishes seem perfect (the aircraft scene in Best Years of Our Lives, the fall down the stairs in The Lost Weekend, Pip falling into a delirium in Great Expectations, with hand held camera-work and the throbbing sound).
Steven Spielberg - this is mostly a nostalgia vote and because he seems like a really good human being. Drew Barrymore says really good stuff about him from when she was a child actor. There were some kids who re-made an Indiana Jones movie and he sought them out to congratulate them. Lastly, when I was in elementary school we had an assignment to write some fan mail and I was the only kid in class to get something back. It was from his production company, but still he gets my vote every time.
I wouldn’t think of him as super showy. He does a lot of action films so he kind of has to be. But when you reviewed the Oscar nominated directors of 2022 you pointed out how he went full ELAMIDAM on “West Side Story.”
totally agree! I actually find it easy to pick out Speilberg's ELAMIDAM - his blocking, cam movements, even the absurdly placed humor.
I just cannot get enough of this channel. Now I've managed to "perfect" my screenwriting to the degree I know where I'm going, I needed some direction on, er, direction. I'll admit that on my budget these fancy camera moves (even Hitchcock's) are out of the question BUT I'm less afraid now of blocking. My latest short has three characters at a bar for the majority of the script, but now I'm more confident I can block it in a way that will tell the story - I'm thinking it more like a fixed stage where the camera is an audience member rather than dragging them through ... a keyhole? Really?
Elamidam. Thank you for adding a new amazing word to my vocabulary 🙏
Just feels like a 'there are two types of people in this world'. There's countless ways to divide and distinguish directors and the comparison is more an explanation of particular styles than a catch-all division system to group directors into.
Loved all your videos. Superb
Glad you’re enjoying them
Learning of the existence of this channel, of this video essayist, may be compared to, after having wholly imbibed a bottle of fine red one learns there is another bottle yet. And fried pork.
Im gonna talk like ELAMIDAM as if its an actual formal existing term , and use it so much that it becomes a reality
My favorite showy director is David Lynch. My favorite unshowy director is Sidney Lumet. Although I am not quite sure if Lynch counts as a showy director. His shots are quite simple.
His showiness comes from the editing and writing of his movies.
sometimes his camera will race to a goal or destination. he does one shot long takes,
also his choice of music creates a distinctly Lynchian feel in every moment somehow.
People move slowly and they are framed in consistant ways.
great composition.
sometimes his camera will race to a goal or destination. he does one shot long takes,
also his choice of music creates a distinctly Lynchian feel in every moment somehow.
People move slowly and they are framed in consistant ways.
great composition.
No, we don't need to move through the keyhole. But I don't know what we lost by going through it. Sometimes classical, sometimes ELAMIDAM; sometimes whiskey neat, sometimes on the rocks, sometimes in an old fashioned.
Both styles have their place and can be good or bad depending on who is doing it. I love the solid craftsmanship of classical films. But I also love Moulin Rouge!, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. My all-time favourite director is Georges Melies, so make of that what one will.
Michael Bay is the master of ELAMIDAM, I am filming and using your videos to be better, I agree with 100% of your videos.
That ending with Dennis was the best! Haha. love it.
In defense of ELAMIDAM, I'd argue they're not always screaming look AT me, but maybe screaming look THROUGH me...look at how I see the world or wish it was.
or maybe as a hopeless ELAMIDAM myself, I'm just lying to myself about why I like the visceral, tactile experience of those movies. what's wrong with a Flair-Gun being your weapon of choice? lolz
Since you already mentioned Wes Anderson, my favorite elamidamirector is Panos Cosmatos.
Your channel is brilliant. Thank you!
very necessary video!!! thanks a lot. any of my favourite showy ones, like Melville or Tarantino, feels invisible, meaning this that they make you believe the only way their stories would exist is through the way they tell them. others (lynch, gilliam...) just feel wanky to my taste. concerning invisible ones, the epitome to me is howard hawks, along with john ford.
elamidam is a nice term
Brilliant stuff
I learn something new every video
Ive always liked Raimi, Fincher and Aronofsky the literally spray Elamidam all over you
I love me some ELAMIDAM
You came up with a better term that I did. Mine has been LAMIAAA, Look-a at-a me-a, I'm-a a auteur-a.
The showiest of the showing, Baz Luhrmann
That's a great acronym!
Wes Anderson's my favourite showy director.
I understand your point of view but I didn't pay for my cinema ticket to watch a play. Personally I love David Fincher's style. The impeccable movement of the camera which passes through the objects gives a point of view that is both omniscient and voyeuristic which is used extremely well in fight club, it gives the viewer the impression of seeing everything and that nothing escapes them, which further reinforces the surprise during the final plot twist. 🤩
Yes exactly.
narrow taste
Classic cinema is not filmed theater, it’s just not flashy. It does have camera movement, cuts, pans, zoom, etc. But the director doesn’t wave at the audience all the time shouting “hey, I’m here!”
Agree about Wes Anderson doubling down!
Well, personally I find Baby Driver Wright's most stylish movie. It maxes out on everything I love about his movies. Except for Nick Frost and Simon Pegg but they are too British for it
What about straightforward storytelling (like it coulda been a play) in film like, say... "The Man From Earth", "12 Angry Men", "Rope", "My Dinner with Andre" or even "Mindwalk". I know those are basically conversations. All of which trapped me curious for a couple hours. No tricks. Should you allow a couple tricks, but still in the realistic approach and in the low-budget/ no-budget realm, I'd love to know where you stand on "Primer", "Coherence", "Exam", "The Decline Trilogy" (Dennis Arcan), "Tape" (basically any Richard Linklater movie). Those ones. How do you like them ?
My favorite showy director is Gaspar Noé
That is one director who is hellbent on getting his audience to throw up.
Today it's Hitch who's my fave. Tomorrow?
7:31 no amount of this kind of Elamidam will ever be able to top Orson Wells and Herman J. Mankiewicz directing their camera through a neon sign in Citizen Kane.
I believe "formalist" is the actual academic term for what you're talking about but elamidam is much funnier to say.
Great term!
Wong Kar Wai comes to mind as the ultimate Elamidam director.
Glad you brought up the David Fincher shots in Panic Room, especially because he added the sound of the camera "whooshing" past the objects. 🤮
Fincher messed up Aliens 3. made up for it on the fight club.
2:59 I heard you paint houses ?
I thought it was called " The Irishman "
And yet, not even a single Baz Luhrmann mention ? 😮wow
great channel.
Favourite showy director: David Lynch
Least favourite: Gaspar Nöe… all style and no substance
Because it's COOL....
Lol@ I heard you paint houses
I feel like I learned more about film analysis from your channel than I did on any supposed film theory book (which is mostly based on the stuff Harold Bloom warned us about).
I should read David Bordwell and his freinds/contemporaries as they seem like the only ones who actually understand film.
Спецэффекты - метод оболванивания
Здесь и резкий звук в придачу
Baz Luhrmann (Cough cough)
omg thank you
From my POV you misunderstood the point. It's not just because you don't get it that should be labeled as cocky. Sometimes its not about the ego. Its just artists doing whats they always do (since daVinci or before)... Searching news ways to telling a story. Searching for new ways to impact the listener. Touching other layers. It's like to call Van Gogh a "Elamidam" artist. But, thanks for sharing man!
damn... you're demolishing every unnecessary thing my numbed out brain was consuming without a second thought
I'm not sure if I like learning all this
although, hej, in for a penny in for demolishing early david fincher
It’s still fine I think his point is just that these directors get too much recognition and people are missing the nuanced directors. It’s like loud acting vs subtle acting, both can be good but also have their moments
No no, I'm on board. Whenever I understood nuance I always preferred nuance. same for subtlety. @@Flaming_penguin
what's the film on 3:23? Excalibur?
Yes
Anyone know the movie they show at 3:22?
I agree about Fincher’s evolution: at his best he is on a William Wyler style, at worst he is whatever the f7ck Benjamin Button was.
Being italian I'm forced to mention Paolo Sorrentino who, in my opinion, is a very ELAMIDAM director hahaha.
What's the name of the movie with the knight stabbing the other night with a spear over the red moon background?
Excalibur (John Boorman, 1981)
Beautiful, isn’t it?
@@Moviewise very much
Ethan und Joel Coen
0:17 what movie is that shot from?
Congrats! You've invented a weel. Academics vs. formalists.
Ken Russel
David Lynch
3:24 What is this movie?
Excalibur (1981)
@@christopherbostwick4476Thanks~
everybody look at me i am directing a movie :) so funny!
Sorry but I love Elamidam
Its more creative
Loved Guy Ritchie, he knows how to balance substance and style, his style amps up the emotions of the characters
and also, Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson
Ritchie’s over-the-top style is just what his over-the-top characters and dialogue need
Jean-Pierre Jeunet is the best.
Fit girl repack
I don’t know if I’m the only one but please lower the decibels on that “ding” sound effect. It gives me the shivers
wonderful - and yes, while the showmanship can be impressive... it can also distract from the story
For me, I’m always looking at the direction, the style. I don’t think you can separate the style and the story.
Guy Ritchie's Covenant has no style and it's boring as hell.
Kusturica=)
Just my humble personal opinion but Wes Anderson is one of the worst directors today. The only good movie he's ever made is Royal Tenenbaums. Most of his work is tedious over the top style over substance and in later years he seems to be so all over himself that his movies are basically about trying to "over-Wes Anderson" himself without anything meaningful to add or say.
I watched Asteroid City a few days ago and I think he's just repeating himself. The same strange animations, the same crazy colours, the same quirky characters.
I loved The Life Aquatic too btw, some other movies were also alright. It's just time for him to reinvent himself
Not a fan neither although I did appreciate his take on Mr Fox
🤣🤣🤣