I kind of hate talking about film, to an extent, just because I don't believe my language or analytical abilities are sharp enough to either say anything coherent or truly express how I feel.
But, I do like movies, and I do like the discussion of movies, so most of my experiences in this realm are ones where I'm reading said discussions. Good, thoughtful, intelligent exchanges, where things are said and learned.
like here. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/board
Lately I've been reading a lot of David Bordwell. He wrote one of my textbooks last year, which was very ok...
(It's kind of funny how when the internet leads you somewhere once, you 99% of the time won;t go back to it again. There's too much to see, to many distractions, to many other things to do. Why does this site deserve your time and energy? [thx JD]. But when you unexpectedly return to a site, your chances of visiting and revising that site are almost guaranteed)
So in some of my extended internet browsing, I stumbled upon the extremely well educated Mr. Bordwell's blog twice, and read a lot of what he had to say. He doesn't so much criticize things as much as he asks questions and provides information, history, and context. Why does Cloverfield make people nauseous? What's the deal with that flat, symmetrical shot we see a lot in indies? Is the Bourne Trilogy really that original?
He draws from a truly encyclopedic knowledge of film and doesn't hesitate to compare Tati, Chaplin, the Coen Brothers, and CRANK (with Jason Statham) in the same set of paragraphs. see said discussion here
more stuff below. Just explore.
Cloverfield + pre-Cloverfield
Bourne stuff
Insane Godard Aspect ratio talk
And NATIONAL TREASURE
1 comment:
i didn't invent logic, but thanks anyways blayk. I like the fact that you held yourself the the promise of constant updates.
Post a Comment