Go Back   THE NIGHTMARE NETWORK > Discussion & Interpretation > Thomas Ligotti > General Discussion
Home Forums Content Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Contagion Members Media Diversion Info Register
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes Translate
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 01-11-2018   #26
GirlyGirlMask's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 130
Quotes: 0
Points: 2,323, Level: 31 Points: 2,323, Level: 31 Points: 2,323, Level: 31
Level up: 16% Level up: 16% Level up: 16%
Activity: 99% Activity: 99% Activity: 99%
Re: The Big Screen vs The Small Screen

Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
Quote Originally Posted by GirlyGirlMask View Post
Maybe I'll check a few of those out. I'm just incredibly snobbish and pretentious about films. I hate the way modern cinema is edited, and I don't like the pacing of most newer films I see. Shots never linger...I think I read that the average length of a shot in a film these days is 3 seconds. It's all so A.D.D. And over half the shots in a film these days are close ups, it's like watching two hours of floating heads. The close up was intended to have an impact, to put an emphasis on an important detail or highlight a character's emotions in an intense moment. I want to see things in a beautifully composed wide shot, where the actors and director have worked hard to establish blocking and camera movements, where the shot is a longer take and the talent is on display. It's too easy to just cut back and forth between close-ups of actors' faces with a fuzzy background. That doesn't take any skill at all. I'm rambling here, my apologies.
I would strongly argue that the editing you are referring to at the end there (the 'shot reverse shot') was far more prevalent during classic cinema than it is today. Even in big budget shlock the camera movement and editing is generally more dynamic in conversations than the average 1940s film:

Both random examples of mainstream studio films from both eras I could YouTube. The Spidey scene soon settles into the same grammar as the 40s scene.

In terms of the length of a shot, I don't find a fast or slow editing style more valid than the other, and each can be executed wonderfully or poorly. It doesn't take any less skill if the shots aren't around for as long a time. If anything there is even more pressure for the director and cinematographer to convey all of the information and beauty in a shorter span of time.

All good points. I know what the "shot/reverse shot" is, I am an amateur filmmaker myself. But I lump Casablanca in with today's formulaic Hollywood fare, blasphemous as that may be. It was, essentially, a product of the studio system. In the late 50's/early 60's cinema underwent a radical change and became much more director driven, as opposed to producer driven and the films were more artistic and original, those great New Hollywood movies, the French new wave, etc. It seems things have come back around, and we are now back at the studio system of the 30s and 40s where the studio heads are calling the shots and films are all about marketability (formulas that sell, actors that sell). It's sad to me.

And while you're correct that today's close ups are more dynamic, I don't find that appealing. My problem is the over reliance on close ups and medium and two shots in general, whether the camera is moving or not. Hitchcock, Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Polanski, Coppola-- all of those great filmmakers during that wonderful 60s and 70s golden age of cinema used close ups for a reason. To draw attention to a detail you would miss in medium or wide, or to get close to the eyes, to the emotions. There are many other issues I have with modern films. Too much exposition these days, which breaks the "show, don't tell rule"-- I'm tired of being treated like an idiot that can't figure things out on my own. Bad actors that have gigs because their faces are marketable. Cookie cutter scores that sound like every other score in their particular genre. Predictable scripts that hit every beat like they are following a template (they are).

I don't expect many to agree with me, many of my friends love today's films and that's perfectly fine, as this is a very subjective thing. But, to me, post millenial films are inferior to most of what came before. I hope nobody is offended by this, I don't think my preferences are superior to anyone else's, but they are my preferences and I stand by them.
GirlyGirlMask is offline   Reply With Quote
3 Thanks From:
bendk (01-11-2018), miguel1984 (01-11-2018), ToALonelyPeace (01-11-2018)


big, screen, small

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Big Engine by Fritz Leiber Steve Dekorte YouTube Selections 1 08-17-2016 06:09 PM
'True Detective' Season 2 News: HBO Crime Drama Heading To The Big Screen? Ascrobius Television 62 05-26-2016 05:25 PM
BIG News in New Interview (New Stories?!) Nicole Cushing Ligotti News 0 06-21-2013 06:47 PM
The Next Big Thing Stu Other News 3 11-28-2012 11:20 AM
Posts too wide for screen The Silent One Error Reports and Problems 5 09-28-2005 10:25 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:09 PM.

Style Based on SONGS OF A DEAD DREAMER as Published by Silver Scarab Press
Design and Artwork by Harry Morris
Emulated in Hell by Dr. Bantham
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Template-Modifications by TMS