joshua gallegos

Just saw my favorite film of the year, I really loved the performances and the overall message of love and tolerance, it was nice to sit through a traditional narrative and the overall insight of how 'Wonder Woman' was created, and how her creation helped the feminist movement in America. This is a great film that everyone should see, I'm really sick of all the hatred and the divisiveness against one another in this country, this is the kind of film that brings people together and it's worth your time. I also loved the cinematography of the picture, the warm tone it has, it has a serene feeling to it, but I especially loved the performances, such great chemistry.

I always go into a film with an open mind, and I truly want to enjoy what I'm watching, I rarely go to any film these days, and I only watch films that feature directors, actors, or cinematographers that I like, but this film wanted to be something that it wasn't, it was just counterfeit moviemaking, and I felt nothing for it at all. I can honestly say the baby being devoured by the cult followers didn't affect me, I've seen so much real carnage in life, that film gore has no effect on me whatsoever. America is shielded from most of the carnage that takes place in Syria or in Mexico, but unspeakable acts of terror and genocide are taking place world wide that we know nothing about, because the media chooses not to show you how hopeless the world is truly becoming. We are kept away in a fantasy land like children, to quote Colonel Kurtz in 'Apocalypse, Now'...

You will find that ancient civilizations invented answers to most of life's mysteries, some people believe that the world is merely a few thousand years old, when in actuality it is 4 billion years old, this is all evidence based data. The human genome project revealed that all life on earth is related to one another and that we evolved from a replicating single-cell organism. We are biological machines confined by the laws of nature, humans tend to be rather ego-centric about themselves, exaggerating their importance, if you only took a glimpse at the real world, people die every day in horrendous ways, people of all ages, and there is no hope in sight to save us from our selves. Most of the elements that life is made up of here on Earth is common throughout the universe, it is only that space distances are so vast that we are unable to find other life similar to ours. We're really not so special.

I personally despised this film, and its playtime was incredibly short-lived in movie theaters. It is different than all the mass junk being made, but I thought Aronofsky was grossly self-absorbed with himself in this picture, and I found it absolutely nauseating how he pretends to masquerade this film as some kind of allegorical piece of cinema. In short, it's not very subtle and it wasn't done right. I'm a fan of Aronofsky's earlier work: Pi, Black Swan, The Wrestler, and I was looking forward to this new film of his, but came out of the theater confused and felt the whole thing was a waste of time. I think David Lynch does it way better with films such as 'Mulholland Drive', Lynch plays around with parallel realities- a variation of outcomes that play out simultaneously as captured in 'Inland Empire'. In the film 'Mother!', the camera never deviates from Jennifer Lawrence (hey, that's not a bad thing), but throughout the entire movie she was merely reacting to everything that happened around her, I mean, nothing really happens in the entire movie! At least with Bergman films and Tarkovsky, the characters are introspective, in this film we have none of that. It's almost as if Aronofsky saw Rosemary's Baby and then typed up some odd variation of that film in three days.

I liked Villeneueve's vision of the 'Blade Runner' world, mostly because we're dealing with a character who has an awakening of a much deeper reality that is rather sad and empty. I find that in this life, the whole concept that humans have a soul, and that there is an after-life is nothing more than a comforting lie. In the first installment you have replicants searching for their maker to prolong their lives, but most importantly they want answers as to why they exist, they have inherited this existential curiosity of what our place in the universe is. I deeply admire Philip K. Dick and his vision of the future, I firmly believe the world is on the verge of destroying itself with nuclear weapons which will deeply affect the world's ecosystem and cause world wide famine and cataclysms that will endanger our species, I've even read articles that mention how the price of water will skyrocket, seeing as fresh water is scarce in most third world countries, and turning salt water into purified water requires so much energy, that it is currently an engineering impossibility. The future is bleak for humanity in the Blade Runner world, and the newer model of replicants seem to be united for one common purpose, something that humans can't do. If you look closely all humans are depicted as violent and genocidal; Sullivan even remarks how his replicants have occupied 9 planets in outer worlds, so I assume there are more replicants than humans at this point. Life has become synthetic, so to some degree some parts of the movie make very little sense, such as the Robin Wright character worrying about information leaking to the mass public, concerning the replicant that can reproduce life, I mean replicants must have outnumbered humans by now at this point, I assume, since Sullivan mentions he has created "millions" of these replicants for the sole purpose of slavery. The film wasn't a box office success, so I don't think we'll be watching the sequel to BR:2049 anytime soon, but I'd sure like to see where it goes from here.

A lot of prospective directors usually manage to get noticed by producers through film festivals. Short films are usually the way to go, there have been some filmmakers who make a short film version of their feature, and if it garners acclaim in festival circuits there will usually be some producer who will want to make the feature if the filmmaker shows promise. If you try to make a film without any credentials, then no one will take you seriously, because where's the talent? where's the commitment to the craft? Filmmaking is far too expensive, and even when a talented filmmaker is involved it still isn't enough to garner interest on a feature that will cost a million to make, and about 4 million dollars to market. So, your chances of making a feature on your own is pretty slim, unless you have a rich family like Lena Dunham. You just need some kind of legitimacy to begin with before you can flirt with the idea of making of feature.

But the cinematographer has an entire team of skilled technicians to do all of that, the cinematographer should be the one with all the creative ideas, he or she doesn't need to know everything, because chances are you won't need to know how to pull off so many intricate shots, unless you're doing some huge blockbuster movie with a 200m dollar budget.

The perfect way to die, would be in outer space, without the sight of another disgusting human being. Beautiful.

Anyone can learn the technical aspect of filmmaking if you have the equipment available, you play long enough with this tech for a couple of days, you become adept with it. The whole gamut of cinematography or the application thereof is more philosophical, because if you approach a film absentmindedly and focus on the technicality like Shane, you end up with a film that means absolutely nothing. I find that a simple approach that is well thought out has more power, if you present a frame where the viewer can absorb what is happening and give them a chance to think, it has more depth and meaning. So, it's bullshit how someone like him is monetizing off of young aspiring cinematographers who should spend their money on a stills camera, and develop their way of seeing. To be a cinematographer you really need to have an eye, a unique way of seeing or interpreting the world, and it's a talent that not many have. In filmmaking, many are called but few are chosen.

Back to the film, which I saw again yesterday. I spotted subliminal imagery in the very end, which is very noticeable if you're paying attention. The film ends with the shot of a steel gate that has metal bars, with triangular pointed edges. In the end you will see that one of the metal bars is meant to represent an erect penis that pierces through one of the women's mid-section. I knew there was more to the film that meets the eye. Macks, I don't know what point you're attempting to make, but if you don't like Sofia's films, then so be it. I find her to be different, I love how her films have a silence to them, they're not overly loud with boisterous soundtracks, you have moments to think and observe, there is always an excellent deliberate pace; she's never in a hurry to tell a story, even though her films are pretty short. And I love that there's that kind of variety. And, I do love ENTERTAINING films like Wonder Woman; only in Wonder Woman you can tell the producers trusted the very talented Patty Jenkins to tell the story the way she wanted, and the end result was a layered, humorous film with charming moments where the characters just sit and share their thoughts. I think women directors add a different layer to cinema that most men cannot.

I was referring to Douglas Milsome, I remember watching a Full Metal Jacket documentary where Stanley threatened to fire over him over lens choice.

Arguing with you is absolutely pointless, which is why I'll ignore anything that you post from now on. Sofia's rich upbringing is irrelevant, because she could've decided to be another Paris Hilton and spend all her dad's money, but instead she started just like any other filmmaker by making a short film called 'Lick the Star'. Money is irrelevant to a real artist, because they still manage to create amazing work, even without a budget. Consider Chris Nolan's first feature 'Following' or David Lynch's 'EraserHead'; you can't tell me they had an audience in mind when they made those films, I mean to some degree they think about what effect a certain scene will have on the audience, but filmmakers are storytellers, they tell stories, whether moviegoers want to jump on board and watch the movies they make is another thing. You on the other hand are attempting to breakl into the movie business, because you want to become some millionaire big shot, and I assume you don't have any original ideas to begin with, and to me that's the lowest form of parasite in the filmmaking business. Someone like the Wayans who produce embarrassing content, because they want to make a quick buck.

What films have you produced?, I've never even heard of you before, just because you're producing some straight to video knockoff it doesn't make you more of an authority on the subject of filmmaking. Anyone with 100k can make "50 Shades of Black", cast some of the lesser known Wayans and call it entertainment. It's what the people want right, second rate bullshit. If I were you, I'd use the word "artist" sparingly. David Lynch is an artist. Sofia Coppola is an artist. Paul Thomas Anderson is an artist. Money is irrelevant. David Lynch turned down a multi-million dollar deal to make a Star Wars film. So, you do your thing and entertain, I'll be watching real artists do what they do best.

But who's to say what's interesting and what isn't, that's all purely subjective. Some viewers will pick out Transformers over Citizen Kane, simply because Citizen Kane is in black and white. And what does it matter if Sofia had a rich upbringing it doesn't make her any less of an artist, her films are personal and they're not intended for everyone's viewing pleasure. I'd watch any of her films over any of Steven Spielberg's films. I like filmmakers that make personal films, not just to entertain the masses. If I were making films, I wouldn't give a damn about what everyone likes, I'd be in it to please myself first and foremost.

I've wondered, when a director does this, does he have to walk around with a light meter and decide what exposure he wants, how many fixtures he's going to need to expose the scene, decisions about diffusion and color temperature, or will he leave all the real work to someone else? I can understand someone like Reed Morano being her own DP when she's directing, because she's done it for a very long time, and she's pretty damn good at it. Even Stanley Kubrick, knowledgable as he was, he still hired a DP that he could use as his own little puppet to get things done more efficiently.