Jump to content

joshua gallegos

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joshua gallegos

  1. 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.
  2. 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'...
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. The perfect way to die, would be in outer space, without the sight of another disgusting human being. Beautiful.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. I was referring to Douglas Milsome, I remember watching a Full Metal Jacket documentary where Stanley threatened to fire over him over lens choice.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Well, if you don't like her films, then no one else will convince you to like them. And there are people who seem to have it all, but are terribly unhappy. Just look at some of Hollywood's stars who have committed suicide, Marilyn Monroe had beauty, fame, wealth, yet it wasn't enough. You just can't classify people and expect them to behave a certain way, every person is different, every person inherits a different mixture of genomes, so every person you see is very different from one another. In fact DNA has the ability to come up with trillions of different combinations, so no person that is born is ever the same. I stay open minded and accept a character for he or she is. People are unpredictable, there's no set of rules as to how people should feel.
  17. That's not true at all, they aren't fine, because they're unhappy. There are some people who commit suicide, because they see no way out of their unhappiness, they have no hope and give up living. It reminds me of what Andy Dufrense said in Shawshank Redemption; "get busy living or get busy dying", there's no in between. Many people suffer from depression, which Is an internal conflict that ultimately affects the external relationships of an individual. So I find internal conflict as depicted in Sofia's films to be inherently real in every person that has ever lived, but she captures this in a way that's poetic with a movie camera. I mean wasn't that how the Virgin Suicides ended? The title kind of gives it away.
  18. I haven't seen the one with Clint Eastwood, but I wouldn't call it a remake, because I believe it's based on a novel? Plus I find Sofia's work to be very original, so I doubt it's a remake of the Clint Eastwood version. As for Sofia's body of work, I find most of the conflict arises internally, and that is very difficult to do when the writer doesn't resort to using a voice over as a form of stream of consciousness that let's the audience know what the character is thinking. I think there were real conflicts being faced in 'Lost In Translation', both characters were disillusioned with their lives, and they know they fell in love with the wrong people, but they're too afraid to get out, because they're already committed to those relationships, and I think that's the bond that the Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson characters connected with in the very beginning. Sofia Coppola captures the consequences of a person's decisions very realistically, when 'Lost In Translation' ends those characters will remember that moment when they part, because had they had chosen to stay together, their lives would have changed drastically. Even the smallest choices we make has a profound impact in the future, and both of those characters will possibly live with the regret of not knowing what might have been, and they'll go back to living unhappy lives, and faking every moment of it. That's why I think her central themes always deal with the illusion of happiness, and characters finding out that there is no such thing, because we're all too intrinsically complicated to be content with what we have. Or at least that's what I've absorbed from that film.
  19. I love Sofia Coppola's films, I've seen them all except for 'Marie Antoinette'; I went into this film not expecting what to see, since I make it a mission to not ever read log lines or movie reviews to have a more unpredictable experience, and I wasn't disappointed at all. I've only seen the film once, a couple of hours ago, but my first impression was the repressed emotional experience of the characters. The film takes place three years into the civil war, somewhere in the Antebellum south which was beautifully captured in 35mm film. The story begins with a young girl walking in a forest, who's picking up mushrooms for dinner, and along the way she finds a wounded Union soldier, who is taken back to a plantation house and nurtured back to health. I found this film to be a complete character study, as are all of Sofia's film, people who go in there looking for a plot won't find one that's intriguing enough to hold their attention. Sofia is more about painting discontentment, and the illusion of finding happiness. Her films, now that I think about it, are portraits of the human condition. But what I found more engaging was the repressed primal desire of women to remain civil in the presence of an alpha male like Colin Farrell. I was laughing at some of the scenes, because the story contains a comical aspect that isn't really funny as you watch it, but when I think back, some of those scenes were absolutely hysterical. Women certainly are mysterious in their thought process, human behavior is absolutely unpredictable and chaotic, especially in women. All this chaos in the film evolved through the visual stimuli that the women experienced based on this one man and his amazing good looks. And likewise, Colin Farrell felt the same experience, knowing that all the women who took him in were alone and vulnerable. Hence, sexual selection. The women are in competition with one another to reproduce with the Colin Farrell character, even if it is only due to their promiscuity, and the results are quite humorous. I absolutely loved the films, I think it's Sofia's best work!
  20. Well I'm neither an actor or director, so... But I guess you're a huge Ben Affleck fan, I personally think he makes films for self-aggrandizing reasons, he just wants to be important, and it shows. The best filmmakers don't make movies to win awards, and some filmmakers you can tell desperately make movies just so they can win awards. Ben Affleck is one of those "directors".
  21. But I was referring to the inherent style of a cinematographer that distinguishes him. Yes, I know a cinematographer is subservient to the story the director wants to tell, but surely there are external influences that have got nothing to do with the story's plot in terms of how the cinematographer uses light. For instance, the style that Jordan Cronenweth invented for Blade Runner has become a cliche in modern sci-fi films, it has become the "standard" for lighting sci-fi movies, yes the story calls for the light to do this and that for dramatic purposes, but the style didn't emerge from the story, it came from Jordan's vision of HOW light would work in such a futuristic world. But yes, I don't know why I wrote that a cinematographer doesn't think about the story, because that's their function when they are hired, but I meant to refer to their overall style and influences that have shaped their understanding of light.
  22. Yes, but as a cinematographer, you would want it to appear "incidental" so that it has a natural feeling and not appear to be too "designed"? I thought cinematographers attempted to avoid cliche, for instance the way comedies are lit is completely boring. In 'Some Like It Hot' Billy Wilder broke the convention of overlighting a comedy, and it has the feel and look of a noir. Isnt there a difference between setting and story? I mean a creepy old castle would appear the same in a dark stormy night regardless of genre, wouldn't it? Regardless of whatever story the filmmaker was telling, the setting would still look the same. But I won't question you, since this is your profession, I'm just in the sidelines observing and trying to learn a thing or two. I thought most of the design was in the image size, how it all cuts together, etc.
  23. But doesn't the setting of the story influence the overall lighting before anything else? When you say "story", do you mean you force the light to appear in a certain way, even if it's unnatural? Because, when I see Carol Reed's 'The Third Man' you remember certain scenes when light does something magical, but it purely comes from the setting of the picture. For instance, when Orson Welles makes his memorable intro, we see him unearthed from the dark shadows by the light coming from an apartment window. Light in itself is motivated by the setting, and how a character interacts with the light is purely incidental. The setting dictates how light behaves, not the story. I think camera movement, lens choice, etc is what is most integral to the storytelling process. At lest that's my own observation.
  24. The guy's a terrible director and actor, Oscars don't mean a thing, it proves absolutely nothing.
  25. I disagree, a director hires a cinematographer for his expertise in a field that a director would know nothing about. DO you think some dumb cluck like Ben Affleck knows a thing about blocking or lighting, I bet the cinematographer holds his hand through the entire process. A cinematographer is the wizard of moviemaking, a GREAT director will concentrate on his actors, and trust everyone around him to do their job, because they were hired for their incredible abilities to do whatever it is they were hired to do, unless they are a special exception like Stanley Kubrick who was a great master of photography. A great example is Gordon Willis, Francis had very conventional ideas about how the scenes should be lit and Gordon realized his ideas were not very good, so he took control and gave Godfather the look we see today, with the overhead lighting he used, everyone was complaining that you couldn't see the image, because of how he underexposed them. Gordon had such a special way of seeing, and controlling light and shadow to the best of the camera's ability, and not just that but his framing and understanding how films are composed. Whenever you see something shot by Gordon Willis you experience his indelible mark, and the director takes ALL the credit, it becomes his film, simply because he "directed" it.
  • Create New...