https://twitter.com/3xchair/status/1715503235899765197?t=qTx-ElMmQDTedmz_zPhP2A&s=19
1 Like
Paprika is just fantastic, A+.
Ahhh well I think a lot of movies are better at a theater just for the communal experience, but yeah these two are movies that are infinitely enhanced by seeing them (in comfort) on the biggest screen possible. Well worth it if you get a chance for a few bucks.
Decided to give this review a go and itās in that class of supposed high brow right wingers where they know just saying āthis makes white people look badā isnāt good enough, but ultimately thatās all they want to and know how to say so they throw in a bunch of stuff that makes no sense. I could not follow along with what his argument was.
Check for naming some obscure film that no oneās heard of but, for some reason, heās really mad about.
1 Like
The sound mix alone has to drop it 3 points.
Armond White is the patron saint of wtf movie reviews. He hates Toy Story and gave lavish praise to Transformers.
Many consider him to be a troll who uses insane starting positions to gain relevance, but others think he is just that far out there from other critics. He made headlines almost ten years ago when he was kicked out of the New York City Film Critics Circle.
I wouldnāt read too much of his stuff, especially if it has no entertainment value for you, but I actually really enjoyed episodes of the Filmcast where they try like hell to make it work with him as the guest.
Hereās the guys discussing Inception.
He is just a boring troll who takes contrary opinions for the sole goal of attention. When you actually read his takes there is almost never any substance to it.
If he didnāt do this he would be completely unknown so I guess good for him in the dystopian modern way we measure success.
yup and the correct thing to do is completely ignore him and all the other internet/twitter trolls that do this shit. Donāt click on their tweets, donāt link them all over the place, donāt try and dunk on them, donāt write a novel explaining why theyāre wrong just act they donāt exist.
1 Like
I got something real juicy for ya.
1 Like
Neat video, thanks.
I had my problems with the script, but that version does not sound like an improvement.
1 Like
Right thereās lots of stuff I think Nolan actually improved on, tho as I mentioned to CanadaMatt in the other thread, I liked the diverse alien life they would have encountered. Fractals that can combine into new entities??! Predators that live inside hyperspace?!??!?? So fkin cool.
1 Like
I canāt believe this take isnāt more common. The ending was super silly.
Since weāre comparing to 2001, isnāt that just as, if not more, silly?
Iām going in for Godfather II, which I donāt think Iāve ever seen. Letās see if millions of dudebros are right in calling it the best movie ever.
I assume youāve seen Part I? I wouldnāt recommend II before I.
Anyway, the dudebros are correct, I and II are so good that it feels absurd to give any other movie a perfect score. Iāve had to carve away the part of my brain that tries to pose the question of ādoes this deserve the same grade as The Godfather I and II?ā every time Iām inclined to give five stars, because the answer is always obviously no and it would kind of break the scale to use that as the measuring stick.
I wish I knew why you think an Oscar nominated sound mix was so terrible. You take this line every time someone brings the movie up and I finally couldnāt take it anymore. I barely remember the movie anymore but I donāt remember having any major issues with the sound mix.
To put a finer point on this, Oscar nominations in tech categories are nominated by peers not the entire Academy (entire Academy votes on winners). So either you or the highest end mixers of movies are wrong. I know which way Iām leaning. You probably just saw it in a bad theater and are blaming that experience on the sound mix and not the place you saw it.
1 Like
Lots of people noted/had problems with the sound mix. Nolan even says he made intentional choices at times to mix the dialogue low and boost the score or sound fx in ways that emphasized the sounds and made the dialogue harder to understand.
Now since those were intentional choices made by veteran film makers, I can see how many voters who work in the industry would understand those choices and appreciate them. That being said, as a simple person who just wants to watch a movie, I feel like if the dialogue is important, I should be able to understand it.
If it isnāt important, then cut the words entirely, or make it so distorted that I know that Iām not supposed to understand it.
2 Likes
Iāve read the articles and think itās worth noting peers tend to reward people who take effective chances.
As for the articles, itās worth noting Nolanās spewing a bunch of b.s. in his.
Here are some examples:
- I donāt agree with the idea that you can only achieve clarity through dialogue. Clarity of story, clarity of emotions ā I try to achieve that in a very layered way using all the different things at my disposal ā picture and sound.ā
TRANSLATION: I JUST MADE UP A BUNCH OF STUFF
- But Nolan said the movieās sound is exactly as he intended and he praised theaters for presenting it correctly.
TRANSLATION: THE EXHIBITORS KEPT COMPLAINING
- I like to hear it out where people are going to see it, not just in the cocoon of the dub stage. That is something I have done for years, because everything we are doing is intended to communicate something to the audience.ā
TRANSLATION: I DONāT TRUST WHAT THEY PLAY ME
- Nolan attributed Interstellar ās sound to āvery tight teamworkā among composer Hans Zimmer , re-recording mixers Gary Rizzo and Gregg Landaker and sound designer Richard King . āWe made carefully considered creative decisions,ā he said.
TRANSLATION: EVERYONE WAS MAD AT EACH OTHER
- Itās not that nobody has ever done these things before, but itās a little unconventional for a Hollywood movie.ā
TRANSLATION: THE EXECS COMPLAINED AND COMPLAINED
- We wanted to avoid the traditional layering of sound. We wanted to distinguish the worlds based on very intimate, recognizable sounds. The water planet was a lot of splashing. In contrast the ice planet had the crunch of the glaciers,ā he said.
TRANSLATION: I THINK SOUND IS STUPID AND LAME
- āWe mixed for months and months and we talked about everything. We must have mixed this film over six months. It was a continuous, organic process and discussion.ā
TRANSLATION: IT TOOK SO LONG AND WE ALL HATED EACH OTHER
What he describes as organic was probably a lot of fighting. 6 months to mix a Hollywood movie is a very long time, when most schedules are highly compressed. Decisions like āhow loud do we make the ambience vs. the voice?ā take roughly 5 minutes to experiment with and implement. The first pass is generally how the mixers intended it, and then it becomes his job to turn it into his vision. Thatās where the discussions are likely taking placeā¦once heās seen a first pass.
A fun example of a mixer first pass āmistakeā was on the movie Heat and how that first pass intent can be gotten very wrong (first pass is the mixer(s)ā creativity and the rest are almost always someone elseās vision if there are major creative shifts). At the end of the movie thereās an iconic shootout after the bank robbery in downtown Los Angeles. When Mann went to watch the mix he asked the sound mixers where all the great sound he recorded was (probably not in a very nice way).
They had done it with ātraditionalā Hollywood sound, and not the production/b-roll sound that is some of the most amazing sound ever put on film. I have no idea how long it took and whether they were ready for this note, but everything from production was put back in and used in that scene. It probably didnāt even take all that long to edit in (outside of it still being mixed on tape and the pain that would have been) and mix unless they did some intricate layering of the sound from various takes to give perspectives (something Iāll also never know).
I also like when mixers take effective chances, especially when most filmmakers are pretty timid when it comes to those chances. Iāve worked with several of the biggest directors ever on pieces/commentaries/whatever where they were personally approving my work/giving notes on sound edits/mixes and itās clear sound mystifies most of them because these gigantic directors didnāt seem to care at all about things I thought were important chances taken. Iād expect these directors to be very picky about this kind of stuff and they just arenāt.
Like all things in the industry, the choices you make of who to surround yourself with and how you become who you are will be the defining factor of success (even the ridiculously bland director Rob Cohen knew if he got Dean Semler as his cinematographer that his movies would look at least like a good movie but that was probably all he knew). This is why many directors choose to work with the same people over and over. People who are always trying to do their best work, especially because of who the director is and because they understand the directorās language. I know Iām on my A-game whenever I work with that kind of person, but I always try to be on my A-game no matter who Iām working with.
And now more generallyā¦
As a mixer, especially when it comes to surround mixes, the main thing thatās drilled into your head is to not distract the audience with ācoolā things. There are certain things in sound mixes that are intended to make you really concentrate and then things that are just plain distracting to the point where it takes you out of the movie. I can understand the desire to hear everything clearly at all times but that mix is usually very uninteresting and lacking of impact.
A lot of great mixes make you work as an audience member to pull you into the film. Thatās usually done by setting up your anchor of hearing. Youāll notice in almost every movie that you have to strain a litle to hear dialog at the beginning. About 10 to 15 minutes in, your ears have adusted to this and are ready for the āboomā of whateverās coming later. The problem is when someone does this and then goes so big that your ears have a hard time adjusting back down. This is very common in movie mixing these days and itās a lot more annoying than the little I remember about the Interstellar mix.
As mixer throughout my nearly 30 year career, the single most common note I get is to turn down the music. Thatās happening a lot less these days, which makes me wonder if Iām mixing music too low now. It was a note I used to want so I could know where the edge was in every mix. To have a director let you do cool things is really fun. The question is if these articles were a situation where everyone is lying after the fact to justify decisions that didnāt land well for too many people.
As one last little point, life is extremely loud and hard to hear through. Next time youāre out in your city, go stand on a corner. Then just listen. Hear how many sounds are going on, how easy it would be to drown something out. I personally hate when ambiences are mixed low, because it just doesnāt feel real. I donāt want it like 70s New York movie loud, because I like to hear like real life, but Iām very much in the minority on that based on notes I receive when I try to do that where most directors/producers want to bury ambiences.
I love this quote in the first article about American Sniper:
āThe story is on the screen,ā says Rudloff of the approach to the mix. āYou want to be cautious that you donāt pull the audience out of the movie by doing something thatās distracting to the story.ā
He said the exact quote of whatās drilled into our heads as mixers. If you put a sniper on a rooftop and hear the bullet whizz by behind your ear, youāre looking back at the monitor and thinking, āthat was coolā and there could have been 10 lines of dialog that were missed. Thatās the essence of the quote and not going overboard with the tools weāre given. Itās one thing to strain to hear something, itās quite another to be distracted away from whatās going on in front of you. Iāll take strain over distraction any day as both a mixer and an audience member. Revisiting those articles just reminded me that I remember some of those choices and donāt remember being bothered by the mix. I donāt remember if I loved the mix, but I know I didnāt hate it.
6 Likes
Just watched this one (Australian ghost story shot in a mockumentary/found footage style, for those who donāt know about it).
Itās one of those movies which is ok but mostly boring for 3/4 of the runtime, had me wondering why so many people like it, but then the last 20 mins are so good (including 1 min in there that is really up there as one of the best horror movie visions) that it made it all worth it. Strong emotions in the end.
(feels like the beginning would have been much better if every zoom was 10x slower to let us kinda see the ghost before itās in full screen, pretty big stylistic mistake)
Also every landscape shot in this is great (I feel like this every time I watch a movie set in Australia, Hollywood should relocate at least half of its activity there imo)
1 Like
Half disagree on this one.
I agree that it felt tonally weird to have this in this form. On the other hand itās understandable that Scorsese wouldnāt want to end his 3+ hour movie by the standard āsentences written over black screenā. Itās also mostly a pretext for being able to put himself on screen to deliver the last sentence. Here I fully disagree with you on it being forced. This is an artist (at the final stage of his career and most likely of his life) showing us that he cares about his art and what he chooses to represent, I found it extremely moving.
I also really liked the movie. Probably made better by the fact than I knew nothing about this piece of US history. Lily Gladstone was great (too bad sheās sick off-screen for the majority of it though). Could easily have been 1 hour shorter but Iām not complaining.