Search Results
7/20/2025, 5:01:51 AM
>>212908495
I had to pause it. I'm not exaggerating. It's really overwhelming to me. I had to share it. I feel strongly about film, the language of film, the music of film. I am sensitive about the texture of an image or the tempo of a shot, these things that are difficult to put into words and I am very frustrated with the discourse of film criticism and film theory. No one talks about these things, they just talk about plot, could be commenting the screenplay. Not what is contained within the moving images. It's hard to put into words. Like prose or melody. How do you explain why certain prose style moves you or annoys you? It's weird to me that it's seen as weird on a film board. It's weird to me that so few care even here. But I'm glad a few anons understand even if I know I sound very spergy or not clear enough.
I tried to explain clearly and made points, like the objective devolution of length-per-shot over decades but also I hope the webms are self evident and don't need me to explain what is obvious if you have eyes. Sometimes I wonder if people still watch movies with their eyes? Do they watch, but do they not see? It is the same as music, do they hear but not listen?
I was instantly struck by the Spielbergian elegance and tempo. I described it as such in OP. Before I learned he pre-produced it, likely storyboarded etc. My senses and cinematic intuition are on point. Like recognizing a melody or a prose signed anonymous but belonging to a master. I saw. Yet I find 0 resource online digging into this connection
The last time I was struck like this was when I rewatched Jurassic Park.
>>212908876
My words are layered, I am talking about how things are perceived, described, is this not obvious? I am misunderstood itt. You have to read between lines. I love "Clancy shlock". A Clancy sort of plot as adapted by Hollywood and as perceived by consensus, Clancy as a brand, genre and derivative formula, not my thoughts on Clancy the author.
>>212909031
exactly...
I had to pause it. I'm not exaggerating. It's really overwhelming to me. I had to share it. I feel strongly about film, the language of film, the music of film. I am sensitive about the texture of an image or the tempo of a shot, these things that are difficult to put into words and I am very frustrated with the discourse of film criticism and film theory. No one talks about these things, they just talk about plot, could be commenting the screenplay. Not what is contained within the moving images. It's hard to put into words. Like prose or melody. How do you explain why certain prose style moves you or annoys you? It's weird to me that it's seen as weird on a film board. It's weird to me that so few care even here. But I'm glad a few anons understand even if I know I sound very spergy or not clear enough.
I tried to explain clearly and made points, like the objective devolution of length-per-shot over decades but also I hope the webms are self evident and don't need me to explain what is obvious if you have eyes. Sometimes I wonder if people still watch movies with their eyes? Do they watch, but do they not see? It is the same as music, do they hear but not listen?
I was instantly struck by the Spielbergian elegance and tempo. I described it as such in OP. Before I learned he pre-produced it, likely storyboarded etc. My senses and cinematic intuition are on point. Like recognizing a melody or a prose signed anonymous but belonging to a master. I saw. Yet I find 0 resource online digging into this connection
The last time I was struck like this was when I rewatched Jurassic Park.
>>212908876
My words are layered, I am talking about how things are perceived, described, is this not obvious? I am misunderstood itt. You have to read between lines. I love "Clancy shlock". A Clancy sort of plot as adapted by Hollywood and as perceived by consensus, Clancy as a brand, genre and derivative formula, not my thoughts on Clancy the author.
>>212909031
exactly...
Page 1