Thread 213984419

Why is it so fucking kino?

>>213984419 (OP)
Meant to post

>>213984481
I mean, it's good.
But the original is beyond special.

>>213984419 (OP)

It's a very colorful film, as your montage perfectly demonstrates. Night is dominated by purples and blacks (especially when Sally is being chased, the headlight still gives us a taste of that), dawn is heralded by hot, sickly orange, (seen in both beginning and end, as shown here), and the day is dominated by the blue and green of nature, but also includes many other hues. We are seeing one full day in full color.

At 80 minutes, the film uses every last second with maximum effect. Repeat viewings reward the attentive viewer, as they are many rhymes and resonances throughout the story, and the production design. Just one example of this: When they check out the old abandoned Hardesty place, Sally comments on an ancient wallpaper that she remembers seeing when staying there as a little girl, a pattern including zebras and other animals. There are "animals on the wall". A short time later, when Kirk enters the other house, he sees a bunch of taxidermy in the central area. Both houses have animals on the walls, within a few minutes of each other.

The film begins with several distinct "openings", and spends a good 5-6 minutes of its runtime on them. For a short feature, this is very precious time, so the elements had better work together perfectly to establish mood and begin story while doing standard credit sequence stuff. They do. The "disclaimer" tricks the newbie into thinking this might possibly be based on a true story. The hitchhiker/photographer is heard doing his thing, then the film knocks us over the head with the corpse sculpture. (The very attentive/prescient viewer now has just enough information to guess ahead of time that the grave robber and the hitchhiker are the same person) Then the opening credits proper play, again showing heat, sunlight, solar flare. This is a hot film. Radio narration of dread throughout. This is all "music", and all the elements work together, as I've tried to show in this chart.

>>213984419 (OP)
These "every frame a painting" instagramification style screenshot collections don't really work for a film like TCM. The film's unique quality comes from it's ugliness, not its beauty.

>>213984694
Very interesting! I really love when people think of stuff like this, so thanks for sharing. I saw the 4K re-release, after having not seen it for a while, and I can't get it out of my head.
There just feels like a lot of rhythm in the editing. It's either really meticulous or an act of unbelievable luck, but I believe it's the former.
>>213984745
I kind of feel like it is a beautiful looking film, despite the budget shortcuts. The quality is gnarly, but it manages to capture a lot of great composition for something that feels so spur of the moment.

>>213984694
There goes chartfag again

>>213984419 (OP)
Movie is proof that cinematography is an artform and it elevates a basic ass plot into kino.

>>213985037
It is a simple plot, but it's made up for with the thematic parallels.

A moment in time, those brief seconds after waking from a vivid dream where it's not yet decaying rapidly but the seams are showing and you're trying to cling on, or maybe let go.

>>213984488
Special ed

>>213984881

I politely disagree, it was more of an accidental masterpiece IMO. Hooper is competent, but not a meticulous genius. But he had enough good intuition and pure creativity while young to make TCM, which was what counted. A lot of the rhymes in production design and story are natural to just filming shots of the same sorts of things/story ideas, and other things may have been accidents, but at least some elements were definitely intentional. I think the animals on the walls were one example of an intentional element, together with the proximity of the two houses, to move the story forward and show that the two families are not so far apart from each other. Another nice thing is how the four villains are each introduced (more or less) separately (we understand general threat but the virginal viewer may not directly connect all of them immediately), but it's only once Sally is dragged into the house that they all turn out to be the same family, adding to the dread. Basic story structure stuff but it's pulled off well to raise the stakes here.

>>213984419 (OP)
It's a shit and annoying movie because the characters are literal retards who can't stick together.

>>213984881
>>213985037
If TCM has any "beauty" it's not in the conventional use of the word. This film doesn't have beautiful cinematography like, say, Days of Heaven. Most of its formal qualities lay in its schematic craft, editing and sound design. I don't see how it's a case of cinematography elevating a basic plot.

>>213986244
Huh. I see what you're getting at.
What do you think about the Astrology stuff?
Do the shots of the sun or moon hold any connective tissue to the mention of Saturn?
Especially the sun storms in the intro.

The Astrology stuff is a device to indicate that moving backwards (in retrograde) is bad, and moving forward is good. When Pam reads her astrology, she basically tells the group that they're going to have a bad day, simple enough. The group proceed forward through various locations, but then (three of them) turn backwards through the front door of the house, which is how they get killed. Only Sally manages to punch through the front window and onto the road ahead. The way out is through. Earlier, Sally had been chased backward to previous locations (the gas station). You'll never get out that way, going backwards.

The conspicuous sun-moon shots (six of them) serve mainly to bracket the film, and go slightly with the astrology stuff. Deep astrological/stuff with Saturn seems fairly slight to me, but much has been made of the hitchhiker's hobo-sign on the side of the van. The film does want us to pay attention to it, and the entire group regard it carefully on one occasion. It's been compared to the astrological symbol for Saturn (and maybe other things/hobo signs), but I don't know too much on this point. In any case, the hitchhiker has clearly placed a curse on their house, which is the van. That's perfectly clear. It's right after this that Franklin starts developing his own raspberries.

The solar flares in the credits proper show heat, blood, violence, red. Nothing else in the film looks quite like that opening credit sequence until the climax, where we have extreme close-ups on Sally's frantic bloodshot eyeball, violently looking in various directions. That's the rhyme there, a crazy violent hot surface.

>>213986849
Fucking hell, another good idea.
And you think this was all accidental? I don't want to sound gullible, but this is the kind of stuff people kind of sit with for a while.
If you have any more images or analysis feel free to share, I'll read them.

>>213984481
Still can't believe what a huge letdown TCM2 is compared to the original, even had the same director and everything. I would have been spewing if I had to wait more than a decade back then for that as a follow-up.

>>213987725
It’s actually the perfect follow up and the most perfect sequel ever made. TCM and TCM2 tell the same story in the only 2 ways you could. One is a raw brutal sun blistered nightmare full of pure horror a group just stumbles onto by chance and the other is a hyperreality black comedy where the freaks leave their underground circus and come to you

>>213987868
One is a good film and the other is a piece of shit.

time and place and people

>>213984745
>cinegrids
>something done since the dawn of this godforsaken board
>'instagramification style screenshot collections'

HEADCHEESE

>>213984419 (OP)
I like this movie more every time I rewatch it

>>213987920
>NOOOO I WANTED THE EXACT SAME THING
Hey faggot, great news. They made a third one then rebooted the franchise a dozen times and they're all just inferior remakes of the first movie. So you have a lot to choose from.