![]() Nothing in BTBR evokes the sort of feeling or understanding one gets watch Tarkovsky film, and I would highly recommend his films, since you haven’t seen them. ![]() BTBR is completely devoid of any sort of human element, which would be fine if you are named Stanley Kubrick, otherwise I think Cosmatos bites off a bit more than he could chew, and a comparison to Tarkovsky is just bizarre considering Tarkovsky was a world class artist, totally special individual who knew the elements of cinema to a T. Besides have a decent eye for composition, Cosmatos has nothing in common with Tarkovsky, they aren’t even in the same ball park. I’ve see all of Tarkovsky’s films (albeit there aren’t that many), personally, I think mentioning Tarkovsky along side BTBR is a bit of an insult to Tarkovsky. I'm not so well versed in horror as others are, and would welcome conflicting views. There too are many excellent examples of these, but the best tend to foster an ongoing sense of dread, which I don't think Beyond the Black Rainbow did for me. This also isn't to say I have a problem with slasher flicks. You could argue that all horror films have a surrealistic core. An example of a film which blends surealism and horror very well is The Babadook, or Posession. As a result we get a picture that seemed more like a compromise: it didn't know what it wanted to be, which is not to say the film couldn't have successfully realized what it wanted to accomplish. It's almost as if the picture was afraid of being too intelligent, or inaccesible. Towards the third act of the film I became disinterested at what seemed to be a visceral, surrealistic film devolve into a slasher flick. Mecurio, there was a lot of potential to explore this kind of retro- medicine-Dr. I greatly enjoyed the overall aesthetic presented in the film, particularly the lighting, color use and slow, eerie pacing. Sorry if I came off as rude, or condescending. ![]() I can understand you didn't find it particularly stimulating intelectually, and how it failed to move you, or offer spirituality (it wasn't supposed to in the first place), though. Not every film has to be narrative-driven. However, Isou introduced the scratching and destruction of celluloid as ideally perfect means of visual expression, therefore denying this notion, and proving that FILM = LOOK. Lettrists, for one, ostensibly didn't get it as they advocated the idea of (to simplify a little bit) turning a film into literature, therefore make the sound, the words its main component. Of course, there are exceptions like Derek Jarman's Blue, or Debord's Hurlements en faveur de Sade, and there are many more than just one approach to filmmaking, which is good, of course. Film's style IS its substance, and the visuals are the most important part of a film, because film is foremostly a visual art. I couldn't care less about "style over substance", or any other contrived aspect like this. ) All of my favourites speak directly to my heart and soul, and therefore I don't even have to care about their meaning. If a film has to be analysed in order to be appreciated, maybe it isn't all that great. I never really analyse any film critically.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |