Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

It's about ... oldish films

<< < (9/12) > >>

mahesh2k:
@superboyac, Yes, TWBB and Magnolia. Not oldie but good psychological sets.

40hz:
Dammit 40...I think you just ruined my weekend again! -superboyac (September 07, 2012, 12:49 PM)
--- End quote ---

What can I say? I'm just trying to keep you out of bars unless you're gigging in them.  ;D

Am I going to have to create for myself a Twilight Zone marathon weekend, followed by the Hitchcock marathon??!
--- End quote ---

Well...I've been told "chicks" dig that sort of thing. Why not invite a few brainy geek-goddess types over and make a long weekend of it? Sure beats making smalltalk with strangers in a room full of horn-dogs and loudmouths. Besides, like Irene Adler said in the new Sherlock series (A Scandal in Belgravia): "Smart is the 'new' sexy." (Oh yeah!)

I remember a couple of years ago making an effort to go back and watch the older shows and movies.  My first thought was "Boy, they talk a lot in these things."  Lots of talking, lots of explaining.

--- End quote ---

Yup. There was. We've since become more sophisticated in our viewing. We've learned a visual lexicon and grammar so things don't need to be spelled out quite so much any more. Time was, you needed to have pages falling off a calendar or see a moving line with an airplane on a map to understand the story was shifting to a new time or location. That trick gave way to "establishing shots," then to "quick cuts," and now to "jumps". (Hypertext and the web helped us get comfortable with discontinuous leaps and linking.) Our consciousness has evolved. We've learned to interpret cues and signals the old directors wouldn't have dared use for fear of losing the audience. Even the once avant-garde voice over technique is now seen as being old hat. No surprise. A voice-over is just a variation on the ancient Greek Chorus trick. Nothing new at all really. ;D

Same goes for explanations of: technical, medical, economic, scientific, political, psychological, and legal terminology and scenarios. We don't need as many of them as we used to. TV and print news with international coverage; widespread literacy; mandatory schooling to age 16; public libraries; the web; special interest groups; inexpensive telecommunications; yadda-yadda-yadda...the average person's "infoprint" is miles wide even if most of it is only inches deep.

We're all much more "up" on things than many in the previous generations were. Not so much because we're any "smarter." It's more because we're exposed to more information than any preceding generation. Small wonder so many are of us are breaking under the constant stimuli.

Maybe we don't understand everthing that gets put in front of us on a screen. But it isn't too often we haven't at least heard something about what we're looking at.

That little bit of exposure goes a long way in a movie. Especially when it comes to "laying pipe" as the industry refers to it when informational or background footage is scripted into a movie purely to get the audience up to speed enough to follow whats going to happen next.

40hz:
This one is off topic and  for barny

Ok you old Juliet Prowse admirer, here's one not many people remember: Juliet doing her thing to the Hollies classic song Stop, Stop, Stop (All the Dancing).



This aired in the 60s on US television and just about pushed the absolute limits of what the TV network censors would allow - both for dancing and the amount of skin (even with a bodystocking) being shown. It received glowing compliments (and some protests to the FCC) for several weeks after it aired. Most people felt that if it were anyone other than Juliet Prowse, that sexy little dance (choreographed by Ed Kerrigan) would have never made the airwaves.

Thank goodness it did. It shows yet another facet of the versatility and talent that was Juliet Prowse.

barney:
Ok you old Juliet Prowse admirer, here's one not many people remember: Juliet doing her thing to the Hollies classic song Stop, Stop, Stop (All the Dancing).
-40hz (September 08, 2012, 04:03 PM)
--- End quote ---

Thank you, sir  :-*!  Lost that clip (not near the quality, though) many crashes agone, and somehow forgot it existed.  Think I just gave up searching for it.  It's fun to watch, and a pelvic thrust or two (2) in there could well have been cause for FCC complaints, considering the period - folk wanted that stuff, but didn't want to admit they wanted it.  Methinks those who screamed loudest were the ones most wanting  :P.

40hz:
It's fun to watch
-barney (September 08, 2012, 04:42 PM)
--- End quote ---

Yup. But I want to shoot the director. Since this is a Balinese/Javanese/Indian "temple dance" inspired mashup, the intricate footwork is everything. And the cameras kept losing it until the director finally figured out (mostly) what the cameras should be focusing on about two-thirds of the way into it.

Same thing goes for most TV coverage of dance. Even with ballet, the directors often keep trying to turn a dance into a "drama" by doing tight closeups on the dancers' faces! Totally asinine since that deprives the viewers of seeing that all essential 'line' and overall movement that is the thing that makes ballet ballet. Jackasses!

Why is it 'old' Hollywood understood how to film a dance number, and so many of our modern directors - with all their film theory and technology - can't manage to get it together? :-\

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page