Cinema's greatest classics

^ I agree with the critics - the animation stinks, from what little I've seen on you-tube. I'm not going to pay a single paisa to see this travasty.
 
Last edited:
In the 70's George Lucas and Steven Spielberg made computer graphics popular with the Star Wars films. This computer graphics division of Lucas Films was bought by Steve Jobs in 1979 and renamed Pixar. In the mid 80's Pixar Animation Studios was largely responsible for the development of computer generated imagery. Since then this technology, initially in 2D and later in 3D, has become an integral part of Hollywood.

Hollywood is fantasy land and CGI can create bigger, if not better, fantasies at dramatically reduced costs. The main USP of the digital revolution's in films seems to be dramatically reduced costs. No need to scout for and shoot in expensive locations, hire expensive actors, or buy expensive props. The computer will do it all. Great for the studio's profit margins. Probably bad for the employment figures! The number of computer animation jobs created would be a small percentage of the number of people who would have to look for alternate work!

In 2006 Steve Jobs sold Pixar to Walt Disney. The dozen odd films created by Pixar until now are all among the top 50 grossing films of all times. One day perhaps all the top 50 films will be CGI films. The biggest flaw in CGI seems to be the inability to render facial expressions. Eyes are supposed to be the mirror of the soul but the eyes of the CGI heroes, heroines and villains reflect nothing. They are blank. More zombie than human. Technology may have improved a lot since Polar Express but there is a long way to go before CGI actors can be made to emote. Will we have a Brando, Depardieu, Mastroianni or Naseer in the mainstream cinema of this century? Probably not. But perhaps the new generation does not care. They are growing up with a different set of fantasies.
 
Last edited:
Ajaybhai,
was about to recommend Tintin when you posted Ra.one review. Though 3D version is very well made and hard work should be appreciated the aesthetics and character of 2D is not there. Since these characters are based on comics superbly animated (Hand drawn ??) 2D would have been a great experience for the kids.
ajay124 said:
The biggest flaw in CGI seems to be the inability to render facial expressions. Eyes are supposed to be the mirror of the soul but the eyes of the CGI heroes, heroines and villains reflect nothing. They are blank. More zombie than human. Technology may have improved a lot since Polar Express but there is a long way to go before CGI actors can be made to emote. Will we have a Brando, Depardieu, Mastroianni or Naseer in the mainstream cinema of this century? Probably not. But perhaps the new generation does not care. They are growing up with a different set of fantasies.
Click to expand...
Now the point I would like to make is with amazing technological improvements facial expression, emotions can be achieved and in near future will be there,
dragonflyGDS's Channel - YouTube
but you will not like it. why ? Because there are things which go beyond any sense (Visual / audio / touch ) perception. This is exactly why Analogue people can't describe what they are hearing differently from digital. :)
Regards
 
Hiten said:
Ajaybhai,
was about to recommend Tintin when you posted Ra.one review. Though 3D version is very well made and hard work should be appreciated the aesthetics and character of 2D is not there. Since these characters are based on comics superbly animated (Hand drawn ??) 2D would have been a great experience for the kids.

Now the point I would like to make is with amazing technological improvements facial expression, emotions can be achieved and in near future will be there,
dragonflyGDS's Channel - YouTube
but you will not like it. why ? Because there are things which go beyond any sense (Visual / audio / touch ) perception. This is exactly why Analogue people can't describe what they are hearing differently from digital. :)
Regards
Click to expand...

hiten

When I wrote the previous post, I was actually wondering whether digital audio is as lifeless as digital video :)
 
ajay124 said:
hiten
When I wrote the previous post, I was actually wondering whether digital audio is as lifeless as digital video :)
Click to expand...
Life in music : Most probably yes, but my honest opinion is there are tradeoff involved. vinyls will have little bit difficulty achieving as much dynamic range and stereo separation as CDs. But nothing to be overly worried about and I like vinyl sound :)

ajay124 said:
Hollywood is fantasy land and CGI can create bigger, if not better, fantasies at dramatically reduced costs. The main USP of the digital revolution's in films seems to be dramatically reduced costs. No need to scout for and shoot in expensive locations, hire expensive actors, or buy expensive props. The computer will do it all. Great for the studio's profit margins.
Click to expand...

Toy Story, Hollywood & Bollywood : With Steve Jobs pixar something new was expected. Toy Story was a good movie, never before new way of making a movie was presented, imagination and talent was evident and kids enjoyed it. Making profit is good (unless it crosses over to greediness) after all it is an entertainment 'industry' and hollywood institutions use same money to meticulously and diligently preserve the classics and honour and recognize people & talent. Unfortunately same can not be said about bollywood where large amount of heritage vintage film negatives were destroyed in fire, there are almost dozen of awards ceremonies, amazingly accurate blind following of westernized story, cinematography, action scenes, and indigenous dance sequences (after being exposed to them for decades, you have to turn off the sound when such sequences come up on TV to realize the silliness of dance movements). Sad to see regional Marathi movies which I like are on the same path :sad:
 
Well Herg was a genius! Just take a look at this! I don't expect computer animation to capture the magic that we experience on paper. The movie is going to rush you through the story, stunts, pun, and the curses without giving you enough time to stare at each frame like you could in a book and savour the details, I suppose. I think there was an animated movie long back based on Tintin & the Lake of Sharks, but what little I saw of it left me disappointed. Still, I'm going to watch the movie tomorrow, just to bitch about how the movie couldn't match the book! :D

P.S: I strongly feel that Tintin should be added to the non-detailed syllabus in primary schools...
 
grubyhalo said:
Still, I'm going to watch the movie tomorrow, just to bitch about how the movie couldn't match the book! :D
Click to expand...
I think you will like it. As from the snippets of the movie I can see these very talented people have done a good job. and what bother us (armchair critics :D) about 3D not being same as comic book would have come to their mind in the first place when they decided to make the movie.
Regards
 
grubyhalo said:
Well Herg was a genius! Just take a look at this! I don't expect computer animation to capture the magic that we experience on paper. The movie is going to rush you through the story, stunts, pun, and the curses without giving you enough time to stare at each frame like you could in a book and savour the details, I suppose. I think there was an animated movie long back based on Tintin & the Lake of Sharks, but what little I saw of it left me disappointed. Still, I'm going to watch the movie tomorrow, just to bitch about how the movie couldn't match the book! :D

P.S: I strongly feel that Tintin should be added to the non-detailed syllabus in primary schools...
Click to expand...

Agreed in toto.
The Lake of Sharks movie was disappointing.
Thanks for the link to Tintin's cars. Really cool. So many of the
French, American and Italian cars of that era are represented.
The post war cars seem mostly American.
The Citroen 2CV, naturally, was immortalized, but the Beetle is missing
from among the few German cars(Mercs, Opels) drawn by Herge
No Fiat Topolino either.
 
You're most welcome. I don't remember seeing the Bug but do remember the Topolino somewhere in that site, will post the link here if I do find it.

P.S: Did you check this consolidated link?
 
Last edited:
^^ Truly! I watched this movie about 3 days back and it still sticks in my mind. I enjoyed it very much. But like most of Lars Von Trier's movies, it is a love it or hate it movie -- not everyone will like it. To me, it is good to watch a few times: Beautiful imagery and atmosphere, and a very different look at depression, human relationships, and fear of the unknown.

I wish I could watch it again in a theater, but I doubt if this movie will ever make it to my city :(
 
Lars Von Trier is one of the best contemporary film makers. I have viewed Dogsville and Medea and both were very good. I would love to see the rest of his films: Antichrist, Manderlay, Dancer In The Dark, The Idiots, Breaking The Waves, The Kingdom 1&2 and Europa.
 
Of Lars Von Trier's movies, I've seen Dogville, Manderlay, Antichrist and Breaking the Waves. All were excellent movies, and Breaking the Waves was particularly touching. Antichrist has kind of scarred me for life. Since watching Antichrist, I find it hard to watch Charlotte Gainsbourg without cringing a bit inside.

Dancer In The Dark is supposed to be his best and I look forward to watching it someday soon. The other ones too, for sure!
 
hydra

I find it hard to watch Charlotte Gainsbourg without cringing a bit inside.

I have not watched Antichrist but I have an idea what its about. Based on the little I have seen of LVT'S cinema, and what I have read about it, I feel that his films and characters are very often swimming in a sea of neurosis. There's nothing wrong with that as all of us our neurotic to some extent. There are very few film makers who are making sensitive or intelligent films about the dark recesses of the human mind. LVT loves to confront and confound critics and the audience but he is a highly talented and sensitive film maker. Through his films he tries to pry open the doors of human perception. Doors we are too scared to open for ourselves.

In mainstream art a depressed person is more caricature than real. This is why the general public and consumers of mainstream art have such a poor understanding of mental aberrations and illness's. Personally I feel that the cinema of directors like Bergman, Dreyer, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Resnais, Haneke and Trier is revelatory and illuminating. It may be depressing cinema, but it is essential viewing for anyone who desires something more from films, than what mainstream film makers are capable of providing.
 
Last edited:
Ajay,

You stole the words from my mouth/mind! Nobody else brings out the deepest fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the human psyche with such intensity as Lars Von Trier. IMHO Bergman and Tarkovky come close, but the no-holds-barred intensity of the characters in LVT's movies is just something else! Sometimes the rabbithole runs so deep, and the truths that are bared are so disturbing that it becomes very difficult for us to digest them (We always see a bit of ourselves in these characters). As you pointed out, this is usually why the mainstream audiences don't take too well to LVT's movies.

I'm yet to watch any of Dreyer, Bresson or Resnais. Just starting off on Tarkovsky.
 
My films are intended as polemical statements against the American barrel down cinema and its dis-empowerment of the spectator. They are an appeal for a cinema of insistent questions instead of false (because too quick) answers, for clarifying distance in place of violating closeness, for provocation and dialogue instead of consumption and consensus. Michael Haneke, Film as Catharsis

Michael Haneke | Senses of Cinema

Given the opportunity I would like to watch the film of Lars Von Trier and Michael Haneke together. Visually their cinema may be different but their bleak, introspective world view is addressed to a rational and sensitive audience. Whereas most mainstream films seem to have a 'barrel down' approach which raises the stars, and what they do on or off the screen, to stratospheric heights. The audience is treated as powerless spectators, living anonymous lives made interesting by their occasional contact with the stars.

Is the audience really as dumbed down as the films running in multiplexes would seem to suggest? Probably not. But they don't have a choice. Check out the films running in movie halls in any particular week. The same 5-6 films playing everywhere. Replaced after a week or two by films with essentially the same look and feel as the earlier one. The choice is always between a 'multi-purpose' blockbuster with with big stars as its only USP. A goofy comedy with tired, infantile humour. A predictable, worn out romance for dating couples. A low budget sex and horror flick. A 3D animation film for kids. There are plenty of innovative, grown up films being made. But their screening seems to be restricted to the festival circuit.
 
Last edited:
Are there any happy / feel good movies that are classics (apart from Chaplin)? Do suggest.

Where do you guys source these movies from? I did like to watch them.
 
Award Winning Diamond 12.3 Floorstanding Speakers Offer
Get the Award Winning Diamond 12.3 Floorstanding Speakers on Special Offer

Similar threads

sachinchavan 15865
Payal Kapadia’s ‘All We Imagine as Light’ wins Grand Prix at Cannes!
Replies
4
Views
8K
himadri
H
S
Have you watched this? Amazon prime
Replies
10
Views
4K
sachinchavan 15865
sachinchavan 15865
Naturelover
Upcoming book on Lata Mangeshkar
Replies
0
Views
585
Naturelover
Naturelover
S
my exp with the mezee 99 classics after 4 months
2
Replies
26
Views
25K
sand87ch
S
D
My review of the Fosi Audio V3 Mono
Replies
0
Views
1K
Dave B
D
Back
Top