MovieChat Forums > Denitaur
Denitaur (1)
Posts
Replies
name an art film where the actor can't act? Maybe you're too used to see overe the top reactions from actors, so that became your reality, and reality became nonsense to you. Today I was scrolling to see comments about Robert Eggers The Northman and it didn't surprise me to see people comment on the dialogue, battle scenes and acting of that film. People are more and more under the belief that a film that doesn't have cool dialogue, overly complex (Nolan), the battle scenes ridiculously fast paced and the acting in accordance to "normality", is ridiculously bad or even "one of the worst movies" they've ever seen. Like a "pretentious" classical painting, films can have hidden messages behind every shot, even if its just a still shot of a vase after a character left the room. Films also don't always need character to go through character development to be good. Characters that show certain motivations and fight for those usually don't change, yet the execution to those motivations can be crucial to the character. I see allot of people think filmmaking is that simple. Everybody is an armchair critic. "badly written", "no plot", "plot holes", yet so many don't know what they're talking about. So many think writing a film is like writing a book. A book is allowed to have exposition thrown at your face and still be good. A film on the other hand either has motivated or unmotivated exposition and good filmmakers choose the former. Filmmaking is more complex than many of you actually realise. Art films are the best of film, but sadly they seem like dying out because of the constant push of explosions, unmotivated exposition exposition, CGI and cool college dialogue.
View all replies >