正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
Cinematographer Frank E. Johnson explains why modern audience connect with forgotten B-movies like "Raw Force" (1982) more than the movies made in Hollywood today: "These were times of bootstrap filmmaking and it was truly an adventure. Those days of course we shot on film and had to have it... show more
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
![Walter Hill on why the absence of big names made a huge difference to 'The Warriors' (1979): "One of the things that I was pleased about doing 'The Warriors' (1979) was that it didn’t lend itself to star casting. That at makes a big difference, especially when it comes to putting movies together timewise. We had free reign in casting the film. I told the studio that I wanted to do a movie with an all-black cast, but they would not go for that, and I think in the end they were right because the film becomes more universalized, more timeless, and a more magical world in that you have gangs who don’t look like what real gangs did. But at the same time there is a hint of social reality, so there’s a mix of social reality and fantasy. I think the interracial casting helped that. We were finding the movie." ('Walter Hill - The Cinema of Hollywood Maverick', Wayne Byrne, 2022) [P.S: On this day, 47 years ago, 'The Warriors' (1979) was released in Australia]](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2018051730315804816/amplify_video_thumb/2017999396424822784/img/ohU-Ei4Hkjd1HoUj.jpg)
![Charlton Heston on why 'Soylent Green' (1973) was one of the best movies he acted in: "'Soylent Green' (1973) was one of the best movies I ever did, primarily because of Eddie [Robinson]. He was a wonderful actor and lovely man to work with. He was so good in it. He was dying at the time … and he was undertaking to die in the scene. And talking to him, I was weeping. Because of what it was like for him as an actor to lie there, knowing you were never again going to put on makeup and wardrobe and say words for a film. That must have been what he was thinking" ("Hollywood Flashback: ‘Soylent Green’ Depicted an Overpopulated Planet With a Dark Secret", Seth Abramovitch, The Hollywood Reporter, 2023)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1998120398630912408/amplify_video_thumb/1998008443500982272/img/RyP9MmwUrXzH-1lr.jpg)
![Paul Verhoeven on how the failure of 'Showgirls' (1995) affected his career & why he thinks a movie like 'Showgirls' can't be made anymore in Hollywood: "One of the most interesting, or the most terrible, and the most fascinating things to happen with 'Showgirls' (1995) was the reaction to it. I had not at all expected that I would be brutalized by the critics. Critics would say, “I had to leave the theater” because they had to throw up, it was so dirty, decadent — whatever description they gave it. That was astonishing to me. The feeling of total amazement that the film was received with an absolute full spectrum of animosity will never disappear. When my movie 'Spetters' (1980) was released in Holland in 1980, there was a similar reaction. But the big difference was that that movie had a very big audience. Here, all the reviews were terrible, but people didn’t want to see it either. The backlash, and the consequences for me in the Hollywood industry, are certainly not something I will forget. After 'Showgirls', nobody trusted me anymore, other than with the movies that had been working very well, which was the science-fiction stuff. I started with 'RoboCop' (1987) and 'Total Recall' (1990), but I tried to get away from science fiction. Then all the doors that were opened for me were all closed by 'Showgirls'. It made life more one-dimensional as to what I was able to do. That’s why I decided to go back to myself again with something like [WWII movie] 'Black Book' in 2006. I don’t think that it’s a movie that could ever be made anymore. Ever. Because n*d!ty is more taboo than ever in the United States. You see these movies and the s€x scenes are reduced to a couple of dissolves where you see a hand on a back, but there are really no s€x scenes in American movies anymore. There are exceptions, of course. But not many. Yet, 20 years later we’re still talking about the movie. You never see anything like it anymore, something so outrageous but very well filmed: the lighting, the sound effects, everything. There’s a lot of n*d!ty; but it’s not exploitative. It’s not a p0rn0 movie. I think the n*d!ty in 'Showgirls' is not done in what you would call a “dirty” way. For me, the female body is extremely inspiring and beautiful. When I was in high school in Holland, my art teacher said: "The breast of a woman is the most beautiful thing in the world." I never forgot that, and I’ve always felt that way. When I think of the movie, I see all these brilliant colors and of these beautiful movements — of the body and of the camera — and what stands out for me is the elegance. That sounds strange to people when I say this is a very elegant movie, but I think it is. It’s probably the most elegant movie I’ve ever done." ("‘Showgirls’: Paul Verhoeven on the Greatest Stripper Movie Ever Made", Jennifer Wood, Rolling Stone, 2015)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2046670198934307063/amplify_video_thumb/2046669711883321344/img/O5CdVu2XOLotAmlb.jpg)
![Steve Jobs talking about Pixar and storytelling. Says "no amount of technology will turn a bad story into a good story" and that Pixar's early films had to prioritize a good story because the cost of animating was so high: ◻️ "In a live action movie, the director goes out and shoots a lot of film — typically 10x to 100x more footage than will end up on the screen. Then they take it all into the editing room and that's why sometimes you see a movie and you go 'that stunk, didn't they know?' Well, the answer is 'yes' but they knew it too late in the editing room and...by the time they knew it, the actors were gone and the sets were down and they were out of money.” "In animation, it is so expensive that you can't afford to animate more than a few % more than it's going to end up on screen. You could never afford to animate 10x more. Walt Disney solved the problem decades ago and the way he solved it was to edit films before making them: you get your story team together and you do storyboards." "In Hollywood, one of the most popular sayings is 'story is King' but it turns out it really isn't. Because when push comes to shove...when a movie is in production and there's a lot of mouths to feed — and they're waiting for stuff to make and the story is not working — almost everybody says 'we will just have to make the movie'. And one of the things that I'm proudest of about Pixar is we have a story crisis on every movie...and we stop [everything to] fix the story." *** D3 Conference in 2005:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1824518501320802729/amplify_video_thumb/1824518254896857088/img/VnVCjEOoyfnbim97.jpg)
!["In 'Zodiac' (2007), I wanted the audience to feel like they went through the ringer with these guys,(...) in retrospect you look at it & say maybe audiences who are looking for entertainment on a Friday night don’t want that toll taken on them." --- David Fincher Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: It’s so rare to walk out of a movie and to feel like I know more about a subject than I did walking into it. Watching Zodiac is like the experience of reading a really absorbing non-fiction book, and I know that part of it for you was about honoring the people who were the victims of the Zodiac, but you also have so many details, so many facts, you take it to such a level where there’s so much information… why was that important to you? Fincher: I don’t respect movies that treat me like I don’t have the attention span or mental faculty to follow… it’s one thing to talk about Dave Toschi’s fall from grace in an oblique and generic way. I can answer that question in a couple of different ways. I wanted the movie to take its toll on the audience, I wanted the audience to feel like they went through it, like they went through the ringer with these guys, and I didn’t know how to do that because these guys didn’t run across rooftops and fall off fire escapes. In their quest to bring the Zodiac to justice they followed the trail of breadcrumbs as far as it would take them, and they kept pushing and kept pushing when there were crackpots coming out of the woodwork. I felt like I didn’t want to make one of those movies where you do montage/montage/montage and you get the idea that they went to the mat with this, that it took its toll – I wanted the audience to feel that. You know, in retrospect you look at it and say maybe audiences who are looking for entertainment on a Friday night don’t want that toll taken on them. I felt like anything less than that would be doing the story and people involved a disservice. You could do it as something compressed, where you get the gist of it, and we would have shots of Jake [Gyllenhaal] half asleep and you would have those obligatory shots where the boss says, ‘You look like sh!t.’ And in the end I still don’t feel like you get enough of what happens with his family, we don’t get enough with his wife and kids, but it was all we could do to get it in at under two hours and forty minutes. I feel like we took about as much time as you can really expect an audience to sit still for and we tried to make them feel what it was like to be invested in this circuitous run down the rabbit hole." (David Fincher's interview with Devin Farachi, 2008)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2026395961199566927/amplify_video_thumb/2026302205167632384/img/fcflOWnyRUKmyMsJ.jpg)
![Francis Ford Coppola on how young children convinced him to make 'The Outsiders' (1983) & the reason why he loves the movie: "Interviewer: 'Rumble Fish' (1983) is so completely different a film from 'The Outsiders' (1983), not just in black and white and color, but in the tone. And everybody said, “Well, he’s off in Tulsa, making two films,” rather in a way that, once, people would go up to the desert and make two westerns at the same time. 'Rumble Fish' makes 'The Outsiders' seem an odder film than I thought it was when I first saw it. 'The Outsiders' almost felt like a film in which you weren't quite there all the time. Coppola: No, I don’t think so. 'The Outsiders' (1984) was the type of film that I personally liked, a melodrama with a romantic tone. I liked the book a lot when I read it; I thought it was sweet and youthful and had something in its little, simple theme that was of value, and I wanted to make the picture very much as the book was. Maybe that’s what you're interpreting as my not always being there, except that I did make the decision to make it exactly like the book. The key to 'The Outsiders' is the score; the fact that it’s this schmaltzy classical movie score indicates that I wanted a movie told in sumptuous terms, very honestly or carefully taken from the book without changing it a lot, with young actors—putting the emphasis more on that kind of 'Gone with the Wind' (1939) lyricism which was so important to the young girl [Susie Hinton] when she wrote it. I liked the film on that basis. It’s how I made it and why I made it. But if you think about my career, I’ve never made two films that were alike... maybe the two Godfathers. But every one of my films is very different from one another and I was feeling that I was in kind of a journeyman period of my life, approaching a future style of work as a more serious, older man which would be based on a tremendous amount of exploration while I had the chance to do that. To me it’s nothing to say, well, I’m going to make that film and it’s going to be that kind of film. Like 'The Outsiders'—it’s not that I couldn’t make that sixteen other ways. People suggested, “Well, are we really going to make this book like that?” “Well,” I said, “little kids wrote me a letter and wanted me to make it that way.” Of all the letters I get from movies, 'The Outsiders' is the one where all of these cute little fourteen- year-olds . . . so I’m in it for them. I feel I must have gained something, although it wasn’t as challenging, cinematically or even on the level of acting and other things as, say, the one that came afterwards. But I always had this idea that I wanted to make one film that was romantic and schmaltzy, like 'The Godfather' (1972), and one film that was more of an art film, more in the direction of 'Apocalypse Now' (1979)." (Francis Ford Coppola's interview with David Thomson & Lucy Gray, 1983)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2010103103555600427/amplify_video_thumb/2009991376948342784/img/l_kRKFmpgrUZcjno.jpg)
![Edgar Wright explains why he watches "Raising Arizona" (1987) every time before making a new movie: "When I first saw "Raising Arizona" (1987) as a teenager, I watched it immediately again afterwards. I just couldn't quite believe that a comedy could be that stylish and that dense in terms of its visuals and in terms of its dialogue. So funny in so many different ways. I mean, I just think that film is a miracle. It's always a film that I look to when I'm about to make a movie. And certainly it was a movie that me and Simon Pegg talked a lot about before we made 'Shaun of the De@d' (2004). Even though it's not a horror film, there's a lot of things in that film in terms of the pace and the drive, the really inspired Shaun. [Like] the use of callbacks within the script. So, that movie is a huge inspiration to me." ("Four Favorites with Edgar Wright", Letterboxd, 2024)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2082559284949184923/amplify_video_thumb/2082536602128314368/img/PNXQzaLuaaKRUczf.jpg)
