Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Thodōros Angelopoulos explains why he cherished "moments" from films rather than specific movies or directors as he got older: "When asked the question ‘What are the directors or films which have marked you?’, I’ve always mentioned, amongst others, Murnau, Mizoguchi, Orson Welles, Dreyer, Antonioni, 'Ugetsu' (1953), 'Sunrise' (1927), 'The...

DannyDrinksWine's profile picture

DepressedBergman

237,908 subscribers

23,402 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Orson Welles on the reason he chose to make "The Trial" (1962) & deviating from Kafka's work: "Interviewer: In the transposition of 'The Trial' to the cinema, there is a fundamental change; in Kafka’s book, K’s character is more passive than in the film. Welles: I made him more active, properly speaking. I do not believe that passive characters are appropriate to drama. I have nothing against Antonioni, for example, but, in order to interest me, the characters must do something, from a dramatic point of view, you understand. Interviewer: Was 'The Trial' an old project? Welles: I once said that a good film could be drawn from the novel, but I, myself, didn’t think of doing it. A man came to see me and told me he believed he could find money so that I could make a film in France. He gave me a list of films and asked that I choose. And from that list of fifteen films I chose the one that, I believe, was the best: The Trial. Since I couldn’t do a film written by myself, I chose Kafka." (Orson Welles' intervie with Juan Cobos, Miguel Rubio & Pruneda, Cahiers du Cinéma, 1964)
1:43

Orson Welles on the reason he chose to make "The Trial" (1962) & deviating from Kafka's work: "Interviewer: In the transposition of 'The Trial' to the cinema, there is a fundamental change; in Kafka’s book, K’s character is more passive than in the film. Welles: I made him more active, properly speaking. I do not believe that passive characters are appropriate to drama. I have nothing against Antonioni, for example, but, in order to interest me, the characters must do something, from a dramatic point of view, you understand. Interviewer: Was 'The Trial' an old project? Welles: I once said that a good film could be drawn from the novel, but I, myself, didn’t think of doing it. A man came to see me and told me he believed he could find money so that I could make a film in France. He gave me a list of films and asked that I choose. And from that list of fifteen films I chose the one that, I believe, was the best: The Trial. Since I couldn’t do a film written by myself, I chose Kafka." (Orson Welles' intervie with Juan Cobos, Miguel Rubio & Pruneda, Cahiers du Cinéma, 1964)

DepressedBergman

24,312 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen

Orson Welles on whether horror comics and violent films cause juvenile delinquency: During a television interview, Orson Welles rejected the idea that violent entertainment was responsible for juvenile delinquency, arguing that it confused a symptom with the underlying cause. "I don't think that horror films or horror comics contribute to juvenile delinquency. I think that they may encourage psychotics and homicidal and other dangerous types, but juvenile delinquency is, I think, a symptom of the illness of our age." According to Welles, the roots of the problem lay elsewhere. "It doesn't come from a lack of playgrounds or bad comic books, but of a great longing for youth to have something to rebel against." When asked whether children simply imitate what they see in books and films, Welles pointed to history as evidence against that idea. "If they were, they would have come from the bear pits and the Globe Theater and committed some rather extraordinary acts in the Elizabethan era." His argument was that audiences have consumed violent stories for centuries without those works producing widespread imitation. Welles also defended violence as a legitimate part of great storytelling. "I think that all vital periods of the drama and of literature are periods of great violence, and that all of our great plays and novels are violent." But he drew a clear distinction between meaningful art and sensationalism. "I don't like them when they are poor novels or when they are not works of art; they become shy and seem to be pandering." When the interviewer suggested that westerns at least allow virtue to triumph — unlike many horror stories — Welles disagreed. "I don't think so, no. Not always. Well, it doesn't in Edgar Allan Poe either, you know." Source: Orson Welles Sketch Book / BBC television interview with Huw Wheldon (1955)
1:47

Orson Welles on whether horror comics and violent films cause juvenile delinquency: During a television interview, Orson Welles rejected the idea that violent entertainment was responsible for juvenile delinquency, arguing that it confused a symptom with the underlying cause. "I don't think that horror films or horror comics contribute to juvenile delinquency. I think that they may encourage psychotics and homicidal and other dangerous types, but juvenile delinquency is, I think, a symptom of the illness of our age." According to Welles, the roots of the problem lay elsewhere. "It doesn't come from a lack of playgrounds or bad comic books, but of a great longing for youth to have something to rebel against." When asked whether children simply imitate what they see in books and films, Welles pointed to history as evidence against that idea. "If they were, they would have come from the bear pits and the Globe Theater and committed some rather extraordinary acts in the Elizabethan era." His argument was that audiences have consumed violent stories for centuries without those works producing widespread imitation. Welles also defended violence as a legitimate part of great storytelling. "I think that all vital periods of the drama and of literature are periods of great violence, and that all of our great plays and novels are violent." But he drew a clear distinction between meaningful art and sensationalism. "I don't like them when they are poor novels or when they are not works of art; they become shy and seem to be pandering." When the interviewer suggested that westerns at least allow virtue to triumph — unlike many horror stories — Welles disagreed. "I don't think so, no. Not always. Well, it doesn't in Edgar Allan Poe either, you know." Source: Orson Welles Sketch Book / BBC television interview with Huw Wheldon (1955)

History Nerd

11,070 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

"I try to make films that have the greatest possibility of pleasing myself, and I am certain that, the more beautiful they are, the more they please me." --- Michelangelo Antonioni Full Excerpt: "I certainly think about the public in the sense that I need someone to show what I have done, with whom I can communicate. However, I don't consider that the public influences me. If I made films for the public, shouldn't I make them for money or for glory? One makes films by thinking only about films and above all not about that sort of thing. I try to make films that have the greatest possibility of pleasing myself, and I am certain that, the more beautiful they are, the more they please me. " (Antonioni's interview to Cahiers du Cinema, 1960) Clip from: The Passenger (1975) Director: Michelangelo Antonioni
0:54

"I try to make films that have the greatest possibility of pleasing myself, and I am certain that, the more beautiful they are, the more they please me." --- Michelangelo Antonioni Full Excerpt: "I certainly think about the public in the sense that I need someone to show what I have done, with whom I can communicate. However, I don't consider that the public influences me. If I made films for the public, shouldn't I make them for money or for glory? One makes films by thinking only about films and above all not about that sort of thing. I try to make films that have the greatest possibility of pleasing myself, and I am certain that, the more beautiful they are, the more they please me. " (Antonioni's interview to Cahiers du Cinema, 1960) Clip from: The Passenger (1975) Director: Michelangelo Antonioni

DepressedBergman

61,370 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Martin Scorsese explains 'What makes a film personal?': "I come from a tradition in the early sixties that had to do with more personal filmmaking, with themes and subject matter that you felt more confident dealing with—about yourself, about the world you came from. That kind of cinema flourished in the seventies, but since the eighties, there’s been consistently less of that in mainstream cinema. Now I even find that some of the independents are starting to show a trend toward melodrama and film noir, which indicates that they’re getting their eyes set on a more commercial aspect of cinema. When I see low-budget films today, I often feel that the directors are trying to audition for the studios. You might ask, “Why do films have to be personal, anyway?” Well, of course, it’s all a matter of opinion, but I tend to feel that the more singular the vision and the more personal the film, the more it can claim to be art. As a spectator, I find that when they’re more personal, films last longer. You can watch them over and over again, whereas with a more commercial film, you might get bored after two showings. So what makes a film personal? Do you have to write the script yourself to make the film yours, as the auteur theory claimed? Not necessarily. I think there’s kind of a twofold situation there. I think you have to make a distinction between the directors on one side and the filmmakers on the other. The directors—and they can excel at doing that—are people who only interpret the script, who just turn it from words into images. The filmmakers, however, will be able to take somebody else’s material and still manage to have a personal vision come through. They will shoot the film or direct actors in a manner that will eventually transform that film so that it becomes part of the body of work of their other films, with similar themes and approaches to material and characterization. That’s what makes the whole difference between, for instance, 'His Girl Friday' (1938) by Howard Hawks and 'Dream Wife' (1953) by Sidney Sheldon. Both are studio movies; both are comedies starring Cary Grant. And yet you can watch the first one repeatedly, whereas the second one, although pleasant, will not stand a second showing. And that’s also what makes the difference between a John Woo movie, which is always very personal, and, let’s say, the Batman sequels, which may be well crafted but could have been directed by anybody." ("Moviemakers' Masterclass", Laurent Tirard, interview conducted in 1997)
2:18

Martin Scorsese explains 'What makes a film personal?': "I come from a tradition in the early sixties that had to do with more personal filmmaking, with themes and subject matter that you felt more confident dealing with—about yourself, about the world you came from. That kind of cinema flourished in the seventies, but since the eighties, there’s been consistently less of that in mainstream cinema. Now I even find that some of the independents are starting to show a trend toward melodrama and film noir, which indicates that they’re getting their eyes set on a more commercial aspect of cinema. When I see low-budget films today, I often feel that the directors are trying to audition for the studios. You might ask, “Why do films have to be personal, anyway?” Well, of course, it’s all a matter of opinion, but I tend to feel that the more singular the vision and the more personal the film, the more it can claim to be art. As a spectator, I find that when they’re more personal, films last longer. You can watch them over and over again, whereas with a more commercial film, you might get bored after two showings. So what makes a film personal? Do you have to write the script yourself to make the film yours, as the auteur theory claimed? Not necessarily. I think there’s kind of a twofold situation there. I think you have to make a distinction between the directors on one side and the filmmakers on the other. The directors—and they can excel at doing that—are people who only interpret the script, who just turn it from words into images. The filmmakers, however, will be able to take somebody else’s material and still manage to have a personal vision come through. They will shoot the film or direct actors in a manner that will eventually transform that film so that it becomes part of the body of work of their other films, with similar themes and approaches to material and characterization. That’s what makes the whole difference between, for instance, 'His Girl Friday' (1938) by Howard Hawks and 'Dream Wife' (1953) by Sidney Sheldon. Both are studio movies; both are comedies starring Cary Grant. And yet you can watch the first one repeatedly, whereas the second one, although pleasant, will not stand a second showing. And that’s also what makes the difference between a John Woo movie, which is always very personal, and, let’s say, the Batman sequels, which may be well crafted but could have been directed by anybody." ("Moviemakers' Masterclass", Laurent Tirard, interview conducted in 1997)

DepressedBergman

46,668 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Thodōros Angelopoulos on his film language & the reason for not liking some of Andrei Tarkovsky's movies: "Interviewer: The most important thing in your films seems to be the consistence of every single shot. It has to have its own force and build up its intensity as it goes. Angelopoulos: It is for this reason that my personal film language is based on expanding the dimension of time. Before you enter into the gist of any given shot, you have to be given the time to find out the relations between the actor and the landscape. For this reason, I love Tarkovsky's 'Stalker' (1979); 'Nostalghia' (1983), I like less; 'The Sacrifice' (1986), I do not like at all. As far as I am concerned, the Holy Trinity-that of the actor, the landscape, and the camera-is perfect in Stalker. Interviewer: In most of your films, there seems to be a sense of melancholy for the past. But the two children, who are not subject to this melancholy, are pulling you in a different direction. Angelopoulos: I believe the past is my own personal past dragged into the present by my occupation as a filmmaker. The tree at the end of 'Landscape in the Mist' (1988) is the tree from 'Voyage to Cythera' (1984), a reference to my own personal film Landscape. In the course of this picture, the children cross a film landscape in order to reach, at the end, a different film landscape, which, I believe, should offer them renewed hope. I would like to believe the world will be saved by the cinema. Cinema is my world and it is the scope of all my journeys. I am always searching for secret little utopias that will enchant me; I am doing my best to believe in the relevance of these trips I am constantly embarking on through my films." (Thodōros Angelopoulos's interview with Serge Toubiana & Frederic Strauss, 1988) P.S: Remembering the great Greek filmmaker Thodōros Angelopoulos on his 91st birthday. Clip from: Landscape in the Mist (1988) Director: Thodōros Angelopoulos
1:56

Thodōros Angelopoulos on his film language & the reason for not liking some of Andrei Tarkovsky's movies: "Interviewer: The most important thing in your films seems to be the consistence of every single shot. It has to have its own force and build up its intensity as it goes. Angelopoulos: It is for this reason that my personal film language is based on expanding the dimension of time. Before you enter into the gist of any given shot, you have to be given the time to find out the relations between the actor and the landscape. For this reason, I love Tarkovsky's 'Stalker' (1979); 'Nostalghia' (1983), I like less; 'The Sacrifice' (1986), I do not like at all. As far as I am concerned, the Holy Trinity-that of the actor, the landscape, and the camera-is perfect in Stalker. Interviewer: In most of your films, there seems to be a sense of melancholy for the past. But the two children, who are not subject to this melancholy, are pulling you in a different direction. Angelopoulos: I believe the past is my own personal past dragged into the present by my occupation as a filmmaker. The tree at the end of 'Landscape in the Mist' (1988) is the tree from 'Voyage to Cythera' (1984), a reference to my own personal film Landscape. In the course of this picture, the children cross a film landscape in order to reach, at the end, a different film landscape, which, I believe, should offer them renewed hope. I would like to believe the world will be saved by the cinema. Cinema is my world and it is the scope of all my journeys. I am always searching for secret little utopias that will enchant me; I am doing my best to believe in the relevance of these trips I am constantly embarking on through my films." (Thodōros Angelopoulos's interview with Serge Toubiana & Frederic Strauss, 1988) P.S: Remembering the great Greek filmmaker Thodōros Angelopoulos on his 91st birthday. Clip from: Landscape in the Mist (1988) Director: Thodōros Angelopoulos

DepressedBergman

47,800 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Remembering Orson Welles on his 111th birthday! Charlton Heston on the qualities and drawbacks of Orson Welles as a director: "Working with Orson [in "Touch of Evil" (1958)] was fun. I don’t think I’ve ever worked with a director who communicated better with actors. He could somehow persuade you that every setup just happened to be the most important setup in the picture, and then he would tell you why. Even if it was just walking down the stairs and getting into a car, he could explain why this just happened to be the most crucial shot in the whole film and why you must concentrate on getting it right. This all made for a very stimulating time. Orson is the most talented man I’ve ever met, which doesn’t mean that I think he was the best director or the best writer or the best actor, because I don’t. Whatever talent is, that subjective, immeasurable quality we call talent, Orson has it. Indeed, he may have it in too large a measure. So many things are so easy for Orson. He can think of a solution to a scene or a new idea or a fresh approach so readily that perhaps he has never developed the qualities of creative discipline that motivate a George Stevens or a William Wyler or a Frank Schaffner, and this possibly has hampered his career. Certainly the paucity of films we’ve had from Orson Welles is a rebuke to us and to Orson. He is marvelous with casts and crews, and he can charm the birds out of the bloody trees. Crews would waive meal penalties and actors would waive twelve-hour turnarounds for him, but he not only failed to try and charm studio executives, he seemed deliberately to alienate and antagonize them. This is, I think, some kind of a tragic flaw. He’s an extremely complicated, utterly charming but at the same time unpredictable and in some respects, I’m afraid I’d have to say, unreliable man. It’s all very well to say that he should be allowed to make a film a year in any way he wanted, but film is unique among the artistic media in that the raw materials cost a great deal of money. The “paper and pencils” are very expensive and the artist cannot afford to buy them for himself. Therefore they are bought by an entrepreneur who both expects and deserves to get his money back, and if he doesn’t, he won’t buy you any more paper and pencils. No matter how uncomfortable that makes you, it is fair. But Orson, along with many other filmmakers, really doesn’t think it’s fair. He can be terribly difficult and opaque with those fellows, and naturally they don’t like it. But this is simply a reality of the economics of the industry, and if you are unable to recognize and respond to it, then you won’t get to make very many films." (Charlton Heston, AFI, 1979)
3:44

Remembering Orson Welles on his 111th birthday! Charlton Heston on the qualities and drawbacks of Orson Welles as a director: "Working with Orson [in "Touch of Evil" (1958)] was fun. I don’t think I’ve ever worked with a director who communicated better with actors. He could somehow persuade you that every setup just happened to be the most important setup in the picture, and then he would tell you why. Even if it was just walking down the stairs and getting into a car, he could explain why this just happened to be the most crucial shot in the whole film and why you must concentrate on getting it right. This all made for a very stimulating time. Orson is the most talented man I’ve ever met, which doesn’t mean that I think he was the best director or the best writer or the best actor, because I don’t. Whatever talent is, that subjective, immeasurable quality we call talent, Orson has it. Indeed, he may have it in too large a measure. So many things are so easy for Orson. He can think of a solution to a scene or a new idea or a fresh approach so readily that perhaps he has never developed the qualities of creative discipline that motivate a George Stevens or a William Wyler or a Frank Schaffner, and this possibly has hampered his career. Certainly the paucity of films we’ve had from Orson Welles is a rebuke to us and to Orson. He is marvelous with casts and crews, and he can charm the birds out of the bloody trees. Crews would waive meal penalties and actors would waive twelve-hour turnarounds for him, but he not only failed to try and charm studio executives, he seemed deliberately to alienate and antagonize them. This is, I think, some kind of a tragic flaw. He’s an extremely complicated, utterly charming but at the same time unpredictable and in some respects, I’m afraid I’d have to say, unreliable man. It’s all very well to say that he should be allowed to make a film a year in any way he wanted, but film is unique among the artistic media in that the raw materials cost a great deal of money. The “paper and pencils” are very expensive and the artist cannot afford to buy them for himself. Therefore they are bought by an entrepreneur who both expects and deserves to get his money back, and if he doesn’t, he won’t buy you any more paper and pencils. No matter how uncomfortable that makes you, it is fair. But Orson, along with many other filmmakers, really doesn’t think it’s fair. He can be terribly difficult and opaque with those fellows, and naturally they don’t like it. But this is simply a reality of the economics of the industry, and if you are unable to recognize and respond to it, then you won’t get to make very many films." (Charlton Heston, AFI, 1979)

DepressedBergman

27,833 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Éric Rohmer explains why he didn't like his movies being screened at crowded theaters: "If it depended only on me, instead of attracting people to my films, I would try to drive them away. I would tell them the films are more difficult than they really are, because I don’t like to deceive people, I like to show my films to people who can appreciate them. I’m not interested in the number of spectators. Having said that, it’s true that a film is a commercial undertaking and ought to recover its costs. But as my films don’t cost much, I don’t think I need a very large audience, and I’ve always thought that they should be shown in theaters that aren’t too big. The intimate character of my films doesn’t suit a theater or an audience too large for them. And I don’t think they are suited to a mass reaction or a collective reaction. It’s better if the spectator feels he is experiencing a completely personal reaction to it. Each reaction should be unique, individual, and different. I think the film is enjoyed better if the spectators aren’t sitting too near one another, if the theater isn’t too full, and they don’t know each other. Then each has a different reaction. That’s better than a theater where there’s a uniform reaction. I don’t like watching one of my films in public and it distresses me if everyone laughs in the same place, as my film wasn’t made with that in mind. I didn’t write something just to make everyone laugh at the same time. It’s all right if someone smiles, but it shouldn’t happen at exactly the same place in the film. Perhaps this is because my films are more like reading than like watching a spectacle; they are made more to be read like a book than seen like something on the stage. So it distresses me to see a collective reaction." (Éric Rohmer's interview with Éric Rohmer, 1971) Clip from: La collectionneuse (1967) Director: Éric Rohmer
2:04

Éric Rohmer explains why he didn't like his movies being screened at crowded theaters: "If it depended only on me, instead of attracting people to my films, I would try to drive them away. I would tell them the films are more difficult than they really are, because I don’t like to deceive people, I like to show my films to people who can appreciate them. I’m not interested in the number of spectators. Having said that, it’s true that a film is a commercial undertaking and ought to recover its costs. But as my films don’t cost much, I don’t think I need a very large audience, and I’ve always thought that they should be shown in theaters that aren’t too big. The intimate character of my films doesn’t suit a theater or an audience too large for them. And I don’t think they are suited to a mass reaction or a collective reaction. It’s better if the spectator feels he is experiencing a completely personal reaction to it. Each reaction should be unique, individual, and different. I think the film is enjoyed better if the spectators aren’t sitting too near one another, if the theater isn’t too full, and they don’t know each other. Then each has a different reaction. That’s better than a theater where there’s a uniform reaction. I don’t like watching one of my films in public and it distresses me if everyone laughs in the same place, as my film wasn’t made with that in mind. I didn’t write something just to make everyone laugh at the same time. It’s all right if someone smiles, but it shouldn’t happen at exactly the same place in the film. Perhaps this is because my films are more like reading than like watching a spectacle; they are made more to be read like a book than seen like something on the stage. So it distresses me to see a collective reaction." (Éric Rohmer's interview with Éric Rohmer, 1971) Clip from: La collectionneuse (1967) Director: Éric Rohmer

DepressedBergman

57,936 Aufrufe • vor 8 Tagen

Orson Welles on why "Citizen Kane" (1941) was banned in Russia & what he considers to be an obligation of every artist: "Interviewer: In 'Citizen Kane' (1941) and 'Lady from Shanghai' (1947), were you intending to criticize American civilization? Welles: I certainly was. I think every artist has an obligation to criticize his own civilization, his contemporaries. It’s clearly and obviously the task of an artist of any ambition. Every French person ought to criticize the present French civilization. It’s a responsibility. Interviewer: But was it your intention to criticize a capitalistic viewpoint? Welles: The capitalistic viewpoint as opposed to the materialistic view point? If I admitted that I was criticizing capitalism, it would look as if I were adopting a Marxist attitude, and that’s not so. It’s no accident that 'Citizen Kane' (1941) is banned in Russia. They don’t like it at all, any more than the capitalists like it. I am an anti-materialist. I don’t like money or power, or the harm they do to people. It’s a very simple old idea. And I am specially opposed to plutocracy; it’s American plutocracy that I am attacking, from different angles in several films: 'The Magnificent Ambersons' (1942), 'Lady from Shanghai' (1947), and 'Citizen Kane' (1941). Interviewer: And in 'Touch of Evil' (1958)? Welles: There too, but from now on I’m more interested in the abuse of power by the police and the State, because today the State is more powerful than money. So I’m looking for a way of saying that." (Orson Welles' interview with Bazin, Bitsch, Domarchi, 1958) P.S: On this day, 85 years ago, "Citizen Kane" (1941) premiered in New York City, USA.
1:24

Orson Welles on why "Citizen Kane" (1941) was banned in Russia & what he considers to be an obligation of every artist: "Interviewer: In 'Citizen Kane' (1941) and 'Lady from Shanghai' (1947), were you intending to criticize American civilization? Welles: I certainly was. I think every artist has an obligation to criticize his own civilization, his contemporaries. It’s clearly and obviously the task of an artist of any ambition. Every French person ought to criticize the present French civilization. It’s a responsibility. Interviewer: But was it your intention to criticize a capitalistic viewpoint? Welles: The capitalistic viewpoint as opposed to the materialistic view point? If I admitted that I was criticizing capitalism, it would look as if I were adopting a Marxist attitude, and that’s not so. It’s no accident that 'Citizen Kane' (1941) is banned in Russia. They don’t like it at all, any more than the capitalists like it. I am an anti-materialist. I don’t like money or power, or the harm they do to people. It’s a very simple old idea. And I am specially opposed to plutocracy; it’s American plutocracy that I am attacking, from different angles in several films: 'The Magnificent Ambersons' (1942), 'Lady from Shanghai' (1947), and 'Citizen Kane' (1941). Interviewer: And in 'Touch of Evil' (1958)? Welles: There too, but from now on I’m more interested in the abuse of power by the police and the State, because today the State is more powerful than money. So I’m looking for a way of saying that." (Orson Welles' interview with Bazin, Bitsch, Domarchi, 1958) P.S: On this day, 85 years ago, "Citizen Kane" (1941) premiered in New York City, USA.

DepressedBergman

46,560 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Pauline Kael on how Gregg Toland's work in Karl Freund's "Mad Love" (1935) influenced Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane" (1941): "I had always been puzzled by the fact that Kane seemed to draw not only on the Expressionist theatrical style of Welles’s stage productions but on the German Expressionist and Gothic movies of the silent period. In Kane, as in the German silents, depth was used like stage depth, and attention was frequently moved from one figure to another within a fixed frame by essentially the same techniques as on the stage — by the actors’ moving into light or by a shift of the light to other actors (rather than by the fluid camera of a Renoir, which follows the actors, or the fragmentation and quick cutting of the early Russians). There were frames in Kane that seemed so close to the exaggerations in German films like 'Pandora’s Box' (1929) and 'The Last Laugh' (1924) and 'Secrets of a Soul' (1926) that I wondered what Welles was talking about when he said he had prepared for Kane by running John Ford’s 'Stagecoach' (1939) forty times. Even allowing for the hyperbole of the forty times, why should Orson Welles have studied 'Stagecoach' and come up with a film that looked more like 'The Cabinet of Dr Caligari?' (1920) | wondered if there might be a link between Gregg Toland and the German tradition, though most of Toland’s other films didn’t suggest much German influence. When I looked up his credits as a cameraman, the name 'Mad Love' rang a bell, I closed my eyes and visualized it, and there was the Gothic atmosphere, and the huge, dark rooms with lighted figures, and Peter Lorre, bald, with a spoiled-baby face, looking astoundingly like a miniature Orson Welles. 'Mad Love', made in Hollywood in 1935, was a dismal, static horror movie — an American version of a German film directed by the same man [Robert Weine - "The Hands of Orlac' (1924)] who had directed The 'Cabinet of Dr Caligari'. The American remake, remarkable only for its photography, was directed by Karl Freund, who had been head cinematographer at Ufa, in Germany. He had worked with such great directors as Fritz Lang and F.W. Murnau and G.W. Pabst, and, by his technical innovations, had helped create their styles; he had shot many of the German silent classics (The Last Laugh, Variety, Metropolis, Tartuffe). I recently looked at a print of 'Mad Love', and the resemblances to Citizen Kane are even greater than my memories of it suggested. Not only is the large room with the fireplace at Xanadu similar to Lorre’s domain as a mad doctor, with similar lighting and similar placement of figures, but Kane’s appearance and makeup in some sequences might be a facsimile of Lorre’s. Lorre, who had come out of the German theatre and German films, played in a stylized manner that is visually imitated in Kane. And, amusingly, that screeching white cockatoo, which isn’t in the script of Kane, but appeared out of nowhere in the movie to provide an extra ‘touch,’ is a regular member of Lorre’s household." ("Raising Kane and Other Essays", Pauline Kael, 1996) P.S: Remembering the legendary American Cinematographer Gregg Toland on his 122nd birthday!
1:37

Pauline Kael on how Gregg Toland's work in Karl Freund's "Mad Love" (1935) influenced Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane" (1941): "I had always been puzzled by the fact that Kane seemed to draw not only on the Expressionist theatrical style of Welles’s stage productions but on the German Expressionist and Gothic movies of the silent period. In Kane, as in the German silents, depth was used like stage depth, and attention was frequently moved from one figure to another within a fixed frame by essentially the same techniques as on the stage — by the actors’ moving into light or by a shift of the light to other actors (rather than by the fluid camera of a Renoir, which follows the actors, or the fragmentation and quick cutting of the early Russians). There were frames in Kane that seemed so close to the exaggerations in German films like 'Pandora’s Box' (1929) and 'The Last Laugh' (1924) and 'Secrets of a Soul' (1926) that I wondered what Welles was talking about when he said he had prepared for Kane by running John Ford’s 'Stagecoach' (1939) forty times. Even allowing for the hyperbole of the forty times, why should Orson Welles have studied 'Stagecoach' and come up with a film that looked more like 'The Cabinet of Dr Caligari?' (1920) | wondered if there might be a link between Gregg Toland and the German tradition, though most of Toland’s other films didn’t suggest much German influence. When I looked up his credits as a cameraman, the name 'Mad Love' rang a bell, I closed my eyes and visualized it, and there was the Gothic atmosphere, and the huge, dark rooms with lighted figures, and Peter Lorre, bald, with a spoiled-baby face, looking astoundingly like a miniature Orson Welles. 'Mad Love', made in Hollywood in 1935, was a dismal, static horror movie — an American version of a German film directed by the same man [Robert Weine - "The Hands of Orlac' (1924)] who had directed The 'Cabinet of Dr Caligari'. The American remake, remarkable only for its photography, was directed by Karl Freund, who had been head cinematographer at Ufa, in Germany. He had worked with such great directors as Fritz Lang and F.W. Murnau and G.W. Pabst, and, by his technical innovations, had helped create their styles; he had shot many of the German silent classics (The Last Laugh, Variety, Metropolis, Tartuffe). I recently looked at a print of 'Mad Love', and the resemblances to Citizen Kane are even greater than my memories of it suggested. Not only is the large room with the fireplace at Xanadu similar to Lorre’s domain as a mad doctor, with similar lighting and similar placement of figures, but Kane’s appearance and makeup in some sequences might be a facsimile of Lorre’s. Lorre, who had come out of the German theatre and German films, played in a stylized manner that is visually imitated in Kane. And, amusingly, that screeching white cockatoo, which isn’t in the script of Kane, but appeared out of nowhere in the movie to provide an extra ‘touch,’ is a regular member of Lorre’s household." ("Raising Kane and Other Essays", Pauline Kael, 1996) P.S: Remembering the legendary American Cinematographer Gregg Toland on his 122nd birthday!

DepressedBergman

20,027 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Ettore Scola on why he liked to make low budget movies: "I've made low-budget films and ones with high budgets, but I am not concerned with cost: my imagination is not fired up nor dampened down by the financial aspects of film-making. At this moment, if I had an unlimited budget, I might use it for many 'small' films." (Ettore Scola, "Projections A Forum for Film-makers", edited by John Boorman & Walter Donohue, 1992) Clip from: Ugly, Dirty and Bad (1976) Director: Ettore Scola
1:18

Ettore Scola on why he liked to make low budget movies: "I've made low-budget films and ones with high budgets, but I am not concerned with cost: my imagination is not fired up nor dampened down by the financial aspects of film-making. At this moment, if I had an unlimited budget, I might use it for many 'small' films." (Ettore Scola, "Projections A Forum for Film-makers", edited by John Boorman & Walter Donohue, 1992) Clip from: Ugly, Dirty and Bad (1976) Director: Ettore Scola

DepressedBergman

72,695 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Jim Jarmusch on the “All-Time Greatest L.A. Crime Film”: "I’ve always been a real aficionado of crime fiction and crime books. I’m a huge fan of crime films, certainly film noir is one of my favorite genres. The crime films that take place in L.A. are particularly vibrant for me. I find L.A. to be a very interesting landscape for crime films. 'The Big Sleep' (1946). 'Double Indemnity' (1944), 'Kiss Me Deadly' (1955), into the ’50s. After the early ’50s, 'Chinatown' (1974), certainly a great L.A. crime film. 'To Live and Die in L.A.' (1985) I love very much. I’m not a big fan of people referring to post ’40s, early ’50s crime films as film noir, as it’s a kind of very specific genre for me. For me, the all-time greatest L.A. crime film is John Boorman's 'Point Blank' (1967)" (Jim Jarmusch's interview to Criterion, 2026)
1:29

Jim Jarmusch on the “All-Time Greatest L.A. Crime Film”: "I’ve always been a real aficionado of crime fiction and crime books. I’m a huge fan of crime films, certainly film noir is one of my favorite genres. The crime films that take place in L.A. are particularly vibrant for me. I find L.A. to be a very interesting landscape for crime films. 'The Big Sleep' (1946). 'Double Indemnity' (1944), 'Kiss Me Deadly' (1955), into the ’50s. After the early ’50s, 'Chinatown' (1974), certainly a great L.A. crime film. 'To Live and Die in L.A.' (1985) I love very much. I’m not a big fan of people referring to post ’40s, early ’50s crime films as film noir, as it’s a kind of very specific genre for me. For me, the all-time greatest L.A. crime film is John Boorman's 'Point Blank' (1967)" (Jim Jarmusch's interview to Criterion, 2026)

DepressedBergman

108,329 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

"Whenever 'The Lady from Shanghai' (1947) was mentioned, people would clear their throats & change the subject very quickly out of consideration for my feelings. I only found out it was considered a good picture when I got to Europe." --- Orson Welles Full Excerpt: "Bogdanovich: But what was the Hollywood reaction generally to it? Welles: Friends avoided me. Whenever it was mentioned, people would clear their throats and change the subject very quickly out of consideration for my feelings. I only found out it was considered a good picture when I got to Europe. The first nice thing I ever heard about it from an American was from Truman Capote. One night in Sicily, he quoted whole pages of dialogue word for word. Bogdanovich: I guess that’s called being ahead of your time. Welles: It’s called being in trouble. Bogdanovich: How’d you come to make the movie? Welles: I was working on 'Around the World in 80 Days' and we found ourselves in Boston on the day of the premiere, unable to get the costumes from the station because $50,000 was due and our producer, Mr. Todd, had gone broke. Without that money we couldn’t open. I called Harry Cohn in Hollywood and I said, “I have a great story for you if you send me $50,000 by telegram in one hour. I'll sign a contract to make it.” “What story?” Cohn said. I was calling from a pay phone, and next to it was a display of paperbacks and I gave him the title of one of them, Lady from Shanghai. I said, “Buy the novel and I'll make the film.” An hour later, we got the money. Bogdanovich: There’s a quote from Peter Noble’s book: “Lady from Shanghai" cost a fortune, lost a fortune, and finished Welles’ career at any of the big Hollywood studios.” Welles: The truth is that it cost about the same as any other Rita Hayworth picture in that period, and if it didn’t do as well at the box office as some of the others, I don’t think it did either of us any real harm. I went to Europe after that and stayed there, but I wasn't run out of town. Harry Cohn told me, “I’m never going to make a picture like this again.” He had a good point. His reasons were: “Not because of the script, you understand—it’s the script I approved-and I liked it and I don’t care what anybody says. It’s just because nobody should be the director and producer and also the leading actor in any picture. There's no way that he can be fired. Somebody has a deal like that—what’s the use of me owning my own studio? | might as well be janitor.”" ('This is Orson Welles', Orson Welles & Peter Bogdanovich, 1993)
1:24

"Whenever 'The Lady from Shanghai' (1947) was mentioned, people would clear their throats & change the subject very quickly out of consideration for my feelings. I only found out it was considered a good picture when I got to Europe." --- Orson Welles Full Excerpt: "Bogdanovich: But what was the Hollywood reaction generally to it? Welles: Friends avoided me. Whenever it was mentioned, people would clear their throats and change the subject very quickly out of consideration for my feelings. I only found out it was considered a good picture when I got to Europe. The first nice thing I ever heard about it from an American was from Truman Capote. One night in Sicily, he quoted whole pages of dialogue word for word. Bogdanovich: I guess that’s called being ahead of your time. Welles: It’s called being in trouble. Bogdanovich: How’d you come to make the movie? Welles: I was working on 'Around the World in 80 Days' and we found ourselves in Boston on the day of the premiere, unable to get the costumes from the station because $50,000 was due and our producer, Mr. Todd, had gone broke. Without that money we couldn’t open. I called Harry Cohn in Hollywood and I said, “I have a great story for you if you send me $50,000 by telegram in one hour. I'll sign a contract to make it.” “What story?” Cohn said. I was calling from a pay phone, and next to it was a display of paperbacks and I gave him the title of one of them, Lady from Shanghai. I said, “Buy the novel and I'll make the film.” An hour later, we got the money. Bogdanovich: There’s a quote from Peter Noble’s book: “Lady from Shanghai" cost a fortune, lost a fortune, and finished Welles’ career at any of the big Hollywood studios.” Welles: The truth is that it cost about the same as any other Rita Hayworth picture in that period, and if it didn’t do as well at the box office as some of the others, I don’t think it did either of us any real harm. I went to Europe after that and stayed there, but I wasn't run out of town. Harry Cohn told me, “I’m never going to make a picture like this again.” He had a good point. His reasons were: “Not because of the script, you understand—it’s the script I approved-and I liked it and I don’t care what anybody says. It’s just because nobody should be the director and producer and also the leading actor in any picture. There's no way that he can be fired. Somebody has a deal like that—what’s the use of me owning my own studio? | might as well be janitor.”" ('This is Orson Welles', Orson Welles & Peter Bogdanovich, 1993)

DepressedBergman

21,038 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Remembering the legendary Japanese director Kenji Mizoguchi (溝口 健二) on his 128th birthday! Ari Aster on the greatness of Kenji Mizoguchi: "Mizoguchi is a filmmaker I discovered pretty early. When I was younger, I watched anything Scorsese recommended, and I saw an interview with him where he referenced 'Ugetsu' (1953). I just fell in love with Mizoguchi’s work. He called the Academy ratio the “painterly ratio,” and I feel like there are very few filmmakers who did as much with that frame. 'Sansho the Bailiff' (1954) is just one of the most devastating melodramas I’ve ever seen, and 'Ugetsu' (1953) is a beautiful, ethereal ghost story. His films are quiet while also being extremely harsh and brutal. There’s a clinical, distant quality to his films, but there’s also this aching humanity at the heart of everything he did." (From Ari Aster's top 10, Criterion, 2018)
1:25

Remembering the legendary Japanese director Kenji Mizoguchi (溝口 健二) on his 128th birthday! Ari Aster on the greatness of Kenji Mizoguchi: "Mizoguchi is a filmmaker I discovered pretty early. When I was younger, I watched anything Scorsese recommended, and I saw an interview with him where he referenced 'Ugetsu' (1953). I just fell in love with Mizoguchi’s work. He called the Academy ratio the “painterly ratio,” and I feel like there are very few filmmakers who did as much with that frame. 'Sansho the Bailiff' (1954) is just one of the most devastating melodramas I’ve ever seen, and 'Ugetsu' (1953) is a beautiful, ethereal ghost story. His films are quiet while also being extremely harsh and brutal. There’s a clinical, distant quality to his films, but there’s also this aching humanity at the heart of everything he did." (From Ari Aster's top 10, Criterion, 2018)

DepressedBergman

115,200 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

"These new sci-fi, action films, are good but they are not cinema." --- Akira Kurosawa Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: In your older films there was always some concern about human situations. What is the root of this? Kurosawa: When there is talk of humanity in Japan, everyone thinks of complex subjects and stories. However, whatever an ordinary human feels, we try to project on the screen in an honest way. That’s all. Interviewer: You were keen on American cinema… Kurosawa: Regarding American cinema, I could say that much better films were made in the past. Today’s American cinema provides the wrong service to the audience. Violence and car crashes are often seen. What pleasure is there in watching such scenes? Old American films expressed human problems quite well, but these days the American cinema has problems. There is no doubt that a film like 'Jurassic Park' (1993) is interesting, but there used to be more impressive films in the past. In contrast, films, like those of Kiarostami, touch the heart and are very beautiful. These new sci-fi, action films, are good but they are not cinema. Interviewer: In comparison to cinema as entertainment, how do you think Third World artistic cinema can attract a Western audience? Kurosawa: Civilization has poisoned humanity. The backbone of a good film is the filmmaker’s humane character. If we are not honest to ourselves, we will never be able to make decent films. Actually, it doesn’t mean that if a country is well off, it is necessarily capable of making good films. A person, who is able to make good films, knows how to find his or her way into the viewer’s heart; such as John Ford, Jean Renoir, John Huston, Federico Fellini, Angelopoulos, Sidney Lumet… I’ve met every one of them and have spoken to them. Just as they have exceptional works, they were also very distinguished in character. It was very easy to establish a cordial relationship with them, which is quite important. The people that are depicted on screen in their films are not predetermined (molded) characters. They express human problems in a natural way. That’s why their films are fascinating. Sidney Lumet is a close friend of mine, and whenever we sit down to talk we never discuss cinema. We generally discuss trivial matters, social problems or our hobbies, and we quite enjoy it. Reporters always ask me what the content of my film is and I tell them that there is no such a thing. I say ordinary things. A film is not supposed to be a lecture." (Akira Kurosawa's interview with Maani Petgar, 1998) Clip from: Jurassic Park (1993) Director: Steven Spielberg
2:43

"These new sci-fi, action films, are good but they are not cinema." --- Akira Kurosawa Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: In your older films there was always some concern about human situations. What is the root of this? Kurosawa: When there is talk of humanity in Japan, everyone thinks of complex subjects and stories. However, whatever an ordinary human feels, we try to project on the screen in an honest way. That’s all. Interviewer: You were keen on American cinema… Kurosawa: Regarding American cinema, I could say that much better films were made in the past. Today’s American cinema provides the wrong service to the audience. Violence and car crashes are often seen. What pleasure is there in watching such scenes? Old American films expressed human problems quite well, but these days the American cinema has problems. There is no doubt that a film like 'Jurassic Park' (1993) is interesting, but there used to be more impressive films in the past. In contrast, films, like those of Kiarostami, touch the heart and are very beautiful. These new sci-fi, action films, are good but they are not cinema. Interviewer: In comparison to cinema as entertainment, how do you think Third World artistic cinema can attract a Western audience? Kurosawa: Civilization has poisoned humanity. The backbone of a good film is the filmmaker’s humane character. If we are not honest to ourselves, we will never be able to make decent films. Actually, it doesn’t mean that if a country is well off, it is necessarily capable of making good films. A person, who is able to make good films, knows how to find his or her way into the viewer’s heart; such as John Ford, Jean Renoir, John Huston, Federico Fellini, Angelopoulos, Sidney Lumet… I’ve met every one of them and have spoken to them. Just as they have exceptional works, they were also very distinguished in character. It was very easy to establish a cordial relationship with them, which is quite important. The people that are depicted on screen in their films are not predetermined (molded) characters. They express human problems in a natural way. That’s why their films are fascinating. Sidney Lumet is a close friend of mine, and whenever we sit down to talk we never discuss cinema. We generally discuss trivial matters, social problems or our hobbies, and we quite enjoy it. Reporters always ask me what the content of my film is and I tell them that there is no such a thing. I say ordinary things. A film is not supposed to be a lecture." (Akira Kurosawa's interview with Maani Petgar, 1998) Clip from: Jurassic Park (1993) Director: Steven Spielberg

DepressedBergman

84,572 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Paweł Pawlikowski on his favourite movies from the 1970s: "In the mid-seventies I got more into the art of cinema (and into the arts in general), which coincided with a great period in American cinema. I got seriously hooked on 'Taxi Driver' (1976), 'Badlands' (1973), 'Days of Heaven' (1978). These films with alienated heroes, where landscape becomes soul-scape. They made me realize that cinema can be this amazing space where images, words, faces, landscapes, and music all melt together in a mysterious way. Even now, my favorite films are those that take you out of yourself, that make you enter this other world on-screen. These three films did exactly that to me." ("Paweł Pawlikowski’s Top 10", Criterion, 2018)
1:37

Paweł Pawlikowski on his favourite movies from the 1970s: "In the mid-seventies I got more into the art of cinema (and into the arts in general), which coincided with a great period in American cinema. I got seriously hooked on 'Taxi Driver' (1976), 'Badlands' (1973), 'Days of Heaven' (1978). These films with alienated heroes, where landscape becomes soul-scape. They made me realize that cinema can be this amazing space where images, words, faces, landscapes, and music all melt together in a mysterious way. Even now, my favorite films are those that take you out of yourself, that make you enter this other world on-screen. These three films did exactly that to me." ("Paweł Pawlikowski’s Top 10", Criterion, 2018)

DepressedBergman

52,643 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Thodōros Angelopoulos explains the difference between his films & those of Ingmar Bergman: "I don't find any similarities between my work and Bergman's. My cinema is not psychological, it is epic; the individual in it is not psychoanalyzed but placed within a historical context. My characters assume all the elements of epic cinema or, if I may say so, those of epic poetry, typically featuring clear-cut persona. In Homer, Odysseus is a shrewd conniver, Achilles is brave, loyal to his friends-and these characteristics never change. The same with Brecht whose characters are larger than life; they serve as carriers of history or ideas. My characters are not being analyzed, they are not tormented, like Bergman's. They are more humane. They search for lost things, all that was lost in the rupture between desire and reality. Until not very long ago the history of the world was based on desire; the desire to change the world one way or another. Now at the end of the century we realize that whatever was desired never really happened, and it did not happen for reasons that I am unable to explain. Perhaps it was impossible to change things using the specific methods that were employed at the time, but in any case, we are left with the experience of our failure, with the ashes of the disappointment of dreams that never materialized. My last three films reflect this taste of ashes, leaving the desire to be pursued in some future time, in the next discourse. My writing and Bergman's do not relate. In his films there is a strong metaphysical element which identifies the search for the father figure with the search for God or the denial of God. I think that in my own work, the father figure does not represent a goal in itself; the purpose of my films is to find a reason to exist. My films are not as metaphysical. They are, in a strange way, more existential than Bergman's. This is certainly the case for the trilogy- "Voyage to Cythera" (1984), "The Beekeeper" (1986), and "Landscape in the Mist" (1988)". (Theo Angelopoulos' interview with Gerald O'Grady, 1990)
2:20

Thodōros Angelopoulos explains the difference between his films & those of Ingmar Bergman: "I don't find any similarities between my work and Bergman's. My cinema is not psychological, it is epic; the individual in it is not psychoanalyzed but placed within a historical context. My characters assume all the elements of epic cinema or, if I may say so, those of epic poetry, typically featuring clear-cut persona. In Homer, Odysseus is a shrewd conniver, Achilles is brave, loyal to his friends-and these characteristics never change. The same with Brecht whose characters are larger than life; they serve as carriers of history or ideas. My characters are not being analyzed, they are not tormented, like Bergman's. They are more humane. They search for lost things, all that was lost in the rupture between desire and reality. Until not very long ago the history of the world was based on desire; the desire to change the world one way or another. Now at the end of the century we realize that whatever was desired never really happened, and it did not happen for reasons that I am unable to explain. Perhaps it was impossible to change things using the specific methods that were employed at the time, but in any case, we are left with the experience of our failure, with the ashes of the disappointment of dreams that never materialized. My last three films reflect this taste of ashes, leaving the desire to be pursued in some future time, in the next discourse. My writing and Bergman's do not relate. In his films there is a strong metaphysical element which identifies the search for the father figure with the search for God or the denial of God. I think that in my own work, the father figure does not represent a goal in itself; the purpose of my films is to find a reason to exist. My films are not as metaphysical. They are, in a strange way, more existential than Bergman's. This is certainly the case for the trilogy- "Voyage to Cythera" (1984), "The Beekeeper" (1986), and "Landscape in the Mist" (1988)". (Theo Angelopoulos' interview with Gerald O'Grady, 1990)

DepressedBergman

52,940 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The Sin Trade 追恶 [2026] Directed By: Cheng Siyi Finally caught up to this. Part of the new school of Action directors in Mainland China, Cheng Siyi has been making a name of for himself over the past few years. Especially with his 2024 film "Desperado". So far, this is his best output, since he got a fellow director and action choreographer to do the action direction for this film. And when you get a combo like that you sure are going to get a banger. Plenty of action in this film about human trafficking and with the case with Chinese DTV that's usually one of the themes they go with on thier output. Drugs, Human trafficking or Sniper Films, lol. This is currently streaming the West and East on iQIYI. This scene is edited BTW to cut out the drama.
0:39

The Sin Trade 追恶 [2026] Directed By: Cheng Siyi Finally caught up to this. Part of the new school of Action directors in Mainland China, Cheng Siyi has been making a name of for himself over the past few years. Especially with his 2024 film "Desperado". So far, this is his best output, since he got a fellow director and action choreographer to do the action direction for this film. And when you get a combo like that you sure are going to get a banger. Plenty of action in this film about human trafficking and with the case with Chinese DTV that's usually one of the themes they go with on thier output. Drugs, Human trafficking or Sniper Films, lol. This is currently streaming the West and East on iQIYI. This scene is edited BTW to cut out the drama.

ѕнσgυη ѕυρяємє

11,521 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The Furious [2026] Directed By: Kenji Tanigaki Xie Miao, also known as Mo Tse, was part of two iconic films with Jet Li. New Legend Of Shaolin and My Father The Hero. Very well received films within the genre. He took a break to focus on his studies after his childhood acting career and did a few films after like the Champions in 2008 but after the late 2K10s he went back at full force and one of the most notable films are the Eye For An Eye franchise. Which in the second film he co-stars with Yang Enyou, who happens to be in this film as well. What makes this film special is the Hong Kong and Japanese connection. So, seeing Kensuke Sonomura choreograph traditional Chinese martial arts his eye opening and away from his comfort zone but still keeping his brawler aesthetic which he is known for which usually he flavors boxing and BJJ. With notable legends in this film like Joe Taslim, Yayan Ruhian and JeeJa Yanin where people might recognize this Thai actress from Chocolate we were sure to get a banger and we sure did. Especially from the amazing output form Brain Le and Joey Iwanaga.
1:29

The Furious [2026] Directed By: Kenji Tanigaki Xie Miao, also known as Mo Tse, was part of two iconic films with Jet Li. New Legend Of Shaolin and My Father The Hero. Very well received films within the genre. He took a break to focus on his studies after his childhood acting career and did a few films after like the Champions in 2008 but after the late 2K10s he went back at full force and one of the most notable films are the Eye For An Eye franchise. Which in the second film he co-stars with Yang Enyou, who happens to be in this film as well. What makes this film special is the Hong Kong and Japanese connection. So, seeing Kensuke Sonomura choreograph traditional Chinese martial arts his eye opening and away from his comfort zone but still keeping his brawler aesthetic which he is known for which usually he flavors boxing and BJJ. With notable legends in this film like Joe Taslim, Yayan Ruhian and JeeJa Yanin where people might recognize this Thai actress from Chocolate we were sure to get a banger and we sure did. Especially from the amazing output form Brain Le and Joey Iwanaga.

ѕнσgυη ѕυρяємє

42,328 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

Krzysztof Kieślowski on how he watched movies, how they affected his life and his views on stealing from other movies: "The truth is that I watched masses of films - especially at film school - and I loved a lot of them. But can you call that influence? I think that to this day, apart from a few exceptions, I watch films like a member of the public rather than a director. It's a completely different way of looking at things. Of course, I watch with a professional eye if somebody asks me for advice or something. Then I try to analyse the film, watch it professionally. But if I go to the cinema - which happens very rarely - I try to watch films like the audience does. That is, I try to allow myself to be moved, surrender to the magic, if it's there, on the screen, and to believe the story somebody's telling. And then it's hard to talk of influence. Basically, if a film is good, and if I like it, then I watch it far less analytically than if I don't like it. It's hard to say that bad films have an influence; it's the good ones that influence us. And I try to watch - or rather, do watch - good films in the spirit in which they were made. I don't try to analyse them. It was the same thing at school, too. I watched 'Citizen Kane' (1941) a hundred times. If you insisted, I could sit down and probably draw or describe individual takes, but that's not what was important to me. What was important, was the fact that I took part in the film. I experienced it. Nor do I think that there's anything wrong in stealing. If somebody's gone that way before and it's proved to be good, then you have to steal it immediately. If I steal from good films, and if this later becomes part of my own world, then I steal without qualms. This often happens completely without my being aware of it, but that doesn't mean that I don't do it - it did happen but it wasn't calculated, or premeditated. It's not straight plagiarism. To put it another way, films are simply part of our lives. We get up in the morning, we go to work or we don't got to work. We go to sleep. We make love. We hate. We watch films. We talk to our friends, to our families. We experience our children's problems or the problems of our children's friends. And the films are there somewhere, too. They also stay somewhere within us. They become part of our own lives, of our own inner selves. They stay with us just as much as all those things which really happened. I don't think they're any different from real events, apart from the fact that they're invented. But that doesn't matter. They stay with us. I steal takes from films, scenes, or solutions, just as I steal stories and afterwards I can't even remember where I stole them from." ("Kieślowski on Kieślowski", Edited by Danusia Stok, 1993) P.S: Remembering the legendary filmmaker Krzysztof Kieślowski on his 85th birthday! Clip from: Three Colours: Blue (1993) Director: Krzysztof Kieślowski
1:23

Krzysztof Kieślowski on how he watched movies, how they affected his life and his views on stealing from other movies: "The truth is that I watched masses of films - especially at film school - and I loved a lot of them. But can you call that influence? I think that to this day, apart from a few exceptions, I watch films like a member of the public rather than a director. It's a completely different way of looking at things. Of course, I watch with a professional eye if somebody asks me for advice or something. Then I try to analyse the film, watch it professionally. But if I go to the cinema - which happens very rarely - I try to watch films like the audience does. That is, I try to allow myself to be moved, surrender to the magic, if it's there, on the screen, and to believe the story somebody's telling. And then it's hard to talk of influence. Basically, if a film is good, and if I like it, then I watch it far less analytically than if I don't like it. It's hard to say that bad films have an influence; it's the good ones that influence us. And I try to watch - or rather, do watch - good films in the spirit in which they were made. I don't try to analyse them. It was the same thing at school, too. I watched 'Citizen Kane' (1941) a hundred times. If you insisted, I could sit down and probably draw or describe individual takes, but that's not what was important to me. What was important, was the fact that I took part in the film. I experienced it. Nor do I think that there's anything wrong in stealing. If somebody's gone that way before and it's proved to be good, then you have to steal it immediately. If I steal from good films, and if this later becomes part of my own world, then I steal without qualms. This often happens completely without my being aware of it, but that doesn't mean that I don't do it - it did happen but it wasn't calculated, or premeditated. It's not straight plagiarism. To put it another way, films are simply part of our lives. We get up in the morning, we go to work or we don't got to work. We go to sleep. We make love. We hate. We watch films. We talk to our friends, to our families. We experience our children's problems or the problems of our children's friends. And the films are there somewhere, too. They also stay somewhere within us. They become part of our own lives, of our own inner selves. They stay with us just as much as all those things which really happened. I don't think they're any different from real events, apart from the fact that they're invented. But that doesn't matter. They stay with us. I steal takes from films, scenes, or solutions, just as I steal stories and afterwards I can't even remember where I stole them from." ("Kieślowski on Kieślowski", Edited by Danusia Stok, 1993) P.S: Remembering the legendary filmmaker Krzysztof Kieślowski on his 85th birthday! Clip from: Three Colours: Blue (1993) Director: Krzysztof Kieślowski

DepressedBergman

55,420 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat