have you seen what I am talking about?It's all in black and white, of course, except that in a few scenes, some women are wearing color dresses. And in a few scenes, the blasts from gunshots and a dynamite explosion are in red.Even those scenes are black and white, it's just that those specific things -- the dresses, the gunshots, and the explosions -- are in color, within the black and white scene.Also, in the final, famous shot of the gunfighter firing at the camera, his shirt is green and his bandana is red (while the rest of the shot is in b/w).
My problem with the film is that it doesn't play by the rules it sets for itself. To wit: what exactly was Gwyneth Paltrow's "sin"?
Because a) the specifics of your criticisms rarely make sense,
D&D that's similar to my opinion too. Many things you think are unbelievable are easily believable for me, and you are often too much concerned with your understanding of realism in films where it doesn't make much sense imo to think very much about realism. (Whatever "realism" maybe, which isn't an easy question)By others I mostly see what they mean, even if I disagree. By your posts I mostly think it doesn't make much sense to say this about this particular film. It often seems we life on different planets, or on different levels of reality, and only meet in this forum due to some sort of an amazing space/time continuum.
Her's, none. But her head leads Pitt to his sin.
Yeah, I understood that. But killing Paltrow is in effect cheating, which ruins the whole thing for me.
War Horse. Of course the trench war scenes and the two sides running at each other in battle reminded me of GBU, as did the hidden horse markings (so I was ready for that).
This past week I transcribed a case where two lawyers spent ten minutes arguing over whether or not one of them pushed their notepad towards their client. Then they spent five minutes debating whether one of them was shouting or not. D&D, I know you're a law student, but do you really want to be that guy?
This past week I transcribed a case where two lawyers spent ten minutes arguing over whether or not one of them pushed their notepad towards their client. Then they spent five minutes debating whether one of them was shouting or not.
Two words, Young Groggy: billable hours. But the issue here is getting smothered by a pointless semantics argument. Let's all stipulate that films never offer realism; rather, they are composed of elements that by convention have come to stand for realism, what we might call "film realism." Further, within particular genres there are sets of conventions that, although not necessarily codified, operate as expectations in the minds of those to whom such genres appeal. When crafting a movie, filmmakers do well to observe the practices of film realism and genre conventions if they want to avoid alienating their audience. They can depart from those practices and conventions, but when they do they'd better have a damn good reason for it--that is, such departures should never seem arbitrary.Defining what is "arbitrary", though, comes only from experience, in this case, the experience of watching many hundreds, if not thousands, of films. D&D has, by his own admission, seen very few films. I don't doubt that by the time he has finally seen his thousandth his perception of what makes certain films successful or not will have changed.
My point in bringing up that anecdote, though, is that D&D seems to be arguing for the sake of argument. We've had this basic discussion a million times in the past month alone and I for one don't find it fun anymore.
