Huntsman did well on Friday. I guess no one at Universal is getting fired (yet).
Huntsman is an alright film. I really see it as the red headed step child of Lord of the Rings, but whatever. I usually have issues with Kristen Stewart, but this time around I have no beef. I do believe the role of Snow White would have benefited greatly from being played by an unknown, but I guess we have to take what we’re given. Theron was really my problem here. I place a lot of weight on actresses, I expect a lot from them because I find it that women are significantly more capable of delivering outstanding performances filled with high emotions. Here, the films scope seemed to get the best of her. I enjoy Hemsworth a great deal in what I’ve seen from him so far. I think he can deliver a great action performance along with being able to handle wordy dialogue.
The action sequences were filmed great. Not too cluttered and confusing. And there’s quite a bit of attention to cinematography and overall production design which I expect from a film like this.
i kinda wanna see it… :)
Check it out. I enjoyed it.
I’m not going to see Huntsman on my own, but if tomorrow I met a girl who wanted to see it, I’d probably enjoy it.
“I can’t say I admire sex, lies, and videotape and Steven Soderbergh’s sensibilty…I know other people talk about independent filmmakers like John Cassavetes, but I can’t say that he was an influence…I actually don’t value cinematic references because I think the key to what I am doing most of the time is literary. It’s narrative, and it’s comedy, and film is far less important than fiction and theater.”
I have no problem with this quote. Fiction and theater have been around a lot longer, is their superiority to film even up for debate? I eagerly await the filmmakers who are better than Shakespeare thread.
“Well the “children’s stories” are actually very adult in their original form, so I think there is a wealth of material in fairy tales. They’re just rarely done well.”
Good point. They often served as cautionary tales used to impart a lesson. No one should confuse the sanitized Disney versions with the real things. Though Disneys Snow White had a bit of grimness in the way one of the henchmen lunges at her.
Fiction and theater have been around a lot longer, is their superiority to film even up for debate?
Yes. There’s no such thing as superiority when it comes to art.
Yeah, my question is, if film is less important than theater, why the fuck are you making films Whit Stillman?
What a douchebag.
Oh was that Stillman’s quote?
I really want to start a “Filmmakers who are better than Shakespeare” thread, but I know it won’t go anywhere good.
Yeah, they did an interview with him in the latest issue of Film Comment.
As far as I’m concerned, I’d rather have a five course meal with Mel Gibson.
I guess I need to subscribe to Film Comment. Anybody wanna get it for me for my birthday?
It’s a great magazine. It’s especially helpful in highlighting upcoming films that may or may not be playing in theaters in your area, on demand, on DVD, etc.
Yeah I got a couple issues from a sinking Borders once. The only reason I haven’t subscribed yet is because Amazon’s listing for it doesn’t specify how long the subscription is.
I think it’s $30 for a year. But you only get six issues in a year, since it’s bi-monthly.
Film is more lucrative than theater. Stillman is more focused on dialog than Cassavettes or Soderbergh who encourage improv. I seem to have awoken defensiveness but not compelling arguments regarding art forms.
I don’t think literature is superior art to film, but I can at least see a few arguments that it is.
I can’t imagine any reasonable argument that theater is superior to film. “It’s been round longer?” So what. Go read hieroglyphics then. Most theater around today is campy garbage. Classic theater is awesome, and it’s great to see live performances, but how can you argue that one element makes it superior to film?
The arguments for literature’s superiority that I would devil’s advocate for are as follows:
-More in the realm of the imagination, thus less limited
-Writers have the freedom to stack their ideas in any form they see fit, as time does not proceed at a set rate and visual continuity is optional
I believe film is capable of reaching the same heights as literature, but the artist does have less freedom.
I think Stillman’s comment says more about his own limitations as a filmmaker than it does about the limitations of cinema as a whole.
And for that, I would agree.
Perhaps more surprising, though, is that the audience skewed older (52 percent were 30 years of age and up), meaning Snow White had true four-quadrant appeal.
That’s a new term for me. ‘four-quadrant appeal’. Huh.
I have to admit that the imagery did look striking in the trailer, giving me more incentive to see it than I had originally intended. I think one of the things about fantasy CG style VFX and so on is that I really enjoy the concept because I grew up a fantasy/sci-fi geek, but that one of the unfortunate parts of it is that so much of it looks the same (a common complaint about Harry Potter, for instance, is that the CG monsters look just like other movies’ monsters, but I think Harry Potter managed to sufficiently maintain its own unique look). Tarsem has the right idea on making movies look unique, but homeboy doesn’t manage narratives well, almost to the point where you want to strangle the guy and tell him to focus. We need more visual thinkers like Tarsem making good narrative movies to keep the genre interesting.
Sounds like Snow White and the Huntsman may have hit a surprisingly cohesive note in that regard. I still don’t particularly feel like going out of my way to see it, but now I’m wanting to catch a second-run theatrical presentation so that if I do see it, I at least see it on the big screen.
I wonder how well it would have done if it didn’t have the connotation of the Twilight films via Stewart, either way. Might have helped, might have hurt.
Glad to see it’s already done better than Battleship’s run so far.
I like how one man’s advantageous career choice is being pitted against the sum total of work of an artform which yes, is many hundreds of years older than film and those who dont spend most of their time watching and discussing film have no hangups about saying its deeply indebted to it.
““It’s been round longer?” So what.” Its an accepted argument that influential films are greater achievements than the films that came later. Why does that reasoning not apply here? Many of the devices of film are taken from theatre.
Ddi Santino have a hissy fit because Cassavetes got dissed? I like Cassavetes films but not everyone else has to and not all filmmakers need to find his methods useful.
My hissy fit stems from Stillman being difficult to work with (personal experience alert!). Dissing Cassavetes? lol. Don’t most people diss him?
Its an accepted argument that influential films are greater achievements than the films that came later. Why does that reasoning not apply here? Many of the devices of film are taken from theatre.
Accepted by who? Mostly people who want to exclude newer films from the accepted canon of greatness. It’s an argument of convenience for people who prefer older works.
If one art form were truly superior to another, it wouldn’t matter how old it was. A film that came out yesterday won’t be any greater one thousand years from now than it is today. We’ll just have a deeper understanding of its greatness, and the same is true for literature and theatre. Shakespeare isn’t any greater today than he was in his own day, his works have just been more fully appreciated. So if newer films have not been influential yet, it’s a deficit of ours for not having existed for a long enough time frame to be influenced by them, not a deficit of the film.
Literature came out of oral tradition, but you don’t see people arguing it’s not true art if it’s not being dictated from memory to a crowd.