ScubaGirl wrote:I consider myself a movie buff. Tennispalatsi has been like a second home to me ever since it opened
. Even now with a young daughter, I have a babysitter come so I can see a movie at least once a week, sometimes twice. I'm not anti-hollywood though, I'm just anti anything with a bad script, bad acting, etc... A lot of good films come out of Hollywood, and yes so does a lot of garbage. Some of my fav films come from Tim Burton, The Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese, Baz Luhrmann, Quentin Tarantino, Peter Jackson (been a fan long before he did LOTR), Kevin Smith, etc...
I love all genres as long as it's well acted and has a good plot. It's always been a dream of mine to score films.
Not to offend you, but you lie within the majority of the audiences. Now, I've been labeled elitist or having an elitist attitude when it comes to films, but take this analogy for thought. If you're a connoisseur to fine wines, you'd be able to construct a greater range of opinions because you know a bit more about wine and the process of making it (which grapes, how its mixed, climate they were produced in, how they were aged, barrel's wood-type used, etc.). On the otherhand, you have the greater population who aren't well versed in fine wines and can't distinguish the great wine from the mediocre wine (like me, or maybe because I'm cheap).
Another food analogy that I've been made aware of is also about restaurants. When you are hungry, you choose where you want to go.
A) Fast Food or something quick just to satisfy your hunger (Most Hollywood films, bad films)
or
B) 5-Star restaurant where you're pampered to your needs (Great films)
In this respect, when you watch a film like
Masculin, Féminin, I'm sure most viewers would think Jean-Luc Godard was a boring filmmaker. Most audiences go for the quick fix entertainment, and not really exploring the film-- just like the fast food restaurant (sometimes the burger is dry, sometimes it's okay). But for others who understand film in a completely different context don't view films necessarily the same way. I, myself, am busy watching the principle photography of the film, why things were framed the way they were, how they are framed, use of dialogue, use of space, use of everything you can possibly think of. If it's on the screen, you have to ask yourself, "why?" And so, comparing that with the 5-Star restaurant, you'd take in the whole atmosphere of the restaurant home with you... something I'm quite sure would be a memorable experience, something you'd want to experience more and more of. And since 5-Star dining isn't the costly venture the average Joe would consider, all the "time" wasted watching a "boring" film wouldn't be very cost effective to the average theater-Joe either. I hope you're catching my drift.
So again, I'm not trying to offend you and say that I'm better than you are, but when you've practiced film, studied it, lived it, and understand it, you'll comprehend it with different eyes and ears. And if you've seen M,F and still don't like it, or understand it, then as I said before, you'd lie within the majority of the audiences... force fed cheap (not budget-wise, but creativity/craft-wise) films for quick fixes. Nothing wrong with that, I have a dvd collection of those as well in
Dumb and Dumber and the likes.
One more thing to add... you're right when you said "A lot of good films come out of Hollwood,"... but that's only true if you were talking about early Hollywood films when films weren't trying to make a quick buck from cheap material. Martin Scorsese is probably the only filmmaker in your list that I would consider a great. The others... they're at about the mediocre-bad Hollywood film level. Of course, this is my opinion only. Nothing against yours.
P.S. sorry this was long. it'd be easier talking aloud than typing.
) As for lighting... we'll do our best with whatever our budget will be. It seems summer is the prime season for shooting... you can't beat the countless hours of natural sunlight.
