The Revenant

WLVCA

Member Sponsor
Nov 2, 2012
3,911
2,374
1,395
Tucson
While I don't agree with the Guardian reviewer's take on The Revenant, I can understand his point of view regarding gratuitous violence in films.

There are movies where the violence is just over the top (in my opinion) and offensive. For me, Quentin Tarantino films often fall into that category. My view diverges from the majority.

However, I am also the guy that finds no redeeming qualities in horror films and slasher films. Some people love them.

No accounting for taste I suppose.
 

TBone

New Member
Nov 15, 2012
1,237
1
0
Geez, violent movies have been around forever, the Reverant hardly rates ... plus ... it's so relatively easy in todays world to get a hint of the degree of violence within, based on reviews & trailers. If one thinks it will pee-off his/her sensibilities, then why view it, or worse, rant here inappropriately.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
God, my reaction to it is entirely different it seems to everyone else. I disliked it entirely.

This opinion piece, written in The Guardian, accurately captures my feelings about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/17/revenant-leonardo-dicaprio-violent-meaningless-glorification-pain

The Revenant is meaningless Pain Porn?

"Ritualised brutality. Vengeful blood lust. Vicious savagery justified by medieval notions of retribution. We all know how dark the world can be these days. A world where men are garrotted and impaled. Where they’re speared and disembowelled and have their necks slashed and their genitals sliced off. Where they’re killed for no other reason than revenge. This isn’t Raqqa, though, it’s The Revenant: the hottest blockbuster of the season, winner of three Golden Globes a week ago, nominated for 12 Oscars last Thursday and yours for around £10-£15 this weekend at your local multiplex.

It’s a tale of “revenge, retribution and primal violence”, according to the Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw, “as thrilling and painful as a sheet of ice held to the skin”. This is praise, by the way. It’s “unthinkingly, aggressively masculine,” says GQ. That’s praise too.

The film is based on a true story of the American frontier from 1823 and I’ll summarise the plot for you: man seeks revenge, man gets revenge. That’s it, basically, for two and a half hours, though there is a brief reprieve when you get to see Leonardo DiCaprio being mauled by a grizzly bear. Early reports suggested that he was raped. But no, that’s a fate reserved for one of the two women who appear fleetingly on screen. (The other one is slaughtered. But don’t worry, you have no idea who she is so you won’t actually care.)

The woman is not actually raped, of course. She’s faux raped. Because this is what we call acting. And because The Revenant is what we call entertainment. There’s a crucial difference between us and the people we are currently trying to blow to smithereens with million-pound missiles: we choose to pay to watch women being pretend raped rather than watching women being actually raped for free.

I wasn’t entertained. Can you tell? I saw it at a press screening two weeks before Christmas when the streets were filled with twinkly fairy lights and I tripped past a Salvation Army band playing Silent Night to spend what felt like several weeks in a dark room waiting – oh dear God, do you wait – for Leo to just get on and hack the other man to death so I could finally go home. A well-oiled publicity machine of the type that fuels an Academy Awards clean sweep has carefully leaked how gruelling the shoot was, how authentically the actors “suffered” in the making. (They got a bit cold, apparently.) And Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography – all shot in just a few hours of natural light each day – really is gorgeous.

Director Alejandro González Iñárritu’s idea was for it to look as real as possible. Which would have been magnificent if there was something in the way of a story or any meditation on the nature of retribution or anyone – anyone – that you could give one toss about, but there’s not. So the landscape is chilling and the violence is pointless and the whole thing is meaningless. A vacuous revenge tale that is simply pain as spectacle. The Revenant is pain porn.

And in all probability, it will win every Oscar going. Critics have lavishly praised its “visceral” imagery, its “authentic” feel; it is, they say, “immersive” film-making at its finest. Though, arguably, not as immersive as putting a camera in a cage and then setting a man on fire. Have you seen that one? Where the man is burned alive? It’s not by González Iñárritu, but Isis. It wasn’t nominated for anything but the pain is even more real, more visceral, more – what was the word, thrilling? – than DiCaprio’s.

But then, all of Isis’s video output is inspired by our own entertainments – in its subject matter, its soundtrack, its editing. Islamic State hasn’t invented new narrative tropes, it’s simply lifted them straight from Hollywood. All it’s done is to go one step further, trumped Hollywood at its own game. It has seen what we want, what we thrill to, and given it to us. If there were grizzly bears in the Syrian desert, there’s no doubt that they’d put one in a cage and let us see what it really looks like when one rips a man apart.

The Revenant isn’t responsible for this. It’s simply the kind of tedious, emotionally vacant film that has certain critics and Academy Award judges wetting their pants. Don’t pay £10-£15. You might as well wait for it to come out on Netflix and fall asleep on your own sofa. Or stay awake and enjoy the raping and somebody or other getting a machete in the head just for the hell of it. Or just wait for the next Isis offering.

Your choice, though perhaps we could all try and act a little less surprised by the Islamic State’s next video spectacular. Or ask ourselves why pain and suffering and brutalising women and pointless, fetishistic violence – when it’s done by Hollywood – wins awards. Or why we’re so keen for it to look “real”. What neurotransmitters are we releasing? What thirst are we slaking? Isis’s films are simply the next logical step of our films. Their culture is actually our culture too. Isis hasn’t invented any of this. It is just a bit more honest about it. More “authentic”. More “visceral”. More “real”."

Amen.

Andrew, thank you for posting this.

It is interesting and IMHO important to get opposing view points of things like this. It is only too easy to read the many hyperbole laden reviews that exist of movies and other....ahem, items.;)
 

853guy

Active Member
Aug 14, 2013
1,161
10
38
^^^truly questionable, over-preachy rant, your comparative to Isis - is totally inappropriate.

Hi TBone,

You know everything from "Ritualised brutality..." to "More real" is the Guardian columnist's opinion, right? Andrew just provided a link and copied the text from the op-ed, only adding that is mirrored his own feelings on the film. Personally, I think it's an interesting read, and I'm glad Andrew posted it here.

The big question for me is: What is the purpose of art and what are the artist's responsibilities, if any?

Should art/the artist seek first and foremost to entertain us? To distract, awe, subdue, pacify and tittilate us? Or should it do more than that? Inform, educate, challenge, expose and critique us? Should it comfort and placate us - keeping at bay the harsh realities of life, or force us to confront them by holding up a mirror and shining a light on the things we'd rather not look at?

I haven't seen The Revenant. I've seen Alejandro González Iñárritu’s previous films and found them to be interesting examinations on the centrality of tragedy in the lives of its characters. Yes, they've been bleak, emotionally uncompromising and often over-long. I think each of them has attempted to ask questions of its characters (why are they who they are?) and of itself in relation to its place in history (how does the film speak to culture, if at all?), which in Hollywood, is often a rare commodity.

For me, that's been enough. Does The Revenant ask any questions? Until I see it, I won't be able to answer. Of course, I may choose not to see it at all. Asking questions is something I've come to value more than almost anything else, especially in an age of extreme and continued religious, sexual, economic and political oppression. Coming to conclusions - less relevant. The Guardian writer may only be sharing a particular perspective, but I'm glad someone asked the questions she did, uncomfortable though some of them may be.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
That review of 'The Revenant'...from theguardian; it's a woman's review...her name's Carole Cadwalladr. ... Tout à fait natural.
Violent movies (killing, raping, blood, guns, arrows, cowboys vs Indians, knives, tomahawks, tanks, atomic bombs, ....you name it), are not generally women's preference, but rather men's preference.

...Generally.

? http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...minations-2016&p=370107&viewfull=1#post370107
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
I agree; good post from 853guy

Making motion pictures is an art...the storytelling, the cinematography, the matching music score, the actor's delivery, the set designs, the locales, ...the overall message.
It could be fictive, based on a book, on true events, an invented narrative scrolling and moving onscreen like a painting on a canvas, a sculpture made of snow, sand, rock, wood, ice, ...

It creates human emotions...laughing, crying, thinking, meditating, transpiring, transfixing, scary, hypnotizing, ...the full emotional/impacting human gamut.

Some films have nothing else to offer than "effects", effects of gratuitous violence and horror and of the lowest side of the human race.
Others are depicting moments of our true history, documentaries with real film footage and recreated films too.

What is true art in motion pictures? ...Innocence, beauty, romance, magnificent vistas, love, music, abstract paintings, imagination, mind boggling imagery, convincing actors and actresses, colors, black and white, silent movies, compositions, photographs, superimposition, exposition, poses, postures, allures, beautiful people, bodies, cars, sunsets, interactions, peace, calmness, tranquility, forests, mountains, roads, rivers, lakes, cascades, oceans, action, body language, sexual images, violent destruction, war, bloody decapitations, construction, building momentum, tension, unease, overreaction, transcendence, oblivion, ...

What is it that makes a film an art form, a masterpiece? ...A fantasy...Cinderella, Lord of the Rings, a western...Once Upon a Time in the West, The Hateful Eight, an adventure...Lawrence of Arabia, a pure adrenaline action film...Mad Max: Fury Road, a true story...The Revenant, Spotlight, a spy flick...Bridge of Spies, a book story...In the Heart of the sea, a drama/romantic story...Brooklyn, a documentary...Meru, Amy, and animated feature film...The Peanut Movie, Shaun the Sheep, Inside Out, a sci-fi/comedy film...The Martian, a war movie...War of the Worlds, ...all of it?

What is art for each one of us? ...Cinema art.

? Mad Max: Fury Road is going to win few...statuettes. ...And ex_machina. ...And Inside Out.
 

853guy

Active Member
Aug 14, 2013
1,161
10
38
The purpose of art is to communicate, it offers a chance to transcend, to march through that which can restrain us and allow a single thought or emotion, a interpretation of expirance to live forever. What's really interesting is the nature not of the artist and thier vision but of the looker of the viewer of the art and their roll in its narrative, the complexities of the interpretations of any given piece of work and how ultimately you resolve a art works meaning within your self, then how that relates to the original concept and any cultural significance that might surround the works.

Absolutely agree - nicely put, Spaz. I think the viewer (and more significantly, the viewer’s gaze vis-à-vis Lacan and Mulvey) shares responsibility for the experience, and what he/she brings to the process of interpretation by how he/she views the work. I think this applies as much to works of art as it does to how we consume other forms of media, particularly the news.

Great post by the way by far the best and most interesting I have read in my time here, you show a insightful and intriguing mind.

I told you we were separated at birth.

Northstar said:
I agree; good post from 853guy

Making motion pictures is an art...the storytelling, the cinematography, the matching music score, the actor's delivery, the set designs, the locales, ...the overall message.
It could be fictive, based on a book, on true events, an invented narrative scrolling and moving onscreen like a painting on a canvas, a sculpture made of snow, sand, rock, wood, ice, ...

It creates human emotions...laughing, crying, thinking, meditating, transpiring, transfixing, scary, hypnotizing, ...the full emotional/impacting human gamut.

Some films have nothing else to offer than "effects", effects of gratuitous violence and horror and of the lowest side of the human race.
Others are depicting moments of our true history, documentaries with real film footage and recreated films too.

What is true art in motion pictures? ...Innocence, beauty, romance, magnificent vistas, love, music, abstract paintings, imagination, mind boggling imagery, convincing actors and actresses, colors, black and white, silent movies, compositions, photographs, superimposition, exposition, poses, postures, allures, beautiful people, bodies, cars, sunsets, interactions, peace, calmness, tranquility, forests, mountains, roads, rivers, lakes, cascades, oceans, action, body language, sexual images, violent destruction, war, bloody decapitations, construction, building momentum, tension, unease, overreaction, transcendence, oblivion, ...

What is it that makes a film an art form, a masterpiece? ...A fantasy...Cinderella, Lord of the Rings, a western...Once Upon a Time in the West, The Hateful Eight, an adventure...Lawrence of Arabia, a pure adrenaline action film...Mad Max: Fury Road, a true story...The Revenant, Spotlight, a spy flick...Bridge of Spies, a book story...In the Heart of the sea, a drama/romantic story...Brooklyn, a documentary...Meru, Amy, and animated feature film...The Peanut Movie, Shaun the Sheep, Inside Out, a sci-fi/comedy film...The Martian, a war movie...War of the Worlds, ...all of it?

What is art for each one of us? ...Cinema art.

? Mad Max: Fury Road is going to win few...statuettes. ...And ex_machina. ...And Inside Out.

Hi Bob,

Making motion pictures is an art - I agree wholeheartedly. But I’m not content to leave it there.

Making motion pictures is also (for better of worse) a commoditized transaction between the consumer and a corporate for-profit entity in which the responsibility for the transaction is dispersed leading to what Žižek calls ‘cynical consciousness’, in which we (the consumer/the corporation) recognize the often exploited nature involved in the production of all commodities (including but not limited to cinema, iPhones, athletic footware, music, etc), but interact with them as if we were unaware of this - we participate in ‘enlightened false consciousness’ and subjugate our consciousness to our appetite because consumption provides a level of satiation that was once provided by community (and even community has been commoditzed - thanks, Facebook).

This is problematic to me, because on the one hand I want the greatest freedom possible to buy whatever the hell I want whenever I want it. On the other hand, I’m aware that this is not proving very sustainable, and comes at the expense of someone else. I’m typing this on my MacBook Pro, but I have no idea who made it, how much they were paid, nor the conditions in which they did so.

Again, it brings me back to asking questions. Do I think Carole Cadwalladr was being responsible in asking questions in regard to how The Revenant depicts acts of violence in an age of extremism? Yes, I do - I think it’s a valid and pertinent question. But I’m not content to leave it there. The bigger question for me is: Why do I want to view those acts, and what justification am I using in order to participate in that exchange?

I’m not sure, to be honest. The Revenant may indeed be a great film. And it may be “deserving” of winning multiple awards. I’m certainly in no position to judge anyone else, nor do I have any interest in doing so. I’ve viewed plenty of films that many others would consider unconscionable. But I can’t pretend I’m not aware of the problematic nature of this exchange, nor of my own complicity in participating in a self-reflexive culture of irony that embraces the paradox between what I say and what I actually do by rationalizing it and then self-consciously drawing attention to the inherent contradictions.
 

TBone

New Member
Nov 15, 2012
1,237
1
0
Hi TBone,

You know everything from "Ritualised brutality..." to "More real" is the Guardian columnist's opinion, right? Andrew just provided a link and copied the text from the op-ed, only adding that is mirrored his own feelings on the film. Personally, I think it's an interesting read, and I'm glad Andrew posted it here.

The big question for me is: What is the purpose of art and what are the artist's responsibilities, if any?

Should art/the artist seek first and foremost to entertain us? To distract, awe, subdue, pacify and tittilate us? Or should it do more than that? Inform, educate, challenge, expose and critique us? Should it comfort and placate us - keeping at bay the harsh realities of life, or force us to confront them by holding up a mirror and shining a light on the things we'd rather not look at?

Hi 853,

this is the quote I found totally inappropriate.

"But then, all of Isis’s video output is inspired by our own entertainments – in its subject matter, its soundtrack, its editing. Islamic State hasn’t invented new narrative tropes, it’s simply lifted them straight from Hollywood. All it’s done is to go one step further, trumped Hollywood at its own game. It has seen what we want, what we thrill to, and given it to us. If there were grizzly bears in the Syrian desert, there’s no doubt that they’d put one in a cage and let us see what it really looks like when one rips a man apart.

I'll refrain from any further comment on that particular subject matter.

As stated violent movies have been around forever, the Rev hardly ranks, but I'm fine with others thinking it's too violent. I don't enjoy slasher flicks, so I stay away, picking my movie experience wisely, based on items like the director history and my reviews of choice. I therefore have a grasp of the violence to come, so If I proceed, I have nobody to blame but myself ... not the director, not society, or anything Hollywood in general.

What may entertain me may offend you, and that should be perfectly fine. North and I discussed/warned recently about the excessive violence within Bone Tomahawk. I have yet to see the movie, but I already understand its potential for excessive violence. Again, If I proceed to watch it, it's my choice and I accept that responsibility as a viewer.
 

853guy

Active Member
Aug 14, 2013
1,161
10
38
Hi 853,

this is the quote I found totally inappropriate.

"But then, all of Isis’s video output is inspired by our own entertainments – in its subject matter, its soundtrack, its editing. Islamic State hasn’t invented new narrative tropes, it’s simply lifted them straight from Hollywood. All it’s done is to go one step further, trumped Hollywood at its own game. It has seen what we want, what we thrill to, and given it to us. If there were grizzly bears in the Syrian desert, there’s no doubt that they’d put one in a cage and let us see what it really looks like when one rips a man apart.

I'll refrain from any further comment on that particular subject matter.

Yes, we veer toward matters political/religious here, so I appreciate this is a subject matter beyond the purpose of the forum, and as such, inappropriate to discuss further beyond what you’ve stated.

As stated violent movies have been around forever, the Rev hardly ranks, but I'm fine with others thinking it's too violent. I don't enjoy slasher flicks, so I stay away, picking my movie experience wisely, based on items like the director history and my reviews of choice. I therefore have a grasp of the violence to come, so If I proceed, I have nobody to blame but myself ... not the director, not society, or anything Hollywood in general.

What may entertain me may offend you, and that should be perfectly fine. North and I discussed/warned recently about the excessive violence within Bone Tomahawk. I have yet to see the movie, but I already understand its potential for excessive violence. Again, If I proceed to watch it, it's my choice and I accept that responsibility as a viewer.

And I will actually defend yours and anyone else’s right to view whatever they wish within the limit of the law of the land. It’s one of the great freedom’s afforded those of us living in liberal democracies. I’m very, very grateful for that privilege. (I’m also not unaware those “freedoms” were built on practices considered barbaric now - the last beheading by guillotine in France occurred less than 40 years ago.)

I guess, as a father and a husband, I’m now no longer an island. I’m someone who has influence (for better and worse) on those who have varying levels of choice in terms of how they’re affected by my adherence (or not) to my values. It becomes more complex in terms of justifying individual choices when I know that I’m a father and husband first and foremost, and an individual second. This is a very personal choice, and one I’m still navigating. So my decision to view or not view material (from any source) is more one seen through the lens of trying to ask who my children will grow up to be (and what type of world they will inherit), than it is a question of aesthetics and enjoyment purely for myself - especially given they have already encountered terrorism at close quarters and will likely grow up needing to navigate cultural/political/religious extremism that through time/life circumstances not of my own choosing I was spared of. If they stay here in Europe they won’t be so fortunate.

Again, none of this is a judgment on anyone else’s choices. But The Revenant has raised issues I think are important to discuss, and I’d like to say how much I appreciate being able to process these things here with people whose views may differ, but express their differences with respect of the other.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
The art of filmmaking is a totally separate entity from the cash register @ the box office (Hollywood mega 'block busters').

True art is mainly not mainstream, it lives in the underground of the unknown.

__________

Super stars are made from the public masses/movements. ...The impact reaching of the moment, and amplified by the publicity from the photographers and star magazines of Hollywood boulevard...right from the Rolling Stone's front page.

__________

Films like 'Bone Tomahawk' and 'The Revenant' (I have yet to see the later), are not for your regular 'sweet heart'. ...Like war flicks are not for chicks. ...Generally, vast majority.

When we were kids we were playing with trains (electric), trucks, cars, lego blocks, plastic and led soldiers, tanks that shoot mortars with smoke, and strategies we were planning on the living room's floor carpet. ...Us as young boys.

The young girls had their tea house with barbie inside.

So, when we read critics we are totally aware of who's the writer/critic.
And, we are also aware of ourselves when we write our own critics.

But a true art critic...who is he/she? ...Someone unbiased with an eye on the subconscious, above the surface. ...Who can read/see the subliminal message of the onscreen moving canvas. ...Violence and non-violence can both represent an art form in cinema. The representation is in the vision of the art critic.
Some can see merit in the mundane/boring architecture of a sculpture transforming on a moving screen, or not. It's all relative and has weighted application, because not everyone is receptive the same from the impact; some can see above the main surface and go deeper where most don't dare going. ...Nothing is like what it truly appears but it is. ...Except that we don't all have the same impacting first reaction. ...We're free to go beyond human borders of the imagination.

I wish I could directly criticize The Revenant, but I can't, not in its entirety.
What I wanted to express was my impression of violence versus non-violence in cinema. ...The people's viewing, the director's intent, the art critic. It's not black and white, it's a multifaceted canvas of various human emotions from individually separated beliefs. ...That's freedom of choice in a non-confrontational commonality of understanding. ...Way I see it...from the eyes of my own mind. It's always open to further analysis...

Gotta see The Revenant with Leo and Tom, from the same guy who last year gave us Birdman with Michael Keaton.

And speaking of 'Birdman'; lol...I've heard the two sides: The Masterpiece & the Extremely Boring.
Guess which side am I...exactly...the art critic's choice. And yet another artist critic friend of mine is on the exact opposite's choice.
And that, creates for excellent discussions. ...Or not. :b

? I truly enjoyed reading member's take from the previous posts of this enriching thread.
 
Last edited:

beaur

Fleetwood Sound
Oct 12, 2011
459
165
950
60
Brooklyn
I have never understood this requirement for "art". Strikes me as a "if a tree falls in the woods" argument. In my view art is an exchange between the creator of it and the viewer/consumer, no matter the media/venue.

Does this mean films that started out as underground/cult flicks and moved mainstream as they became popular are no longer art? Is van Gogh no longer an artist because he moved from an artist who sold little during his lifetime to his current fame?

Art comes in all sizes and shapes. Most movies are judged to be inferior in the court of public opinion, does that make them better art than the Revenant that has mainstream success? A walk through the Whitney will showcase some spectacular (to me) failures at what good art is, but some gems can be found, but it's all art as someone has created it for the purpose of communicating something to a wider audience.


True art is mainly not mainstream, it lives in the underground of the unknown.
 

853guy

Active Member
Aug 14, 2013
1,161
10
38
The art of filmmaking is a totally separate entity from the cash register @ the box office (Hollywood mega 'block busters').

In theory, yes - in practice, no.

My friend Sarah (we attended film school at the same time) works for Canal Plus here in France. I would love to believe the art of filmmaking is totally separate from the cash register, but as she would be happy to tell you, films are sold in advance of production these days. That is, based on the talent attached to the script - with both still in development - a film will be sold to overseas territories based on what they believe they can make back at the box office before a single frame of film has been shot.

The talent attached at the time (principal cast and director) is used as a marker for box office receipts. Why was Leonardo DiCaprio cast as Glass in The Revenant? Because he most resembled Glass, or was the best fit for the character? Maybe, but Christian Bale and Sean Penn were also attached at one stage. DiCaprio’s name not only guarantee’s predictable revenue, his production company Appian Way ensured his pay-or-play contract could be traded for a share of box office profits, bringing up-front production costs down.

Could The Revenant have been made without DiCaprio? Of course. Would the film have been granted an extensive chronological shooting schedule taking the budget from $60 million to an eventual $135 million had DiCaprio not had skin in the game? Hard to say. Would the overseas distribution rights been sold ahead of time had Penn been cast as Glass rather than DiCaprio? Unlikely. (Penn’s last six films grossed $373 million with two making losses, DiCaprio’s last six films grossed $2.37 billion with all of them making profits.) In any case, let’s not kid ourselves that the casting of a film is not one of - if not the - defining aspects of the budget the film receives and ultimately, shapes the decisions related to the aesthetic and production values of the final film.*

*Edit: Tell the studio you want to shoot in chronological order, on location, with available light giving four hours of maximum filming time per day in freezing conditions, and the "art" of film-making is very quickly decided for you by whoever's holding the purse strings.
 
Last edited:

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
I have never understood this requirement for "art". Strikes me as a "if a tree falls in the woods" argument. In my view art is an exchange between the creator of it and the viewer/consumer, no matter the media/venue.

Does this mean films that started out as underground/cult flicks and moved mainstream as they became popular are no longer art? Is van Gogh no longer an artist because he moved from an artist who sold little during his lifetime to his current fame?

Art comes in all sizes and shapes. Most movies are judged to be inferior in the court of public opinion, does that make them better art than the Revenant that has mainstream success? A walk through the Whitney will showcase some spectacular (to me) failures at what good art is, but some gems can be found, but it's all art as someone has created it for the purpose of communicating something to a wider audience.

Art can take many disguises, and not everyone has the same definition of its various forms in; films, paintings, sculptures, architecture, designs of all types...buildings, gardens, cities, highways, forest trails, golf courses, ...

But let's concentrate on Art Films. ...Italians, Japaneses, French, Germans, Mexicans, Americans, Canadians, Chinese, India, ... art films from all over the world.
The master art filmmakers like Fellini, Tornatore, Leone, Kurosawa, Kubrick, Lean, Gilliam, De Palma, Scott, Coppola, Burton, Bertolucci, Spielberg, Antonioni, Coen, ...several others; we can analyse their craft from the cinematography, shot/frame compositions, movements fluidity, angles, focus, etc. and appreciate the artistic taste/quality of that cameraman.

Some of the most artistic films in cinema history were bloody epics/wars with heads decapitated by swords and hara-kiri or seppuku (Kurosawa), others...anti-war films (Kubrick).

Now The Revenant has violence in it; a bear who attacks Leo, Indians with arrows, guns, blood, even a rape. ...And only the natural light was used in filming.
How is the camera moving with the action? ...Is it pleasing, showing us all the details, or in saccades (breaking and fast moving, quick snippets, ...), ...from one scene to the next how is the transition, done with artistic flair, or technically analytical/conventional, ...how the actors/actresses fit in the framing with natural backgrounds...exteriors and interiors, ...is it an art film cinematically/framed composition speaking? ...The elements of incorporating the actors in those frames; do they have artistic lens focus and proper geometry? ...Flavor with zest?
Is the music score well integrated?

Is Brooklyn a more artistic picture overall?
Is Spotlight artistically well filmed?

Is cinema art the subject matter (storytelling, on a scene to scene basis) or how well technically it was creatively filmed and composed? ...The sum of the two, including the emotional impact?
Art in cinema for me is the guy behind the camera lens...what he sees and how he shows it to us. ...By using his camera artistically in sync with the onscreen action.

Example:


? Does Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu's film The Revenant have compositions that are artistically framed? ...And with fluid movements.
* One thing that I am not fond of @ all in cinema is "camera shakes"; whoever employs that method has just lost me in the writings of my cinema art book.
 

TBone

New Member
Nov 15, 2012
1,237
1
0
Does Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu's film The Revenant have compositions that are artistically framed? ...And with fluid movements.
* One thing that I am not fond of @ all in cinema is "camera shakes"; whoever employs that method has just lost me in the writings of my cinema art book.

I found his use of camera angles quite interesting, lots of upward shots for perspective. A few scenes that looked to be 1-take without any interruptions or cuts were also quite interesting. Some shake happens along the way, but I didn't find them annoying or prevalent.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
I found his use of camera angles quite interesting, lots of upward shots for perspective. A few scenes that looked to be 1-take without any interruptions or cuts were also quite interesting. Some shake happens along the way, but I didn't find them annoying or prevalent.

I was looking @ trailers and various clips of The Revenant, and appreciated some exterior composition shots...very nice.
And I too noticed some quick camera movements...from one action scene to another one taking place @ another location...but in this case I understand; still the background of the trees and river and mountains was lacking focus, obviously. Also, the fight with the bear, and with the Indians, between Leo and Tom, etc., many shaking camera saccades.
It's an artistic choice to show the rapidity of the action, but for us the viewers (most important part in a film), is a little distracting to me, criticizing from my own perspective, and without negativity but perceptive objectivity, mainly transposing myself as the film art critic (I'm allowed to do that, it's permissible). :b

? Alejandro G. Inarritu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_González_Iñárritu

________

<P.S.> When and if you have a chance: Check out Bone Tomahawk. ...But not with your wife and children.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
In theory, yes - in practice, no.

My friend Sarah (we attended film school at the same time) works for Canal Plus here in France. I would love to believe the art of filmmaking is totally separate from the cash register, but as she would be happy to tell you, films are sold in advance of production these days. That is, based on the talent attached to the script - with both still in development - a film will be sold to overseas territories based on what they believe they can make back at the box office before a single frame of film has been shot.

The talent attached at the time (principal cast and director) is used as a marker for box office receipts. Why was Leonardo DiCaprio cast as Glass in The Revenant? Because he most resembled Glass, or was the best fit for the character? Maybe, but Christian Bale and Sean Penn were also attached at one stage. DiCaprio’s name not only guarantee’s predictable revenue, his production company Appian Way ensured his pay-or-play contract could be traded for a share of box office profits, bringing up-front production costs down.

Could The Revenant have been made without DiCaprio? Of course. Would the film have been granted an extensive chronological shooting schedule taking the budget from $60 million to an eventual $135 million had DiCaprio not had skin in the game? Hard to say. Would the overseas distribution rights been sold ahead of time had Penn been cast as Glass rather than DiCaprio? Unlikely. (Penn’s last six films grossed $373 million with two making losses, DiCaprio’s last six films grossed $2.37 billion with all of them making profits.) In any case, let’s not kid ourselves that the casting of a film is not one of - if not the - defining aspects of the budget the film receives and ultimately, shapes the decisions related to the aesthetic and production values of the final film.*

*Edit: Tell the studio you want to shoot in chronological order, on location, with available light giving four hours of maximum filming time per day in freezing conditions, and the "art" of film-making is very quickly decided for you by whoever's holding the purse strings.

I have read your post with special care. It deals with the business trend of the film's industry, like a well known painter famous for his past paintings...he's on the demand list.

I'm exploring the technical camera art form in creative/inventive ways. ...In the true art sense. In the service of the true art (creativity).
Money contributes; it buys you the best equipment and the best operators. The marketing, contracts, secured rights and advance ticket sales are from the business side. ...The casting too. Brief it is the investment aspect of the film industry I have just read.

And I agree, filmmaking is a business, a big business. It is also an art to predict returns based on our investments.

I have not a single clue how much money The Revenant made @ the box office, never looked. And I had no idea of how much it costed to make.
I don't know how much Leo or Sean or Tom or Christian is worth and how much they clear (net gross profit) per film.
I wasn't thinking about what if other actors would have been cast instead of Tom and Leo; but after reading the post from the quote, I started to.

? Educational, reading about The Revenant's behind the scenes business aspect points. It's like a giant billboard on the side of a major busy highway @ the intersection of a big city exit. The players are the drivers behind the billboard signs. The money get paid for those signs by us who see them coming in and going out from town. The art of making money; anything that sells is good for business.

I like the exterior shots in The Revenant; it was filmed in British Columbia, Canada...in my own backyard. ...And with natural light. Even the bear is from my country (the real trained one, not the other one inside a suit, ...or maybe he is from B.C. too; plus there's another one...a CGI one).

Can't wait to get it in high-def Blu-ray. And if it'll win best picture reason more so. I like nice vistas/scenery artistically shot. The Hateful Eight has some of that too from the trailers and clips. And also lots of interior shots, the majority. ...More dialog too? Wouldn't be surprised with Saint Quentin.
Last year's Birdman has some dialog too. ...One of its driving forces. The vistas were from New York, mainly inside a theater with narrow corridors, and a drummer @ the end of one.

This year will be very interesting @ the 88th anniversary of the Academy Awards. ...The Art of rewarding the best films of 2015. ...And with all that it encompasses from behind the business/political/strategical lines. May the best artistic film win...best picture in all its majestic light. ...And with a great storyline behind to accompany/support it. ...Plus the music score of course. The music is half the story...one of the main emotional suppliers.

? Art is an overall transformation/revelation...to me.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
... What may entertain me may offend you, and that should be perfectly fine. North and I discussed/warned recently about the excessive violence within Bone Tomahawk.
I have yet to see the movie, but I already understand its potential for excessive violence. Again, If I proceed to watch it, it's my choice and I accept that responsibility as a viewer.

? Indeed, our free choice.

And I did put some emphasis for the sensitive ones (a fair warning). * I don't usually do that.

... (I’m also not unaware those “freedoms” were built on practices considered barbaric now -
the last beheading by guillotine in France occurred less than 40 years ago.)

? Only forty years ago! ...And from France!

... Again, none of this is a judgment on anyone else’s choices. But The Revenant has raised issues I think are important to discuss, and I’d like to say how much I appreciate being able to process these things here with people whose views may differ, but express their differences with respect of the other.

? Andrew brought that link (review from theguardian), and from which he agreed with (second page of this thread). That review from that woman was quite exaggerated, in my opinion. But her feelings I cannot question and object to; that's her internal domain...her own spiritual aura.

I would also like to hear Andrew's own personal take on The Revenant, in extended overall impression, and without any outside feedback but his own.
- And looking back...I'm not sure if it is a possibility in the future...
 
Last edited:

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
5,144
2,812
1,898
Encino, CA
I saw the film on Friday and wanted to digest for a few days - I have to admit the first thing I tell people is it's a brutal film. I wasn't entertained (and that's usually a requirement for me, but others can disagree). I felt mauled for 2.5 hours - which was exceedingly long for what really was a simple revenge plot/story we've seen a 1000 times (Still One, believe you mentioned this). The movie has a very sluggish pace due to lack of dialogue and was only brought together with the cinematography - which did the heavy lifting as did the director's choice of shooting in effectively the third person to feel "real." I had to turn away my head 4-5 times - and I love horror/scary movies. It's much more impactful/personal in this movie because its not in that genre. But ultimately I feel the critics fawn over the way the movie looked, and not the story.

It may win everything at the Awards and Leo deserves his win (I still think Spotlight is more in the Academy's traditional choice for a best picture win though), but I have zero interest in ever seeing it again. I didn't dislike the film - but I didn't particularly enjoy it. And isn't that what we go to the movies for?
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing