![]() Maggie Smith is basically squandered in every film. Seriously, what the hell was that about? Gary Oldman got so few lines in Azkaban that I was shocked, and the ones he got were atrocious. I think it was Order of the Phoenix that had Brendan Gleeson but gave him almost no lines, for instance. The movies have many great actors, and they are all woefully neglected. If you can't see that, you are simply blinded by emotion. Quote from: eyeresist on July 30, 2012, 07:49:52 PMWell, the production values, and the acting from the cream of the British rep, are first class. The movies cut some things and put in other things not in the books, and some of it was obviously done because it had to be done to make a dramatically effective movie, and keep the movie to tolerable length, but the books are far richer and rewarding And that's only one of many important psychological/emotional points found in the books but either handled superficially or completely left out in the movie versions. If you only went by the movie version, you wouldn't know that happened. The movie versions don't really give you the detailed picture of Harry at the end of the Order of the Phoenix, grieving for Sirius, the one person in his life whom he could really call family, angry and partly in denial, breaking half of Dumbledore's office and yelling at Dumbledore while the latter quietly watches, knowing the only thing that can work is letting Harry vent his grief and frustration-a very good depiction of adolescent anger and grief. But Rowling told a consistent story, full of emotionally deep characters, across seven novel length installments, and obviously knew what she wanted to say from the very first book-which is why you'll find some of the most important elements in the series finale to be laid out and prefigured in the very first book. And Half Blood Prince is in a way one of the weakest links in the series, which obviously doesn't help. The movies versions in fact did the books a severe disservice, since they hacked out much of the psychological and philosophical depths (plus a lot of the intricate background details Rowling put in to flesh out her world of wizardry) in the book. Well, the production values, and the acting from the cream of the British rep, are first class. He also wrote and produced Below (haunted house in a WWII sub, directed by David "Chronicles of Riddick" Twohy), which for me was also a flop. The only other Aronofsky film I've seen is Requiem, which bored me (and the exploitation aspects of it I found pretty unrealistic). Hey, glad you liked it! One thing I like about it is the charming anachronism of the tech - no one was still using those massive floppy discs in 1998. "As soon as you discard scientific rigor, you're no longer a mathematician - you're a numerologist!" I watched Black Swan because it was influenced by the movie Perfect Blue, and I also plan to watch Requiem for a Dream, since it's supposed to be an excellent, brutal film. Who knows).Īronofsky is a important director for me to keep an eye on, for sure. (Of course, there is the possibility that he had some contact with Ryutaro Nakamura, the director of Lain. This means that it's likely that the similar styles just happened to be coincidence. Not only in style, but the fact that Lain began airing July 6, 1998, while Pi was released July 10, 1998. I'm glad eyeresist recommended this to me, because it turned out to be one of the best films I've ever seen! Journalist Rich Juzwiak uses the platform of his blog fourfour to enact just such an interplay, modeling likewise for the scholar paradoxical ways to stay a course by wandering and to collect (ideas, objects, and their collision) through dispersal.Quote from: Greg on July 30, 2012, 06:53:56 PM As Denis Diderot provides one sanguine exemplar of the dialectical interplay of digressiveness and encyclopedism, he also anticipates a closely allied version of that interplay, nonetheless specific to work in contemporary digital media. More specifically, this form of digressiveness can stroll to, with, and through an encyclopedic impulse without succumbing to the totalizing aggrandizements or pretensions to mastery that corrupt more rigid brands of encyclopedism. Distinguished from distraction-an ostensibly pervasive state in and of contemporaneity over which far too much hand-wringing distracts thinkers (ironically) from more interesting questions about attention, concentration, and perception-digressiveness has value when explored and expressed as a cultivated art of strolling. This chapter construes the digression, an act of stepping aside or aslant, as the basic building block in a more capaciously imagined digressiveness, enacted as style, praxis, and ethos.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |