Robert Eggers Lecture Discussion: Writing The Lighthouse, Archetypal Stories & More | On Writing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- Writer and director Robert Eggers delivered a BAFTA Screenwriter's Lecture in 2019, after which he discussed his writing process and creative approach, The Lighthouse, archetypal stories, working with animals, and more! Interviewed by Mariayah Kaderbhai.
subscribe to Guru ⏩ / baftaguru
⏬ stay up to date ⏬
Twitter:
@BAFTAGuru: / baftaguru
@BAFTA: / bafta
@BAFTAGames: / baftagames
Facebook: / bafta
Instagram: / bafta
sign up for our newsletter: guru.bafta.org/newsletter
subscribe to our podcasts:
iTunes: bit.ly/Vz84HI
Soundcloud: / bafta
visit our websites to find out more:
www.bafta.org/guru
www.bafta.org
#RobertEggers #TheLighthouse #BAFTAGuru - Розваги
What was your favourite moment in The Lighthouse?
Willem Dafoe's cursing monolgue!
Robert Pattinson and dofeo drunk
I feel like this was uploaded numerous times... am i trippin? I have seen this like 3 times allready
I was up at The Northman set the other day. It looks so awesome.
Cool. Tell us more about it. What have u seen
So far I can see, the most comments on YT about Mr Eggers cinematography are glorifying his art. Perhaps I am one of the few that actually dislike it.
Mr Eggers is definitely under influence of Bergman and moreover Tarkovsky. But there is a striking difference: in an interview 2001 Bergman calls for “having a content and message in movies, not only technical execution” when talking what is missing in the contemporary cinema; and Tarkovsky says: “The artist is a being who strives (but not in secret or in hiding, nor moving in circles, nor in the spaciousness of some hind of ecological niche) to master ultimate truth. The artist masters that truth every time he creates something perfect, something whole.”
Mr Eggers however, fails in both, in my opinion. There are technicalities that make his movies look interesting and almost photographic, as painting. Unfortunately, the content is missing, an urgent need for telling the truth is missing.
The folktales are usually having both: content, point and truth. There are none in both Vvitch nor Lighthouse. Full of fake spirituality, Mr Eggers creates a “horror”, but contentless. Interesting enough, much more real horror one can except in the Romanian film “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days”, without music and without sound effects Mungiu creates a true tale that is both horror, having message, telling truth, …
Music in Vvitch is somehow better adapted (yet it is NOT a music), and badly enough in Lighthouse it is totally subordinate to the movie. It is not what Tarkovsky would ever do.
Finally, the appearance of Mr Eggers makes me suspicious, being in black with some “secrets” is just tasteless: his movies examines Christianity as a vanity, and his obsession with sacrifice, death and sex is similar to any of occult groups such as OTO or Hermetic Order of Golden Dawn. In his movies, the light is not the Eternal Light of God, but Lucifer; Thomasin’s renunciation of God in the last minutes are Biblical, child sacrifice and cold death in the final scene of Lighthouse is just cheap and vulgar. I wouldn’t imagine Bergman nor Tarkovsky saying about this movie anything than “disgraceful”. My guessing though.
For me it looks that Mr Eggers falls somewhere in between: he has not yet sold his soul to Hollywood neither making movies that have content and message. The next movies will decide.
An interesting comment, although I’m inclined to disagree. I don’t see what you mean when you claim that he treats christianity as a vanity. Why do you think the light of the lighthouse was of lucifer instead of god?
Did you copy paste this shit from somewhere? Who writes an essay in the youtube comments? Go publish this place somewhere people will actually have a discussion with you. You deserve better man.
@@onniex I actually agree with the light being lucifer. The light is definitely not a force for good. Its either lucifer or prometheus.
@@burtbiggum499 How so? The deepest interpretation I've managed to understand for the film doesn't seem to leave room for it to be anything other than god or truth:
Old (Dafoe) is Thomas' conscience and Young (Pattinson) is his consciousness. The film is an allegorical depiction of Thomas' pursuit for repentance and his ultimate failure to achieve it.
Thomas was adrift, but then chose to set himself on solid ground. He wilfully subjected himself to the demands his conscience; discipline.
Old conscience is in touch with the light (truth/god), but cannot translate it to a consciousness that disobeys him. Had they ended up kissing and making love (had they become one), Thomas would've been saved. But it was not yet to be, since young had still to confess his sins. It’s right after this when Young admits his name being the same as Old’s. This was the closest Thomas ever got to salvation.
Thomas fails to turn the other cheek (to demonstrate higher morality), and ultimately fails to face to the truth, resorting to killing his conscience instead; choosing to live in wilful blindness. Oxymoronically, having severed ties with the old conscience he struggles up and reaches for the light, what he always sought for, in arrogance, but it burns too bright, causing him to lose his balance and fall, spiralling down, breaking his legs.
Thomas ended up paralysed in within the ruins of what he could’ve been, suffering eternally as the seagulls feeds on his impotence. Simultaneously he became one of the seagulls, of those who live in ruin, resentfully sabotaging the ones trying to redeem themselves.
@@onniex Doesnt him murdering the gull and thus changing the weather kind of fuck with that interpretation though?