Bad Filmmaking vs Good Filmmaking
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 січ 2024
- The 2014 film Force Majeure directed by Swedish director Ruben Östlund is a masterpiece.
Its American remake Downhill starring Will Ferrell & Julia-Louis Dreyfuss isn't.
I discuss...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @marcusflemmings
Twitter: / marcusflemmings
IG: / marcusflemmingss - Фільми й анімація
the fact that the camera is stationary also makes me panic. Like there’s nothing I can do
YES! You said it perfectly! Great comment!
Woah! Didn't realize that. Great perception 💗
Wow! Yeah definitely
Nice comment 👌
That’s a great point!
The first one was so good at delivering that panic and confusion that I didn’t even realize the problem was that the father had left the family behind until his daughter asked where he was. I was just rooting for everyone to get away as fast as possible
Yeah I thought there was a kid in front of him
@@Shyknit
I mean, there WAS a kid in front of him. His kid, which he pushed away to escape. Lol
Fantastic comment! Stick around!
They know the US audience is dumb, so they had to show exactly what was happening
I thought at first, that he had grabbed his son and then ran away, but then I saw that the boy just stood there coverning his eyes and he was gone.
I expect the assumption is American audiences will get bored or uncomfortable with long static takes and underplayed performances but I reckon they underestimate people and its a self fulfilling prophecy
I totally agree! The thing is, one way is OBJECTIVELY better. I don't get why they try and reinvent the wheel. Thanks for the comment! BIG LOVE! Stick around!
It’s not that, it’s for marketing. They need the celebrity face on screen as much as possible for the trailers so they can get butts in the seats.
That's not true! I saw the Swedish original and I thought it was brilliant! Europeans would do well not to lump all Americans into one stereotyped group!
i often don't know which i'm disgusted by more with such things; the fact that american producers / studios hold their audiences in such low regard or that american audiences start to adopt this totally idiotic inability to hold their attention for longer than a few seconds and prove the producers right.
@halsinden thats a wiiiide net you just through out
As one comment pointed out in the video of Downhill's avalanche scene, one huge thing that makes the remake's scene weaker was that the dad was alone on his side of the table. Him running off can be excused with him thinking his family would follow him. However, in the original, not only was his son right beside him on the table, everyone also saw him push his son to the side for him to escape.
YES! Agreed! I was more talking about the filmmaking aspect of the scene - I mean, there are 100 more problems with the remake like the example you brought up - fab comment! Stick around!
The father also kept pulling the son back to the table, when the little boy wanted to go.
@@vanessaastley4467 great observation!
@@vanessaastley4467 Agreed. It's the "Daddy, Daddy" scream from the boy that grabs you right from the start.
He quite clearly grabs his phone, he's not even panicing.
One thing I much prefer about the original version is the conversation leading up to the impact. The rest of the family is expressing their fear to Tomas, but he continuously shuts them down, saying that "it's fine". The moment *he* finally believes there is an actual danger, his true colours show and he leaves them all behind, even pushing aside his son to get to safety. It drives home the disconnect much more and shows that he was not considering his family's safety, only his own.
What an incredible detail you've pointed out there! Love it! Do stick around!
@@MarcusFlemmings I will!
Such husbands/fathers are useless, they ain’t protecting the family lol. They chicken out. No father/husband material. Way more better men available! DIVORCE.
the single shot also allows us as viewers to consider what has changed before and after the incident. Same position, all the characters totally different. Lives completely changed. I love the way it emerges through the dust of the snow.
Fantastic comment! Stick around!
With the lighting the father’s jacket goes from bright blue to dark grey and back again as he rejoins his family and transitions back into his role as a father figure.
I also like that it isn’t totally obvious whether or not that it was something intentional. There are no over-turned tables, there is just a lingering dusting of snow that persists for quite a while, but it could still be part of the “show”.
In the remake it is very obvious that the avalanche was never supposed to get that close, yet the staff seem to go out of their way to play it off like no big deal.
Will Farrell abandons his family in the wake of what could have been “real” danger. And the Swedish version leaves it ambiguous as to what the danger level really was.
It makes you think about the aspect of the social contract that is “mutually acknowledged crisis”. ‘We’ve all established that we believe this to be serious/ an emergency, so how are we going to act?’ I’m not really explaining it very well but it was another little subtlety that got me thinking.
Notice how the father in the original took a while before coming back for his family, it shows that he was hesitant because of how he reacted to the incident. In the remake, the father's back to it like nothing happened, no sense of guilt or remorse present.
Excellent spot!
I think it's differences in humor. American verses Swedish.
@@calvinhobbes6118 That too!
The avalanche scene in Force Majeure is also better because of the location of the camera.
The camera is around the level of the tables and placed in a way that the audience could very well be another vacationer at a table watching the avalanche along side the family. It allows us to see the bigger picture, all the actions taking place and feeling the fear, stuck frozen as we watch it hurdle down, experiencing the stress the characters probably feel.
I couldn't agree more. I once saw the scene in Force Majeure out of context, and I honestly thought it was real, because the camera's in just the right place to be like a camera
This comment has got so many likes and it deserves it! Wonderful observation! Stick around!
So true!
I would have liked to see a long shot in Downhill, starting facing the right side of the characters as they talk, we hear the crack of the avalanche starting and WF starts running away from his family and the camera, we will hear them screaming for him but not show them as it follows him (the camera also leaves the family) and then it spins around on its axis as he gets caught on a stranger, fumbles past him then he runs towards and past the camera as the white powder covers up everything, muffling the screams. Then a few seconds later we can follow him back to the table as he trudges back and eventually return the camera to its original position. Awkward talk and then the waiter comes from right (dirtying the frame by covering up the family) and wipes the table asking them if he can get them anything and he asks for soup. No cuts, still could have been frantic and handheld.
Yeah. The sounds more interesting @@Callaghan552
The Östlund one made me FEEL the extreme awkwardness now that the family knows what the dads priorities are and it serves like a perfect setup to the rest of the plot about their relationship.
The Will Ferrel one made the scene into a simple "gag" with his comedy acting and the movie after that could be about whatever really.
Chalk and cheese! Great comment! Stick around!
I do want to interject that in real life what people do in panic is not a list of priorities. In fight or flight the prefrontal cortex is down regulated and your limbic system takes over. So to isolate and extrapolate what a person does in panic mode with who they in a homeostatic state is unfair and disingenuous.
@@troydeering Wonderful comment! Love it :)
@@troydeeringsure but like is said in the movie you cant just not address what just happened
@@troydeering True, but even in real life your dad or husband running away when faced with an avalanche that he thinks is threatening his life and the lives of those around him (including his family) will definitely affect your perception of that person, if only deep in the subconscious
The slow fade back to colour (back to normality) helps make the scene as well. As the panic subsides more colour saturates the shot. Great stuff!
It's genius! Great comment! Stick around!
That's what really caught me.
Those two minutes changed these lives forever.
Everything is back to normal, but the relation is broken.
The unease of the shameful monologue of the man, trying to make light of the situation. The contempt of the wife, not responding.
The original static long shot feels more harrowing. Watching the family scream in fear and disappear under the snow is much more effective. I like your conclusion: "often simple filmmaking is perfect filmmaking." ❤
Love this comment! Do stick around!
Another thing thats very american productions with their 30 cuts in a 100 seconds is that you need to light and shoot for 10 angles of the same scene wich elevates costs unneceseraly
YES! In fact i have a video about this! Sam L Jackson outright refuses to do that when on set! Thanks for the comment! Stick around!
Sam L Jackson lighst scenes? Since when?@@MarcusFlemmings
@@Leprutz it's actually in my video about long takes and coverage!
That's a very narrow perspective. You are talking about pop films. Watch any serious american film maker and you will see how wrong you are.
Actually I think they do it to simplify production. A long wide shot has to be carefully planned and coordinated, and this has to start early in the process. For the Hollywood version they need some key elements of the scene and then can just shoot a bunch of close shots of people panicking and assemble it in post to what they want the scene to be.
This is excellent analysis. On top of the shakey cam nonsense, most modern Hollywood films seem obsessed with getting as many tight shots of the lead actors' faces as possible.
Great point
I love a tight shot. Bergman does it best Hollywood doesn't! Great comment! :)
Yeah why would we need to see the actors faces? It's not like we are watching the movie to see other humans. Oh wait
@@amac203 what an impressively poorly thought out comment
I think because the focus is on the actor, not the character. It's like how so many trailers and movie summaries tell you Who Is In It (And What You Might Know Them From) and nothing about the story. Close ups are effective when it's about the character reacting and when it's because that character and reaction are the most important thing in that moment; they are not effective when it's about "we have Insert Celebrity Here" and only done because having a Big Name is the most important thing to the people making the movie.
The detail of Will's character grabbing his phone before he runs off got me. 🤣
Yeah, it's a nice sentiment but pure overkill! Thanks for the awesome comment!
He told me he took it so he could call his wife later and plan a place to meet up
this scene reminds me of how little some couples know about each other. Sometimes I talk to couples and they are learning so much about each other with me.
Wow! This comment 😍
The worst effect in filmmaking is the shaky camera effect. Brain just shuts off and doesn't try to understand what's going on in the scene.
I have to blame the Bourne films for this! :)
So sadly overused too, even if it can be used to amazing effect. Children of Men has one of the best long take handheld shots in cinema
The bourne films do it very well@@MarcusFlemmings
@@amac203 not the action in Bourne 2 - especially the fighting. There is about 100 cuts in one fight scene. And again, the Bourne films are my fave trilogy ever!
@@MarcusFlemmings Bourne 2 is the worst one yeah but in ultimatum, the camera is shaky but the shots and cuts are logical and make for intense action
I like the Original because the steadyness of the trypod resembles the feeling of wanting to back up, but being unable to, as you are drawn in by the spectacle. It physically makes me fell stuck
Fab comment!
I find interesting that the dad in the first movie grabbed his son at first like he wanted to protect him but as soon as he realized that the avalanche was really really close he just abandoned the whole family like the instict of survival or fear won over the protective parent mode idk
I love it! And I love details like that! Thanks for the comment! Stick around!
He had his hands on his son, took them off him, grabbed his phone off the table and then ran.
I saw the original movie at release but I had no idea about the remake. But this two scenes together are the textbook example of not understanding the movie you are remaking. I am tremendously scared about what Hollywood might do with the remake of Another Round.
Oh my lord! You just reminded me that they're remaking that film. it's in my top 3 fave films for the past decade! FFS! You've ruined my day 😂 thanks for the comment! Big love!
When I heard that news it ruined my day
OH NO! WHyyyyy…..And DiCaprio. This actually has ruined my day.
@@MarcusFlemmings And Chris Rock is going to direct that remake
@andreac5047 Not on my watch 😅
You're so very right on how a wide shot adds a sense of realism at the start of this video I legit thought this was real. I thought this was a bts shot of what happens when a studio rushes and stinges out on the budget and thought that this video was gonna be about the "good and bad ethics" of filmmaking 💀
Huge love for this! Stick around!
i personally love long static shots. it gives a documentary feel, like you really are with the characters and understand their feelings and emotions. i am not interested in eye candy of millions of shots you can come up with. i mean, less is more, people!
AGREE! Less is more. Simple filmmaking is the best kind! Thanks for the comment! Stick around!
yorgos lanthimos movies are teh besssssst for that so much in the framing!
They have all those quick cuts so they can have the celebrity faces (that they paid lots of money for) on screen as much as possible for the marketing material. I never saw the American film, but I did see the trailer and this scene was in it. They wanted Will Ferrel and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss’ faces on screen for the trailer alone. What do they care if the movie’s good? They wanted butts in the seats and they think that’s the way to do it. The quick cuts are due to celebrity culture and profit seeking.
If you want to change this, you have to end the power of the big studios. Because bad filmmaking from an artist is at least entertaining to watch. Bad filmmaking due to studio big wig intervention is just boring.
Great comment! Very left-field, but I like it! Stick around!
Yes, it's sort of like how the elevator pitch can be more important than the screenplay. Sure, the 30-second summary is important, but you need all 100 pages of the script to be solid, too!
@@mikesmith2057 ooooo this comparison is spot on!
Plus, they're just too old for the parts.
Such a bizarre comment. We are humans and we want to see stories about other humans. This is why acting, as a profession, exists. The best way to see actors acting is by looking at their faces.
beautifully told. "Less is more." Sad how social media is moving attention spans in the wrong direction.
It is! But i feel a fight back happening! Great comment! Stick around!
Interestingly, although people have noted the positioning of the family at the table in Downhill justifies the father a little bit more (since he was alone and doesn't push his kid aside), it feels like there's actually more room for sympathy in the original due to the way it's structured. The way Downhill presents it makes it obvious that the film thinks you should believe he's a coward. The performances and dialogue are pretty explicitly telling you that. In the original, the scene's presented without judgement from a distance, and while you can read subtleties and body language, no one's reaction really tips the movie's hand as to what it wants you to think. The film gives more latitude for the audience to make their own judgements. There's other elements to break down in that, like what seems to be a genre shift to comedy in Downhill, which intentionally plays the scene more for laughs (and you could even argue that's a wise decision based on genre and audience), but it's simply interesting to see what you lose there.
Fantastic comment! :) love it! Still around!
That's what I was thinking, on a spectrum the Farrell one seems to be more comedic oriented than the original, which would explain the death of realism. I'd say it makes the scene itself more forgettable, but if the whole movie is centered around goofy relationship mishaps (I actually don't know, so I could be wrong), the still wide shot would feel quite out of left field for the sake of cinematic photography.
In the right context tho, the original is absolutely nerve-wracking, like holy shit lol
Yeah.
The close on his getting the phone was beyond intentional, it was almost... stale.
Like...: Yeah, yeah, daddy keeps himself glued to the phone even during vacation, we all watched Hooked with Robin Williams and Julia Roberts.
By having a Seinfeld alum in the remake, it's hard not to think of the episode where George reacts in a similar way during a panicked fire alarm at a party, pushing the elderly out of the way to escape. I wonder if this influenced the casting of JLD.
Potentially! You might be right :) great Seinfeld episode as well!
Absolutely. Every Jewish producer knows every episode of Seinfeld by heart.
Another aspect in these scenes is the placement of characters.
While it's also due to the table, the fact that the two kids are sitting next to the mom an none next to the dad in the US version already creates a discommect between the family and makes it less believable.
On the other hand in the original version the dad in a panic tries to first grab his son , who is right next to him, but then decides against it and runs grabbing a stranger. It deepens the feeling of panic and also makes the fact, that he left them, harsher, abondoning a family member right next to him, rather than the three separated by a whole table.
Great comment and observation! Stick around!
The American series "Barry" also uses a lot of wide angle shots from a still camera. You get a sense of realism because, if you were there, you would not be swapping positions every two seconds. Great comparison, Marcus.
Yes! Best example is the motorbike chase in the last series. GREAT SCENE! Also the fight in season 1 (or 2) I can't remember in the house. Great stuff! AND Great comment!
Barry and Succession for me are two shows which use WILDLY different cinematographic approaches to achieve a sense of fly on the wallism/realism, each to great effect. it's astounding what they both manage to accomplish with such different techniques!
Watch The Curse if you haven't already. Not only does it stay on scenes from voyeuristic perspectives it basically starts new scenes without ever cutting. The dialogue just progresses to new places like a real conversation would!
Curiously, the effects work is less convincing in the remake; from the compositing of the avalanche with the foreground action, to the dusting of "snow" artfully applied to the costumes in its aftermath.
The one thing I think the second version does add that I liked is the kids looking at the camera/Dad's POV when he rejoins them, it actually does what "close-ups" do best; conveys emotional cues without relying on dialogue.
I actually love this comment! This is why i love film. Your take on the CU's and POV's is completely valid. I do think however, i gain more curiosity from the reaction of the kids in the original film. Just the whole scene, based on the blocking/framing and simplicity draws me in alot more than the remake - which tries to add a fifth wheel to a car that's already driving beautifully. However, great comment! Do stick around!
The kids in the original convey way more by their stillness imo also the dad adresses them with "are you okay" and they don't move a muscle. It adds a lot of tension. The kids in the remake are panting and acknowledge him by nodding, they look happy to have survived, which ultimately is not the point of the scene
I recommend doing some eqing on your voice ,
- take away like 8 dB around 8k Hz
- take away around 7 dB around 3k Hz
- with very narrow filters take away 6 dB from 120 and 240 Hz (best to check this is make a narrow filter, crank it up and listen when the signal really gets loud, that's the resonance you wanna eliminate)
Thanks for this! That wasn't the problem here - the problem was I recorded the audio with over the mic as apposed to into it. New set up!
that reminded something from my childhood (1999), there was an earthquake in our city istanbul, and in my neighbourhood one of my friends father was ran to the street all alone with his boxer, top naked, his family still upstairs his children and wife, he left them and ran out
Hhahaa! no way!!!! Its funny how people behave in certain situations! Not sure how I would behave - that's the scary thing! Great comment! Stick around!
Did the wife divorce him haha
no but, whole neighbourhood gossiped about him for a long time @@ninab.4540
no but, people (neighbourhood) gossiped about him for a while @@ninab.4540
40% of people killed in the Japan tsunami in 2011 stayed behind to help family and friends flee. In Japan, that behaviour is called Tomo-Daore, falling together or mutual destruction, where the rescuer loses his or her life along with the victim. Instead, Tsunami prone areas promote Tsunami-Tendenko (go-separately). People should flee individually and not stop to help others, even family members. It's fascinating that Japanese society permits this, given they emphasise teamwork and social responsibility. But they understand that acting emotionally in times of overwhelming disasters can result in more people getting killed, they have to act individually.
I watched this at 4am on film4 a couple years ago, felt like a very profound exploration of modern masculinity. The real value of this film is its confidence, taking such a simple event and watching how it simmers slowly much as thing do in our own lives. Everything in the film just has space to breathe and it was so refreshing to watch.
You hit the nail on the head! Fantastic comment! And Film4 IS BRILLIANT! Stick around!
@@MarcusFlemmings Thanks dude, certainly will! I binged a bunch of your vids after catching this one, I like your style of film analysis very much. Caught some real gems on late night film4, tho I’ve been neglecting TV lately ahaha
@@OllieML It's where I first watched LA HAINE and TRAINSPOTTING - Film4!
Also the fact that in the remake one kid asks for his mom once versus in the original the kids are calling for their dad over and over with increasing panic.
Totally!
Remake also has the kids sitting together with the mother ''for a better shot'' which makes the scene extremely weird... How many families do you know of that'll sit like that? Mom vs. Dad style, and with most of the family even facing away from the view?
The remake version is like a bad fight scene, so many cuts its disorienting, chaotic, and confusing. You might think these are appropriate themes to want to insert into this scene but it actually detracts from the real life chaos and confusion. We need a static reference so that we can fully understand what is happening in the chaos. It makes the fathers reaction seem much more natural and appropriate in the second scene, not as much build up, everyone is freaking out almost immediately, the position of the table and characters sat at it make for a more believable reaction from the father and that detracts from the whole point of the movie. I havent seen Downhill but I cant imagine him thinking he did anything wrong in the following conversations whereas in Force Majeur the fathers actions are much more obviously cowardly and so in the disscusions following, you arent saying to yourself "he did nothing wrong!!"
Gorgeous comment! Love this! :)) Yes are actually so many reasons why the original scene is better. The filmmaking aspect of it, is the part that confuses me the most. It's the part they shouldn't have got wrong. Stick around my friend!
this video was great! i feel like this analysis goes hand in hand with every frame of painting’s memories of murder video. it’s less stress on the actors to have less cuts and less closeups as they’re able to use their talent with little interruption.
Memories of a Murder is a masterpiece! Thanks for the comment!
Having one shot would have brought thr budget down considerably as well. One locked-off camera against a greenscreen set is easy for VFX artists to work with, and it means you only need extras on set for one day.
LOVE THIS! Thinking like a true producer :) honestly, it's better in every way - visually, narratively, budgetary. Stick around sir!
Man oh man, I've seen this comparison between the two movies used as an example before, but your video is one of the better video essays on that comparison out there. I haven't watched Downhill, but I expect that what follows in the movie lacks the tension and suspense of the original too.
MEANS a lot! Appreciate this :))) Stick around!
It's also a display of the difference in culture, with one being more subtle and nuanced and the other more on the nose and simple. Thanks for the upload.
Totally agree! Great comment! Stick aorund!
First scene is just like 2006 movie The Host where instead of grabbing his own child, he grabs another child when monster was chasing.
The host is brilliant! I think this just beats out the Host for me!
This is fascinating! I always wonder how awards are decided for ‘best director’ etc, and this explains an aspect very well. I definitely felt the anxiety way more with the original. And it goes to white so long, I’m anxiously waiting to see if everyone is ok. For the remakes part, u cant expect subtle acting from will ferrell lol.
HAHAHHAA that's never been his forte! As much as I love Will! Great comment!
Yo!! I remember when the trailer for downfall came out and was like this is great concept but something felt off about this. Can’t wait to see Force Majeure. Thank you!
Great comment Stick around!
Personally, I am surprised the people didn't react sooner to the avalanche. Even the kid screaming "Poppa!" was reacting sooner than the rest of the crowd. Yet, they waited until the last second before they started to run. Regarding the father running off by himself, I would not excuse that because you see him completely ignore his son as he starts to move away from the oncoming avalanche.
It's even worse in the American version. A massive wave of snow is literally encroaching the seating area before anyone gets up to run. Editing wise, the original was a thousand times better. Presenting a much more intense experience to the audience.
Well the beautiful of the first one is there no editing, because it's one take! (I'm sure there's a masked edit amongst the snow cloud) but great comment! And I agree that they didn't act quicker - deffo a dramatic license moment! Great comment! Stick around!
First of: the correct word is "pappa" :) Then, I believe that they think that the restaurant is a safe zone. Like "surley it can't hit us? The know what they are doing, right?"
you can find people reacting to avalanches on youtube -- the way the snow runs out for so long is not intuitive unless you've seen it before, so the apparent danger wasn't obvious until fairly late. Also, I seem to remember it being mentioned that, like the bus scene at the end, the avalanche scene was based on an actual event, though I'm not sure if it was filmed
It is WILD the difference in tone and feeling the two scenes have
HUGELY!!!
What an important comparison! The long unbroken wide avalanche shot in "Force Majeure" does indeed do something quite different from the "Downhill" avalanche scene. The "Force Majeure" shot mimics the reality videos we see online of tsunamis, natural disasters, ships facing huge ocean waves etc. There is a sense of slowed-down time and agonising suspense. And it puts us viewers in the position of witnesses; just as if we were there, sitting at a nearby table, only with a video camera. In that wide shot so full of people, we have to try and work out what to look at, what is important, and what isn't. And like all witnesses, we have only a partial view of the subject family, e.g. we hardly see the father's face at all, he has his back to us. Then, our view is quickly obscured by snow. We have to make up our own minds about what the family did, based on an imperfect and distanced view of the event. It forces us both to concentrate, and to admit honestly, and with perhaps some frustration, that maybe we dont 100% remember exactly who did what, because we couldn't see it that well. That imperfect view is important later, when we begin to wonder if one or both of the couple is lying, or exaggerating their responses.
In "Downhill", while the scene is still arresting and suspenseful in its own way, there is no doubt regarding the main characters' feelings and theri acgtions - because we see solid closeups of the family's faces. The camera puts us in the centre of the dining table, inches away from each one.
So, what is lost in the "Downhill" version is ambiguity. That ambiguity is used in Force Majeure to support the themes of distorted memory and restructuring of the past. And it adds a fascinating layer to the challenge issued to the audience' to respond to and interpret the couple's experience .
Wonderful analysis! Do stick around!
Its a sad moment but the way Will runs away is very funny
Will is great! The film isn't!
I thought so too. Like an old man who can barely move😂
Son: Where is Papa?!?
Mother/Wife: I think Papa is already in the bus.😂
😂
"Force Majeure" is a masterpiece. "Downhill" is a merican.
It is! Love it!
I can’t help but mention how excellent the acting is in the original version, especially the child actors. The little boy screaming in terror for his father genuinely had me shaken.
That scream is haunting!
this is why I stopped watching a lot of Netflix shows. once I started paying attention to cuts and editing I just couldn't handle how frantic it all was, as though the creators were constantly terrified we'd get bored if we had to look at the same thing for a second too long. also after reading everyone's insightful comments on Force Majeure, I'd like to add that the static camera, to me, resembles a nightmare or sleep paralysis incident where you can't move and are just forced to watch something frightening happening in front of you. ramps up the tension for sure.
Netflix are the worst!! So tacky Great comment! Stick around!
I like Force Majeure a lot. I didn't know they made an American version! Agreed, simple filmmaking = perfect
It's a FANTASTIC film!
I love how the camera is stantionary and that it is a long uncut shot, makes the feeling of sheer panic much stronger.
It's genius and yet so simple! Great comment! Stick around!
Good video dude ~ I'd be down for a more in depth breakdown of Force Majeure, it seems really interesting but also I know it's way too tense for me to actually sit through, but I love seeing artistic breakdowns and thoughtful video essays on this kind of thing! I just wish I knew more about the movie now, especially how it wraps up and what sort of resolution they find after such an interesting premise beginning. It's really cool to see the comparison to Downhill as well, I think you're spot on about the effectiveness of the scene being so much stronger in the original.
Huge love for the comment! Deffo watch it!
I completely agree with your take, and it was great to hear an explanation of why Downhill didn't work. I was never convinced a remake was necessary anyway. It seemed almost an insult to a flawless film. I'd love to see a video about the endings, too. The ending of Force Majeure was beautiful and, like the rest of the film, subtle. The ending of Downhill felt bleak, and Billie seemed needlessly bitter. I couldn't help feeling that the creators of Downhill had completely misunderstood Force Majeure.
Yeah, the two films are only similar in their basic premise. The comparisons stop there :) thanks for the comment! Stick around!
Thanks for the video. You articulated my feelings from having watched 1 and 1/2 of these movies (I didn't finish the remake).
Hahah! I don't blame you. Time is precious! Thanks for the comment! Stick around!
We appreciate how well you've articulated your insights. You'll always have our support.
Huge love! Stick around!
this was truly a fire ass explanation... we need more films
Big love!
Ruben Östlund is a genius! If you haven't seen The Square, you should add that to your list. The way he manages to tell stories about simple decisions and the results they may have is so good. And often times very relatable.
I've seen it :) I didn't like it as much. It's fascinating and has some great moments! But it meanders a bit :) Great comment! Stick around!
During the first scene, you were sitting there, thinking "....well this feels ...awkward," and didn't need to see the actors' emotions because you were probably experiencing the same emotions in real time. It really made you want to squirm in your seat. But in the second scene, you didn't feel anything because the actors were there, doing it for you.
Oh my! This comment is 😍
I love the way you break down the difference between films. I would not have thought much about it. 31 cuts in 100 seconds! It's as if they were trying to make it look like an action movie, which is not the purpose of the story. Maybe they think Americans could not have watched it if it didn't feel "exciting". I wish they'd done a better job portraying the most important scene in the entire movie. Thanks again for the critique. Really fascinating for me.
Huge love for this comment! Means alot! Stick around!
I actually don't agree that either version is better than the other. In Force Majeure, I felt a sense of awkwardness and confusion, and then sadness.
In Downhill, the claustrophobic closeups and heightened acting gave me a real sense of fear for their lives. Will Ferrel actually gave a very convincing performance of someone who was put into that situation. When the waiter came over to the table, you could see that Will and JLD were both trying so hard to hold back tears, quite brilliant.
Both interpretations are well done in my opinion, but I do think it's fair to ask the question what emotions you want the audience to feel here.
Lovely measured comment! Do stick around!
the sheer helplessness i felt with the first scene brought me into the the setting. and then the power the acting had not in terms of forced expressions but body language, the dialogue delivery- there wasn't a need to be in their faces to realise what just happened. while everyone's taking a sigh of relief around and moving about we witness them sit stiff frozen in part shock and part disappointment. such an amazing set up for the rest of the film. and I absolutely agree Downhill just felt like an snl bit?? when were jumping around so much we couldn't properly witness dreyfus' reaction to the situation as compared to will's
SNL sums it up perfectly! Ruins the whole vibe of the scene - nice comment! Stick around!
With zone of interest this year, that movie really showed the power of slow static shots, hopefully it gets a oscar nod with a award. Loved the video, will catch out the movie.
My friend, LOVE THIS COMMENT!!!! Exactly right! Stick around!
The original also have one of the best "last lines of the movie" I have ever seen. It incapsulates the whole film and the journey the charachter(s) have gone through, Genius.
Love the film! it's brilliant! Thanks for the comment!
You have perfectly described my taste in film. These points are what I use to form opinions over the films I watch
Love this comment! Agreed! I use moments like this to hold every film to a standard! Thanks for the comment!
I am afraid, it is not in US cinema alone (albeit possibly the driving factor). Recently saw a comparison about Murder on the Orient Express 1974 and 2017. One with expert blocking, trust in slowly playing out but hefty scenes etc., the other with unmotivated cuts, camera positions that are pandering towards the lowest common denominator in audience expectations. Side note: I am looking forward to the International Berlin Film Festival at the moment. My palate cleanser each year ;-)
My friend, you said the key word -- blocking! Blocking is so undiscussed! Great comment! Stick around!
Watched Force Majeure years ago, really liked it. Not only for that scene, which feels realistic and surreal at the same time. Much like something very unexpected and random happening in real life. But also for the reaction afterwards and how the event disrupts the trust within this family and how they are not prepared to deal with it. Everything is so subtle and toned down.
When I read that Hollywood will remake it with Will Ferrell I wondered if they have even seen the film.
Looks like they didnt watch it! Based on the quality of that scene :) Thanks for the comment! Stick around!
"it feels more like a movie, and not a film" 😂😂 dead serious delivery too
Thanks for the comment!
The fact that Will Ferrel and Julia Louis-Dreyfus are both comedians doesn’t help either. My mind immediately relates their faces and their acting to comedy and not to drama, making it almost impossible to connect with the scene.
100% not great choices! The original has the comedy come out via the serious drama. Great comment! Stick around!
I have seen the avalanche scene SO many times, but I never knew which movie it was from. I will definitely watch it now. Also, Triangle of Sadness is quite good.
Triangle is good :) not a bad film at all! Thanks for the comment!
Force Majeure: We do not need to move the camera because the plot is focused on the family.
Downhill: Let's shoot this like a disaster movie. Get the reactions of the bystanders, and the server with beer falling, and the man trying to make video with his phone.......etc etc
Hahhahaaaha! Savage! Love it! Stick around!
This video made me check out the rest of your channel and HOW do you not have more subscribers?! This is amazing content! Greetings from Mexico :)
Big love for this comment! Stick around :)
Your channel is amazing, I've just stumbled upon a few of your videos and subscribed - thanks for showing the original film, it's on my list now!
HUGE LOVE for this comment!
as a big fan of Triangle of Sadness, i clearly need to check out his other work. i did a deep dive into Lanthimos a few months ago and i think Ostlund is next on my list
Yes, check him out! Very different styles, but very similar sensibilities! Thanks for the comment! Stick around!
I think the 2nd one tried to have reaction-shots implanted into the scene, but with that the threat-level, the cause for panic is lost. At the end of the scene I even had toruble knowing what is happening. It wast a blended mess.
And for the acting the first feels drama, while the second some cheap comedy.
HAHAHAHHAHA! Your exquisite explanation is exactly what they went for and failed! Stick around!
I hadn't thought about this, and now that I have, it applies to good writing too. Not literally in terms of having a stationary view point, but more breaks in the narrative, or switches of viewpoint, tend to make for more choppy and less readable writing.
Love this! Stick around!
FYI the reason the camera cuts to reactions to the actors in the second clip is because the studio executives give notes, and they almost always give that note for job justification; they are also paying those actors a lot of money and want to get their "money's worth".
They do indeed give notes - I don't think this was due to notes though. This looks like a director's choice - as notes should suggest they re-shot this scene :) Thanks for the comment!
This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when George pushes children and old people out of the way when he thinks there is a fire. Then the American version HAS Julia and Will, which lends itself to a comical interpretation anyway, undermining the entire point of the scene.
Seinfeld!
I think neither is perfectly successful. Both approaches have their pros and cons. I honestly think there’s a middleground that would work best
Love this partizan approach! (The original is still better though 😁)
Excellent analysis. Subscribed and looking forward to more from your channel.
Huge love! More videos coming your way this week!
One shot in a fixed place also gives me the "no escaping this awkward f up" feeling. It adds a weight and tension to what he did and makes it more painful to watch. Compounded awkwardness, dragged out into torment
YES! Exactly!
Excellent video. I've never heard of Force Majeure, can't wait to check it out. I have to agree that the still wide shot is far more effective. Comparatively, the remade scene didn't seem anywhere near as dangerous, and I found its editing a bit disorienting.
Totally agree! You need to watch the film though! I know you love film as your comments are always on point - give it a watch! :)
@@MarcusFlemmings
It's definitely high on my list as of now.
I guess it was Bourne that changed American cinema. Quick cuts is a means to keep audiences in edge and obviously downhill wanted to do that. Whereas the focus of the European one was not the family but the chaos in the shape of an avalanche. Almost like a poetry.
The Bourne Trilogy is my favourite trilogy ever. BUT yes, little did I know, that camerawork that Greengrass was lauded for at the time was going to change cinema forever. Great observation!
youtube rec'd this to me, GREAT vid, mate! Thank you!
Huge love for this comment! Warms the heart!
This reminds me of the “rule” in film and books to show, and not tell. Granted, neither scene has a character saying, “why did you abandon us”, which is good. But the Hollywood version does have gratuitous close-ups and cuts to people’s faces. It’s basically Hollywood telling us how everyone is feeling, instead of allowing us to figure it out ourselves and to “feel” the movie based on the camerawork and the special effects, the colouring, etc. We can feel the tension in the first scene even though we can barely see the family’s faces.
I’m such a sucker for a long camera shot. Not to sound old but sometimes I go to the cinema now and feel like I’ll have a seizure from all the cuts 😭
This was a really interesting watch, thank you!!
Huge thanks for the watch and the wonderful comment! Show, don't tell! Stick around!
Great short vid that brought attention to this film i didn't know existed
Thanks for the awesome comment! Stick around!
Original scene was terrifying and the American one was more like an action comedy
Totally agree! And the worst thing is...I think they wanted that to be the case! Great comment! Stick around!
Actually it's the staging of the scenes, rather than the shots, that strike me. In the French (Swedish?) version, *everyone* runs. The dad has to run *over* his own kid to get away. In the American version, half the people on the deck stay put, making it feel less urgent. And the mother's failure to move (had it been a worse accident) seems as bad as the father's. And the kids are on the other side of the table. I've no idea why any of those changes would be made, unless they were trying to dial down the father's mistake.
Great comment! Do stick around!
I think they wanted to dial down the dad's error to make it easier to sympathise with him. It's a shame, because it shows a lack of confidence in their writing, in the actor's perfomance and in the audience's ability to make their own moral judgement.
@@lettylunasical4766 I think so too! Idk if that came because Farrell didn't want to play an irredeemably character, or the American writers/producers just chickened out. Not a great choice.
@@lettylunasical4766 Yeah, it's the chicken's way out! Film is there for pushing the envelope!
Excellent video. Another major missing factor in the remake is the child screaming for his father’s reassurance. It’s the scariest moment of his young life and his father abandons him, leaving his very side (not across from the table). The scream gets more and more desperate which builds the tension, and then the father fails the family… then silence. Shock, shame, disbelief, total disillusionment with their husband and father in an instant. It’s devastating. None of that is in the remake. It also doesn’t help that the two adult actors are comic actors. The gravity of this moment just isn’t there.
it's a scary scene, it dissects human nature in just 1 minute or so! Thanks for the comment! Stick around :)
As an American, I get so frustrated with my country’s habit of remaking already fantastic movies. Why? I haven’t seen either of these movies but the clip from the Swedish film had my palms sweaty and heart racing. Our movies tend to hit us over the head with comedy etc. as if they don’t trust us, or don’t WANT us to figure out how to feel for ourselves.
They don't trust anyone - they spoon feed! Great comment :) stick around!
The length of scenes was not a problem for me. But no likeable characters was. I think I made it halfway through before I gave up on it.
Interesting observation! I think that comes from the lack of believability - because if characters are believable, it's hard not to like them. As they reflect us as humans internally! Great comment± Stick around!
If you watch the original version of Insomnia (the Scandinavian Version) it is much more powerful, as it casts the character as a dislikable character even more so. Whenever I learn of an American remake, I always track down the original, knowing it will probably hold up better.
SO true! Every single time! Great comment! Stick around!
Great critique video Marcus. Looking forward to your next video.
HUGE love! Stick around!
At least in the American version the aftermath looked like an aftermath. In the first version it felt like they were just resetting the scene for another take. Nothing looked the least bit disturbed. What a cooperative avalanche.
It wasn't an avalanche - it was just a cloud of dust :) thanks for the comment!
you need a better micriphone, this pringles can ain't doing it.
Haha! Nah, the mic wasn't the issue. I was! I didn't record into it. New set up! Thanks for the comment!
Two different film styles and two different genres. First one is a misanthropic, slow burning drama film. Second is a screwball comedy that use action and melodrama. Can't compare the two in that simple, crude technical manner. Also isolating each scene without considering the whole film.
The first scene actually looks sillier and more unrealistic because the light avalanche did not disturb anything on the restaurant tables. Even the wine glasses are still upright! And in a very silly manner people continued drinking the remaining liquid in those glasses as if nothing had happened. This is no 'realism' or 'masterpiece'. This is artistic ignorance and immaturity. Twisting the real life just to suit whatever nihilistic and pessimistic viewpoint the filmmaker have about life.
MAYBE the light comedy of Will Ferrell, though done in a popular format, offers a relatively more sensible and considerate approach towards life. Rather than looking at the world from your own middle-class, narrow, misanthropic view point.
Thanks for the comment, firstly! But i have to (kind of) disagree. They're the same film :) the problem is the approach - via filmmaking and via choice of how to tell the story. One is done right and the other is done wrong :)
@@MarcusFlemmings It is the same film story told in two different film STYLES. One is a drama the other is comedy. I hope you understand this fundamental aspect of storytelling.
Same story can be told in different ways. The Italian Job (1969) was a comedy caper film. Its 2003 adaption was a heist action film with very little comedy. The 'rightness' or 'wrongness' can be judged only by looking at the whole film and analyzing how the story is told and characters are developed from beginning to the end. NOT by isolating a single scene.
What you describe as 'wrong' acting in your video is the standard screwball comedy acting method actors use around the world. Maybe you don't like comedy. If so, you have to mention that 'personal preference' in your commentary. Then we can understand your opinion much better.
I only stated the standard method of film criticism. Hope this help. Because its very unfair to cast aspersions on a true comedy giant like Will Ferrell in a simplistic manner. Best thing is to be holistic and concrete in your deliberation.
@@pandulagodawatta7398 But you're wrong I'm afraid - have you seen the original? It's a comedy (granted, a dark comedy) but it's a comedy. They're both comedies. Your example of the Italian Job is closer to the point but still both are heist films - because one has more jokes it doesn't make it a comedy more than the other. This video is about the filmmaking in these specific scenes. The exact same scene - and how the filmmaking is handled. One is engaging and the other is not. And, whilst yes, that last part is my opinion - I think the general consensus is that, that is the case. In terms of how I approach a video, thanks for the suggestion - but you should probably make your own videos and be holistic and concrete in your deliberation :) to whatever level you like. I love Will Ferrell and I love Dreyfus - but the scene comparison shows that one has believable acting that is funny by being subtle and the other is over the top acting that didn't need to happen. Having said all this, I appreciate your comments and thanks for watching the video!
@@MarcusFlemmings Some European 'independent' filmmakers make weird and misanthropic films, and if the character and scene portrayal does not hold and seem somewhat incoherent and unrealistic, they then call those films 'dark comedies' :) :) It seem you have fallen in to that big art cinema trap.
If we, for a moment, do regard 'Force Majeure' as a comedy, there are lot of stylistic and technical differences even within the comedy genre. Above all in acting style - dead pan, melodrama, non acting est.
If you can remove your 'arty' attitude and look at Will Ferrell's adaptation, you'll find that even this particular scene has much more 'realism' than the corresponding scene in Force Majeure. Like father's character selfishly occupying a whole bench while the other members of the family are cramped in to the opposite bench. Brilliant comedic character intro for that scene. Will's scene also shows much more realistically the convulsion and the material disorder in the aftermath of the light avalanche. Those are very effective scenic elements that set the tone and the mood of the story for its future twists.
Good buy and good luck.
The only sane person in the comment section. Lol at all the sheep agreeing with the author of the essay
I think both scenes work fine. I like being able to see the characters’ reactions to what just happened
I understand that - but the scene isn't really about the characters reactions - it's more about your own reaction to his actions :) nice comment! Stick around!
I tend to avoid anything Will Ferrell is in, and this just helps solidify that choice. Great video!
I love Ferrell...for comedy! But not for this type of film. Thanks for the comment! Stick around!
One tries to put you in the action while the other appreciates that it’s the story of someone else
Yes, subjectivity vs Objectivity! Great comment!
Thanks for this. The 2nd example is very, for lack of a better term "Americanized." Something US audiences expect when a scene is supposed to invoke panic, confusion, or extreme. The first example, eliminates the "tricks" and leaves nothing but a natural view, as though filmed from a very good quality security camera at the location. Thus, making for a more realistic, more identifying, and yes, even more frantic and terrifying shot and experience for the viewer. No edits to re-orient yourself with, just a pure, raw scene to absorb. To me, and maybe just me - there's something about long, static shots that un-nerve me ... staying on a shot just raises the anxiety level - and in the case of the first scene, it was achieved. Incredibly done.
BIG love for this comment!
I had seen clips of the original online and did not realize it was a movie. For one, the acting of the son in the scene was phenomenal! He gives a real and terrified performance and was actually what sold me on it as having been captured by someone’s camera. Hollywood ruins everything
Agreed on all fronts here - the chilling sound of his voice! Thanks for the comment! Stick around :)
Marcus is right about the static shot providing a realistic feel. A continuous shot is simply saying "see, there are no tricks, this is really happening" (because a cut is basically a trick). But he's wrong when he says that it makes the actors' performances more "subdued and realistic". It doesn't. It just focuses our attention on their words and silences. It puts forward the moral aspect, the meaning of what happened. Its static nature lets us think more freely.
Thanks for the comment :) much appreciated! I do disagree with you - it does change performance :) as I director, I know this but also ask any actor about the different between stage acting and film/tv acting. When an actor know they have one shot at a performance it shapes things - especially if they don't have close ups, etc - the scene is played like a play. Do stick around!