This video was very unsuccessful in my opinion, you basically just shun all the big auteur filmmakers for not being "revolutionary" without really giving a definition of what a revolutionary film could look like today. The only film you praise for being revolutionary is Man with movie camera, and yes, I agree, but that was also in 1929. I was very captivated by your hook but you failed to bring much substance to your argument. I hope you clarify YOUR vision for what films should be in later videos, because right now I just get the impression that you just want to watch documentaries.
You do a terrible job of explaining what revolutionary filmmaking is, only defining it in terms of what it isn't, which is EVERY movie except for The Man with the Movie Camera apparently (an early cinema documentary, mind you), making it sound like a very artistically unappetizing direction to take things in. Most filmmakers and audiences are interested in the particular artistic effects achieved through narratives, they're not exclusively trying to do what has never been done before (especially not for the completely irrelevant goal of making people question capitalism) and what has never been done before isn't necessarily interesting if it's something that hasn't been done only because no one saw the point in bothering to do it. You do a terrible job of defining what theatrical filmmaking is too, since all of the movies you cite as not sufficiently breaking away from theatrical filmmaking are using a billion techniques that could never be used in theatre, so it's hard to get what exactly you mean by "theatrical filmmaking." Are you simply echoing Vertov's manifesto? If so not only are your criticisms anachronistic but the ridiculous and radical anti-non-documentary stance should be a focal point of the video, so that the audience doesn't waste their time wondering what your problem with all these movies is. Vaguely defined terms with bad exemplification, the baffling insistence on the superiority of the edit over the image (baffling since most filmmakers are already aware of the power of editing, there's no piss contest between the edit and the image, it felt awkwardly stitched on just because it's Russian formalism), treating art as if it was roundabout propaganda... I think you've read too much "theory."
By the logic presented, the most important film of the 21st Century is probably Speed Racer (2008), because it's both genuinely subversive in terms of craft and filmmaking technique, and has a strong anti-capitalist message. Don't get me wrong, I love Wachowski Speed Racer, but also... lol. lmao.
I don't see how furthering the art of film making by no longer using the usual techniques would bring about better class consciousness. If anything I think the opposite is true. Movies that impact people emotionally are more likely to stick with them and leave an impression on their lives. And to get that emotion, you need a riveting story and sympathetic characters. What I'm trying to say is that if the goal here is to awaken one's class consciousness then something like The Matrix should more the goal than something akin to The Tree of Life.
My friend I understand that you probably just got out of film school and are trying to have some wild contrarian view of film. The kind of movies you are describing to be revolutionary is what can also just be called a documentary. I get that it probably goes further than just that in your mind as some grandiose thing that will completely change anyone’s outlook on the world, but that’s just a very well made documentary that knows exactly what it wants to convey by using filmmaking techniques. I don’t know if you quite understand what movies are meant to be, though. Because the whole point of “theatrical films” is to tell a story. If you think they’re too close to theater that’s the opposite of what they are. The point of these movies is to be able to convey a story in such an immaculate way that theater could never do. That’s the whole point of movies. Even with a documentary kind of thing like you’re describing, it’s still a story, with the “characters” being the people or elements in the real world. Movies aren’t just meant to be psychological anomalies. They’re meant to be stories conveyed in any way you possibly can. Saying that theatrical films with made up stories have “boundaries” because of that isn’t really an argument, because your kind of movie also has boundaries in how it can be conveyed. Any story has boundaries of how it can be told, you just need to find the story you want to make and if you make it good, those boundaries won’t affect you, because they are there to make sure you don’t take it to a level that turns it into no longer conveying this story. I get what you’re trying to say but it’s just a very contradictory argument. If you make a film like you want I don’t think it will change the world. That’s not what movies are for. They’re for entertainment, and if you don’t think so that is just objectively wrong. It’s the whole reason they exist. I hope you think about this and pursue your career with a bit less biased approach. And don’t try to be so different all the time
I stopped when he said Scorsese can’t stop making gangster films. Anyone who’s actually seen all of Scorsese movies knows that while he makes plenty of gangster movies he also has lots of other things to say. I understand what this dude is trying to say and I appreciate his argument. In some ways I agree with it. But my goodness he’s being so pretentious. Not to mention he tells us what Malick does despite not even knowing anything about him.
Couldn't agree more, it like saying David Lynch can't stop making surreal, nonlinear movies. What ironic is, Scorsese has a variety of films to choose from. His most out there movie in my opinion being "Kundun". His "gangster" or rather his crime movies such as Goodfellas, the King of Comedy, and Taxi Driver being one of his most popular and critically celebrated films today.
It's so funny he says that when the only gangster film he really made the past decade is just the Irishman. And with his recent filmography, he doesn't even really center with the themes this guy is listing anymore.
Alongside all of the previous criticism of you not clearly defining what "theatrical filming" is, I think you are using the term "revolutionary film" in an extremely confusing manner. Is it a formal innovation or an innovation in political content? Are they both identical to each other? If so, I find it incredibly hard to believe that you can so easily equate the two, as though a Picasso equivalent in cinema would automatically spike the levels of class consciousness in society. This is why defining your terms is important. Additionally, I find this dismissal of "image" in favor of "edit" to be questionable. You seem to see editing as the only source of novel cinematic expression, as the exclusive structuring device in the medium. I very much side with Tarkovsky here in that I think "duration" (the length of an individual shot) precedes editing in terms of importance, and is the primary structuring device in cinema . I can't attest to Diaz or Tarr as I haven't seen them, but they seem to follow in Tarkovsky's footsteps with their emphasis on long takes. My point is that you don't seem to think anything happens within a shot, and that the entire language of cinema is spoken in the edit. I (and proponents of "slow cinema") very much think the length/duration of a shot/"image" radically changes our relationship to it, to the same extent that a good edit can. Admittedly I haven't read Marx or Eisenstein's writing, so some of my points may be obsolete when put side by side with their arguments. However, I think I bring up important questions that you yourself did not answer. Nonetheless, I appreciate someone bringing up some of the same gnawing doubts I've had about cinema for a while now, even if the expression is a tad incoherent.
Yeah, if you don’t like movies I’d highly recommend you just don’t watch or review movies. Don’t seem to be digging very deep either to really find stuff you like, just general contrarian stuff. This and the Hollywood movies video. You either love the art medium of cinema, schlock and art alike, equally, or you do not actually love the medium of cinema.
There has been a small undercurrent of non-verbal/non-narrative filmmaking being created over the past several decades, like Koyaanisqatsi, Baraka and so on. When at their best, they very much avoid the theatrical approach and tend to include universal humanist themes. Certainly very influential on my interest in fimmaking and my overall view of the world. Unfortunately, the aesthetic of these films has often been co-opted by advertisement based filmmakers (more like commercial technicians than artists), diluting their impact. However, I think there is a lot of potential to keep building on that form with more energetic imagery and more powerful/transgressive themes to keep pushing film art forward. What do you think of these types of films?
Great comment Raymond! These films do accomplish the separation from TL and they do cover universal themes. However, just remembering them from the top of my head, the techniques used in those films aren’t exactly what I’m going for. I might make a video on these films later down the line if it interests you guys :o
@@revfilmtheory Although I treasure those films for what they are and love that they exist, I certainly don't want to see them simply duplicated by other filmmakers with the same vibe and themes (which has pretty much been done in more vapid forms, sadly). I agree that their aesthetic needs to be expanded upon and explored. More experimentation, a little less meditation. I'd be very interested to hear your perspective and analysis if you were up for doing a re-watch of some of those films and compare them to the Moscow school... and where they could be taken in the future. I look forward to the next one!
I absolutely love it when you support yourself with Terrance Malik even though you haven't, "gotten the chance to familiarize yourself with his movies yet." Flawless thesis etiquette buddy🎉 Keep it up! Lol, analysis is hard work; you can't just rock up on the scene and think people are going to take you seriously when you clearly haven't given this project the due attention that it deserves. In spite of this, one can't help but notice that, in all probability, you like thinking about and discussing pictures (for you would not have troubled yourself to drop this video), and so it's disappointing to see how your disingenuousness here undermines that.
There's a really fantastic Russian film "Hard to be a God" from 2011-2013? so relatively contemporary but holy moly I highly suggest if you haven't seen it yet to give it watch, truly inspiring cinematography and composition through every second, it has recently given me a great new perspective and standard to meet when looking out for a film or movie to watch
I have many problems with your arguments in this vid. You constantly drag on films, very good ones at that, for not “pushing the medium forward”, as if that was their purpose anyways. You consider these films “theatrical films”, which is really just a way for you to describe films with a constructed story, no? That’s just called narrative film; no need to create a new term. I get you’re trying to create a revolutionary approach to filmmaking, yet when your definition for your revolutionary style is literally just documentary, I think you’ve got some more thinking to do. This video just feels like you pontificating. Nothing is gained. Yet you seemed to piss off every other filmmaker/lover who’s seen this, so maybe you’re doing something right?
Also, tell us more about why you feel it’s necessary to “push the medium forward” as you say. Isn’t capitalisms downfall the idea of “progress for the sake of progress”? What’s to be gained by your “revolution” on film? Idk. I’m just not understanding your goals and it just seems like you wanting to be different for the sake of being different. I want to see the merit in your cause. I look forward to your next video.
You really need to define "theatrical filmmaking" and "theatrical elements" at the beginning of your video because opening it with nearly 12 minutes of criticizing filmmakers for using "theatrical filmmaking" and "theatrical elements" without defining either of those things makes any argument you're potentially making completely incomprehensible. Even in your section discussing what you call "theatrical filmmaking", you never give any kind of clear definition of what it is. Like others have said in the comments, you'd probably be better off just watching/making documentaries. I think this could have been improved by giving actual examples of what you consider "revolutionary" filmmaking so that you've set up a clearer contrast between "theatrical" and "revolutionary" films. All in all, this feels very much like you just discovered people like Kracauer, Vertov, Eisenstein, Adorno, Horkheimer, etc but haven't actually explored very much "revolutionary" art or given much thought to what that would mean/look like beyond some vague idea that "it would inspire people to revolution". Your only example of this is a film that's nearly a century old, and even it contains the things you decry like staged scenarios and metafictional elements like self reflexivity. In your conclusion you also state that your aim is to use real life events and convey messages through editing, is this not just what a documentary is?
The best we can have within the medium of theatrical movies is postmodernism. You also have to look at it from a certain perspective, the silent ear seems to be the purest for of film-making and I think that's where you lie but then again the introduction of sound and screenplay revolutionized the medium for the better. Problem is the medium has plateaued and that's where postmodernism comes in, and on that I disagree with you on your take of Tarantino he's one of only one who's genuinely attained postmodernism within the medium and part of the problem is the ideology of high art and low art. Going back to film being fundamentally only visual and edit sets the medium back generations I think looking forward is the only valuable option and you kind of have to realize that film has always been an extension of theater, the creation of film never happened outside of theater. The creation of camera was to capture theater nothing more nothing less, problem is the advancements of camera weren't there at the start for screenplay and audio to be important but it was always supposed to be part of the medium that's just a fact ---> Grabbing a camera and telling stories with just editing can also be done within the theatrical medium of film. Or don't you think so? I think overall Postmodernism is the only way to currently branch out while going in the right direction. - I do agree there are way too much rules that don't have to be followed especially that of camera work and storytelling. Great video though, I agree with some points and disagree with other - 60/40 (agreement ratio)
I completely align and agree with your stated visions, I’ve been trying to collect and find those who have similar feelings to my own at every given opportunity I see and am happy to stumble upon you too. These things you talk of are extreme necessities in our current landscape. I guess what I would like to ask is for you to define your terms much more upfront, what to you is theatrical filmmaking and what is revolutionary filmmaking. I’ll list some stuff I found apparent. “Along with their use of theater they haven’t been able to fundamentally change people’s view of capitalist society and make them question the future society from the one we live in today.” Is that what it simply takes to create a non-theatrical revolutionary work? Would that imply that There Will Be Blood is not theatrical or is revolutionary as it showcases the soulless nature of a Capitalist? Or even many of Scorsese’s films, (wouldn’t call him artistically bankrupt, his films are a lot more than just simple genre pictures!!) Scorsese can be regarded as the fundamental American filmmaker, showcasing what the very nation is (especially recently with KOTFM) as he constantly dwells with Capitalism’s depravity. Neither of these films are explicitly communist per se yet they carry an eye of disdain and disapproval for the mode of production we live in and how it affects us as human beings. How about Children of Men? Blade Runner? A masterful television series like Succession showing the inner world of a bourgeois family. These are all brilliant works that would entice viewers in engaging in critique or radicalization in whatever form it can manifest itself in and grow given enough thought and exposure. “They haven’t been able to put forward a perspective that sees the working class as heroes, the workers who are really the people who control society” Can a theatrical film not do this? What stops a theatrical film from doing this other than the filmmaker wanting to tell a different story. Have you seen Soy Cuba? An astounding “theatrical” work that accomplished exactly this and immediately pours the viewer with revolutionary fury! The Battle of Algiers? Showcasing the intricacies of national liberation and what truly goes into that period of struggle. Are these theatrical works? If so, they are able to accomplish what you speak of, I Am Cuba in particular since Algiers is specifically for national liberation in colonized places rather than communist revolution, but the progressive revolutionary energy flows nonetheless. The revolutionary fever you ask for is found in many films. What is theatrical film in your words? Fiction? Sets? Costumes? Screenplays? Plot? Did October not have sets? Did Strike or Potemkin not have a plot? My favorite filmmaker is Andrei Tarkovsky, who I hold to an extremely high pedestal of praise and adoration. I am curious if you’ve read his book Sculpting In Time in which he has discussed the absolute need for cinema to separate from theatre as cinema is inherently its own, to reach its full potential. I wonder if you would consider him “theatrical” as he, similar to Bela Tarr will hold images for long, both are considered ‘slow cinema’ which I believe holds its own power and there are even Marxist-adjacent examples of slow cinema. (Would be cool to discuss that too with you) So I can see that there are different artists who have differing views on what theatrical film is to you. I find Tarkovsky and Malick also very similar, Malick is in my top five favorite filmmakers as his work is extremely intuitive so I never found it fair for you to lump him in with a lot of those you named. Is Theatrical Film defined by plot? What happens when the film isn’t driven by plot like a Malick one? I’m not as familiar with Godard and have only seen a few episodes of his Histories of Cinema as well as La Chinoise but I was interested when I saw you group him in with other directors when Godard himself was a Marxist who held heavy focus on the edit, and was also a founding member of the Dziga Vertov Group. Really happy with your views on artists and their vision and mindsets, I talk to people about this constantly. The Picasso addition was also great. I agree with your critique of the “popular” directors you listed even if I enjoy their work most of the time, for them, it comes from the individualist bourgeois view of themselves, the world and their art generally. It really shows in their work, simply wishing to tell their own stories, their own styles, doesn’t benefit anyone but themselves in putting forth their imaginations. Its great takedown of the current arthouse scene even if I actually enjoyed the Safdie films a lot when I first saw them, - I agree, A24 generally, these directors are extremely grown and cannot seem to expand their visions past teenage or college aged student filmmakers with their stories and what they want to put on a platter for the world to see. But the greatest artists are aware that it is not about them, and that it is above them. Eisenstein is of course a great example, but even Tarkovsky discusses this. I have several other questions, also as a note I’m not sure if these messages sound confrontational because they aren’t - I’m very pleased and happy this channel exists and wish for you to express yourself even better and more clearly. Also because I am genuinely curious as to your own views on this. This channel is an important development. Why must a filmmaker be revolutionary when there is so much emotion, beauty, and pure power that is brilliantly thrusted in the viewer by filmmakers you list. There is so much in the image that I wouldn’t want it to be disregarded or thrown away, Eisenstein was a master of the image. Raw energy is presented in the images of the greatest works. Must we dispose of the image? Discuss what revolutionary film is! Examples, ideas, and why! Theatrical too, what is the contradiction, why must it be solved, can it be synthesized? Why are they opposed? Etc Anyway I hope you can answer these as I find them fundamental for discourse and truly diving into what our visions are, spreading the blueprints out across the table, thanks.
Thanks for your input! I think this is something I’m going to do later on in the channel’s lifespan. My goal right now is to find people who agree with me or are interested in my ideas. Once the channel has a strong community, I’ll begin to really dive into these theoretical discussions. Our community needs people just like you who want specific explanations and are clear in their position. I really appreciate this!!
You want to use the image and the edit for Revolutionary purposes. Okay. I have an award winning idea for you, Israel. Compile together as much film of Israel and Palestine from the early period to today, as much mundane imagery you can find on the Internet, all of it, including the worst of the worst, and edit it together in a relative order required to convey something without any commentary beyond the imagery and your editing technique. You'll blow up the world if you succeed. ☭
Great video! I totally agree that art films really are taking over, which for me isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the attitudes of the fans of these films really put a damper on those who are more casual fans of film as a medium. I've found myself getting stuck up about the movies I watch vs. the movies other people that I don't think are as 'deep', all because art film afficionados did the same to me. This comment just turned into a journal entry, my bad lol
I like your video, i just think you should organized your ideas better, you talk a lot of why theatrical movies arent revolucionary for 29 minutes just to give one example of what revolutionary filmaking should be whithout going deeper in why it is. I will wait for that video of yours where you talk about Man with a moving camera and hopefully see more examples of movies like it. I like your theory, its just confusing.
I don't think a movie has to be revolutionary to be great. Or that a revolutionary film is by definition a great movie. Art is subjective. Personally I like movies that are immersive and connect with me thematically. I really liked your video and I agree, Hollywood is losing it with their agendas. It's a disgrace. Keep up the good work! You've earned yourself a new subscriber.
Your point is valid... I hope you can polish the ideas and points even more. Looking forward to hearing you develop these ideas. I have the same issue when the modern film-makers rip off past film-makers. An interesting point, when I stepped away from imitating, I found the films I made got terrible reviews, yet 25 years later, the reviews dramatically improved... so maybe that's the price we pay when trying to be original.
A big issue I'm grappling with is the way you keep citing this issue with theatrical film making yet you have not defined what theatrical filmmaking, nor an alternative nor what is wrong with theatrical filmmaking. So while you may still be Intending to go into it later in the video, you need to establish such a term if you're going to be using it so much, and as an argument about how contemporary filmmakers are failing.
It sounds to me no matter how innovative a director would be nowadays you would still hold your conclusion because maybe somewhere deep down you think you're the one who's gonna reinvent the wheel. It might set you up for success but might be delusional. Have you produced anything?
This video will fail to find an appropriate audience. It will be a process for you to find the balance between past, present and future. A revolution needs to build upon what has already been accomplished. Enabling consciouss human activity. Film is a medium and must be used as such. But art at the end of the day is a relationship between (( artist and audience )). People can "fail" only when they aim for something and not attain it. Otherwise their scope is just limited.
bro just graduated film school and is currently in the MANDATORY contrarian view
"Ever heard of Socrates, Aristotle, Plato?"
"Yes."
"Morons..."
This video was very unsuccessful in my opinion, you basically just shun all the big auteur filmmakers for not being "revolutionary" without really giving a definition of what a revolutionary film could look like today. The only film you praise for being revolutionary is Man with movie camera, and yes, I agree, but that was also in 1929. I was very captivated by your hook but you failed to bring much substance to your argument. I hope you clarify YOUR vision for what films should be in later videos, because right now I just get the impression that you just want to watch documentaries.
You do a terrible job of explaining what revolutionary filmmaking is, only defining it in terms of what it isn't, which is EVERY movie except for The Man with the Movie Camera apparently (an early cinema documentary, mind you), making it sound like a very artistically unappetizing direction to take things in. Most filmmakers and audiences are interested in the particular artistic effects achieved through narratives, they're not exclusively trying to do what has never been done before (especially not for the completely irrelevant goal of making people question capitalism) and what has never been done before isn't necessarily interesting if it's something that hasn't been done only because no one saw the point in bothering to do it.
You do a terrible job of defining what theatrical filmmaking is too, since all of the movies you cite as not sufficiently breaking away from theatrical filmmaking are using a billion techniques that could never be used in theatre, so it's hard to get what exactly you mean by "theatrical filmmaking." Are you simply echoing Vertov's manifesto? If so not only are your criticisms anachronistic but the ridiculous and radical anti-non-documentary stance should be a focal point of the video, so that the audience doesn't waste their time wondering what your problem with all these movies is.
Vaguely defined terms with bad exemplification, the baffling insistence on the superiority of the edit over the image (baffling since most filmmakers are already aware of the power of editing, there's no piss contest between the edit and the image, it felt awkwardly stitched on just because it's Russian formalism), treating art as if it was roundabout propaganda... I think you've read too much "theory."
By the logic presented, the most important film of the 21st Century is probably Speed Racer (2008), because it's both genuinely subversive in terms of craft and filmmaking technique, and has a strong anti-capitalist message.
Don't get me wrong, I love Wachowski Speed Racer, but also... lol. lmao.
I don't see how furthering the art of film making by no longer using the usual techniques would bring about better class consciousness. If anything I think the opposite is true. Movies that impact people emotionally are more likely to stick with them and leave an impression on their lives. And to get that emotion, you need a riveting story and sympathetic characters. What I'm trying to say is that if the goal here is to awaken one's class consciousness then something like The Matrix should more the goal than something akin to The Tree of Life.
My friend I understand that you probably just got out of film school and are trying to have some wild contrarian view of film. The kind of movies you are describing to be revolutionary is what can also just be called a documentary. I get that it probably goes further than just that in your mind as some grandiose thing that will completely change anyone’s outlook on the world, but that’s just a very well made documentary that knows exactly what it wants to convey by using filmmaking techniques. I don’t know if you quite understand what movies are meant to be, though. Because the whole point of “theatrical films” is to tell a story. If you think they’re too close to theater that’s the opposite of what they are. The point of these movies is to be able to convey a story in such an immaculate way that theater could never do. That’s the whole point of movies. Even with a documentary kind of thing like you’re describing, it’s still a story, with the “characters” being the people or elements in the real world. Movies aren’t just meant to be psychological anomalies. They’re meant to be stories conveyed in any way you possibly can. Saying that theatrical films with made up stories have “boundaries” because of that isn’t really an argument, because your kind of movie also has boundaries in how it can be conveyed. Any story has boundaries of how it can be told, you just need to find the story you want to make and if you make it good, those boundaries won’t affect you, because they are there to make sure you don’t take it to a level that turns it into no longer conveying this story. I get what you’re trying to say but it’s just a very contradictory argument. If you make a film like you want I don’t think it will change the world. That’s not what movies are for. They’re for entertainment, and if you don’t think so that is just objectively wrong. It’s the whole reason they exist. I hope you think about this and pursue your career with a bit less biased approach. And don’t try to be so different all the time
I stopped when he said Scorsese can’t stop making gangster films. Anyone who’s actually seen all of Scorsese movies knows that while he makes plenty of gangster movies he also has lots of other things to say. I understand what this dude is trying to say and I appreciate his argument. In some ways I agree with it. But my goodness he’s being so pretentious. Not to mention he tells us what Malick does despite not even knowing anything about him.
Couldn't agree more, it like saying David Lynch can't stop making surreal, nonlinear movies. What ironic is, Scorsese has a variety of films to choose from. His most out there movie in my opinion being "Kundun". His "gangster" or rather his crime movies such as Goodfellas, the King of Comedy, and Taxi Driver being one of his most popular and critically celebrated films today.
It's so funny he says that when the only gangster film he really made the past decade is just the Irishman. And with his recent filmography, he doesn't even really center with the themes this guy is listing anymore.
It is easy to say the films need to be more groundbreaking. Ok, how about making a movie and show us how it should be done?
Alongside all of the previous criticism of you not clearly defining what "theatrical filming" is, I think you are using the term "revolutionary film" in an extremely confusing manner. Is it a formal innovation or an innovation in political content? Are they both identical to each other? If so, I find it incredibly hard to believe that you can so easily equate the two, as though a Picasso equivalent in cinema would automatically spike the levels of class consciousness in society. This is why defining your terms is important.
Additionally, I find this dismissal of "image" in favor of "edit" to be questionable. You seem to see editing as the only source of novel cinematic expression, as the exclusive structuring device in the medium. I very much side with Tarkovsky here in that I think "duration" (the length of an individual shot) precedes editing in terms of importance, and is the primary structuring device in cinema . I can't attest to Diaz or Tarr as I haven't seen them, but they seem to follow in Tarkovsky's footsteps with their emphasis on long takes. My point is that you don't seem to think anything happens within a shot, and that the entire language of cinema is spoken in the edit. I (and proponents of "slow cinema") very much think the length/duration of a shot/"image" radically changes our relationship to it, to the same extent that a good edit can.
Admittedly I haven't read Marx or Eisenstein's writing, so some of my points may be obsolete when put side by side with their arguments. However, I think I bring up important questions that you yourself did not answer. Nonetheless, I appreciate someone bringing up some of the same gnawing doubts I've had about cinema for a while now, even if the expression is a tad incoherent.
You should do one on Acting. I’d love to hear what you have to say.
Yeah, if you don’t like movies I’d highly recommend you just don’t watch or review movies. Don’t seem to be digging very deep either to really find stuff you like, just general contrarian stuff. This and the Hollywood movies video. You either love the art medium of cinema, schlock and art alike, equally, or you do not actually love the medium of cinema.
There has been a small undercurrent of non-verbal/non-narrative filmmaking being created over the past several decades, like Koyaanisqatsi, Baraka and so on. When at their best, they very much avoid the theatrical approach and tend to include universal humanist themes. Certainly very influential on my interest in fimmaking and my overall view of the world. Unfortunately, the aesthetic of these films has often been co-opted by advertisement based filmmakers (more like commercial technicians than artists), diluting their impact. However, I think there is a lot of potential to keep building on that form with more energetic imagery and more powerful/transgressive themes to keep pushing film art forward. What do you think of these types of films?
Great comment Raymond! These films do accomplish the separation from TL and they do cover universal themes. However, just remembering them from the top of my head, the techniques used in those films aren’t exactly what I’m going for.
I might make a video on these films later down the line if it interests you guys :o
@@revfilmtheory Although I treasure those films for what they are and love that they exist, I certainly don't want to see them simply duplicated by other filmmakers with the same vibe and themes (which has pretty much been done in more vapid forms, sadly). I agree that their aesthetic needs to be expanded upon and explored. More experimentation, a little less meditation. I'd be very interested to hear your perspective and analysis if you were up for doing a re-watch of some of those films and compare them to the Moscow school... and where they could be taken in the future. I look forward to the next one!
I absolutely love it when you support yourself with Terrance Malik even though you haven't, "gotten the chance to familiarize yourself with his movies yet." Flawless thesis etiquette buddy🎉 Keep it up!
Lol, analysis is hard work; you can't just rock up on the scene and think people are going to take you seriously when you clearly haven't given this project the due attention that it deserves. In spite of this, one can't help but notice that, in all probability, you like thinking about and discussing pictures (for you would not have troubled yourself to drop this video), and so it's disappointing to see how your disingenuousness here undermines that.
Masterful trolling!
There's a really fantastic Russian film "Hard to be a God" from 2011-2013? so relatively contemporary but holy moly I highly suggest if you haven't seen it yet to give it watch, truly inspiring cinematography and composition through every second, it has recently given me a great new perspective and standard to meet when looking out for a film or movie to watch
I have many problems with your arguments in this vid. You constantly drag on films, very good ones at that, for not “pushing the medium forward”, as if that was their purpose anyways. You consider these films “theatrical films”, which is really just a way for you to describe films with a constructed story, no? That’s just called narrative film; no need to create a new term.
I get you’re trying to create a revolutionary approach to filmmaking, yet when your definition for your revolutionary style is literally just documentary, I think you’ve got some more thinking to do. This video just feels like you pontificating. Nothing is gained. Yet you seemed to piss off every other filmmaker/lover who’s seen this, so maybe you’re doing something right?
Also, tell us more about why you feel it’s necessary to “push the medium forward” as you say. Isn’t capitalisms downfall the idea of “progress for the sake of progress”? What’s to be gained by your “revolution” on film? Idk. I’m just not understanding your goals and it just seems like you wanting to be different for the sake of being different. I want to see the merit in your cause. I look forward to your next video.
So you’re telling me all my favorite movies suck (transformers 2 revenge of the fallen) 😔🤔
excellent... now get a pop shield
What happened to your other videos?
I’d be interested to see your take on Godard.
"...we can go and capture real life events..."
rip animation i guess
🤓
Thank you for this very insightful perspective. I’ll be taking this into consideration on my next series of videos.
You really need to define "theatrical filmmaking" and "theatrical elements" at the beginning of your video because opening it with nearly 12 minutes of criticizing filmmakers for using "theatrical filmmaking" and "theatrical elements" without defining either of those things makes any argument you're potentially making completely incomprehensible. Even in your section discussing what you call "theatrical filmmaking", you never give any kind of clear definition of what it is. Like others have said in the comments, you'd probably be better off just watching/making documentaries. I think this could have been improved by giving actual examples of what you consider "revolutionary" filmmaking so that you've set up a clearer contrast between "theatrical" and "revolutionary" films. All in all, this feels very much like you just discovered people like Kracauer, Vertov, Eisenstein, Adorno, Horkheimer, etc but haven't actually explored very much "revolutionary" art or given much thought to what that would mean/look like beyond some vague idea that "it would inspire people to revolution". Your only example of this is a film that's nearly a century old, and even it contains the things you decry like staged scenarios and metafictional elements like self reflexivity. In your conclusion you also state that your aim is to use real life events and convey messages through editing, is this not just what a documentary is?
The best we can have within the medium of theatrical movies is postmodernism. You also have to look at it from a certain perspective, the silent ear seems to be the purest for of film-making and I think that's where you lie but then again the introduction of sound and screenplay revolutionized the medium for the better.
Problem is the medium has plateaued and that's where postmodernism comes in, and on that I disagree with you on your take of Tarantino he's one of only one who's genuinely attained postmodernism within the medium and part of the problem is the ideology of high art and low art.
Going back to film being fundamentally only visual and edit sets the medium back generations I think looking forward is the only valuable option and you kind of have to realize that film has always been an extension of theater, the creation of film never happened outside of theater. The creation of camera was to capture theater nothing more nothing less, problem is the advancements of camera weren't there at the start for screenplay and audio to be important but it was always supposed to be part of the medium that's just a fact ---> Grabbing a camera and telling stories with just editing can also be done within the theatrical medium of film. Or don't you think so?
I think overall Postmodernism is the only way to currently branch out while going in the right direction.
- I do agree there are way too much rules that don't have to be followed especially that of camera work and storytelling.
Great video though, I agree with some points and disagree with other - 60/40 (agreement ratio)
Can you elaborate on how Postmodernist filmmaking is like?
Larry Clark
I completely align and agree with your stated visions, I’ve been trying to collect and find those who have similar feelings to my own at every given opportunity I see and am happy to stumble upon you too. These things you talk of are extreme necessities in our current landscape.
I guess what I would like to ask is for you to define your terms much more upfront, what to you is theatrical filmmaking and what is revolutionary filmmaking.
I’ll list some stuff I found apparent.
“Along with their use of theater they haven’t been able to fundamentally change people’s view of capitalist society and make them question the future society from the one we live in today.”
Is that what it simply takes to create a non-theatrical revolutionary work? Would that imply that There Will Be Blood is not theatrical or is revolutionary as it showcases the soulless nature of a Capitalist? Or even many of Scorsese’s films, (wouldn’t call him artistically bankrupt, his films are a lot more than just simple genre pictures!!) Scorsese can be regarded as the fundamental American filmmaker, showcasing what the very nation is (especially recently with KOTFM) as he constantly dwells with Capitalism’s depravity. Neither of these films are explicitly communist per se yet they carry an eye of disdain and disapproval for the mode of production we live in and how it affects us as human beings. How about Children of Men? Blade Runner? A masterful television series like Succession showing the inner world of a bourgeois family. These are all brilliant works that would entice viewers in engaging in critique or radicalization in whatever form it can manifest itself in and grow given enough thought and exposure.
“They haven’t been able to put forward a perspective that sees the working class as heroes, the workers who are really the people who control society”
Can a theatrical film not do this? What stops a theatrical film from doing this other than the filmmaker wanting to tell a different story. Have you seen Soy Cuba? An astounding “theatrical” work that accomplished exactly this and immediately pours the viewer with revolutionary fury! The Battle of Algiers? Showcasing the intricacies of national liberation and what truly goes into that period of struggle. Are these theatrical works? If so, they are able to accomplish what you speak of, I Am Cuba in particular since Algiers is specifically for national liberation in colonized places rather than communist revolution, but the progressive revolutionary energy flows nonetheless. The revolutionary fever you ask for is found in many films.
What is theatrical film in your words? Fiction? Sets? Costumes? Screenplays? Plot? Did October not have sets? Did Strike or Potemkin not have a plot? My favorite filmmaker is Andrei Tarkovsky, who I hold to an extremely high pedestal of praise and adoration. I am curious if you’ve read his book Sculpting In Time in which he has discussed the absolute need for cinema to separate from theatre as cinema is inherently its own, to reach its full potential. I wonder if you would consider him “theatrical” as he, similar to Bela Tarr will hold images for long, both are considered ‘slow cinema’ which I believe holds its own power and there are even Marxist-adjacent examples of slow cinema. (Would be cool to discuss that too with you) So I can see that there are different artists who have differing views on what theatrical film is to you. I find Tarkovsky and Malick also very similar, Malick is in my top five favorite filmmakers as his work is extremely intuitive so I never found it fair for you to lump him in with a lot of those you named. Is Theatrical Film defined by plot? What happens when the film isn’t driven by plot like a Malick one? I’m not as familiar with Godard and have only seen a few episodes of his Histories of Cinema as well as La Chinoise but I was interested when I saw you group him in with other directors when Godard himself was a Marxist who held heavy focus on the edit, and was also a founding member of the Dziga Vertov Group.
Really happy with your views on artists and their vision and mindsets, I talk to people about this constantly. The Picasso addition was also great. I agree with your critique of the “popular” directors you listed even if I enjoy their work most of the time, for them, it comes from the individualist bourgeois view of themselves, the world and their art generally. It really shows in their work, simply wishing to tell their own stories, their own styles, doesn’t benefit anyone but themselves in putting forth their imaginations. Its great takedown of the current arthouse scene even if I actually enjoyed the Safdie films a lot when I first saw them, - I agree, A24 generally, these directors are extremely grown and cannot seem to expand their visions past teenage or college aged student filmmakers with their stories and what they want to put on a platter for the world to see. But the greatest artists are aware that it is not about them, and that it is above them. Eisenstein is of course a great example, but even Tarkovsky discusses this.
I have several other questions, also as a note I’m not sure if these messages sound confrontational because they aren’t - I’m very pleased and happy this channel exists and wish for you to express yourself even better and more clearly. Also because I am genuinely curious as to your own views on this. This channel is an important development.
Why must a filmmaker be revolutionary when there is so much emotion, beauty, and pure power that is brilliantly thrusted in the viewer by filmmakers you list. There is so much in the image that I wouldn’t want it to be disregarded or thrown away, Eisenstein was a master of the image. Raw energy is presented in the images of the greatest works. Must we dispose of the image?
Discuss what revolutionary film is! Examples, ideas, and why! Theatrical too, what is the contradiction, why must it be solved, can it be synthesized? Why are they opposed? Etc
Anyway I hope you can answer these as I find them fundamental for discourse and truly diving into what our visions are, spreading the blueprints out across the table, thanks.
Thanks for your input! I think this is something I’m going to do later on in the channel’s lifespan. My goal right now is to find people who agree with me or are interested in my ideas. Once the channel has a strong community, I’ll begin to really dive into these theoretical discussions.
Our community needs people just like you who want specific explanations and are clear in their position. I really appreciate this!!
And your farts smell like flowers
You want to use the image and the edit for Revolutionary purposes. Okay. I have an award winning idea for you, Israel. Compile together as much film of Israel and Palestine from the early period to today, as much mundane imagery you can find on the Internet, all of it, including the worst of the worst, and edit it together in a relative order required to convey something without any commentary beyond the imagery and your editing technique. You'll blow up the world if you succeed. ☭
Great video! I totally agree that art films really are taking over, which for me isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the attitudes of the fans of these films really put a damper on those who are more casual fans of film as a medium. I've found myself getting stuck up about the movies I watch vs. the movies other people that I don't think are as 'deep', all because art film afficionados did the same to me. This comment just turned into a journal entry, my bad lol
Lol. 😂
I like your video, i just think you should organized your ideas better, you talk a lot of why theatrical movies arent revolucionary for 29 minutes just to give one example of what revolutionary filmaking should be whithout going deeper in why it is.
I will wait for that video of yours where you talk about Man with a moving camera and hopefully see more examples of movies like it.
I like your theory, its just confusing.
I don't think a movie has to be revolutionary to be great. Or that a revolutionary film is by definition a great movie.
Art is subjective. Personally I like movies that are immersive and connect with me thematically.
I really liked your video and I agree, Hollywood is losing it with their agendas. It's a disgrace. Keep up the good work! You've earned yourself a new subscriber.
Your point is valid... I hope you can polish the ideas and points even more. Looking forward to hearing you develop these ideas. I have the same issue when the modern film-makers rip off past film-makers. An interesting point, when I stepped away from imitating, I found the films I made got terrible reviews, yet 25 years later, the reviews dramatically improved... so maybe that's the price we pay when trying to be original.
A big issue I'm grappling with is the way you keep citing this issue with theatrical film making yet you have not defined what theatrical filmmaking, nor an alternative nor what is wrong with theatrical filmmaking. So while you may still be Intending to go into it later in the video, you need to establish such a term if you're going to be using it so much, and as an argument about how contemporary filmmakers are failing.
Thanks for the critique! I’ll keep it in mind for the next set of videos I write.
@@revfilmtheory how you made Kubric theatrical? He is most non theatrical director ever - remember bone-spacecraft match cut?
It sounds to me no matter how innovative a director would be nowadays you would still hold your conclusion because maybe somewhere deep down you think you're the one who's gonna reinvent the wheel. It might set you up for success but might be delusional. Have you produced anything?
This video will fail to find an appropriate audience. It will be a process for you to find the balance between past, present and future. A revolution needs to build upon what has already been accomplished. Enabling consciouss human activity. Film is a medium and must be used as such. But art at the end of the day is a relationship between (( artist and audience )). People can "fail" only when they aim for something and not attain it. Otherwise their scope is just limited.
Great video.
I look forward to seeing this channel grow.