Every pseudointellectual analysis is based on antiquated rules of understanding cinema. He lauds the filmmakers who have already been lauded. He trashes hand-held because just about everyone else does. He preaches the same lessons Fincher preaches because Fincher is so popular among the film school hipsters. Everything is just the same dogma from "filmmaking teachers," diminishing the efforts of anyone who disagrees.
So many rules, ratios, and techniques of technical composition to give the appearance of expertise, but no grasp of what filmmaking is beyond emotionless practices of narrative function.
It takes no courage whatsoever to praise films that are already glorified as great...and it really speaks to one's cowardice when they crap on films that have already been thoroughly denigrated.
So many rules, ratios, and techniques of technical composition to give the appearance of expertise, but no grasp of what filmmaking is beyond emotionless practices of narrative function.
It takes no courage whatsoever to praise films that are already glorified as great...and it really speaks to one's cowardice when they crap on films that have already been thoroughly denigrated.
