Цитаты Фридкина
АгентИванов
offline
Today, movies are as visual as they've ever been, but they don't make any sense! They've got no heart, very little story. The dialogue is very often a little bit above a grunt . . . now, for the most part, people just stare at the screen for two hours and it's like opium for the eyes and you're not moved at all . . . it's an escape from reality. So there it is.
If you're going to make a film or an album of music or a painting, you cannot afford to stop and think what other people will think of it. You've got to take into consideration what your editor thinks, if, say, you're a writer. But I don't have anyone to answer to. I make a film because I want to. Sometimes they're successful, sometimes they're not, but the way I think about my films is always very personal.
I like to cover a whole movie without repetitious angles. The average film, which owes a debt to television, is usually covered in a very basic 'in the box' way. Today you can look at a lot of films or most television shows, and you can sit there and snap your fingers to the rhythm of the cut. You know from experience when the cut is gonna come, and often, where it's gonna be. You often know what the next shot is, because the editor and the director have established a cutting pattern that becomes boring and predictable! And I perceived a long time ago, that a director whose work I really admired, the Italian Neo-Realist, Michelangelo Antonioni - his films used to never use the same shot twice. He would never do that over-shoulder close-up jive. He would cover a scene one way, and it was simple - there'd be no repetition of angles within the scene, and then he'd cut to the next scene. It was sort of like the way you read a good book. Your eye scans the page from left to right, and you scan until gradually the words disappear and become thoughts, images and real dialogue. If a book was indicating a pattern of dialogue that kept repeating itself in a boring way - you'd put the book down. And Antonioni and Kubrick to a great extent, are the only other filmmakers that never repeated angles. They would find the right angle for a shot and a scene, and then move on.
If you're going to make a film or an album of music or a painting, you cannot afford to stop and think what other people will think of it. You've got to take into consideration what your editor thinks, if, say, you're a writer. But I don't have anyone to answer to. I make a film because I want to. Sometimes they're successful, sometimes they're not, but the way I think about my films is always very personal.
I like to cover a whole movie without repetitious angles. The average film, which owes a debt to television, is usually covered in a very basic 'in the box' way. Today you can look at a lot of films or most television shows, and you can sit there and snap your fingers to the rhythm of the cut. You know from experience when the cut is gonna come, and often, where it's gonna be. You often know what the next shot is, because the editor and the director have established a cutting pattern that becomes boring and predictable! And I perceived a long time ago, that a director whose work I really admired, the Italian Neo-Realist, Michelangelo Antonioni - his films used to never use the same shot twice. He would never do that over-shoulder close-up jive. He would cover a scene one way, and it was simple - there'd be no repetition of angles within the scene, and then he'd cut to the next scene. It was sort of like the way you read a good book. Your eye scans the page from left to right, and you scan until gradually the words disappear and become thoughts, images and real dialogue. If a book was indicating a pattern of dialogue that kept repeating itself in a boring way - you'd put the book down. And Antonioni and Kubrick to a great extent, are the only other filmmakers that never repeated angles. They would find the right angle for a shot and a scene, and then move on.