THE PREPOSTEROUS BOLLOX OF THE SITUATION

A collection of stuff, things, nonsense, rants, raves, pretties, sillies, and gee-gaws from Rev. Hugo Nebula, Ordained Minister of the Church of the SubGenius. (And boobs. Sometimes there are boobs. Just like in real life.) Thank you for reading.
 

 

 

 

 
Read the Printed Word!
I Like
I Follow
Posts tagged "film"

arcaneimages:

I’ve never seen this Nosferatu shot before

(via swampthingy)

csdot:

Just had the incredible pleasure of enjoying this classic (yet decades ahead of its time) Lee Marvin revenge thriller on the big screen. Director John Boorman gave his Hollywood debut an entirely unique flavor that set it apart from the countless other crime films of the time and still influences films to this day.

Point Blank (1967)

directed by John Boormam

viewed at The Colonial Theatre in Phoenixville, PA

(35mm).

Welcome, new follower csdot.

dogfang:

taylors1928

STANLEY KUBRICK & the color blue

(via adogs-breakfast)

gwydionmisha:

ahsimwithsake:

claraxbarton:

motherfuckingshakespeare:

eighttwotwopointthreethree:

baldymonster:

cleolinda:

killjoyfeminist:

annabellioncourt:

plz-no:

Simultaneously the worst and best movie ever made

Actually one of my teachers watched every single version of Romeo and Juliet with the original text in front of him to prove that this was the worst version, but to his great dismay its the most accurate film adaptation of it, with the lines closest to the original text and most similar stage direction and relayed emotions.

He proceeded to show it to us in class.

Dude, seriously.  This version is actually very accurate.

My Shakespeare professor in grad school said the same thing.

I think most Shakespeare movies are just so classy and highbrow with their gorgeous period costumes and mandatory snooty elocutionary accents that people forget how goofy this play actually is. The lines, the characters, the motivations, the babyfaced teen stars, I just… oh my god it’s all so real. I’ve heard a lot of people blast Baz Luhrmann for making such a campy adaptation and it’s just like no, you don’t understand, that was all Shakespeare.

Sometimes I wonder if the real reason it’s disliked is because it was so damn popular with teenage girls.

hey shakesankle and alltheweirdkidsinoneplace

"Sometimes I wonder if the real reason it’s disliked is because it -was so damn popular with teenage girls."

Probably since almost everything that’s popular with teenage girls is devalued and put down. I might try streaming this or something if people want to watch it? 

Actually this is my favorite adaptation and I have always shown/references this in classes.

Partly because it WAS so popular with teenaged girls. Partly because I was a teenaged girl when it came out. Partly because it’s an incredibly faithful adaptation.

But mostly because it’s fucking awesome.

The thing most people forget is that Shakespeare wasn’t writing SHAKESPEARE. He was writing pop culture for mass consumption. It wasn’t highbrow. It was bawdy and the actors changed lines and joked with the audience and the plays are full of snide social commentary that would have been appreciated by the contemporary Tudor audience.

Which is exactly what Baz did with his R and J.

The beautiful thing about this adaptation is that it really shows what Shakespeare was doing.  Theatre wasn’t considered an art until after Shakespeare death.  The fact that we have the first folio is almost accidental;the other company members wanted to do something in his memories and paid through the nose to get all of the plays he had worked on printed (which involved scrounging up all the actors’ copies).  Printing was EXPENSIVE and reserved almost exclusively for poetry and real literary art.  Which plays were not.

Plays were concerts.  They were media for the masses, mainly created for the groundlings (the audience members standing directly on the ground in front of the stage, who had an insane power over the actors ad playwrights because if they didn’t like something, they’d let you know it!)  Royalty went to them, of course, and Shakespeare had some powerful patrons.  But no one really considered it ART the way we do.

Which is why this film is so successful and important.  It shows what it is and also what it does.  Because this is a tragic and beautiful adaptation, even while its wild and bright and silly.  It captures perfectly the twist of this play—the fact that until act 3, this was most definitely a comedy—and the raw emotion that connected not only with the groundlings but with the lords and ladies and nobles that filled the upper seats as well.

Also, the directorial decisions made in this film regarding costume, character motivations, MERCUTIO.. it’s just phenomenal.

I was an adult and a teacher when this came out and my lover and I went the opening weekend.  At the end he asked what I thought.  I still remember turning to him and saying, “Shakespeare would have loved it.”  I stand by that.  It captures the tone and energy of the play.  It grabs the audience by the throat with the opener, the way it was meant to do.  Theater was out of doors with no microphone and a lot of the Groundlings were drunk and often arguing.  The opening lines needed to get everyone’s attention and snatch it away from conversations, and orange girls, and the incipient brawl down in front and focus it on the stage.  So much of the acting in this is brilliant, and it really is extremely accurate as far as dialog and tone.  In Shakespeare’s time a lot of the costumes were hand me down clothes from patrons, I. E: Contemporary (or slightly out of date) fashion.  Putting it in contemporary dress makes it more like the original experience. 

I loved  watching the teenafers excited ahead of us, discussing the movie excitedly.  I knew it would be a hit.  I was glad.  I was overjoyed to see so many students eager to watch it again and again.  I was happy my kids were excited about a Shakespeare movie.  It had people reading and discussing the plays on their own time and thinking about them.

I think it’s better to see the plays as they are instead of putting them on a high art pedestal.  They are often deeply flawed (Racism, Sexism, plot holes, etc.) but also frequently beautiful, funny, dirty, and profound by turns.  Some of them are a lot better than others.  It’s okay to find Titus Andronicus a clunky mess.  It’s okay to notice what idiots many of the characters in Romeo and Juliet are (not Mercutio, I love Mercutio, but that Friar?  Romeo?).  It’s okay to find some of the histories dull, and some of the comedies so light that there is noting much there.  It’s okay to get a little bored with Lear.  Watching the plays is a lot more fun and interesting if you take the dirty jokes along with the poetry and let yourself feel what you feel instead of what you are pressured to feel.

(via notallwerewolves)

gabrielhardman:

Storyboards for Alfred Hitchcock’s STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. As far as I know these were drawn by Art Director Ted Haworth. His son Sean Haworth brought them in for me to see when we were working on a film together years ago and I made copies. 

blorgblorgblorg:

Syd Mead concept art for the Sulaco from Aliens, pt 1: hulls

sourced from Alien Anthology blu-ray set

(via darkmechanic)

Cigarette Burns host "Brit grot genius Pete Walker retrospective HOUSE OF WALKER at the Barbican" this November.

brxkenpetal:

insanity-and-vanity:

"Just as a flower does not choose its color, we are not responsible for what we have come to be. Only once you realize this do you become free, and to become adult is to become free."

Stoker (2013)

☁MASTURBATION TIPS☁

(via rippedfeathers)

swampthingy:

Night of the Demon (1957)

swampthingy:

Night of the Demon (1957)

Welcome, new follower piratinisottaceto!

Welcome, new follower piratinisottaceto!

9filmframes:

A couple ghost stories.

The Innocents, Carnival of Souls

"From 22 June through 14 September, EYE presents a major exhibition focusing on director David Cronenberg, who acquired cult status with his idiosyncratic films about the relationship between body, mind, technology and mass media. The exhibition explores Cronenberg’s world through the main themes of his films: the physical and psychological transformation of his protagonists.

"Highlights of this exhibition include the weird and wonderful special effects items from Cronenberg’s films, together with bizarre props, set photos and original costumes…"

The basics are that for every one female-speaking character in family-rated films (G, PG and PG-13), there are roughly three male characters; that crowd and group scenes in these films — live-action and animated — contain only 17 percent female characters; and that the ratio of male-female characters has been exactly the same since 1946. Throw in the hypersexualization of many of the female characters that are there, even in G-rated movies, and their lack of occupations and aspirations and you get the picture.

It wasn’t the lack of female lead characters that first struck me about family films. We all know that’s been the case for ages, and we love when movies like The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and Frozen hit it big. It was the dearth of female characters in the worlds of the stories — the fact that the fictitious villages and jungles and kingdoms and interplanetary civilizations were nearly bereft of female population — that hit me over the head. This being the case, we are in effect enculturating kids from the very beginning to see women and girls as not taking up half of the space. Couldn’t it be that the percentage of women in leadership positions in many areas of society — Congress, law partners, Fortune 500 board members, military officers, tenured professors and many more — stall out at around 17 percent because that’s the ratio we’ve come to see as the norm?

OK, now for the fun part: It’s easy, fast and fun to add female characters, in two simple steps. And I want to be clear I’m not talking about creating more movies with a female lead. If you do, God bless and thank you. Please consider me for that role.

Step 1: Go through the projects you’re already working on and change a bunch of the characters’ first names to women’s names. With one stroke you’ve created some colorful unstereotypical female characters that might turn out to be even more interesting now that they’ve had a gender switch. What if the plumber or pilot or construction foreman is a woman? What if the taxi driver or the scheming politician is a woman? What if both police officers that arrive on the scene are women — and it’s not a big deal?

Step 2: When describing a crowd scene, write in the script, “A crowd gathers, which is half female.” That may seem weird, but I promise you, somehow or other on the set that day the crowd will turn out to be 17 percent female otherwise. Maybe first ADs think women don’t gather, I don’t know.

And there you have it. You have just quickly and easily boosted the female presence in your project without changing a line of dialogue.

Yes, we can and will work to tell more women’s stories, listen to more women’s voices and write richer female characters and to fix the 5-to-1 ratio of men/women behind the camera. But consider this: In all of the sectors of society that still have a huge gender disparity, how long will it take to correct that? You can’t snap your fingers and suddenly half of Congress is women. But there’s one category where the underrepresentation of women can be fixed tomorrow: onscreen. In the time it takes to make a movie or create a television show, we can change what the future looks like.

There are woefully few women CEOs in the world, but there can be lots of them in films. We haven’t had a woman president yet, but we have on TV. (Full disclosure: One of them was me.) How can we fix the problem of corporate boards being so unequal without quotas? Well, they can be half women instantly, onscreen. How do we encourage a lot more girls to pursue science, technology and engineering careers? By casting droves of women in STEM jobs today in movies and on TV. Hey, it would take me many years to become a real nuclear physicist, but I can play one tomorrow.

Here’s what I always say: If they can see it, they can be it.

Geena Davis on gender equality in film and television [x] (via wesleywalesandersons)

(via aleskot)

For example, in Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut, the main character walks down a street passing by a number of shops whose names were specifically chosen and window displays specifically arranged by the director to convey additional meaning to the scene and to the film. At 720p or at a bitrate under 8Mbps, those details become indistinct and illegible. It becomes impossible to know that Kubrick was trying to tell you anything with those storefronts, let alone discern what he was trying to say.