fyodor-haneke:

Tale of Cinema (2005)Hong Sang-soo fyodor-haneke:

Tale of Cinema (2005)Hong Sang-soo

fyodor-haneke:

Tale of Cinema (2005)Hong Sang-soo

bigander:

Mysterious Object at Noon (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2000) bigander:

Mysterious Object at Noon (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2000) bigander:

Mysterious Object at Noon (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2000) bigander:

Mysterious Object at Noon (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2000) bigander:

Mysterious Object at Noon (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2000) bigander:

Mysterious Object at Noon (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2000)

bigander:

Mysterious Object at Noon (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2000)


[x]

[x]

[x]
yukiovsky:

La Libertad ( Lisandro Alonso, 2001)
Los Muertos ( Lisandro Alonso, 2004)
Liverpool ( Lisandro Alonso, 2008)

Hmmm, I don’t know. If I had to choose, I would say I prefer the boring parts of cinema. You know what I’m trying to say? In Los Muertos, I thought it was a good first image – a kind of dream or memory of this character who was in jail, the day before he’s released.
I know what you are asking. I’m trying hard to change my way of shooting, but I can’t. Each day when I shoot, I shoot with the same style. Maybe in the future I will introduce some more elements. The thing is, when I was studying in university, I chose to walk this way. [He grabs two pens and aligns them on the table to illustrate divergent paths.] Now I can move a bit to the left or right, but I’ll always be walking this way. I don’t want to go back and take the other path.
Also, I don’t think I’d be good working the other way. It’s not so easy to say, “Oh, now I’m going to make my commercial film. Now I’m going to make an art film for festivals. Now a comedy. Now a Western.” I just do what I think I can do, so it’s not a matter of choosing what kind of film I want to make.
In the future, there will be new questions and, so, maybe new answers. Maybe I’ll change. Maybe actors, maybe not. Maybe more dialogue, maybe not. Maybe a film totally without humans. Who knows?
yukiovsky:

La Libertad ( Lisandro Alonso, 2001)
Los Muertos ( Lisandro Alonso, 2004)
Liverpool ( Lisandro Alonso, 2008)

Hmmm, I don’t know. If I had to choose, I would say I prefer the boring parts of cinema. You know what I’m trying to say? In Los Muertos, I thought it was a good first image – a kind of dream or memory of this character who was in jail, the day before he’s released.
I know what you are asking. I’m trying hard to change my way of shooting, but I can’t. Each day when I shoot, I shoot with the same style. Maybe in the future I will introduce some more elements. The thing is, when I was studying in university, I chose to walk this way. [He grabs two pens and aligns them on the table to illustrate divergent paths.] Now I can move a bit to the left or right, but I’ll always be walking this way. I don’t want to go back and take the other path.
Also, I don’t think I’d be good working the other way. It’s not so easy to say, “Oh, now I’m going to make my commercial film. Now I’m going to make an art film for festivals. Now a comedy. Now a Western.” I just do what I think I can do, so it’s not a matter of choosing what kind of film I want to make.
In the future, there will be new questions and, so, maybe new answers. Maybe I’ll change. Maybe actors, maybe not. Maybe more dialogue, maybe not. Maybe a film totally without humans. Who knows?
yukiovsky:

La Libertad ( Lisandro Alonso, 2001)
Los Muertos ( Lisandro Alonso, 2004)
Liverpool ( Lisandro Alonso, 2008)

Hmmm, I don’t know. If I had to choose, I would say I prefer the boring parts of cinema. You know what I’m trying to say? In Los Muertos, I thought it was a good first image – a kind of dream or memory of this character who was in jail, the day before he’s released.
I know what you are asking. I’m trying hard to change my way of shooting, but I can’t. Each day when I shoot, I shoot with the same style. Maybe in the future I will introduce some more elements. The thing is, when I was studying in university, I chose to walk this way. [He grabs two pens and aligns them on the table to illustrate divergent paths.] Now I can move a bit to the left or right, but I’ll always be walking this way. I don’t want to go back and take the other path.
Also, I don’t think I’d be good working the other way. It’s not so easy to say, “Oh, now I’m going to make my commercial film. Now I’m going to make an art film for festivals. Now a comedy. Now a Western.” I just do what I think I can do, so it’s not a matter of choosing what kind of film I want to make.
In the future, there will be new questions and, so, maybe new answers. Maybe I’ll change. Maybe actors, maybe not. Maybe more dialogue, maybe not. Maybe a film totally without humans. Who knows?

yukiovsky:

La Libertad ( Lisandro Alonso, 2001)

Los Muertos ( Lisandro Alonso, 2004)

Liverpool ( Lisandro Alonso, 2008)

Hmmm, I don’t know. If I had to choose, I would say I prefer the boring parts of cinema. You know what I’m trying to say? In Los Muertos, I thought it was a good first image – a kind of dream or memory of this character who was in jail, the day before he’s released.

I know what you are asking. I’m trying hard to change my way of shooting, but I can’t. Each day when I shoot, I shoot with the same style. Maybe in the future I will introduce some more elements. The thing is, when I was studying in university, I chose to walk this way. [He grabs two pens and aligns them on the table to illustrate divergent paths.] Now I can move a bit to the left or right, but I’ll always be walking this way. I don’t want to go back and take the other path.

Also, I don’t think I’d be good working the other way. It’s not so easy to say, “Oh, now I’m going to make my commercial film. Now I’m going to make an art film for festivals. Now a comedy. Now a Western.” I just do what I think I can do, so it’s not a matter of choosing what kind of film I want to make.

In the future, there will be new questions and, so, maybe new answers. Maybe I’ll change. Maybe actors, maybe not. Maybe more dialogue, maybe not. Maybe a film totally without humans. Who knows?

thethirdpersona:

Reprise | Joachim Trier, 2006 thethirdpersona:

Reprise | Joachim Trier, 2006 thethirdpersona:

Reprise | Joachim Trier, 2006 thethirdpersona:

Reprise | Joachim Trier, 2006 thethirdpersona:

Reprise | Joachim Trier, 2006

thethirdpersona:

Reprise | Joachim Trier, 2006

brand-upon-the-brain:

Lorna’s Silence (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, 2008)


Let’s start with the look of Songs from the Second Floor—it’s unusually visual, very rich and detailed.
I felt that film-making generally didn’t reach the level you could find in painting or literature or music. It was for one-time use only, and more and more, the movies were losing their visual power—they were concentrating on the plot only. Especially compared to the 1950s, when I was a student. It was that period when the so-called serious art movie came out, all over the world: we had the East European waves, Kurosawa, Bergman, English realism. That’s why I started wanting to be a film director myself. It wasn’t only the plot that was interesting; it was the touch, the feeling, something visually rich.
The way you use long, single-shot scenes without cuts—and don’t move the camera within them—is particularly unusual these days.
Normally when you see a film with many cuts, it’s to avoid problems, because of lack of money, patience, talent. If you don’t move the camera and don’t cut, you have to enrich the picture in deep focus—that’s what you have. I think a good theoretical writer on film is Andre Bazin—he preferred deep focus. I do too. When you look at the history of paintings, they’re in deep focus all the time, and that makes you very curious, and you become an active spectator.
— Roy Andersson on the style of Songs from the Second Floor

Let’s start with the look of Songs from the Second Floor—it’s unusually visual, very rich and detailed.
I felt that film-making generally didn’t reach the level you could find in painting or literature or music. It was for one-time use only, and more and more, the movies were losing their visual power—they were concentrating on the plot only. Especially compared to the 1950s, when I was a student. It was that period when the so-called serious art movie came out, all over the world: we had the East European waves, Kurosawa, Bergman, English realism. That’s why I started wanting to be a film director myself. It wasn’t only the plot that was interesting; it was the touch, the feeling, something visually rich.
The way you use long, single-shot scenes without cuts—and don’t move the camera within them—is particularly unusual these days.
Normally when you see a film with many cuts, it’s to avoid problems, because of lack of money, patience, talent. If you don’t move the camera and don’t cut, you have to enrich the picture in deep focus—that’s what you have. I think a good theoretical writer on film is Andre Bazin—he preferred deep focus. I do too. When you look at the history of paintings, they’re in deep focus all the time, and that makes you very curious, and you become an active spectator.
— Roy Andersson on the style of Songs from the Second Floor

Let’s start with the look of Songs from the Second Floor—it’s unusually visual, very rich and detailed.
I felt that film-making generally didn’t reach the level you could find in painting or literature or music. It was for one-time use only, and more and more, the movies were losing their visual power—they were concentrating on the plot only. Especially compared to the 1950s, when I was a student. It was that period when the so-called serious art movie came out, all over the world: we had the East European waves, Kurosawa, Bergman, English realism. That’s why I started wanting to be a film director myself. It wasn’t only the plot that was interesting; it was the touch, the feeling, something visually rich.
The way you use long, single-shot scenes without cuts—and don’t move the camera within them—is particularly unusual these days.
Normally when you see a film with many cuts, it’s to avoid problems, because of lack of money, patience, talent. If you don’t move the camera and don’t cut, you have to enrich the picture in deep focus—that’s what you have. I think a good theoretical writer on film is Andre Bazin—he preferred deep focus. I do too. When you look at the history of paintings, they’re in deep focus all the time, and that makes you very curious, and you become an active spectator.
— Roy Andersson on the style of Songs from the Second Floor

Let’s start with the look of Songs from the Second Floor—it’s unusually visual, very rich and detailed.
I felt that film-making generally didn’t reach the level you could find in painting or literature or music. It was for one-time use only, and more and more, the movies were losing their visual power—they were concentrating on the plot only. Especially compared to the 1950s, when I was a student. It was that period when the so-called serious art movie came out, all over the world: we had the East European waves, Kurosawa, Bergman, English realism. That’s why I started wanting to be a film director myself. It wasn’t only the plot that was interesting; it was the touch, the feeling, something visually rich.
The way you use long, single-shot scenes without cuts—and don’t move the camera within them—is particularly unusual these days.
Normally when you see a film with many cuts, it’s to avoid problems, because of lack of money, patience, talent. If you don’t move the camera and don’t cut, you have to enrich the picture in deep focus—that’s what you have. I think a good theoretical writer on film is Andre Bazin—he preferred deep focus. I do too. When you look at the history of paintings, they’re in deep focus all the time, and that makes you very curious, and you become an active spectator.
— Roy Andersson on the style of Songs from the Second Floor

Let’s start with the look of Songs from the Second Floor—it’s unusually visual, very rich and detailed.
I felt that film-making generally didn’t reach the level you could find in painting or literature or music. It was for one-time use only, and more and more, the movies were losing their visual power—they were concentrating on the plot only. Especially compared to the 1950s, when I was a student. It was that period when the so-called serious art movie came out, all over the world: we had the East European waves, Kurosawa, Bergman, English realism. That’s why I started wanting to be a film director myself. It wasn’t only the plot that was interesting; it was the touch, the feeling, something visually rich.
The way you use long, single-shot scenes without cuts—and don’t move the camera within them—is particularly unusual these days.
Normally when you see a film with many cuts, it’s to avoid problems, because of lack of money, patience, talent. If you don’t move the camera and don’t cut, you have to enrich the picture in deep focus—that’s what you have. I think a good theoretical writer on film is Andre Bazin—he preferred deep focus. I do too. When you look at the history of paintings, they’re in deep focus all the time, and that makes you very curious, and you become an active spectator.
— Roy Andersson on the style of Songs from the Second Floor

Let’s start with the look of Songs from the Second Floor—it’s unusually visual, very rich and detailed.
I felt that film-making generally didn’t reach the level you could find in painting or literature or music. It was for one-time use only, and more and more, the movies were losing their visual power—they were concentrating on the plot only. Especially compared to the 1950s, when I was a student. It was that period when the so-called serious art movie came out, all over the world: we had the East European waves, Kurosawa, Bergman, English realism. That’s why I started wanting to be a film director myself. It wasn’t only the plot that was interesting; it was the touch, the feeling, something visually rich.
The way you use long, single-shot scenes without cuts—and don’t move the camera within them—is particularly unusual these days.
Normally when you see a film with many cuts, it’s to avoid problems, because of lack of money, patience, talent. If you don’t move the camera and don’t cut, you have to enrich the picture in deep focus—that’s what you have. I think a good theoretical writer on film is Andre Bazin—he preferred deep focus. I do too. When you look at the history of paintings, they’re in deep focus all the time, and that makes you very curious, and you become an active spectator.
— Roy Andersson on the style of Songs from the Second Floor

Let’s start with the look of Songs from the Second Floor—it’s unusually visual, very rich and detailed.

I felt that film-making generally didn’t reach the level you could find in painting or literature or music. It was for one-time use only, and more and more, the movies were losing their visual power—they were concentrating on the plot only. Especially compared to the 1950s, when I was a student. It was that period when the so-called serious art movie came out, all over the world: we had the East European waves, Kurosawa, Bergman, English realism. That’s why I started wanting to be a film director myself. It wasn’t only the plot that was interesting; it was the touch, the feeling, something visually rich.

The way you use long, single-shot scenes without cuts—and don’t move the camera within them—is particularly unusual these days.

Normally when you see a film with many cuts, it’s to avoid problems, because of lack of money, patience, talent. If you don’t move the camera and don’t cut, you have to enrich the picture in deep focus—that’s what you have. I think a good theoretical writer on film is Andre Bazin—he preferred deep focus. I do too. When you look at the history of paintings, they’re in deep focus all the time, and that makes you very curious, and you become an active spectator.

Roy Andersson on the style of Songs from the Second Floor

retrotica:

Pier Paolo Pasolini, photographed in his home in Rome by Jonas Mekas.

speakingparts:

speakingparts’RECAPWerckmeister Hármoniák2000 Béla Tarr'At the beginning of my career, I had a lot of social anger. I just wanted to tell you how fucked up the society is. This was the beginning. Afterwards, I began to understand that the problems were not only social; they are deeper. I thought they were only ontological. It's so, so complicated, and when I understood more and more, when I went closer to the people… afterward, I could understand that the problems were not only ontological. They were cosmic. The whole fucked up world is over.' speakingparts:

speakingparts’RECAPWerckmeister Hármoniák2000 Béla Tarr'At the beginning of my career, I had a lot of social anger. I just wanted to tell you how fucked up the society is. This was the beginning. Afterwards, I began to understand that the problems were not only social; they are deeper. I thought they were only ontological. It's so, so complicated, and when I understood more and more, when I went closer to the people… afterward, I could understand that the problems were not only ontological. They were cosmic. The whole fucked up world is over.' speakingparts:

speakingparts’RECAPWerckmeister Hármoniák2000 Béla Tarr'At the beginning of my career, I had a lot of social anger. I just wanted to tell you how fucked up the society is. This was the beginning. Afterwards, I began to understand that the problems were not only social; they are deeper. I thought they were only ontological. It's so, so complicated, and when I understood more and more, when I went closer to the people… afterward, I could understand that the problems were not only ontological. They were cosmic. The whole fucked up world is over.' speakingparts:

speakingparts’RECAPWerckmeister Hármoniák2000 Béla Tarr'At the beginning of my career, I had a lot of social anger. I just wanted to tell you how fucked up the society is. This was the beginning. Afterwards, I began to understand that the problems were not only social; they are deeper. I thought they were only ontological. It's so, so complicated, and when I understood more and more, when I went closer to the people… afterward, I could understand that the problems were not only ontological. They were cosmic. The whole fucked up world is over.' speakingparts:

speakingparts’RECAPWerckmeister Hármoniák2000 Béla Tarr'At the beginning of my career, I had a lot of social anger. I just wanted to tell you how fucked up the society is. This was the beginning. Afterwards, I began to understand that the problems were not only social; they are deeper. I thought they were only ontological. It's so, so complicated, and when I understood more and more, when I went closer to the people… afterward, I could understand that the problems were not only ontological. They were cosmic. The whole fucked up world is over.' speakingparts:

speakingparts’RECAPWerckmeister Hármoniák2000 Béla Tarr'At the beginning of my career, I had a lot of social anger. I just wanted to tell you how fucked up the society is. This was the beginning. Afterwards, I began to understand that the problems were not only social; they are deeper. I thought they were only ontological. It's so, so complicated, and when I understood more and more, when I went closer to the people… afterward, I could understand that the problems were not only ontological. They were cosmic. The whole fucked up world is over.' speakingparts:

speakingparts’RECAPWerckmeister Hármoniák2000 Béla Tarr'At the beginning of my career, I had a lot of social anger. I just wanted to tell you how fucked up the society is. This was the beginning. Afterwards, I began to understand that the problems were not only social; they are deeper. I thought they were only ontological. It's so, so complicated, and when I understood more and more, when I went closer to the people… afterward, I could understand that the problems were not only ontological. They were cosmic. The whole fucked up world is over.' speakingparts:

speakingparts’RECAPWerckmeister Hármoniák2000 Béla Tarr'At the beginning of my career, I had a lot of social anger. I just wanted to tell you how fucked up the society is. This was the beginning. Afterwards, I began to understand that the problems were not only social; they are deeper. I thought they were only ontological. It's so, so complicated, and when I understood more and more, when I went closer to the people… afterward, I could understand that the problems were not only ontological. They were cosmic. The whole fucked up world is over.' speakingparts:

speakingparts’RECAPWerckmeister Hármoniák2000 Béla Tarr'At the beginning of my career, I had a lot of social anger. I just wanted to tell you how fucked up the society is. This was the beginning. Afterwards, I began to understand that the problems were not only social; they are deeper. I thought they were only ontological. It's so, so complicated, and when I understood more and more, when I went closer to the people… afterward, I could understand that the problems were not only ontological. They were cosmic. The whole fucked up world is over.'

speakingparts:

speakingparts’RECAP

Werckmeister Hármoniák
2000 Béla Tarr

'At the beginning of my career, I had a lot of social anger. I just wanted to tell you how fucked up the society is. This was the beginning. Afterwards, I began to understand that the problems were not only social; they are deeper. I thought they were only ontological. It's so, so complicated, and when I understood more and more, when I went closer to the people… afterward, I could understand that the problems were not only ontological. They were cosmic. The whole fucked up world is over.'


"I think that after Twilight and after Snow White and the Huntsman, which were such huge movies, that I felt I didn’t want to search for the next "big, successful" thing. One thing that people do with two enormous movies is think that that’s their thing now, to do big movies, and ride that wave. I got off this huge wave and said, "I’m going to go in for a bit." I’m going to come back out later. That was good. I needed some time off. I needed to get in with my friends. I needed to be back in my life. I needed to like, live in my house and be surrounded by my own shit and play guitar and write." ― Kristen Stewart for Vanity Fair France

"I think that after Twilight and after Snow White and the Huntsman, which were such huge movies, that I felt I didn’t want to search for the next "big, successful" thing. One thing that people do with two enormous movies is think that that’s their thing now, to do big movies, and ride that wave. I got off this huge wave and said, "I’m going to go in for a bit." I’m going to come back out later. That was good. I needed some time off. I needed to get in with my friends. I needed to be back in my life. I needed to like, live in my house and be surrounded by my own shit and play guitar and write." ― Kristen Stewart for Vanity Fair France

"I think that after Twilight and after Snow White and the Huntsman, which were such huge movies, that I felt I didn’t want to search for the next "big, successful" thing. One thing that people do with two enormous movies is think that that’s their thing now, to do big movies, and ride that wave. I got off this huge wave and said, "I’m going to go in for a bit." I’m going to come back out later. That was good. I needed some time off. I needed to get in with my friends. I needed to be back in my life. I needed to like, live in my house and be surrounded by my own shit and play guitar and write." ― Kristen Stewart for Vanity Fair France

(via allthosegirlsonfilm)