the fucking worst is when “”“”well read”“”” people try to compliment a film by talking about the ways in which good films are similar to novels
to me it’s clearly just because they have no basis for understanding what makes visual storytelling good so their only frame of reference is what they’ve learned about what makes prose and poetry good with IN MY OPINION very little effort to reach across the aisle and actually humble themselves to learn about what goes into visual storytelling
like they couldn’t possibly “lower” themselves to think about visual storytelling so they’ll just “elevate” the film by speaking about it in terms of verbal storytelling
my reaction to those kinds of review though, as someone who’s read quite a lot, is generally slightly baffled - like, what KIND of novel are they thinking of - Naked Lunch, Clarissa, The Da Vinci Code??? - what hypothetical novel IS it that people keep saying movies (and tv shows; let’s not forget how every review of The Wire ever says ‘it’s like a novel!’) are like? - have these people read any novels ever? - I generally assume they just aren’t visual people, like, at ALL, and are confused, and also that they have read almost no novels
and also that they haven’t seen very many films because if they had they’d have a more relevant point of comparison
eta. unless are you talking about people comparing specific novels to specific films? but still I think people do that when they don’t actually know enough about one or the other
eta. I also don’t like when people try to compliment TV by saying it’s ‘cinematic’
HAHA YEAH have these people read novels??? in my experience it’s always like, people that try to compliment a film by saying it has the complexity of a novel?
(i understand complimenting TV by calling in cinematic ONLY to the extent of when TV is described as having ‘cinematic shots’ or ‘cinematic pacing’ because, yeah, that is actually something specific to cinema that sets it apart from TV and is a possible way to describe something specific. but just using cinematic as a general compliment is RIDICULOUS)
or, like, there’s a certain way that people (who i ASSUME have had some kind of “real” education) talk about films where they pick it apart at such a literal level that it doesn’t make any sense?
like when people start talking about the symbolism of having someone’s clothing being a certain color in a shot (which, granted, IS some times a conscious narrative decision in film) when usually it’s just because that color fit in with the rest of the palette, and the palette itself is meant to convey a mood or emphasize a specific character in a way that’s supposed to register subconsciously BECAUSE THATS HOW VISUAL STORYTELLING WORKS
and it just ends up feeling like someone that doesn’t want to acknowledge that nonverbal storytelling in films is much more important because that would mean there was something they didn’t understand about film
i personally usually see it with fans of PT Anderson and the Coen Bros, i think. for some reason those films attract a VERY specific type of film fan that doesn’t actually “like” films but sees those directors as being “good enough to write novels”
Maggie Cheung wears a different cheongsam (qipao) dress in each scene of Wong Kar-Wai’s In the Mood For Love. There were 46 in all, though not all made it to the final cut.
She has hidden a portrait inside. Robert Dudley? It is the whore, Anne Boleyn. Her mother.