Movies used to be nothing but dialogue. I adore Denis Villeneuve movies, his artistic style and direction, but he clearly grew up in the 70s and 80s and didn't watch movies from the 40s and 50s. He's only a mere decade-ish older than I am, and I'm not a successful movie producer/director like he is, but if he thinks television corrupted movies, then that feels to me like a rather myopic take. And good lord, Woody Allen made his living on nothing but dialogue in the movies he made during Villeneuve's formative years.
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Entertainment
4593 readers
1 users here now
Movies, television and Broadway.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
While I agree the focus should be on quality, Villeneuve is the epitome of style over substance. Hell, he even basically says that himself in the second paragraph:
“Frankly, I hate dialogue,” the filmmaker told the publication. “Dialogue is for theatre and television. I don’t remember movies because of a good line, I remember movies because of a strong image. I’m not interested in dialogue at all."
Also, a lot of TV has very good storytelling, something Villeneuve clearly considers a low priority. He is not the one we should listen to about what makes a good movie IMHO
This presumes that the only way to add substance to a film is through dialogue.
The spinning top totem at the end of Inception. Neo stopping the bullets in The Matrix. The first shot of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. The Nazis’ faces melting in Raiders.
Dialogue can be wonderful. But visual storytelling that treats the audience with respect is what cinema is all about.
Check out the (now defunct) YouTube channel Every Frame a Painting. The video on Drive in particular opened my eyes to how Refn composes shots to incredible effect.
And it is NOT about capturing “pretty” scenes, but about manipulating the viewer’s emotions in ways they do not even perceive.
I guess it depends on the piece. Is the movie trying to be entertainment or art?
In the end It's a visual medium as well audiotory. And therefor you have a several ways to achieve your message and vision.
From the picturesque to basic exposition throu dialog. Music is another factor that can elevate a movie to new hights.
Both 'Dune' and 'We Need To Talk About Kevin' rely mainly of visual storytelling. But do so in vastly different ways.
But take the typical Steven Spielberg movies from the hight of his career and you can see how much he leans on the music score to achieve his vision.
But it all comes down what type of movie the director wants to make.
Addendum: I will admit that well written characters and dialog isn't as easy to come by in Hollywood media. But movies that mainly focus on the writing and are great do exist.
That is not the only way, no, but just having admittedly gorgeous shots is also not it. Dialogue doesn't have to be the main focus, but if you completely disregard it, it detracts from the whole film
Have you seen Blade Runner 2049? That movie has an excellent story. Very little dialogue was needed to tell it.
I disagree. 2049 was very pretty, but the story was kinda lackluster
I think I'd rather point at the original Blade Runner. The sequel fell a bit short for me in comparison.
Ofcause that's just my opinion.
Villeneuve directed 2049. I would have said Dune but that was a book adaptation. Also I think 2049 was every bit as good as the original (admittedly not as genre-defining).
Blade Runner was also a book adaptation: 'Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep"
Although the movie does take some liberties with the source material.
But that aside, I felt 2049 kinda missed the point that BR tried to make by trying to adress the questions posed with a wildly simplified answer.
Philosophical conundrums are typically supposed to be thought about, not solved.
[Danger] Is Thinking About ‘Release Dates, Not Quality’
Also true for software.