• Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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

      • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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

      • DrinkMonkey@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • JillyB@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Have you seen Blade Runner 2049? That movie has an excellent story. Very little dialogue was needed to tell it.

      • Feydaikin@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • JillyB@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          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).

          • Feydaikin@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

  • ulkesh@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.