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
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).
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
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.
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:
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
Have you seen Blade Runner 2049? That movie has an excellent story. Very little dialogue was needed to tell it.
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.
I disagree. 2049 was very pretty, but the story was kinda lackluster
This presumes that the only way to add substance to a film is through dialogue.
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
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.