#particular film

[isabelleadjani]

EVE'S BAYOU dir. Kasi Lemmons, 1997

[screwpinecaprice]

Movie Night 🍿

[sforzesco]

AKHENATEN

uhhh let's see. I combined some sketches I did of Nefertiti and Akhenaten and ended up somewhere here for an Akhenaten design. in my heart, it's for a comic but there's so much visual research I'd have to do before I could even think about approaching a comic. oof.

anyway moving on: Akhenaten was a childhood obsession! and then I moved onto other things, as one does, but then a couple months ago I decided to check out some books and now I have a headache.

Akhenaten, Ronald T. Ridley

[mervynbunter]

TIME BANDITS (1981), dir. Terry Gilliam

I just love the idea of taking guys that are small and treating them like heroes, treating them like Alan Ladd, almost as tall as Alan Ladd, I think he was about three inches taller than those guys. That’s what the joy of doing it was and giving these guys a chance to get out of their fucking Womble costumes and R2-D2 tin cans and be people. And they all rose to the occasion, they were all brilliant. —Terry Gilliam

[transhuman-priestess]

Why the hell does expired, unexposed Kodachrome of all things command a premium

“Yes please, I want the film you can’t develop properly. Yes I’m just going to do it as black and white. What? Why would I buy expired Tri-x instead?”

[sevenspoonfulsofsugar]

an interesting detail about the one of many things that count orlok represents in this new adaptation of nosferatu is that the only time we see ellen and thomas engaged in full-on physical intimacy, they are both relatively clothed and it is nighttime. her hair is still up, and the deed is frantic and rushed in their front room. they love each other deeply, that much is clear, but there is something about that level of desire and debasement that is still shameful and out of character for thomas. it is a fight to get him there.

when ellen lures count orlok into her trap and they lay together, they are both naked, and the dawn is quickly approaching. she has taken her hair down, and there is a bed large enough for them both. she has discarded all the trappings of modern society, as has he, and the pace of their coupling is languid. serene, almost. where thomas was not willing to meet her except under pressure, orlok meets her at that place where she has always resided alone. there is no fight or shame, not even in their last living moments.

[aridatinas-art]

teensy self-indulgent thing I doodled 2 or 3 months ago (??) that I didnt feel confident in posting until now?? funny how artist mind work like that :,D

For those confused, she's referring to Scandinavian trolls. In the stories they can be as huge as mountains - they're often depicted with literal forests on their backs - and they turn to stone once exposed to sunlight. We have a mountain range called The Seven Sisters with a story behind it like that! It's about seven sister trolls traversing a valley in an attempt at getting home, but they get caught by the sunrise and become the mountains ):

[gayeddieagenda]

buck and eddie dressed up as ghosbusters for halloween! for cryptidbuckley on twitter

this is a prompt fill for @911actions gotcha for gaza! submissions are closed, but please check out how you can still donate and support!

[laidlays]

Mononoke Movie: Karakasa (2024)

[uniiiquehecrt]

Voice actors are NOT the same as actors.

It takes a specific kind of skill-set and training to be able to warp and meld the voice. It takes a certain kind of talent and dedication to hone that talent into the ability to meld the voice and invoke emotion with one's voice alone. Actors are used to using their voice secondarily to their body language and their facial expressions. It's all mirrored back on camera. They do have nuance. But it's a different kind of nuance and a different kind of training to produce that nuance.

Voice actors might get their likeness transposed on their character's design, and maybe their mannerisms might seep into the character's animation. But when it's all said and done: their presence is in their voice. They are bringing a character to life, showing that emotion in their voice, trying to keep a specific accent, drawl, pitch, tone in that voice and keep it consistent for their recording sessions.

The voice actor is like a classically trained musician who can play first chair in a competitive, world-renown orchestra. The actor (who fills the voice actor's role) is like a moot who played violin in beginner and intermediate high school orchestra and thinks they can get into Juilliard with that 2-4 years of experience.

This doesn't mean that the HS orchestra moot can't play. They can even be really good at it. Maybe they won competitions and sat first chair. But they are not in the same league as the person who's been training their whole lives and lives and breathes to hone their craft using the instrument and all of the training they've ever acquired to perfect it. They are not meant for the same roles. They are not in the same caliber. You do not hire the HS equivalent when you want to play complex music in a competitive orchestra.

Actors are not the same as voice actors.

And furthermore, actors - especially big name actors - taking the roles of animated characters for big budget films or TV pilots makes no sense anyways when - at least in the case of TV pilots - there's not a point to hiring a big budget actors anyways. That money could be used elsewhere (like paying your animators), and the talent that is brought onto the screen for X character could then be hired on to voice said character no recasting required.

I wouldn't say voice acting as a profession is in danger exactly, but it's certainly being disrespected and overlooked for celebrity clout, and this has ALWAYS been an issue. Shoot, even Robin Williams knew that much - which is why he tried so hard not to be used as a marketing chess piece for Aladdin and got royally pissed off when it happened anyways. People shouldn't go to any movie (but especially not animated films) because "oh famous actor is in it". People should go because it's a good movie and the voice acting is good.

People who honest to god think that voice actors are replaceable because "oh well anyone can voice act" or "I like xyz celebrity so naturally it'll be good" ... Honestly I just wish you'd reassess your priorities because you're missing the point and are part of the problem.

Voice Actors ≠ Actors.

[winged-cries]

The Night of the Hunted (La Nuit des traquées, 1980, dir. Jean Rollin)

[lawlliets]

Queer (2024) dir. Luca Guadagnino

[atlxolotl]

Alucarda (1977) dir. Juan López Moctezuma

[badnewswhatsleft]

hi guys

so it looks like the few pro shot tourdust shows that were on jack edinger's vimeo are now unfortunately deleted/priv'd, along with all the other fob related vids that were on his profile - thankfully i was able to pull most? of them beforehand, so here are links to download them in full:

bristow, va (19 july 2023)

london night 1 (02 nov 2023)

london night 2 (03 nov 2023)

other videos

an addendum: i'm missing i think 2 videos that were up on his page, iirc they were titled something like "hold me tight or dont content" and "centuries content" - when i watched a little bit of the hmtod one it looked kinda like a lot of stock clips literally with watermarks and everything stitched together(?) like at a concepts stage.. ?? and unfortunately i didn't watch the centuries version.. but ig assumed it was similar? 😓

basically i considered them low priority to download at the time and now i'm kicking myself. lol. lmao even. so if anyone managed to get those pls feel free to sound off

otherwise take everything above and enjoy !!!

[floydmtalbert]

masters of the air in black + white

— for @shoshiwrites : happy birthday, Sho!

[steveyockey]

Some would rebut that “Oppenheimer,” being a Hollywood blockbuster with serious global reach (whether it will play Japanese theaters remains uncertain), will be many audiences’ only exposure to the events in question and thus might “create a limit on public consciousness and concern,” as the poet, writer and professor Brandon Shimoda told The Times. A corollary of this argument: The crimes committed against the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were so unspeakable, so outsized in their impact, that Oppenheimer’s perspective does and should dwindle into insignificance by comparison. For Nolan to focus so exclusively on an American physicist’s story, some insist, ultimately diminishes history and humanity, even as it reinforces the Hollywood hegemony of the great-man biopic and of white men’s narratives in general.

I get those complaints. I also think they betray an inherent disrespect for the audience’s intelligence and curiosity, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of how movies operate. It’s telling that few of these criticisms of perspective were leveled at “American Prometheus” when it was published in 2005, that no one begrudged Bird and Sherwin for offering a meticulously researched, morally ambivalent portrait of their subject’s life and consigning the destruction of two Japanese cities to a few pages. That’s because books are books, the argument goes, and movies are movies — and this perceived difference, it must be said, reveals a pernicious double standard.

Because they seldom achieve the narrative penetration and richness of detail of, say, a 700-page biography, movies, especially those about history, often are hailed as achievements of breadth over depth, emotion over intellect. They are assumed to be fundamentally shallow experiences, distillations of real life rather than sharply angled explorations of it, propelled by broad brushstrokes and easy expository shortcuts, and beholden to the audience’s presumably voracious appetite for thrilling, traumatizing spectacle. And because movies offer a visual immediacy and narrative immersion that books don’t, they are expected to be sweeping if not omniscient in their narrative scope, to reach for a comprehensive, even definitive vantage.

Movies that attempt something different, that recognize that less can indeed be more, are thus easily taken to task. “It’s so subjective!” and “It omits a crucial P.O.V.!” are assumed to be substantive criticisms rather than essentially value-neutral statements. We are sometimes told, in matters of art and storytelling, that depiction is not endorsement; we are not reminded nearly as often that omission is not erasure. But because viewers of course cannot be trusted to know any history or muster any empathy on their own — and if anything unites those who criticize “Oppenheimer” on representational grounds, it’s their reflexive assumption of the audience’s stupidity — anything that isn’t explicitly shown onscreen is denigrated as a dodge or an oversight, rather than a carefully considered decision.

A film like “Oppenheimer” offers a welcome challenge to these assumptions. Like nearly all Nolan’s movies, from “Memento” to “Dunkirk,” it’s a crafty exercise in radical subjectivity and narrative misdirection, in which the most significant subjects — lost memories, lost time, lost loves — often are invisible and all the more powerful for it. We can certainly imagine a version of “Oppenheimer” that tossed in a few startling but desultory minutes of Japanese destruction footage. Such a version might have flirted with kitsch, but it might well have satisfied the representational completists in the audience. It also would have reduced Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a piddling afterthought; Nolan treats them instead as a profound absence, an indictment by silence.

That’s true even in one of the movie’s most powerful and contested sequences. Not long after news of Hiroshima’s destruction arrives, Oppenheimer gives a would-be-triumphant speech to a euphoric Los Alamos crowd, only for his words to turn to dust in his mouth. For a moment, Nolan abandons realism altogether — but not, crucially, Oppenheimer’s perspective — to embrace a hallucinatory horror-movie expressionism. A piercing scream erupts in the crowd; a woman’s face crumples and flutters, like a paper mask about to disintegrate. The crowd is there and then suddenly, with much sonic rumbling, image blurring and an obliterating flash of white light, it is not.

For “Oppenheimer’s” detractors, this sequence constitutes its most grievous act of erasure: Even in the movie’s one evocation of nuclear disaster, the true victims have been obscured and whitewashed. The absence of Japanese faces and bodies in these visions is indeed striking. It’s also consistent with Nolan’s strict representational parameters, and it produces a tension, even a contradiction, that the movie wants us to recognize and wrestle with. Is Oppenheimer trying (and failing) to imagine the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians murdered by the weapon he devised? Or is he envisioning some hypothetical doomsday scenario still to come?

I think the answer is a blur of both, and also something more: In this moment, one of the movie’s most abstract, Nolan advances a longer view of his protagonist’s history and his future. Oppenheimer’s blindness to Japanese victims and survivors foreshadows his own stubborn inability to confront the consequences of his actions in years to come. He will speak out against nuclear weaponry, but he will never apologize for the atomic bombings of Japan — not even when he visits Tokyo and Osaka in 1960 and is questioned by a reporter about his perspective now. “I do not think coming to Japan changed my sense of anguish about my part in this whole piece of history,” he will respond. “Nor has it fully made me regret my responsibility for the technical success of the enterprise.”

Talk about compartmentalization. That episode, by the way, doesn’t find its way into “Oppenheimer,” which knows better than to offer itself up as the last word on anything. To the end, Nolan trusts us to seek out and think about history for ourselves. If we elect not to, that’s on us.