From time to time I meet someone who tells me something like: "Well yes, lately I have started to watch movies, and I have a list of movies should be seen to be a good movie buff / cinephile "Well, the speech is not exactly true, but I think you take the idea.
Apart from the fact that having seen certain movies have to say that you like the movie is silly or not, the issue is that whenever you join or you begin to get interested in a hobby you have to start somewhere. The film is normal to ask your friends, or take a look at what critics say (or increasingly commonly see that scoring has FilmAffinity or imdb). But it's time to see the supposed masterpiece and it seems you glanders. Of course, now to see that face you tell your friends it's been a crappy movie when all have put by clouds. The point is that you have not created an idea of \u200b\u200bhow the movie should be, and if different from your preconceived idea about plot or quality, and do not seem to be worthwhile. But what makes a good movie? Arguably
actors, story, direction, special effects (yes, sometimes the effects are good to a movie malilla) or a mixture of the above. To me what makes a good film is the empathy I get to feel me with your particular universe. How you achieve this I have no idea, but I have a theory.
For example, I think that the more love put in a production, but the public will love it you enjoy it. But there is also a handicap , and that is to get this relationship with the viewer, so it does not distract you from what you want to convey, a number of "tricks" that often come in handy to writers; sure we have all seen the same gag repeated in hundreds of different movies, and I therein lies the problem: the more you expose yourself to something you get used more and has less effect.
I mean when you see a considerable number of movies almost everything seems predictable, gags are not funny and just appreciating the film for the quality of the actors or by how well the director kept the pulse with this level of camera in hand. That's lack of perspective, and brings us to where we are now, in a world where critical and box office rarely coincide. Which, of course, is not necessarily bad, but gives a wrong reference to unsuspecting young who trusts too much of such criticism.
What can we draw from this, apart from a headache?, For a couple of little things .
The first is that you always have to go to a movie knowing as little as possible and believing there will be very good, so you can assess each film for what it is: an unpretentious hobby, an experimental work, super great production or a cult. Here are some categories like any other, I used to say that a hobby, without pretensions, for example, can be as good as a movie and worship, but will never be comparable, and should not detract from the other.
The second thing to remember is that every vision is subjective, and if yours does not express those of the other will dominate, and that is something that should never be allowed, you can not go through life thinking that this movie is good if you think when you saw horrific. Although of course we must be receptive to the opinions of others, it is important to forge a criterion as independent possible.
And all this because I take longer to say Citizen Kane is an authentic tostón infumable (already, I said: D) and perhaps on another occasion made the sacrifice to see her again to detail here that I like so little, everything is on this blog.
0 comments:
Post a Comment