Every time I watch a movie or TV series with a lot of unnecessary lines, I want to say, "Are you a mother?" Seventeen episodes.)"Honey, i will download an audiobook if i want to hear a story.""Stop, learn to read faces.""are you high?cause that was a lot talking.""everyone knows the mommy thing just is not sexy." "i hope you like long boring stories." "i would put my hearing aids back in if i wanted to hear a story."
Movies are all contrasting. In fact, the level of appreciation is also compared.
Women are still villains.
There are too many details, so it's good to talk about the key points. I can't rewrite the script after all.
What the film conveys is clear and unambiguous.
There are no lines, only the music and the inscription version that allows one to imagine the content of the dialogue.
There are no lines, which also expands the development space for the actors inside.
The script does have no lines. For professional actors (not comedians, non-improvisations), it is like an outline, and the lines are basically made up.
From this point of view, Jean Dujardin's Best Actor is worthy of its name.
If you look closely at the characters in the movie, you can see that they are indeed talking. Dujardin improvised some lines to make the plot develop reasonably.
The film is in black and white as the carrier. The meaning is probably that, after the color is removed, people will focus on the idea that the film is trying to express. Not just on the screen.
In "Big Eyes", he also criticized the audience for being too formalistic and overly appearance-controlled, criticizing people who like to pursue entertainment products that are dressed in art but are not art.
Art can sometimes seem relatively basic, like black and white movies, Children with Big Eyes (paintings), etc. It's not that people understand a layer of skin or that they understand this movie and this painting. When people understand the fur, they will feel very low-end, but rather low-end self-cultivation.
If you don't understand this layer of leather, it will look very high-end. Just look at "Interstellar". In fact, the theme is very simple. It is the theme of family fun. How many people think it is a masterpiece of art. In fact, the gap between the special effects and the "Fast and Furious 7" trailer is not very big. This layer of skin is probably the same. (PS The special effects of high-rise flying cars in "Speed and Passion 7" are indeed very visual.)
The film focuses on the actor's experience. It is estimated that the director used to be an actor.
The script really did not prepare dialogue for the characters, so it missed the best script.
Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" is no better than this, but after all, it has an advantage in difficulty and tells a lot about the cultural history of Paris, which is more troublesome. The plot structure, focus of expression, suspense design, central expression, etc. are not comparable to "The Artist".
Speaking of "Midnight in Paris", I have to mention "Millennium Girl (Crab) You" (there are too many boring sensitive words, so this is the only way to do it). Both films discuss the similarities between painting and film.
People who like to paint should really take a look at Midnight in Paris. I am really speechless to painting lovers. Can you learn something? Can there be a level of appreciation? Woody Allen, a director, can have such a high appreciation ability. Are you still a professional? Nothing to do than what to draw like? Who is more like who draws... I'll rub it, can't compare something meaningful? I really think it's better to give your talent to others. Thinking is so bad, it's a waste of money to have this talent.
Closer to home, "Midnight in Paris" gave the audience a humorous lesson in the form of discussion. I really want to say, big brother, can we write a script with a little plot? I know you have a high artistic talent. We are discussing art and life. Don't just discuss it... Can't you add the discussion to the plot? Don't give people a class... The movies in class are often unpleasant... That is to say, when the film industry as a whole was at a disadvantage back then, brother, if you look at other sessions, can this broken book still win awards?
Speaking of Jin Min's Millennium Actress, there are a lot of ambiguities in it. There are often no central ideas in filmmaking, or the exact central idea cannot be found. There are not many TV dramas that have a central idea... I guess Millennium Actress wants to say that Chiyoko Fujiwara is chasing the wilderness and freedom of art, because it is mentioned that movies are like paintings. It's him saying what he wants to accomplish and how he feels when he paints. Her subconscious has been telling her that she can't catch up with this feeling, and she will keep chasing it. There's a "Black Swan" feel to it, like saying you can never be perfect, like. Her subconscious told her that she was too old to chase and gave up the chase. And many times in the middle, she felt pain because she didn't know what the result of her pursuit was (she didn't know what the painter looked like). In fact, she felt confused and painful about the uncertainty of the future. But she was quite sure that she loved that feeling. The painter said that the new moon is better than the full moon, which means that as long as the dream is not fulfilled, you can keep chasing it. This sentence is also encouraging Chiyoko. This can't help but make people scratch their heads, what exactly do you want to express? An idealist's hymn or what? Or have you been praising the spirit of infinite exploration without knowing where to go? The beauty of chasing? These topics all make sense, so there is a lot of ambiguity.
If peppy miller were to describe the meaning of her name, it would be a newborn butterfly. A metaphor for a new force, the new force is naturally energetic.
George Valentine does not need to explain, probably the meaning of the public lover.
The film uses comedy to express how the audience feels when watching the film. In fact, no matter what movie or TV show people watch, they are satisfying their own psychology. The film uses laughter to express the satisfaction of the audience.
George always took a dog with him when he performed on stage. The actress can see that it's a role that relies on relationships, and she always wants to be famous, but she doesn't please the audience. And that dog will please the audience. In fact, it seems to be saying that people who only want to be famous by relationships but have no skills are not as good as dogs. An actor who only pleases the audience is a dog.
Of course, everyone is still too harsh on Robert Downey Jr. After all, he is quite humorous. SNL you guys have had enough...he doesn't feel well either, always trying to get better. But it’s just too much money...
At that time, there were few movies, and they were still pantomimes. The audience was still willing to watch the movie with all their heart, and they didn’t want to go through the motions and pull it down after watching it. At the back, Pepi became popular with the public, Pepi became a consumer product, and the movie became a cutscene, without depth. In fact, this phenomenon occurs in all stages of film development, which is a common description.
After they met, George put a mole on Pepi's mouth to indicate Pepi's characteristics, and Pepi represented the actor's voice. It is also used to describe a sound film. As you can see here, George has nothing against sound movies. In the back, George opposed sound movies. In fact, he was opposed to pure entertainment movies. The sound was just a gimmick, and the performance was scumbag.
After George partnered with Pepi, George was attracted to Pepi. It probably means that no matter what the film industry is, it always welcomes new forces. It also shows that George likes voice acting.
Of course, Pepi also said a lot. Previously, Pepi was a vain woman. She showed others the front page headlines of her and George. After that, the old man ignored it many times, and she understood that she could not be vain. An actor's gimmick is not a vain cost. This is talking about the quality of the actor.
After Pepi became famous, he forgot that he was an actor directed by George. Big talk, exaggerated to the extreme. After George met her, he gave her a slap in the face. She watched George's movie and was deeply impressed by her acting skills. After that, she admired George immensely and searched for everything about him.
This is actually saying that Pepi is an artistically gifted actor who lost himself after becoming famous and was completely immersed in Vanity Fair. Seeing George and watching his films, she began to devote herself to studying art, learning real acting.
George's experience of writing, directing, acting and producing is also the personal experience of many Hollywood actors. Failure is also a result that these actors often face.
George also lost himself at this time, because the business failure began to deny himself and ruined everything, but he still kept the moment with Pepi and protected that moment with his life. What George protects with his life is not love, but his love for sound performance. What he wants to protect is an actor's love for new-style performances and innovation. Who TM regards this film as a love film!
The performance of the puppy calling the police shows that silent performance is actually the life of performance.
The large number of reports about Pepi and George in the middle of the film reflects the stupidity and unscrupulousness of the media, as well as the audience's love and ignorance.
When Pepi asked the producers to re-enable George, he was saying that a qualified actor should not only focus on commercial performances and commercial actors, but also respect artistic performances and artistic actors.
At the end, Pepi and George performed together, showing that only the combination of modern and classical, and the combination of demeanor and sound, is the perfect performance.
Black and white movies are not gimmicks, and Olympic movies are not box office hits.
I have to say that the discussion in the film is a bit narrow, basically talking about the basic cultivation of actors. This is not very common, after all, art is not just about actors. From the ideological level, it is indeed inferior to "Midnight in Paris". After all, "Midnight in Paris" discusses the whole art and life.
People are always looking for a faster way, the fastest way to make money, the fastest way to express, the fastest way to become famous, the fastest way to vent... Everything has become fast food, fast food is not fast enough, it becomes fast food junk food.
Junk stocks are the fastest to make money, junk movies are the fastest to become famous, and junk expressions are the easiest to understand and vent... So novels have become impossible for readers to speculate on the development of the plot and the emotions of the characters through reading. There is no sound, no soundtrack... Just pulling the picture bar, watching the extremely boring plot, everything about the characters is simply and rudely expressed, without depth and vulnerable.
When the movie has sound, people are too lazy to think about the feelings of the characters and ignore the expression of the soundtrack. Movies have color, people even ignore the characters, lines, not to mention the soundtrack. "Transformers" and "Speed and Passion" people have always paid attention to special effects, pictures, and even sound effects. But this violent expression evokes people's animal nature, which is possessed by all creatures, so no matter what the quality of the film itself is, it will be a big box office hit.
View more about The Artist reviews
