A technical movie

Not long ago, I thought film was an art, just like sculpture, painting, and even literature. Then I realized that as a bystander of art, I obviously ignored the element of technology in art. How can a stone fit a work, how can a work be displayed on a stone, what kind of effect needs to be carved and polished, and so on. In fact, art is full of technical details. But for most people, everyone only sees the so-called beauty. The premise is that no one on the Internet subconsciously jumps out to show their erudition and says you "But you, I prefer ooo when it comes to xxx, because (three thousand words with countless technical terms are omitted below)" .

A while ago, I read an article about how to write a professional film review. It said that I have to read 20+ times to write a film review. This made me very embarrassed, because except for so few films, I wrote film reviews and watched movies on average. The most frequent frequency falls in the range of 2 to 5 times. But for the first time in this article, just look at it.

Just look at it.

This made me realize that film is actually a technical job, and even to say that it is a technical job that ranks before art. There are countless details behind each lens. How to take the lens you realize, the angle you might notice , Furnishings, objects, etc., you will not notice the direction of the light, you will not notice at all (I will not mention what it is, because I did not notice) and many other things.

Some people said that this movie is related to fight club, and after watching it, they said they were very disappointed, because this movie is far inferior to fight club. But I think the two films are actually very much related, mainly because they are similar in technology.

Of course, there are countless works by Michelangelo and other masters in this life, but the skills must have matured earlier. However, some stones became Davids after being handled, and some bronzes became thinkers. However, it is estimated that many works have not reached the level that our novices can even think of.

If the fight club is David, this film might be a piece of work used by other artists to try to figure out David. Of course, this is not the interface for shooting this film at all. If Bell knew that he lost 65 pounds in two weeks, one-third of his body weight (by the way, can anyone tell me how to lose? I lost 1/3 of my body weight and I was only slightly thinner) just to let the director learn about fight club , I guess he has to fight the director first.

This film and fight club use similar themes of people in haziness, illusion and reality, use similar dark tones, and use the same symbolic language and obscure details that are flooded everywhere, except for the overall slower rhythm. Other than that, in general, it is technically similar to the fight club technique. Apart from the almost skinny Bell and his acting skills, in general, it is still technical details.

The film is heavy and slow, the ending is uninteresting, the person watching is drowsy, and the person shooting is very guilty (try not to suffer if you lose 65 pounds). But this film maintains good techniques and details, and to a certain extent it is worth watching for people who are interested in movies other than the story.

Because compared to the great works of Qingshi that people look up to, this kind of work is often better for people to understand some important details that you don't pay much attention to. This kind of work does not have the halo of Shaojia movies in history, so you may think and understand when you watch it, instead of melting your whole person in the halo and kowtow religiously at every lens.

View more about The Machinist reviews