1
Ang Lee has never been an epoch-making innovator, and he will never be able to bring the landmark influence and contribution of Godard to the film. But he is definitely a first-class reformer. The difference is that he didn't invent anything new, but his ability to use existing tools was absolutely superb. To some extent, several of his works are close to the "extreme" state. I'm not saying they are flawless, but he has found the relatively best way to express himself based on his extensive and solid grasp of the existing film language. In the process of this search, an improvement as significant as this film will appear suddenly. 120fps wasn't invented by him, it was something that already existed in Digital Video. We have also experienced the power of 60fps/90fps in the live broadcast of many sports games, and it seems that this 120fps has an inseparable relationship with TV. But why only Ang Lee thought of borrowing this technology to shoot such a subject, thus creating such an almost new way of film expression? Essentially, he's not just taking something that already exists and is generally considered unlikely to make a movie into a great movie. In this way, isn't it obvious that Li An is not arrogant?
2
Some people are just obligations. Taking advantage of the wave of civilianization of filmmaking, I think I have made a few things that I can't even call a movie (or I have only seen some movies, and I have no experience in making them), and I feel that I can point fingers. Do you really think that the difference between shooting at 24fps and 120fps is that the frame rate is 5 times faster? In my opinion, although the final effect cannot be said to be perfect, according to the technical difficulty that may be encountered, it is already a very powerful level. My weak film industry, chaotic production management, and poor talent are simply unable to make such a film.
First and foremost is the lighting problem. In short, the cost will increase dramatically, and the trouble will increase dramatically. Indoor lighting, on the premise of achieving the same exposure, the aperture needs to be opened by two and one-third stops (this will bring about a large change in the depth of field) or the aperture remains unchanged, and the brightness of the light is increased by two and one-third times (whether it is Adding lights or changing high-power lights is a hassle, and there will be a series of chain reactions). (Thanks to Winsell for the precise data.) The outdoor lighting is a little better, mostly for the scorching sun. However, characters often need supplemental light. At this time, it should be useless to rely on ordinary reflectors, and artificial lights are required. For example, the scene where the two squad leaders punish the male protagonist to do the horizontal bar. The two squad leaders were standing in the shadows, without any logical light source, it would be very dark, so it can be seen that there are extra lights shining on them to brighten the characters. Moreover, many lighting equipment that can be used in ordinary 24fps should not be used, because there will be stroboscopic flicker under 120fps high-speed photography. Secondly, it is more difficult to use a camera that is not commonly used in ordinary movies, and still shoot in 3D. (ASC will definitely have an exclusive interview, I haven't had a chance to see it yet, and there may be more technical issues.)
After that, makeup, art, clothing, performances, etc., as long as things appear on the screen, everything will be affected. In short, many people's first impression after watching the 60/120 version is very, very clear. That puts a higher level of demand on all these departments than the average movie, and it's easy to reveal the stuff without two brushes. Especially with the current finish, the makeup department definitely deserves praise. On the basis of these technical difficulties, there are several scenes that are particularly difficult to film. Like a halftime show, like a shootout. There is still a lot of post-production special effects to do (the cost of special effects will rise sharply because of 120fps...). Uncle An's ability to keep the whole film alive and not collapse is already a great achievement.
3
What kind of person will make what kind of film, if he is honest enough.
That's right, Ang Lee follows the middle way. Because his radical place has nothing to do with politics or opinions. His radical is emotion. However, some people seldom equate mediocrity with moderation, and secretly change the concept. On the one hand, few director's works can have such abundant emotional energy but have nothing to do with sensationalism and promiscuity. Because Ang Lee's moderation allows him to grasp the degree and every rhythm well, so that the emotional advancement of the whole work can achieve the effect of intricate and well-proportioned. On the other hand, from a cross-cultural perspective, his works are even more meritorious. Moderation is not common, but just one of many styles. According to the principle of equality of styles, the mean of the mean is the master.
Someone in the shadow sign gave this film a failing grade for "pure sensory stimulation", and the fat man is probably about to crawl out of the grave and slap you in the mouth. Because what you see is the "senses" on the surface, what I see is the "experience". This experience is comprehensive, shaped by the director using various means. And this "experience" is honest enough, because it clearly bears the personality of Ang Lee. This experience is a one-of-a-kind "An" experience, watching Ang Lee's movies is like reading a part of himself. This kind of honest creation requires too much courage, like taking off your clothes and showing it in public (everyone who has done creation will understand). This is not a great filmmaker, so what is?
4
A person's reality can be very different from the public perception of the person. And when there is such a difference, a strange tension arises.
The process of filmmaking is actually full of unknowns and accidents. In short, there are many variables, and there may be many factors beyond the creator's control. A person can inadvertently rely on some kind of accident to make a certain work a little special, and this special just hits the G-spot of some important people at that time, and then has a huge impact. (See Farewell My Concubine...) And this influence is likely to be a label-like, once-in-a-lifetime influence on a person, thus allowing his public image to be defined for a long time. (See Chen Kaige and Farewell My Concubine...) Although theoretically speaking, the person who knows the self best must be the self, but in the face of the external definition of the tsunami, it is difficult for a person to remain still, so of course he will perceive to the difference between the two. People with little control will be kidnapped by external definitions, and they may embark on a very dangerous path - trying to make "me" into a "not-me" thing. I admit that this kind of contingency is part of the charm of film art, and it is also a kind of mystery of film creation. But it is also really harmful, like a curse, it will make some people think that they can, but in fact they may not really be able to... (look at Brother Kai again...)
Ang Lee said in this film It's very clear: It's written, it's meant to be. I raise four hooves to agree. A person knows best what they are suitable for and what they are not suitable for. The scary part is that we are so busy caring about how others are doing that we don't have time to know what we should be doing. If you think all day long that other people can do xxx, why can't I do xxx, that's bad. This will not only do inappropriate things, but also make the "self" that is not clear to become more distorted.
One of Ang Lee's particularly impressive points is that he can tap his potential through continuous exploration on the basis of maintaining a deep "self-knowledge" of himself. His self-consciousness is very strong, but he has not stopped digging into his unknown self-consciousness. His own creation is also a process of gradually letting go (artists are bold). You can say that every step he takes is actually baby steps, but because he has a particularly rational understanding of himself as a premise, the gold content of each small step is not small. And it can be put to a great deal in terms of personal significance. Just imagine how you feel when you step out of your comfort zone under the attention of the public, and you are greeted by all kinds of comments after you step. It's really scary, isn't it?
5
I do not understand academics and have no theoretical basis. But if I want to evaluate Ang Lee, I will definitely look at it under two big frameworks. In content (expression), he is deeply influenced by traditional drama. Technically, he was a student of classic Hollywood narrative and continuity editing.
I just watched this year's "Graduation Exam" in Cannes last night, and it was the first time I saw Mongy's film. One shot at a time, hand-held long lens, especially neo-realism. This style pursues almost the opposite of traditional drama: removes performance, removes functionality, removes the sense of design, and emphasizes the fragmentation and randomness of real life. Interestingly, Ang Lee also used the one-shot-to-the-end shooting method that he did not often use in some of the scenes in the midfield battle. But his traditional dramatic expression is very different from the new realism. What he's looking for is actually functionality. This functionality is achieved through design, processing, and through many scheduling methods, such as events, lines, behaviors, expressions, and shots. The key is that the expression of traditional drama is naturally very functional. It is very different from the reality of life. Functionality cannot exist, only the size of the degree, and the level of the use of the upper rank. The one that is particularly bad, I believe everyone has seen a lot of bad movies and can feel it. It's especially good that it makes you feel like the story is believable. But in fact, how can drama be completely equated with reality? Because no matter how realistic the drama is, there is expression. There is a driving force behind its script, which comes from the ideas of the creators. This idea drives the creator to use functionality to make the work go in a certain direction. In my opinion, there is no problem with the characters and plot being too functional in this film, and many of the seemingly deliberate designs are logically interpretable and not far-fetched at all. So no problem. Moreover, the plot of the whole film is reduced to one day, from the beginning to the end, flowing down in chronological order, and the interspersed points of the flashbacks are also very smooth, quite like a road film, which is a very clever way.
So those who say why Ang Lee doesn't shoot like this, or shoot like that, don't shout. First of all, many of the things you proposed are not within Ang Lee's creative methods. The style is too far away, and the horses and cattle are irrelevant. You can only shoot a worse "Roadside Picnic" after listening to your command. Again, as I said above, Ang Lee is a self-consistent whole. If you really want to impose your will on him, Ang Lee himself will be wiped out and will no longer exist. To put it bluntly, I am me, and if you ask me to do something that is not me, then I cannot be me. Hopefully this logic will allow all such advice to be sucked up in the future.
6
I find it a disaster for stupid people to watch movies. I'm particularly annoyed that a lot of people make a ridiculously superficial understanding of what this movie is trying to convey. Ang Lee said it himself, the original novel is actually very stream-of-consciousness. So do you really think you can get rid of everyone by just thinking about something like that? Do you still want others to appreciate your interpretation?
When it comes to the ending, it is the main theme of the United States, or it automatically associates with the anti-war theme (this is too stupid to see that the male protagonist went back to the war in the end...), or he is obviously not suitable for the life of returning to China. Ah, it's fun to go to the battlefield (this is not completely wrong, but it's too bad to just stay there) and so on. Come on! Is this the best you can do? The weird thing about these people is that they reduce the movie, which can be very complicated in itself, to the general determination, routine and binary of mathematical equations. People who say that this film is too smooth and complete without thinking space is actually because you don't want to think, okay? It's just that leaving blank space isn't the thing that Ang Lee plays the most. Don't talk about this film, if you really want to think about it, you can see philosophy in childhood.
I did have a friend who told me that after reading it, I felt that the ending was a bit of a theme. I told her not to simply interpret the protagonist's return to the battlefield as patriotism, but to see it as a personal choice, in fact, you will see more. This is a start.
Filmmaking is not about writing argumentative essays, not making speeches. So that's why people often ask film directors what do you want to express by making this/why did you do it this way/why do you want to do it and so on and so forth, the reason why there is usually no clear answer. Because if what he wants to make can be explained clearly in words, why does he not contribute to the low-carbon economy, but go to a lot of trouble to set up a film crew and spend so much money to make movies for a few months, he tells it directly to If you listen to or write an article to express the central idea, isn't that the end? ? ? And one more thing that must be clear is that the moment the work is completed, it is divorced from the creator. The works are for everyone to see, not just for the author himself (of course his original intention can be to shoot for himself). It means that everyone can have their own understanding of the work, and this is also the greatest value of the work of art. The work is a third individual independent of the creator and the audience, and the creator's intention is no longer important. Because strictly speaking, it belongs to other people's privacy, and people won't tell you if they don't want to tell you. If a person does not have his own understanding of a work of art, he will not be able to have a close connection with him, and there will be no way to integrate it into his own aesthetic experience, and there will be no unique and private aesthetic experience. The value is almost zero!
7
of course there are disadvantages. I haven't had a chance to watch 120 yet. Compared with 24, 60 will have a lot of traces on the performance. There are also some minor issues with the rhythm. The part after the halftime show is a little long. Some of the schedules are so dramatic that they run counter to the sense of presence that the film's form seeks. But these are my personal experiences, and a lot of them are nitpicking and unlikely to be avoided (given the framework Ang Lee himself belongs to). So it's definitely not perfect. But it has opened my eyes to a whole new way of expression. A technique that was once overlooked, or even spurned, and ridiculed for being uncinematic, has actually made a great movie in the end. And I can already see where this new technology might be used in the future, like how shocking we should all expect a 120fps documentary (preferably in 3D 4K) to look!
8
If I have said so much and there are still people chirping or something, then don’t be afraid. Isn’t there a killer saying:
You can do it! ! !
(I am not a film theory professional, there may be inaccuracies in technical things, please correct me!)
View more about Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk reviews
