Author Topic: Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)  (Read 9612 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2005, 10:59:17 AM »
0
Which brings me to a question tha's been on my mind for a long time:

is the Psycho remake actually worth viewing???
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #46 on: November 04, 2005, 12:02:38 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
Which brings me to a question tha's been on my mind for a long time:

is the Psycho remake actually worth viewing???


no, it is terrible.  So many bad casting choices followed by a really tacky color scheme that just seems to cheapen everyone.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #47 on: November 04, 2005, 12:32:40 PM »
0
Quote from: SHAFTR
Quote from: SoNowThen
Which brings me to a question tha's been on my mind for a long time:

is the Psycho remake actually worth viewing???


no, it is terrible.  So many bad casting choices followed by a really tacky color scheme that just seems to cheapen everyone.


*remembers an old argument with Budgie*

She'd say you were missing the point.

I'd say the point was worth missing. Film should never had been made.

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #48 on: November 04, 2005, 01:01:57 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Quote from: SoNowThen
There will be a critical re-appraisal of all the late Scorsese movies. They are solid.


I agree The Aviator is solid, but it is also effortless for Scorsese. He needs to push himself.


I don't think this a valid comment - It doesn't matter who's at the helm - a film of that scale requires effort - orchestrating such scope and magnitude into a "solid" story is easier said then done, even for Scorsese.
...your excuses are your own...

Ultrahip

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 289
  • Respect: +2
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2005, 01:07:47 PM »
0
What's Doyle's reaction to Hero opening at No. 1 with $18 mil? Did he think American popular taste was so atrocious just then?

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2005, 01:24:00 PM »
0
Quote from: cowboykurtis
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Quote from: SoNowThen
There will be a critical re-appraisal of all the late Scorsese movies. They are solid.


I agree The Aviator is solid, but it is also effortless for Scorsese. He needs to push himself.


I don't think this a valid comment - It doesn't matter who's at the helm - a film of that scale requires effort - orchestrating such scope and magnitude into a "solid" story is easier said then done, even for Scorsese.


Comparing The Aviator to Casino, is there really a progression of storytelling? I think Scorsese switched genres and had a less stellar filmmaking show with The Aviator. In turn, while I liked it, its a dissapointment for Scorsese.

Also, I'm not really sure who you're arguing against here.

Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +377
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #51 on: November 04, 2005, 02:03:24 PM »
0
As a film, the Psycho remake was a real disaster. As an experiment, it was an odd sort of success, and for that reason I'd recommend it. I read an interview with Viggo Mortensen where he said Van Sant wanted to remake it again, which would be even more interesting.

Anyway: Doyle has talked about how he like to try different films with different filmmakers in order to learn things.  He's implied that he did not enjoy the experience of working on most of the American films he's shot - Psycho, Liberty Heights, the upcoming Merchant Ivory film - but he always talks about how he takes those experiences for what they're worth and learns from them.

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2005, 02:28:54 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Quote from: cowboykurtis
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Quote from: SoNowThen
There will be a critical re-appraisal of all the late Scorsese movies. They are solid.


I agree The Aviator is solid, but it is also effortless for Scorsese. He needs to push himself.


I don't think this a valid comment - It doesn't matter who's at the helm - a film of that scale requires effort - orchestrating such scope and magnitude into a "solid" story is easier said then done, even for Scorsese.


Comparing The Aviator to Casino, is there really a progression of storytelling? I think Scorsese switched genres and had a less stellar filmmaking show with The Aviator. In turn, while I liked it, its a dissapointment for Scorsese.

Also, I'm not really sure who you're arguing against here.


yours truly -

Criticising him for not having a progression in storytelling is somewhat of a moot point.

How are you discerning storytelling - structurally,visually, emotionally?

Was Casino a progression in "storytelling" from Goodfellas?

When looking at  a director's progression are you judging based on the subject he chooses to tackle, or how he chooses to tackle that subject?

I thought hte effort was pretty Bravura -  The craft and execution was impecable. Probably my favorite film last year.

Scorsese's approach to a film of this size (from the technical craft to the character arc) was about as progressive as it could be (all considering) -  You have to contexualize the effort - Making a 100 million dollar film about a reclusive man with OCD, has somewhat of a built in governer on its scope and creative "liberties".
...your excuses are your own...

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #53 on: November 04, 2005, 05:16:04 PM »
0
First off, Casino is a progression from Goodfellas. Where Goodfellas is the simple strand of the life of one person in the mob, Casino is the grand story that details many people and many elements of the mafia take over in Las Vegas and its eventual fall.

Second off, Casino brings in wider filmmaking. I'll call it the Minnelli sweep that has more articulated scene set ups, pan shots and everything, thus making the filmmaking epic. Unlike Goodfellas, Casino has the background of Las Vegas being just as much of a character as anyone else. Casino has to have filmmaking to play to that.

From Casino to The Aviator, I'm not sure what progress is being made. They both fall in similiar realms of the Hollywood epic. One can be critical of The Aviator while holding up Casino. Casino, at the time, was progression of Scorsese to doing the Hollywood epic well. With The Aviator, I see a film made in a similiar strand that doesnt further delve or intensify. It passes by all the main points of its story as Casino does and wraps up quite nicely. Scorsese is content to make another well crafted film. With his recent history, its nothing new.

How he tackles the film and all, I better state the fact that for the talent of Scorsese, he didn't make The Aviator knowing the potential of his filmmaking ability can do, but what it already has done. I guess I have high expectations for someone I really do admire.

mutinyco

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Respect: +2
    • http://www.crossoverfollowing.com
Re: Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #54 on: November 05, 2005, 08:39:09 PM »
0
The difference between Casino and The Aviator is that he actually told a story in the latter.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

hedwig

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • Lazy bones ain't got no time to waste away
  • Respect: +2
Re: Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #55 on: November 05, 2005, 09:04:39 PM »
0
out of context quotation time!!

Film should never had been made.

A Matter Of Chance

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 568
  • RIP Antonioni, Bergman
  • Respect: 0
Re: Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #56 on: November 07, 2005, 02:26:28 PM »
0
What's Doyle's reaction to Hero opening at No. 1 with $18 mil? Did he think American popular taste was so atrocious just then?

hahaha

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Re: Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)
« Reply #57 on: November 06, 2010, 12:12:57 AM »
0
Cinematographer Christopher Doyle Tackles 3D in 'Rabbit Horror'
Source: THR

Cinematographer Christopher Doyle will dive through the 3D looking glass for the first time, right into The Rabbit Horror, director Takashi Shimizu's upcoming multimillion-dollar film about a boy and his scary stuffed toy, producer and sales agent Fortissimo Films said Friday.

Boarding Rabbit as executive producer and picking up worldwide rights excluding Japan at AFM, Fortissimo chairman Michael Werner said the film, which bows in the summer, represents a return to Shimizu's classic horror style, evoking hits like The Grudge.

"We are thrilled to be part of this amazing collaboration between one of the world's masters of the horror genre and one of the world's most visual and inspirational cinematographers," said Werner, who negotiated world rights with Rabbit producer Satoru Ogura.

Rabbit is the first collaboration between Shimizu and Doyle and marks Doyle's first use of 3D.

Set against the backdrop of a boy's crumbling family, the film explores the his dangerous relationship with a stuffed toy animal that comes to life.

Currently in postproduction, Rabbit is was written Sotaro Hayashi, Daisuke Hosaka and Takashi Shimizu and stars Hikari Mitsushima (The Villain) and Teruyuki Kagawa (Tokyo Sonata).

Esther Yeung, Fortissimo's director of marketing and Asian acquisitions and sales, also helped close the rights deal and also will executive produce.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy