Or is turned off by spending two hours watching a movie about a bloke who sells computers for a living.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Or is turned off by spending two hours watching a movie about a bloke who sells computers for a living.
Then they should have credited him.
That's not really how a homage works.
Yeah I suppose that it didn't challenge perceptions and that could be seen as one flaw. But it did seem to be a slice of (one kind of) life type of film, something of a commentary on something you know exists. I really enjoyed it.
I'll check out that one. Thanks.
Well making money from a movie which features imagery almost identical to that created by a specific artist - without formally acknowledging his prior art - is exactly how ripping off works.
Yeah he's not making money off those images though is he. No one is seeing the film for those scenes. Was Scorsese ripping off The Great Train Robbery with the final shot of Goodfellas? No, he was paying homage.
He's making money from a movie featuring those scenes (which were some of the most striking and memorable scenes in the whole film) so the least he could do was mention Mosse's work in the credits. This is all the more important when you consider that this is a major movie feature (with a multi-million dollar budget) that is copying the work of a not very well known (and not very wealthy) photographer. Not comparable at all with drawing inspiration from classic movies of the past.
Musicians routinely pay for sampling other musicians beats, why shouldn't movie-makers pay for "sampling" someone else's visual art? Or at the very least, give credit where it's due. There was no mention of Mosse in the credits and, as far as I can work out, he's never once been mentioned in any publicity associated with the film. It's only down to film critics bringing up the similarity that Mosse's name has become associated with the imagery in the film. Fukunaga ripped off someone else's work without acknowledging their contribution and that's not cool at all.
Last edited:
Well I disagree. Also Mosse is a very well known photographer. It's not copying either, it's using the same visual technique.
The same visual technique to present near identical subject matter. That's copying.
Anyway, it's a great film and I'm coming across as hating it because of this. I didn't. I enjoyed it and Fukunaga deserves credit for making a really great-looking film, the majority of which wasn't derivative at all.
Well every film director ever is in trouble then.
I'm partly in #teamPogue on this one after seeing those pictures, I'm sure it's meant as a hommage as you say Archie, and I don't think he should have been mentioned in the credits per se, but I do find not mentioning him at all in any publicity or press conferences related to the film slightly odd, given how similar the images are. I didn't know Mosse's work (I hardly know any photographers) and a bit of publicity in relation to what are indeed some of the most striking and memorable images of the film would have been a nice touch.
He has credited him in press conferences.
Oh ok, Pogue was suggesting otherwise. It's ok then, he has the RiP seal of approval.
Well I can't believe I'm actually ferreting around for this info but the video in which he discusses it with an interviewer was posted on youtube two days before that statement came out. So I don't know. Filmmakers don't generally cite homages in their credits, an homage should be self evident, which these shots clearly are.
I'll also point out that Mosse didn't invent infrared photography and shots with that colour palette have been around for ages. The context is what makes the homage.
I'll also point out that Mosse didn't invent infrared photography and shots with that colour palette have been around for ages. The context is what makes the homage.
It's an interesting discussion and might be worthy of a thread all on its own but IMO there has to be a line someone can cross between paying homage and ripping something off. This can be left up to the lawyers* but in a scenario like this I reckon a lot of the bad feeling could have been avoided had Fukunaga been a bit more open about his influences, bearing in mind that scene so closely matched one made by a much less well known film-maker.
In fairness to Fukunaga there isn't that much of him discussing the film full stop. A few Q and As at film festivals at this point. Mosse's statement is quite terse but he just calls him derivative. Well, Mosse is derivative. And so are most artists. Not many filmmakers would pass the sniff test if that's the standard they're held to. Maybe that's wrong.
I think it's a far cry from re-appropriation artists like Richard Prince who take someones actual work and repackage it, then sell it for hundreds of thousands.
Agreed. Social Network was a huge yawn and I won't be watching this either.
Yep, that was precisely the issue with Social Network. At the end of the day it's about a guy who starts a website. Woop-dee-fecking-doo.
No I thought Social network did well in making it not boring. I think some of the plot was exaggerated but it made for a good film in my opinion. The only bad David Fincher film I've seen is The [not so] Curious Case Benjamin Button.
Social Network was more about a guy trying to be accepted and about a generation always searching for social approval than about the creation of a website.
Yeah a lot of great films could be reduced to "it's just a guy who does this, whoopdy doo".
How come Man On Fire has such poor reviews? I thought it was a great film.
Aye. The King's Speech - "it's just about a fancypants royal with a speech impediment."
Shine - "just a crazy guy who's really good at playing the piano."
The Fighter - "guy with a troubled life becomes a boxer, meh."
Really odd way of looking at biographical films.
Just watched Hunger games. I absolutely loved it.
10/10
10/10
You thought the film was bad or OK? Does have 84% on RT so that's pretty good.
Good films tbh. 3rd one not so much but 1 & 2 were enjoyable.
It has to do with human perception. External phenomanamana as processed by the human brain can appear and appeal slightly, or largely different to different individuals. This is broadly incorporated into the idea of opinions.
Last edited:
Saw Oharu and really enjoyed it. But at this stage I'm wondering if I've had my fill of the suffering of women and their societal burdens, having sat through most of Dreyer, Bresson, Mizoguchi, Ramsay, Arnold, and even Von Trier's takes on the theme. As brilliant as they all were, I do feel like a bit of a tourist at this point.
Steve Jobs - S'good.
I was talking about The Social Network which surely even people who didn't hate it can't think it is a great film?
It was named the best film of 2010 by The New York Times, The New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Los Angeles Times, Roger Ebert and many more. It's one of the most acclaimed films of the last twenty years.
It was? Amazing as it was one of the dullest most pointless films of the year and the lead actor has had a charismaectomy.
Yes Wibble but you've shat on quite a lot of films that are considered great so I'm not sure why you're surprised.
madnessNope. Most of them are bland films with no actual content. Social Network is about as bang average as a film gets. At least that's how I feel.
Most of what? Great films?
Nope. Most of them are bland films with no actual content. Social Network is about as bang average as a film gets. At least that's how I feel.
Nope. Ones that deserve that reaction, like The Social Network, which obviously isn't a great film.
Obvious to whom? Some of the world's most respected critics think it is.
To me? I'm sure you don't form your opinions based on "respective critics", either right?
I guess it's one of those things that is highly rated that I found a bit rubbish. Like Hurt Locker, or The Grand Budapest Hotel.
Thing with Social Network is, that it isn't even a very creative film. They're not exactly reaching for the stars, it's not very ambitious. A film like Birdman for example aims pretty high, even if some people dont like it. Anyway, people think highly of it, I don't get it.