Support NeoGAF

[inm8num2]

Film Critic Hulk posted his first long essay in nearly seven months and it's a damn good one.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/05/12/the-revenant-mad-max-and-the-nexus-of-cinematic-language1

The essay's broken up into the following sections related to "the nexus of cinematic language:

1. GLOSSARY
2. THE ACT OF LOOKING
3. THE DANGER OF SINGULAR TONES
4. FUNCTIONAL FILMMAKING
5. EGO
6. MOTIVATED CAMERA MOVEMENT
7. THE NEXUS OF CINEMATIC FUNCTION

And yes, it's in all caps. If that bothers you, just copy the text and convert it to lowercase in a word processor or site like this (you may have to do it in chunks if there are character limits). But don't let that stop you from reading the essay.

Hulk deconstructs Iñárritu's style and approach in contrast to that of George Miller or Spielberg (or Cuaron). Fincher and Nolan get a few mentions, too, in terms of their distinctive but singular styles. However, the essay is not intended to be a malicious teardown of Iñárritu, as prefaced in the intro. There are plenty of choice quotes to pick out and highlight, but it's probably better to just read it from start to finish.

Anyway, get reading filmGAF.

 

[HStallion]

I will check this out but I'm at the point Film Critic Hulks shtick should just end already. It got old years ago and just seems like some relic from when he first started writing.

 

[SamuelSupreme]

Tagged. Will read next time im shittinh.

 

[Sagely]

Awesome, I've been waiting for another Film Crit Hulk essay for months! Just need to allow myself some time this weekend for a good long read. I'm a Fincher fan so am curious to read what Hulk says about his work (I really enjoyed the Gone Girl essay).

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Ultimately, the film has more camping than Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows.

Film Crit Hulk with the jokes.

 

[BocoDragon]

ILL READ IT THE NEXT TIME I HAVE 20 MINUTES

 

[obin_gam]

tl;dr

 

[Bronx-Man]

Nice, it's been forever since Hulk came out with a new piece.

 

[kavanf1]

Great read. I loved this because he nails the issues I have with The Revenant but I've not been cinematically educated enough to articulate.

 

[Razorback]

First time I'm hearing of this Hulk critic. That was a pretty good read. The whole thing is pretty much just him calling Inarritu pretentious. But he goes out of his way to contextualize what that really means using a lot of good examples. He made a very good case for it, I'm convinced.

 

[The Technomancer]

Good to have Hulk back. Not one of his best essays, but I'm eager to see him back writing

 

[Harry Stewart]

Finally. Love reading his stuff. I don't think I even agree with most of this essay, but it's always interesting to see how he breaks down cinema. I think I am a bit further on the sliding scale of appreciating form more than function. I thought The Revenant was a little dumb, but a lot of its impact comes from the "holy shit" factor of someone having the balls to make the movie on that scale and in that way.

 

[Paltheos]

Never heard of this guy before. This is a good read! (so far)

I agree with his points about The Revenant. My friends and I turned it on a couple weeks ago as none of us had ever seen it, and we all left mostly fuzzy on the experience. We enjoyed the intensity of the movie but the actual story of the film left us with much to be desired. I wouldn't call us bored, but outside of those elements of the film we were disengaged, and we all agreed we wouldn't particularly recommend it to anyone else. If you want intense movies, there's much better we can and have seen.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Great read. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[p2535748]

If you like his writing, his book on screenwriting is actually excellent, and it comes in both caps and non caps version (in the same book) making it easier to read.

I read this yesterday, and thought it was excellent. I like Fincher more than he does, but he breaks down exactly his problems with Fincher and others, and it's hard to argue with what he's saying.

One thing I definitely agree with him on is the fact that a lot of people are really sleeping on Spielberg's recent output.

 

[kinggroin]

I love this guy; wish I was both as articulate, charming, and intelligent as him.

 

[Razorback]

If you like his writing, his book on screenwriting is actually excellent, and it comes in both caps and non caps version (in the same book) making it easier to read.

I read this yesterday, and thought it was excellent. I like Fincher more than he does, but he breaks down exactly his problems with Fincher and others, and it's hard to argue with what he's saying.

One thing I definitely agree with him on is the fact that a lot of people are really sleeping on Spielberg's recent output.

Spielberg's mastery is undeniable, but the subject matters he's been choosing lately just aren't my cup of tea. I assume many feel the same way.

 

[inm8num2]

One thing I definitely agree with him on is the fact that a lot of people are really sleeping on Spielberg's recent output.

This comment made an interesting point.

 

[Timeaisis]

Read like half of it yesterday. God damn it's long. I like Film Critic Hulk, but I cannot stand the capitalize style, really strains my eyes.

Anyway, I got through the Miller and Spielberg bits. I agree with probably 75% of it. I definitely feel Inarritu is overly concerned with style and beauty with his shots, while sometimes sacrificing efficiency of storytelling, which is the hallmark of Spielberg. However, I'm not so sure I agree with the "one tone" argument he purports to the the style of directors like Fincher and Nolan. While I do agree Nolan seems like a one-tone pony (grim immediacy), I don't think that necessarily means he can't shift tone/emotiona when necessary.

Furthermore, I might be an outlier here, but I think tone is in fact something that encapsulates an entire film. I think Spielberg's tone is often just one that can offer shifts in emotion without confusing the audience. It's not a tonal shift, it's an emotional one. I did find the Revenant a little heavy-handed on the emotion of grief and sadness, without really exploring much of anything else. I think that's why directors like Scorsesse and Spielberg are so much legends in their craft: they can make a tonally serious film (like Schindler's List or Goodfellas) but still have moments of levity, happiness, humor, sadness, anger, etc. without loosing the core tone of the film.

I'll get through the rest of the article later today. I guess tl;dr I agree with the conclusions he draws (some directors are overly obsessed with the "artistic language" of cinema without considering the mechanic, storytelling language of it), but I'm not sure I agree with how he gets there (one-tone filmmaking is the problem).

EDIT: I will comment on Spipelberg again, because he's da best. Bridge of Spies was really, really good and people sleep on it because it's Spielberg. We have this brilliant dude that has been wowing us for 40 years and we take his output for granted because we're used to it. It's a really interesting point FCH makes about this somewhere halfway through the essay about if Bridge was directed by a young up and comer, we would not stop talking about him.

 

[Maxrunner]

The problem with The Revenant is that you don't actually care that much for the characters, inarritu is more interested in filming the scenery with these "beautiful moments" thing than fleshing out the characters so that you actually care about them...the fact that i found Hardy more interesting says something. In that sense Fury Road is more efficient and it is a more action oriented movie....actually i thought Fury Road should have won either best movie or best director....

 

[Inferno313]

This is great. I've always found Inaritu's work to be gorgeous but emotionally and thematically hollow. I think Hulk is right on the money here.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

I skipped Bridge of Spies because of how shit the trailers were, and if the wider reception to the trailers was anything like the reception they got on GAF [1] [2], then I'm safe in assuming I wasn't alone there. It's not that I was sleeping on Spielberg, it's that the studio did a shit job selling his latest film. And then I forgot about it until it got an Oscar.

 

[Bit-Bit]

OMG YAAAAASSSSS.

Will read this tonight in bed.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

This comment made an interesting point.

No lies detected.

 

[Mac the KNife]

IS ALL CAPS PART OF THE AUTHOR'S SCHTICK?!

EDIT: NM I ACTUALLY READ THE OP NOW.

 

[George Oscar Bluth II]

This was a really good read! The second essay I've read by him and I definitely need to read more.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

EDIT: I will comment on Spielberg again, because he's da best. Bridge of Spies was really, really good and people sleep on it because it's Spielberg. We have this brilliant dude that has been wowing us for 40 years and we take his output for granted because we're used to it. It's a really interesting point FCH makes about this somewhere halfway through the essay about if Bridge was directed by a young up and comer, we would not stop talking about him.

I lamented something similar about it in the 'movies you saw' thread. Bridge of Spies was awesome, if somewhat uneventful, but also felt like the coming end of an era where movies were actually crafted, not hashed together by a few producers and calling it a day, or for the ego of the director.
Honestly made me feel somewhat depressed about where movie are going lately. I also did not give a shit about the Revenant. There is a great nature movie in there (somebody light the David Attenborough signal! ), but Leo keeps stumbling through it for some reason.

I can't read CRITICAL HULK in all caps though. Really needs to let that shtick go.

 

[HoJu]

this person writes a lot without saying much. have a feeling it's Devin Faraci.

 

[Croyles]

I can't believe I didn't know about Hulk. While I cannot stand the caps, he perfectly sums up pretty much everything I dislike about Inarritu in a much more coherent fashion than the jumble of my semi formed thoughts.

Inarritu always reminded me of a first year college kid's "Thesaurus: The Essay".

Birdman always made me think: Why have a whole film appear to be a one shot? Does it actually serve the story? In parts it does, but it would work a lot better if used more sparingly and together with other techniques.

"From the time we open our eyes, we live in steadycam form. The only editing is when we talk about things or remember them."

Not only do I strongly disagree with the base statement, but why are memories not important to Inarritu? They make up a huge part of our lives and shape us in a major way.
You wanted to use a film technique that is respected by the industry for its logistical difficulty and not because its artistically the right thing to do. Then you lied to yourself about why you did it.

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

Why would you write in all caps. Just why.

 

[Akahige]

Makes some really good points. Nice read.

Yeah the caps are annoying but less so on mobile.

 

[nomis]

this person writes a lot without saying much. have a feeling it's Devin Faraci.

Longwinded or no, Faraci is not intelligent enough to moonlight as FCH.

 

[atr0cious]

Went back and read the Birdman "screed" he posted to see what he was talking about here:

A FILMMAKER WHOSE DEFAULT USE OF "BEAUTIFUL" AND "SOULFUL" TONES SPEAK TO THE FILM HE WANTS TO MAKE, INSTEAD OF WHATEVER THE CINEMATIC MOMENT ACTUALLY CALLS FOR. NOW, ALL OF THIS IS PERHAPS BEST CHARACTERIZED BY HULK'S 18,000 WORD SCREED AGAINST THE MORAL QUAGMIRE THAT WAS BIRDMAN

and the dude straight missed the point of Birdman. He keeps pointing out how self-serving the movie is, and how its all about Riggan, but he never puts it together that the point of the film is Riggan being self-serving to himself in the last moments of his life. The whole movie takes place right before he dies on the beach, which is why the first and one of the last shots are of that beach covered in jelly fish. Everything said and shot is from Riggan's contradicting point of view of what it means to be an artist in a shitty world blazing past him. The whole movie is a question to himself about what would've happened if he'd been super successful in turning his life around, and in the end, he would be doing the same thing he'd been doing, being super successful, which in turn would drive him away from his family, again. So he let's go.

Birdman always made me think: Why have a whole film appear to be a one shot? Does it actually serve the story? In parts it does, but it would work a lot better if used more sparingly and together with other techniques.

The whole movie is a day dream, where time really doesn't matter.

 

[Aurongel]

Love his analytical work, hate his schtick. But I guess it got him noticed in the first place I guess. The Internet as a whole caters more towards animated hyperbolistic takes on film review anyway. At least FCH lets you sorta opt out of that part of it in a way.

 

[Croyles]

The whole movie is a day dream, where time really doesn't matter.

I'm sorry but I very much doubt it. If it is, it just makes the movie worse. The whole film one shot is super self serving either way. It's like shooting everything with super Dutch angles. Wasn't there a film that did that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8z7-DIa1As