Adaptation
in Movies ·
Honestly, though, this is easily one of the best movies of the year. And probably one of the most fun ones, too.
Home ›
Richard Hernandez13 › Posts
Posts by Richard Hernandez13
850 posts shown.
Must be nice living in the big city...
in Movies ·
fadedsailor932 said:Coming from a small town myself, I feel pretty lucky because our local cinema just underwent this massive renovation recently—and honestly, I have to admit, they did an absolutely incredible job with it.
Columbus?
Musicals: Yes or no?
in Movies ·
blueranger12, I’m really glad you brought up Hitchcock, because for the longest time, his peers and the critics basically dismissed him as just an "excellent technician," claiming his plots and genres were nothing more than trivial fluff. It wasn't until the French New Wave came along that people actually started calling him an auteur.
If we take a closer look at the narrative of Vertigo, we’ll realize it’s actually completely unbelievable. If this story had been left in the hands of some director without a clear vision, the whole thing would have been a disaster. But Hitchcock tells it from his own very specific perspective—you know, all that psychology, Freud, sex, obsession, blondes... Just think about that famous scene where James Stewart waits for Kim Novak to step out of the bathroom; there is so much raw emotion packed into that moment, and they don't even need a single line of dialogue to pull it off.
I recently caught Shyamalan's Signs, and if you strip away his directing style, the actual plot is painfully unconvincing, if not downright silly. But Shyamalan uses his direction and his unique way of storytelling to glide over all those logical gaps so elegantly that you almost find yourself believing that super-advanced aliens, who traveled halfway across the universe to reach Earth, somehow couldn't manage to pry a few nailed-down boards off a window (I guess they were in such a rush they forgot their toolkit or something).
As for Armageddon, redowl90, I think you might be picking a bit of an extreme example (though, granted, it is extremely bad). I didn't see it in theaters, but a few years back, I was sitting right here in front of my TV, saw the trailer for Armageddon, and decided to give it a watch—only to realize fifteen minutes later that I wasn't watching a trailer anymore, I was already deep into the actual movie!! Jesus Christ! The entire film is directed like one long, continuous trailer! Michael Bay has essentially taken a century of cinematic evolution and flushed it down the toilet. It’s total culture genocide! That cinematic Neanderthal seems to believe that to make a film "exciting," all you need to do is cut the film strips thinner than how Steve Karapandža would slice them, then stitch frames together that last maybe 0.0001 seconds, creating a viewing experience that probably only appeals to people with Attention deficit Disorder. You wouldn't think Moulin Rouge! is the same kind of thing, though. I don't think it is, because the style in Moulin Rouge! actually enriches the story, whereas in Armageddon, Bay seems to think he's tackling heavy, serious themes while editing the footage so chaotically he should have put an Epilepsy warning on the screen before it even started.
To wrap this up: a movie has a narrative, sure, but it also has a visual component, and it isn't automatically a bad thing if the visuals overshadow the story (after all, we watch movies, we don't read them). I was watching an interview with Martin Scorsese recently where he mentioned how he’s still fascinated by the magic of cinema—that moment when two shots merge to create a third one right inside your head.
P.S.
Can someone please tell me how to change the 'member' tag under my nickname? Please!
If we take a closer look at the narrative of Vertigo, we’ll realize it’s actually completely unbelievable. If this story had been left in the hands of some director without a clear vision, the whole thing would have been a disaster. But Hitchcock tells it from his own very specific perspective—you know, all that psychology, Freud, sex, obsession, blondes... Just think about that famous scene where James Stewart waits for Kim Novak to step out of the bathroom; there is so much raw emotion packed into that moment, and they don't even need a single line of dialogue to pull it off.
I recently caught Shyamalan's Signs, and if you strip away his directing style, the actual plot is painfully unconvincing, if not downright silly. But Shyamalan uses his direction and his unique way of storytelling to glide over all those logical gaps so elegantly that you almost find yourself believing that super-advanced aliens, who traveled halfway across the universe to reach Earth, somehow couldn't manage to pry a few nailed-down boards off a window (I guess they were in such a rush they forgot their toolkit or something).
As for Armageddon, redowl90, I think you might be picking a bit of an extreme example (though, granted, it is extremely bad). I didn't see it in theaters, but a few years back, I was sitting right here in front of my TV, saw the trailer for Armageddon, and decided to give it a watch—only to realize fifteen minutes later that I wasn't watching a trailer anymore, I was already deep into the actual movie!! Jesus Christ! The entire film is directed like one long, continuous trailer! Michael Bay has essentially taken a century of cinematic evolution and flushed it down the toilet. It’s total culture genocide! That cinematic Neanderthal seems to believe that to make a film "exciting," all you need to do is cut the film strips thinner than how Steve Karapandža would slice them, then stitch frames together that last maybe 0.0001 seconds, creating a viewing experience that probably only appeals to people with Attention deficit Disorder. You wouldn't think Moulin Rouge! is the same kind of thing, though. I don't think it is, because the style in Moulin Rouge! actually enriches the story, whereas in Armageddon, Bay seems to think he's tackling heavy, serious themes while editing the footage so chaotically he should have put an Epilepsy warning on the screen before it even started.
To wrap this up: a movie has a narrative, sure, but it also has a visual component, and it isn't automatically a bad thing if the visuals overshadow the story (after all, we watch movies, we don't read them). I was watching an interview with Martin Scorsese recently where he mentioned how he’s still fascinated by the magic of cinema—that moment when two shots merge to create a third one right inside your head.
P.S.
Can someone please tell me how to change the 'member' tag under my nickname? Please!
Musicals: Yes or no?
in Movies ·
Is "Andalusian Dog" actually a bad movie just because it lacks a traditional plot?
I think it was Peter Greenaway who put it something like this:
"A film is far too serious an undertaking to be left solely to the storyteller."
I’d say I agree with him about 60% of the way—it’s all a little too radical for my taste, honestly.
I think it was Peter Greenaway who put it something like this:
"A film is far too serious an undertaking to be left solely to the storyteller."
I’d say I agree with him about 60% of the way—it’s all a little too radical for my taste, honestly.
Musicals: Yes or no?
in Movies ·
redowl90 said:Look, I’m not exactly demanding that every single movie be scripted with the depth of the thin red line or The Godfather, but man, that script in Moulin Rouge was just a total disaster... Honestly, what’s the point of sitting through something when the story feels like something we’ve already chewed on in hundreds of other films?
[/B] [/B]
I really don't have anything against those classic tropes or stories told a hundred times before, provided they're presented in a way that actually feels new and fresh. It makes me wonder, though—would everyone still think Memento is such a genius masterpiece if it hadn't been told using that specific non-linear structure? The plot in Moulin Rouge is pretty basic and almost cheesy, kind of like one of those old pulp novels, which matches its flashy style perfectly. But honestly, the unique way that story is delivered is absolutely vital to actually understanding it and enjoying the ride.
Musicals: Yes or no?
in Movies ·
Alright, let’s talk musicals for a second.
Musicals—yes or no? For me, it’s a resounding YES.
I honestly don't get how someone can call themselves a "film lover" while simultaneously turning their nose up at an entire genre or subgenre. I’ll say it without any shame: I’ve seen "Moulin Rouge!" in a theater three times. And honestly? I loved every single minute of it. So, I feel like I owe it to myself to step in and defend it a little bit here.
"'Moulin Rouge!' has one of the worst scripts of the last decade." Well, dear White, my response to that is pretty simple: stop looking for something in a movie that just isn't there. It’s kind of like saying Coppola’s "The Godfather" is a bad movie just because, hey, it didn't make me laugh until I cried. You catch my drift? You can't go into "Moulin Rouge!" expecting some heavy, grinding plot or deep psychological layering, because if you do, you're completely missing the whole point. Even Baz Luhrmann himself described it as a "simple story told in an unusual way." At its heart, it's a tale of love, art, and the spectacle of show business, presented as a "play within a film" (don't forget that curtain rising right at the start!), which might make the drama feel a bit thin initially. The characters aren't meant to be gritty or hyper-realistic; they are archetypes—larger-than-life figures—and the actors embody them perfectly. If you look at his style, the film is this hyper-stylized postmodern circus, a whirlwind of editing and glorious, over-the-top kitsch. Just beautiful kitsch. In an era where film aesthetics have been stripped down by the search for "truth" and "purity"—resulting in all that digital shaky-cam and various "dogmas"—this wild Australian guy showed up with the exact opposite philosophy. He took a genre that isn't "realistic" and proved just how different "dogma" and true artistry can actually be, standing much firmer in his convictions than the pseudo-artistic pretenders on the other side of the fence. But does that mean "Moulin Rouge!" is just "style over substance"? Not at all. Personally, I don't think there's a fixed formula for mixing those two in art; if there were, art would lose its ability to surprise us and sweep us off our feet. Even "dance in the dark" (which IS a musical) has those highly stylized musical numbers, which, by the way, are the only parts I actually enjoy (the rest is just unadulterated sadism committed in the name of "art"). Oh, and I almost forgot... von Trier even included a nod to the classic musical through Joel Gray (I honestly thought he had retired ages ago!). Luhrmann leans into kitsch and camp because that’s been his signature since day one. Besides, how can you not love a guy who boldly claimed that "good taste is the greatest enemy of art"?
"'Moulin Rouge!' is stuffed with songs that weren't written specifically for the film, probably just to lure the mindless masses into the theater." That was basically the sentiment floating around the Oscars threads. The truth is, the reason Luhrmann reached for a jukebox of modern pop and rock is simply because he loves those songs, and nobody can take that away from him. You think that's unoriginal? For your information, most film musicals are adaptations of Broadway shows; even classics like "Singin' in the Rain" only have two original songs, and even Woody Allen’s "Everyone Says I Love You" is essentially a collage of Broadway tunes. If you can give Allen a pass, it feels a bit hypocritical to blame Luhrmann. And so what if they're pop songs? It doesn't bother me. Sure, they’re the kind of tracks that usually make me want to yell at my local radio DJ, but Luhrmann approaches them with such genuine passion that it completely disarms me and forces me to see things from a different perspective—which is a rare gift. To claim that "pop" or "fun" stuff doesn't count as "Cinema" seems elitist, snobbish, and—sadly—just plain ignorant. Viewing film strictly as "high art" rather than "entertainment" ignores the very roots of cinema as a mass-marketed, carnival-style diversion.
To wrap this up: I am genuinely looking forward to "Chicago" and all the other upcoming musicals. "Moulin Rouge!" convinced me that there are no limits when it comes to creating art, let alone enjoying it. We are the ones who create the boundaries, and more often than not, those boundaries are just another name for prejudice and ignorance.
To wrap things up, I’d really love to throw a recommendation out there to all my fellow musical lovers: give "1776" a watch, since it's all about how the United States actually came to be. You can usually catch it playing on various networks like AMC or even streaming on some of the classics. Honestly, with all the global posturing and the tension of a potential war feeling so heavy right now—I might even be typing this just as things start heating up—I'd just ask you to please try to go into the film without any preconceived notions and just... enjoy it.
Truth, Beauty, Freedom, Love!😉
Musicals—yes or no? For me, it’s a resounding YES.
I honestly don't get how someone can call themselves a "film lover" while simultaneously turning their nose up at an entire genre or subgenre. I’ll say it without any shame: I’ve seen "Moulin Rouge!" in a theater three times. And honestly? I loved every single minute of it. So, I feel like I owe it to myself to step in and defend it a little bit here.
"'Moulin Rouge!' has one of the worst scripts of the last decade." Well, dear White, my response to that is pretty simple: stop looking for something in a movie that just isn't there. It’s kind of like saying Coppola’s "The Godfather" is a bad movie just because, hey, it didn't make me laugh until I cried. You catch my drift? You can't go into "Moulin Rouge!" expecting some heavy, grinding plot or deep psychological layering, because if you do, you're completely missing the whole point. Even Baz Luhrmann himself described it as a "simple story told in an unusual way." At its heart, it's a tale of love, art, and the spectacle of show business, presented as a "play within a film" (don't forget that curtain rising right at the start!), which might make the drama feel a bit thin initially. The characters aren't meant to be gritty or hyper-realistic; they are archetypes—larger-than-life figures—and the actors embody them perfectly. If you look at his style, the film is this hyper-stylized postmodern circus, a whirlwind of editing and glorious, over-the-top kitsch. Just beautiful kitsch. In an era where film aesthetics have been stripped down by the search for "truth" and "purity"—resulting in all that digital shaky-cam and various "dogmas"—this wild Australian guy showed up with the exact opposite philosophy. He took a genre that isn't "realistic" and proved just how different "dogma" and true artistry can actually be, standing much firmer in his convictions than the pseudo-artistic pretenders on the other side of the fence. But does that mean "Moulin Rouge!" is just "style over substance"? Not at all. Personally, I don't think there's a fixed formula for mixing those two in art; if there were, art would lose its ability to surprise us and sweep us off our feet. Even "dance in the dark" (which IS a musical) has those highly stylized musical numbers, which, by the way, are the only parts I actually enjoy (the rest is just unadulterated sadism committed in the name of "art"). Oh, and I almost forgot... von Trier even included a nod to the classic musical through Joel Gray (I honestly thought he had retired ages ago!). Luhrmann leans into kitsch and camp because that’s been his signature since day one. Besides, how can you not love a guy who boldly claimed that "good taste is the greatest enemy of art"?
"'Moulin Rouge!' is stuffed with songs that weren't written specifically for the film, probably just to lure the mindless masses into the theater." That was basically the sentiment floating around the Oscars threads. The truth is, the reason Luhrmann reached for a jukebox of modern pop and rock is simply because he loves those songs, and nobody can take that away from him. You think that's unoriginal? For your information, most film musicals are adaptations of Broadway shows; even classics like "Singin' in the Rain" only have two original songs, and even Woody Allen’s "Everyone Says I Love You" is essentially a collage of Broadway tunes. If you can give Allen a pass, it feels a bit hypocritical to blame Luhrmann. And so what if they're pop songs? It doesn't bother me. Sure, they’re the kind of tracks that usually make me want to yell at my local radio DJ, but Luhrmann approaches them with such genuine passion that it completely disarms me and forces me to see things from a different perspective—which is a rare gift. To claim that "pop" or "fun" stuff doesn't count as "Cinema" seems elitist, snobbish, and—sadly—just plain ignorant. Viewing film strictly as "high art" rather than "entertainment" ignores the very roots of cinema as a mass-marketed, carnival-style diversion.
To wrap this up: I am genuinely looking forward to "Chicago" and all the other upcoming musicals. "Moulin Rouge!" convinced me that there are no limits when it comes to creating art, let alone enjoying it. We are the ones who create the boundaries, and more often than not, those boundaries are just another name for prejudice and ignorance.
To wrap things up, I’d really love to throw a recommendation out there to all my fellow musical lovers: give "1776" a watch, since it's all about how the United States actually came to be. You can usually catch it playing on various networks like AMC or even streaming on some of the classics. Honestly, with all the global posturing and the tension of a potential war feeling so heavy right now—I might even be typing this just as things start heating up—I'd just ask you to please try to go into the film without any preconceived notions and just... enjoy it.
Truth, Beauty, Freedom, Love!😉
Musicals: Yes or no?
in Movies ·
One of the real issues we face is that our entire movie repertoire seems to consist of just one slice of the massive American film industry—specifically, those big commercial blockbusters that get all the spotlight. Even though there’s still this incredibly vibrant independent scene right here in the States, and lately, thanks to how cheap digital video has become, we've seen these gutsy little experimental projects popping up everywhere, they unfortunately never seem to make their way into our local theaters.
When is Star Wars: Episode III coming out?
in Movies ·
It hit theaters in the summer of 2005—which actually follows their usual pattern, since every single installment has dropped about three years after the last one ('77, '80, '83... which translates to '99, '02, '05) and they always seem to aim for that summer release window.
Minority Report
in Movies ·
slyrider16 said:I really want to clear up a few misconceptions here...
First off, the budget for Minority Report was $102 million—and yeah, that covers everything from the actors' salaries to the entire crew.
The film ended up pulling in $342 million at the global box office.
So, what does that actually tell us? Honestly, not much until you start digging into the other numbers. Just looking at the US market, the marketing and distribution costs for that movie alone were about $40 million. So, we’re looking at $142 million spent in the US versus $132 million earned there. If we tack on the marketing and distribution costs for the rest of the world—which I don't have the exact figures for, but let's guess around $30 million—we’ve spent $172 million so far. On top of that, with most big-budget A-list productions featuring massive stars and famous directors, a certain percentage of the gross goes straight to them on top of their base pay. Since I don't have the specific breakdown, let's just assume that wasn't the case for Minority Report, though those percentages can easily climb over 10% in other films.
So, it's $172 million spent against $342 million earned. But here's the kicker: that $342 million is the gross revenue, basically what people paid at the theater ticket booths. Usually, the profit split between distributors and theaters sits somewhere around 60/40, which means the producers (let's just call them a major Hollywood studio) likely walked away with about $200 million from Minority Report. What can we conclude from that? They cleared about $30 million just from theatrical revenue... and we haven't even touched the revenue from DVD and Microsoft sales, which lately have been consistently matching or even beating theater earnings. Then you've got TV licensing rights... plus potential tie-in products like toys and whatnot... all in all, Minority Report likely netted a pure profit of at least $200 million.
Even the infamous Waterworld managed to break even and cover its costs, despite only making $88 million at the domestic box office...
What's the lesson here? Don't believe every bit of nonsense you read in the press, whether it's some clickbait website or your daily newspaper...
You forgot to deduct taxes!!
Spider-Man
in Movies ·
Timothy Cox2 said:Richard Hernandez13: Is that Cardinal Fang on your avatar? If it is, that’s actually a pretty solid choice. 😁
It's actually Terry Gilliam playing that Spanish Inquisitor—I can't quite recall the specific name of the sketch off the top of my head. To be totally honest with you, I was originally leaning toward using Graham Chapman instead.
8 Mile
in Movies ·
I just stepped out of the movie theater.
The film is honestly great. It could have easily turned into a massive Eminem ego-trip, but Curtis Hanson did a fantastic job wrapping everything up into this compelling social drama—you know, the kind where you see the stark divide between the inner-city neighborhoods and the trailer parks. I was especially struck by how they captured the decaying streets of Detroit; it looks almost like some sort of gritty, urban Mad Max set design.
Eminem feels surprisingly natural on screen, though I have to say, Basinger's performance is the absolute standout for me.
And those rap battle scenes? They are seriously, incredibly well-executed.
The film is honestly great. It could have easily turned into a massive Eminem ego-trip, but Curtis Hanson did a fantastic job wrapping everything up into this compelling social drama—you know, the kind where you see the stark divide between the inner-city neighborhoods and the trailer parks. I was especially struck by how they captured the decaying streets of Detroit; it looks almost like some sort of gritty, urban Mad Max set design.
Eminem feels surprisingly natural on screen, though I have to say, Basinger's performance is the absolute standout for me.
And those rap battle scenes? They are seriously, incredibly well-executed.
Spider-Man
in Movies ·
Kevin Chavez3 said:Look, Ben Affleck was in both "Merchants" and "Chasing Amy"... 🙏
I think you mean "Rat from the Shopping Mall." Ben Affleck actually wasn't in "Merchants."
Those are really the only two movies where he actually had an acting role; in all the others, he was basically just making a cameo appearance.
Spider-Man
in Movies ·
There’s really only one way to completely tank a movie: you hire Ben Affleck to play the lead role.
Let's start a film festival!
in Movies ·
Hey The Dude, you totally forgot about that 5:00 AM drizzle that gently nudges you awake (assuming you’re an outdoor sleeper like I am).
It’s actually pretty common for the Democratic Party to draw in a huge crowd of people who are really just there for the vibes (especially during the opening and closing days). But honestly, we shouldn't look at that as a negative thing—you know, the "fair-weather fans." Last year, almost all the screenings were sold out, but that doesn't mean the crowds were limited to just the ticket holders. At the main plaza where the big theater is located, you can easily catch a movie from outside the reserved seating area, and it’s become a bit of a tradition that once the theaters hit capacity, they just let in a bunch of kids without tickets anyway.
(For what it's worth, I personally caught 20 movies last year but only paid for one—"Hedwig and The Angry Inch"—because I absolutely couldn't miss it).
So, my best guess is that at least 60% of the attendees watched at least one film, and there are plenty of hardcore cinephiles out there just like me.
If you want real proof that the Democratic Party isn't some elitist club, just look at how the festival directors are always asking for feedback from the campers (yes, actual campers!) regarding improvements and the lineup for next year. Besides, one of the primary missions of the Democratic Party is actually film education through various workshops, though you rarely see that mentioned in the news.
Dante, nothing personal, but it always gets under my skin when someone tries to label the Democratic Party as "elitist."
It’s actually pretty common for the Democratic Party to draw in a huge crowd of people who are really just there for the vibes (especially during the opening and closing days). But honestly, we shouldn't look at that as a negative thing—you know, the "fair-weather fans." Last year, almost all the screenings were sold out, but that doesn't mean the crowds were limited to just the ticket holders. At the main plaza where the big theater is located, you can easily catch a movie from outside the reserved seating area, and it’s become a bit of a tradition that once the theaters hit capacity, they just let in a bunch of kids without tickets anyway.
(For what it's worth, I personally caught 20 movies last year but only paid for one—"Hedwig and The Angry Inch"—because I absolutely couldn't miss it).
So, my best guess is that at least 60% of the attendees watched at least one film, and there are plenty of hardcore cinephiles out there just like me.
If you want real proof that the Democratic Party isn't some elitist club, just look at how the festival directors are always asking for feedback from the campers (yes, actual campers!) regarding improvements and the lineup for next year. Besides, one of the primary missions of the Democratic Party is actually film education through various workshops, though you rarely see that mentioned in the news.
Dante, nothing personal, but it always gets under my skin when someone tries to label the Democratic Party as "elitist."
What is a Dogme 95 movie?
in Movies ·
I almost forgot to mention this:
Just a heads-up for all the Lars von Trier fans out there—PBS has started airing his eight-part series "The Kingdom." They’ve already put the first two episodes on, so you haven't missed too much yet. Catch it on Saturday nights after 11:00 PM on their main channel.
Just a heads-up for all the Lars von Trier fans out there—PBS has started airing his eight-part series "The Kingdom." They’ve already put the first two episodes on, so you haven't missed too much yet. Catch it on Saturday nights after 11:00 PM on their main channel.
What is a Dogme 95 movie?
in Movies ·
slyrider16 said:Even though Italian for beginners takes a different approach than those typical Hollywood romances, at the end of the day, it doesn't really give the audience... well, it certainly doesn't give ME a vibe that feels any different from those mass-produced Hollywood movies. It’s just different packaging for the exact same crap. 🙂
But honestly, I think Italian for beginners is pretty mainstream. What I actually found interesting was how it proved that Dogme95 isn't just this rigid, stuffy concept that limits itself to obscure, hard-to-digest films with an inevitable "art house" label slapped on them.
Maybe it's just because it was directed by a woman🙂.
To me, it feels like Dogme95 was primarily a brilliant bit of trolling that a whole lot of people ended up buying into. Even the creators of Dogma themselves admitted they were pretty tipsy when they wrote the manifesto and were basically laughing their heads off while doing it.
Let's start a film festival!
in Movies ·
So, these are your big arguments regarding why the Sundance Film Festival is supposedly "elitist."
Well, about 30,000 people turned out for the third Sundance, and by the fourth one, the crowd had grown by another 40-50%, mostly made up of younger crowds.
They actually have five different "venues" in total—three equipped with cinema projectors and two using digital setups. And you have to remember that some of these films get screened multiple times just because the audience keeps asking for them.
As for the lodging situation—honestly, camping is where it's at.
Carl Bennett78 said:How many people can actually show up to the Sundance Film Festival anyway? What kind of theater space are they even working with? You can't even find a hotel room in town; you're stuck booking at those local Spas, which means you're trekking all the way back to the city, and honestly, I can't sleep in a tent.
Well, about 30,000 people turned out for the third Sundance, and by the fourth one, the crowd had grown by another 40-50%, mostly made up of younger crowds.
They actually have five different "venues" in total—three equipped with cinema projectors and two using digital setups. And you have to remember that some of these films get screened multiple times just because the audience keeps asking for them.
As for the lodging situation—honestly, camping is where it's at.
Let's start a film festival!
in Movies ·
Carl Bennett78 said:Moscow has its own festivals, and they’re actually quite good, whereas we just have the elitist Sundance Film Festival which caters to maybe 500 people.
What makes you think Sundance is so "elitist," though?
I mean, the whole thing is super laid-back and informal! I’ve personally been there three times, sticking around from the very first day until the very last, and I never once got the vibe that it was some exclusive club.
At the end of the day, the films are always the real stars of the show.
What is a Dogme 95 movie?
in Movies ·
Any movies that strictly follow the Dogma manifesto get issued a Dogma certificate, which pops up right at the start of the film instead of the usual opening credits—though I think "Italian for beginners" was actually the first one to do it that way (it’s pretty wild to think that Scherfig's is the only female Dogme director out there).
It’s also kind of funny because even though "Julien Donkey-Boy" officially holds a Dogma certificate, it actually breaks the third rule regarding diegetic music, much like "Italian for beginners" did too.
If I'm being totally honest, I've always felt that Dogme95 is a bit of a gimmick. I mean, filmmakers were already shooting with a Hand-held camera and skipping the fancy lighting or soundtracks long before this came along—they just did it because they were broke and didn't have the budget!
If you want to see where those early Dogma aesthetics really started taking shape in American cinema, you should probably look back at Refnov's "Pusher".
It’s also kind of funny because even though "Julien Donkey-Boy" officially holds a Dogma certificate, it actually breaks the third rule regarding diegetic music, much like "Italian for beginners" did too.
If I'm being totally honest, I've always felt that Dogme95 is a bit of a gimmick. I mean, filmmakers were already shooting with a Hand-held camera and skipping the fancy lighting or soundtracks long before this came along—they just did it because they were broke and didn't have the budget!
If you want to see where those early Dogma aesthetics really started taking shape in American cinema, you should probably look back at Refnov's "Pusher".