FUNTALK1993
link
link
harryrossicinephile:

I just saw “The Double Life of Veronique” and I must say that it’s one of the greatest cinematic achievements I’ve ever had the pleasure to watch. 
Its hard to believe that every single frame of the film (such as the one above) is one of the most gorgeous things I’ve ever seen in my life.  I think I’ve fallen in love with Krzysztof Kieslowski after only one film…. I can’t wait for more. 

harryrossicinephile:

I just saw “The Double Life of Veronique” and I must say that it’s one of the greatest cinematic achievements I’ve ever had the pleasure to watch. 

Its hard to believe that every single frame of the film (such as the one above) is one of the most gorgeous things I’ve ever seen in my life.  I think I’ve fallen in love with Krzysztof Kieslowski after only one film…. I can’t wait for more. 

link

JAMES STEWART
link
oldhollywood:

Anthony Perkins in The Trial (1962, dir. Orson Welles)
Q. A critic who admires your work very much said that, in The Trial, you were repeating yourself…
Welles: Exactly, I repeated myself. I believe we do it all the time. We always take up certain elements again. How can it be avoided? An actor’s voice always has the same timbre and, consequently, he repeats himself. It is the same for a singer, a painter…There are always certain things that come back, for they are part of one’s personality, of one’s style. If these things didn’t come into play, a personality would be so complex that it would become impossible to identify it.
 It is not my intention to repeat myself, but in my work there should certainly be references to what I have done in the past. Say what you will, but The Trial is the best film I ever made…I have never been so happy as when I made this film.”
-excerpted from Orson Welles: Interviews

oldhollywood:

Anthony Perkins in The Trial (1962, dir. Orson Welles)

Q. A critic who admires your work very much said that, in The Trial, you were repeating yourself…

Welles: Exactly, I repeated myself. I believe we do it all the time. We always take up certain elements again. How can it be avoided? An actor’s voice always has the same timbre and, consequently, he repeats himself. It is the same for a singer, a painter…There are always certain things that come back, for they are part of one’s personality, of one’s style. If these things didn’t come into play, a personality would be so complex that it would become impossible to identify it.

It is not my intention to repeat myself, but in my work there should certainly be references to what I have done in the past. Say what you will, but The Trial is the best film I ever made…I have never been so happy as when I made this film.”

-excerpted from Orson Welles: Interviews

link
三部加拿大電影-三種威脅

一,幻想戀愛(Heartbeats, 2010)

二,巴尼正傳(Barney’s Version, 2010)

三,烈火焚身(Incendies, 2010)

札維耶·多藍(Xavier Dolan)導演生涯的第二部劇情片是一號電影;有講到巴尼的製片家生涯的是第二號電影;讓"蒙特婁校園屠殺事件簿(Polytechnique, 2009)"的導演第三度獲得加拿大精靈獎(Genie Award)最佳影片的-是三號電影。

第一號電影的導演最年輕和引人注目;第二號電影裡的主人公最有個性,讓人摸不著頭緒;最後拿大獎的是第三號電影;三部電影都跟蒙特婁(Montreal)有故事設定上的關係。有很多觀眾可能都曾在蒙特婁的任何一間戲院看過"幻想戀愛"。

第三號電影-烈火焚身。很有深度,但有深度的電影不一定就是"好電影"。

第二號電影-巴尼正傳。不嘩眾取寵,不容易吸引到會認為它不是"好電影"的觀眾。

第一號電影-幻想戀愛。沒辦法-它(真的也必須)就是去年加拿大出品最好看的一部電影。

(一)"幻想戀愛"是一個威脅(Intimidation),因為它的"樣子"。

(二)"巴尼正傳"是一個威脅,因為它實在是太乾脆,不懂得欣賞一般人那種不完美的幽默。

(三)"烈火焚身"是一個威脅,而這恐怕只有我(這種觀眾)才感受得到;有深度的電影不一定就是"好電影"。

有深度的電影不一定就是"好電影";"烈火焚身"之所以(對我這種觀眾)是一個威脅,絕不是因為它沒有被處理好,事實上它被處理得太好,幾乎剛剛好就是它被期待要有的樣子。"威脅"是指我很擔心自己哪天生了什麼病(或出了事)"結果"就變成一個真心覺得"烈火焚身"不是威脅的觀眾。

札威耶·多藍的樣子;巴尼的個性;得大獎的"蒙特婁校園屠殺事件簿"的導演有意識拍出一部我在看到預告片之前,就"知道"我不可能會喜歡的電影。但我反而希望"札威耶·多藍"的觀眾繼續喜歡"幻想戀愛","巴尼正傳"繼續是"巴尼正傳"-然後"烈火焚身"能夠以它的深度在影史上留名,以供未來的觀眾參考。

你說好還是不好?

link
Wednesday Addams.

Wednesday Addams.

link

Les diaboliques (Henri-Georges Clouzot, 1955).

Les diaboliques (Henri-Georges Clouzot, 1955).

link
lpcoverlover:

Spy vs. Spy
link
照片

現在我又整理出了另一個關於"鏡中人"的故事;鏡中人是我用來形容我所看過的事情的主角,所以技術上是虛構的,"所以技術上是虛構的"這段話我越看它越覺得不夠順眼-它完成在我開始覺得它看起來不夠順眼之前-我們一旦開始"不喜歡"某些事情,"我們"與"我們的感覺"與某些事情之間的關係就永遠不可能改變了。

我們也永遠不願意形容我們不願意形容的事情。

"我們也永遠不願意形容我們不願意形容的事情。"是一斷"引文"。其意思是一段話不是作者以自己的立場說的,但任何人可以在任何時後引用自己說過的話-或"地主"闖入"自己的土地","小偷從自己的住處"竊取"自己之前偷來的贓物"等-我們也可以在任何時候不遵照正常的規則使用"標點符號"。我們看到各種"照片","畫面","畫面與照片"之後我們就"看到各種”照片”,”畫面”,”畫面與照片”"。"小偷從自己的住處”竊取”自己之前偷來的贓物"不代表任何意思,一段話之所以有任何意思是因為我們從中看到了"自己"。"我們也可以在任何時候不遵照正常規則使用”標點符號”"在我自己看來就是很不順眼;很不順眼但還是入眼。

"真正重要的"不是"說了什麼",而是"誰說的"。而我們可以給一段引文回應。

"”真正重要的”不是”說了什麼”,而是”誰說的”。而我們可以給一段引文回應。"是一段引文,如果我們重複在一篇文章裡用了兩次"一模一樣的引文"就會有別於"只用了一次"-或"兩顆水滴混合在一起就變成一顆水滴","吸氣吐氣在同一個房間"等-看起來一模一樣的兩斷引文當然不是同一樣事情,但是"看起來一模一樣"。

我們可以給一段引文回應;我們可以給一段引文正面回應;我們可以給一段引文負面回應。我們可以回應我們"看到的",順眼或不順眼,一樣或不一樣。

而或關於我到底有沒有在上面的文章裡寫出任何跟"鏡中人"有關的事情,我可以說"有"也可以說"沒有",兩種選擇看起來都"很不錯"。

link
fuckyeahthelastframe:

Bronenosets Potyomkin - Battleship Potemkin, 1925 (Sergei M. Eisenstein)

fuckyeahthelastframe:

Bronenosets Potyomkin - Battleship Potemkin, 1925 (Sergei M. Eisenstein)