Originally posted by MistaMista Tom Hagen: I agree that I shouldn't really be blaming Cassavetes or other independent filmmakers for their sometimes mundane camera use considering...
A. Budget constraints B. They're going for the documentary-like style, like you mentioned.
On that point, I understand and agree with you. But explain to me again the difference between the dinner scenes? It seemed to me like in both, the wife is fairly quiet but everyone kind of seems to be cautiously awaiting her to do something crazy, which she eventually begins to do, and then the husband freaks out. What's the major difference there? She didn't seem devoid of any of her previous behavior after the 6 month break.
And on a side note Vercetti, forget this argument. I've seen you name this as one of your favorite/best films. Could you perhaps explain why you feel the way you do? Often times a seasoned rewatcher can make me remember things I may have underappreciated in a film.
I recall a big difference. I'll rewatch it within the next few days or tonight and get back to you on it.
As for why I consider it one of the ten best films ever, it's one of the most humane films ever with the greatest performance from an actress. It's an excellent depiction of a semi-dysfunctional family and how two opposite types of craziness can form a good family when together.
And by the way, even if a budget isn't piss-poor, does that make the way it's filmed badly? You make it sound like a con that can't be avoided. I find nothing wrong with the way it's filmed. You don't always need flashy directions to pacify you. The steadycam in Stranger Than Paradise for instance only creates a stronger focus on the characters. You even make it sound like they're smug assholes with the I don't need to edit type of sarcasm. What's wrong with defying conventions? What if a film is done completely in one cut?
Proud Member of the Gangster BB Bratpack - Fighting Elitism and Ignorance Since 2006
