Why did it have to be snakes?



(via hawkeyeed)

"The long take, far more common in art house cinema, also has the effect that it allows the viewer to recognize himself in relation to the film. In other words, rather than ‘getting lost in the plot’, the viewer becomes increasingly aware of his role as a spectator." +

(via movieslivewithinme)


With ‘Psycho,’ I was sort of angry at Hollywood trying to remake movies, because it seemed like they would rob the screenplay and forget all the other inputs, whatever else existed. For instance, in a movie like ‘Casablanca,’ they would take the script and they would actually change the script. So I said, “Why don’t you just shoot it exactly the way it is, because it’s a great movie?” This was my sort of anti-remake statement. And it wasn’t until after ‘Good Will Hunting’ that they were willing to let me do that. Universal was the company that I would go to for meetings, and every time they’d ask me what I wanted to do. The first time I said something like, “Why don’t you remake something like ‘Psycho’ without changing it?” And subsequently, after they laughed at me that time, I’d bring it up again the next year, and the next year, until finally, when ‘Good Will Hunting’ was up for awards, they wanted me to do something at Universal. And I said the Psycho-don’t-change-anything shoot, and their response was, “We think that’s a really brilliant idea.” [audience laughs] So then they were willing to do it and the ball was in my court, to decide whether I wanted to do it. Danny Elfman said the critics would kill me, which they did. But I still thought that it was worthy of experimentation, even though I was at a weird point, with the nominations and everything. Gus Van Sant

Gus Van Sant on remaking ‘Psycho,’ courtesy of filmschoolthrucommentaries.

For more film related items throughout the day, follow Cinephilia & Beyond on Twitter. Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in. You can also follow our RSS feed. Please use our Google Custom Search for better results. If you enjoy Cinephilia & Beyond, please consider making a small donation to keep it going:


Frank Oz Week
Little Shop of Horrors, 1986
Cinematography: Robert Paynter




(via rainbowconnection)


Oldboy - 2003 - Park Chan Wook

(via cinemastatic)


Michael Mann’s densely annotated screenplay from the famous coffee shop scene between Al Pacino and Robert De Niro of ‘Heat,’ courtesy of Empire Magazine via Will McCrabb. On De Niro’s suggestion they didn’t rehearse the scene together so that the unfamiliarity between the two characters would seem more genuine.

Now Pacino and De Niro are two of the greatest actors on the planet, so I knew they would be completely alive to each other—each one reacting off the other’s slightest gesture, the slightest shift of weight. If De Niro’s right foot sitting in that chair slid backward by so much as an inch, or his right shoulder dropped by just a little bit, I knew Al would be reading that. They’d be scanning each other, like an MRI. Both men recognize that their next encounter will mean certain death for one of them. Gaining an edge is why they’ve chosen to meet. So we read the scene a number of times before shooting—not a lot—just looking at it on the page. I didn’t want it memorized. My goal was to get them past the unfamiliarity of it. But of course these two already knew it impeccably.

Michael Mann ran three cameras simultaneously in order to generate a greater level of fluidity between both rivals. Since there were (almost) no rehearsals for the scene, this approach afforded both men a more generous margin for improvisational experimentation.

We shot that scene with three cameras, two over-the-shoulders and one profile shot, but I found when editing that every time we cut to the profile, the scene lost its one-on-one intensity. I’ll often work with multiple cameras, if they’re needed. In this case, I knew ahead of time that Pacino and De Niro were so highly attuned to each other that each take would have its own organic unity. Whatever one said, and the specific way he’d say it, would spark a specific reaction in the other. I needed to shoot in such a way that I could use the same take from both angles. What’s in the finished film is almost all of take 11—because that has an entirely different integrity and tonality from takes 10, or 9, or 8. All of this begins and ends with scene analysis. It doesn’t matter if it’s two people in a room or two opposing forces taking over a street. Action comes from drama, and drama is conflict: What’s the conflict? The Study of Mann

Here is a bit of must-see Michael Mann interview treasure: 17-minute BBC documentary, ‘Mann Made: From LA Takedown To Heat,’ consists of an extended interview with Mann, where he recounts the stripped-down version of his 180-page screenplay for ‘Heat,’ in a 1989 made-for-TV quickie called ‘LA Takedown,’ as well as his unhurried workflow. “The amount of time I take between projects is not a method; it’s an irritant,” he says. “I would much prefer to direct two films in three years, or three films in three years, but finding something I want to do next is very difficult.”

Screenwriting 101, the best screenwriting school you can get: Michael Mann’s screenplay for ‘Heat’ (NOTE: For educational purposes only). The DVD/Blu-ray of the film is available at Amazon and other online retailers.

For more film related items throughout the day, follow Cinephilia & Beyond on Twitter. Get Cinephilia & Beyond in your inbox by signing in. You can also follow our RSS feed. Please use our Google Custom Search for better results. If you enjoy Cinephilia & Beyond, please consider making a small donation to keep it going:




You know, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen a post saying that Frozen is somehow a bad, or inadequate, movie, because Queen Elsa, Princess Anna, and their mother look remarkably similar. And I’ve seen the arguments between the two sides of this debate, from ‘they are related, so it’s okay’ and ‘but it’s lazy for the character designers to do this’ and I’m sitting here wondering why it’s so goddamn important in the first place.

How does the aesthetics of a character reflect their actual personality? The answer is that it has absolutely nothing to do with their personality and yet people continue to nitpick this movie with this stupid reason. No, this isn’t nitpicking, it goes to a level above nitpicking. Besides, doesn’t this spit in the face of actual feminism, which tells us that people should judge women on their character and not on what they look like? And it’s mostly self-proclaimed feminists who complain about this.

Not liking Frozen is completely fine, but the fact that there are people who believe that these characters’ facial structures trump personality makes it seem like they are grabbing at straws trying to find anything to bring this movie down, even if their reasoning makes no sense. Until someone gives an adequate reasoning as to why this matters so fucking much, I will be enjoying the movie for its writing and not giving two shits about what the characters look like.

I feel as though people are talking about this bullshit as a reactionary response to the amount of praise this movie gets. What I have to say is, GET OVER IT. If people were complaining about Supernatural or Sherlock the way you are with Frozen, they’d be off this website before you can say ‘Allons-y!’

Believing that this movie is somehow ruined, because of this ‘problem’ actually does more harm to the detractors of Frozen than good. People will look at this reasoning and see it as a joke. They will wonder if the detractors have reached rock bottom in their argument.

If this is the best argument you can come up with, then we have no reason to listen to you.

I’m done with this bullshit. Come find me when you have a legitimate criticism.