first movie would have been good if the audio wasn't out of sync by several seconds (note: the second image was procured without opening the viewfinder and thereby any unwanted light source, so I am a lawful individual)
first movie would have been good if the audio wasn't out of sync by several seconds (note: the second image was procured without opening the viewfinder and thereby any unwanted light source, so I am a lawful individual)
I think its most impressive quality is balancing two halves - having a De Palma style voyeurism that decenters the protagonist in its first half, which is lessened in the second as it moves towards a self-concerned decentering via paranoia
I think its most impressive quality is balancing two halves - having a De Palma style voyeurism that decenters the protagonist in its first half, which is lessened in the second as it moves towards a self-concerned decentering via paranoia
I saw Hamlet and I also saw an exhibition on Marie Antionette
I saw Hamlet and I also saw an exhibition on Marie Antionette
I'm conscious of De Palma's comment that a film cannot get by with just "visual arabesques". Sharp lighting, but the subjectivity it forwards in visuals, it avoids in narrative, choosing non-definition over a fluid or dialetheist one.
I'm conscious of De Palma's comment that a film cannot get by with just "visual arabesques". Sharp lighting, but the subjectivity it forwards in visuals, it avoids in narrative, choosing non-definition over a fluid or dialetheist one.
There is a monumentality in its environment, which is by design, unlike its approach to character, which is given a much greater emotional distance. As such, the sentimentality of its ending is one not substantiated by the content of the film
There is a monumentality in its environment, which is by design, unlike its approach to character, which is given a much greater emotional distance. As such, the sentimentality of its ending is one not substantiated by the content of the film