I’m just baffled by one hugely important story beat. I think it’s big enough issue to require lengthy rewrites. But I like the movie anyways as it exists.

And I think the things that surround the story in Gladiator II are excellent. The set design and costumes really sold me on a vision of ancient rome. I enjoyed the performances and cinematography. The action bits are really well done.

Anyways, I watched Gladiator II and I think it has major story issues but I still enjoyed the movie, which is what started me thinking about this. We love film for being more than just a story. For the things that surround the story.

Even the ways the two pieces of art exist in the world are different. A novel is ink on paper, very physical. A movie is numbers in a computer, or light in the air.

You can’t really just evaluate a movie in one fell swoop. You have to think about all these little things. A novel, I think, is much easier to review. There’s the story and there’s the prose. If one of them is bad the novel is probably bad. But a film can be worthwhile even if the costumes are bad.

A writer writes a novel. But a director doesn’t just “make” a movie. Nobody does. A writer writes it. A director directs it. A gaffer lights it. A production designer designs it. And so on and so on. A locations scout finds the locations. So many jobs.

Ur banner reminds me of this shot from daisies (1966)

I don’t take many pictures at shows. Usually just a couple to remember how close I was to the stage