Consider an author's roll in the writing of the screenplay if his novel is offered a film deal. Should the author be the main screenwriter? Should he be involved at all? Not everything in a book translates well to screen (which explains material that is only in the film & not the book). Not all authors are meant to be screenwriters (and not all screenwriters should be authors). So: do we segregate the two, or can they play nicely together?
I think the Harry Potter movies are a testament to authors and screenwriters working well together. J.K Rowling did not dominate decisions for the movies but she had great influence and insight, I've read that she greatly helped actors fill their role better by being there to give them deeper insight and background into the character. The actor of Snape knew his entire backstory long before anyone else because Rowling let him in on the secrets. The author should at least be well informed if the adaptations want to stick true to the books so they don't do anything that would contradict what might happen later in an unpublished series' next book. That being said it's okay to continue without author's influence if the adaptation makes clear to fans that it is blatantly deviating from the books such as with Game of Thrones now that it's caught up with the books and wants to continue production on their own terms, and spin offs like Full Metal Alchemist which animated itself before the manga concluded which led to drastically different endings (noticeable to those who didn't read the manga because the series was re-animated in FMA Brotherhood which stuck to the manga once it was done). – Slaidey9 years ago
Not to mention that J.K. Rowling is going to pen the movie Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them which takes place in the Wizarding World based on a book she wrote by the same name. Another note is that Suzanne Collins, author of The Hunger Games, actually started out as a script writer. The books are divided into a certain number of chapters that can be divided by three because she's so used to writing plays with three acts. Now those books are movies. I don't know how involved she was with the actual films, though. – VelvetRose9 years ago
It is difficult to narrow it down to one, but Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation feels like an extremely accurate exploration into the themes of loneliness, reticence and human detachment. Other contenders would be Buffalo '66, Detachment and Close-Up, all favourite films of mine, too.
Also, a film I recently saw, the Danish film Blind. About a woman who has recently lost her sight and retreats into the safety of her home and imagination. The film is more about loneliness and writing than blindness which is superbly realised by the director.
Possibly the topic could be made into a list since it is difficult to narrow down. – Jordan9 years ago
The title is too vague in terms of a possible objective with "loneliness/isolation" and since five different films are also mentioned and speculated over within the description, it would definitely be more appropriate for this topic to be centered around a list of some sort. – dsoumilas9 years ago
Agree with what's been said. A list of "10 great films about loneliness" or some such could be interesting though. – Winter9 years ago
Agree with the list - you've said already that it would be hard to narrow down to one. Writing it out in a list would not just help you come to a conclusion about the question AND help the reader to come to (hopefully) the same conclusion. Also, because there are so films and therefore many styles and genres that depict isolation (writing and creating itself often being pretty lonely!) you could perhaps also look into styles and genres and how that style (say, animation) portrayed lonliness/isolation. Eg, dystopian films/animation/indie films etc. Maybe making a judgement on how a certain genre depicts lonliness better than others. – Nat Parsons9 years ago
I was walking out of a cinema last winter when I couldn't help overhear a woman talking about the film – in a most insightful way; in terms I never thought of. I wished I asked her for reading recommendations. I continue to wonder how one can view a film beyond just one's subjective experience of it. What would be the basic terms that would direct critical thinking about a film? How can I see for example the new Mad Max movie as a fragment of its Avant Garde-like original with its thundering base from the engines creating a new ground that the current one is totally devoid of? Or the lack of depth, in comparison?
A good focus would be forming a template for basic storytelling. Some flexibility must be allowed for interpreting art of course. – Joseph Manduke IV9 years ago
People think that simply finding flaws in a film officially makes them a critic, when really it is more complicated than that. It is not only important to understand why a film does not work, but also what makes a good film work so well? When you understand good character development and good storytelling is a well made film, the better you will be at understanding why a bad will does not work – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
The best way to write this topic will be by listing down the features that critics look out for in films and then explaining them one by one. – dhananandini9 years ago
I just took a music and film course in school and it totally changed the way I watch movies. Often the sounds we hear fade into the background of our consciousness. We can't necessarily pick out what music is playing, but it helps without fail to make us feel. They aren't sound clips chosen at random; the director and a whole team of people work to compose and compile every sound recorded to contribute toward the final product. – Nicola9 years ago
In any type of artwork, a film, a musical piece - a narrative, the artist is trying to lead the reader through their piece to get them to see something, hear something, feel something, etc. depending on the art form. Although this is the ideal framework in which to interpret, it is not often one we can know or ascertain. – kathleensumpton9 years ago
Thinking critically about a film--or about anything, really--is simply not taking everything at face value. Sometimes it can be useful to look at the narrative of a film through different theoretical angles: political, economic, racial, gender and feminist, historical, social, etc. The list is almost endless. You bring up the example of Mad Max--one way to think critically about this film is how women and femininity (and sexuality) are represented in what is clearly a very patriarchal universe. A good place to start is with your subjective experience, with those gut reactions, then it's a matter of being mindful of those reactions and take a few steps back in order to analyze them more objectively. – Rachel Watson9 years ago
Watch filmmaking docs, studying art fine art aesthetics, or just making films yourself. Doing any one of these is good enough, honestly. "The Cutting Room Floor" by PBS is about the history and application of film editing and that honestly blew my mind. Once you can see a film for its editing, you've captured the hardest part. It's no different than being aware of a magician's slight of hand. – Travis Cohen9 years ago
It's clear that film and theater share many traits, but they are still distinct artforms with distinct traits and capabilities. As such, films which incorporate theatric techniques, especially when adapted from plays, raise some worthwhile questions. Wit (2001), for example, addresses the camera directly with narration, and plays with costume changes for effect in scenes which the play would be unable to do so. Does this add some to strengthen theater, or does it move towards making theater definitively inferior? Is there a distinct line that film cannot cross that theater allows and vice versa, such as audience involvement, or not?
First of all the direct address should be handled carefully, because sometimes this will just be used to break the fourth wall. Mockumentaries like the Office obviously use this, as well as Jean Luc Godard's Tout va Bien.
But with regards to theatricality in film I believe Laurence Olivier did a film version of Richard III that was filmed as though it was in a theatre.
I also think Bollywood could be discussed as those films feel very much like live performances and take inspiration from Indian theatre types such as "natya shastra" and Sanskrit drama. – Jamie White9 years ago
I don't think that there truly is a "line" between film and theater, just different terminology in each medium for a similar concept. With breaking the fourth wall, that isn't an idea unique to films like Wit since plays have done the same for hundreds of years. Shakespeare utilized breaking the fourth wall in at least two of his plays Othello and Richard III with a character speaking directly to the audience. Therefore it could be said that camera is to film as audience is to play for an actor's focal point in their performance. – dsoumilas9 years ago
I recenly read an article which had Geroge R.R. Martin criticising Marvel's villains saying how similar they are to the heroes in terms of their powers. (link)
He made some interesting points and while there's a lot of ranking of villains there's hardly any proper analysis of them and their relation to the hero. This should obviously range from villains with similar powers to the hero, to those who are startlingly different, or those who have no powers at all.
This could be done with specific villains in mind or franchise by franchise i.e. Marvel, The Dark Knight Trilogy, X-Men, Spiderman etc.
There is a lot of good potential to analyze supervillains, but there are too many of them to count if you includes everyone from the likes of Marvel and DC. It would be helpful to limit it to either some of the most notable ones (regardless of which publisher they come from) or to villains specifically derived from certain franchises. You also might want to limit your analysis to one form of media (looking into movie adaptations over comic books and vice verca). – Seth Childers9 years ago
I've always been partial to Spiderman, but I can see this working for any of the major franchises. Interesting take--a strong focus on the social and political pressures of the time in which the selected franchise analyzed will help provide a comprehensive and detailed explanation for the motives of such villains. – RobertCutrera9 years ago
I was having a discussion about this once with a friend - he made the point that comic book/graphic novel villains are purposely made to be the opposite/fear of the hero.
Batman = conquering fear; Joker = anarchy and uncertainty, meaning fear.
Spiderman = spider; Dr Conners = reptile. Reptiles eat insects.
Bruce Banner = Ego; Hulk = Id
etc etc. Therefore the point that they are basically made to be challengers for the hero could sometimes mean that they are reduced to placeholders, and therefore aren't given enough of an identity in themselves.
I think it's a great topic, especially considering the recent huge popularity of some of the villains. – Nat Parsons9 years ago
The documentary focuses on a story as far removed from average western life as can be imagined by focusing on a family from the other side of the world with different values and relationships who run a restaurant uncommon in the west. Yet, while still being enjoyable and successful, the film neither dwells on this subject nor ignores it. What is the relationship between this (and similar films) and the success with western audiences?
This article (written once the author has seen the movie obviously) will examine how Ant-man effects the MCU. A major flop could, surprisingly, cause major harm financially to the studios involved. On the other hand, Ant-man could be an exciting and refreshing respite from the recent action epics. Focusing not on financial standings, but rather critical and fan reception, the article would determine the status of Ant-man.
While it would be important to talk about Edger Wright leaving the film, this article should turn into a Wright vs. Marvel rant. It is sad that he left the film, but the film should be judged on its own merits. Judge the film you got, not the one you want. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
Based on a "Certified Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes of 79% (higher than many MCU films, including this year's "Avengers: Age of Ultron"), as well as many positive posts about the film from fans on social media, I think the movie has mostly been critically well-received. I've seen the movie (I personally loved it) and I can say that, so far, the connections to the MCU aren't HUGE. Marvel has confirmed that Scott Lang will be in Captain America: Civil War (along with almost every other major MCU superhero) and *POTENTIAL SPOILER FOR ANT-MAN* Kevin Feige has said that the Wasp will likely appear in a Phase 3 film in some capacity, we do know that Ant-Man will affect the I think it might be good to critique the EXTENT to which the movie connects to the MCU. Because there are some brilliant references and cameos/appearances (that I won't spoil, but anyone who's seen the movie will know) to the larger MCU which are great. But on the other hand, the movie's smaller scale and largely standalone nature works to the film's benefit. As much as I loved Age of Ultron, a common (and valid, I will concede) criticism is that the film suffered from TOO much MCU connection. Meaning, there were so many characters and plot threads and set-up for future films that the movie felt somewhat disjointed and/or overstuffed. Whereas Ant-Man has a pretty focused premise - it's a comedy heist flick - and I think that resonated more with a large part of the audience. And Aaron makes a valid point. Edgar Wright's departure shouldn't be treated like the elephant in the room, but it also shouldn't become the focus of the film. The reality is, having heard little to none of Edgar's side of things, I don't think we can properly comment as a whole on how his version of the film would have compared to the one we got. Like Aaron, I think the film should be judged on its own merits. However, are some good comments from Wright's replacement director, Peyton Reed, who talks about ideas they kept/worked upon from Wright's original script, vs. what he and the new writers changed or added. These might be good to mention. – BradShankar9 years ago
In 2022, it is still too early to know. – T. Palomino2 years ago
It may be that the film industry is still dominated by men, but one of the few aspects of movie-making which has always been open to women is editing. This article could delve into why women became so prevalent in the editing room at a time when most women were not even in the workforce, relegated instead to subservient domesticated roles.
This could also examine the influence female film editors have exerted through the decades — encompassing the work of Anne V. Coates (ranging from "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) to this year's "Fifty Shades of Grey" and the films of Martin Scorsese's frequent collaborator Thelma Schoonmaker.
I was not aware of the role women play in editing. Perhaps, the writer can include films that have won awards which women edited. Furthermore, compare the statistics of women editors to directors and see if there is an explanation for this contrast you speak of. Thanks – Venus Echos9 years ago
Margaret Booth was the first - https://wfpp.cdrs.columbia.edu/essay/cutting-women/ The documentary "The Cutting Room Floor" shows the history of editing very well, though more as a overall history, but still a good resource. – Tecohen09 years ago
