I feel that Nerdstalgic does a good job of creating a similar jovial atmosphere to the film in this video essay. Maybe this is in part due to the themes of Paddington being heavily mentioned and demonstrated through clips from the film. Nerdstalgic also strengthens his assertions by contrasting the film with the CGI 2019 The Lion King film. He says that, while Paddington is a CGI animal, he is still expressive and humanized which can be contrasted against the more realistic stoic depictions of lions seen in the Disney film. The pace of the film is quick, but this doesn’t make it the focus of the video. The right amount of information gets communicated at the right time.

As usual, Danny Boyd of CinemaStix delivers on his promise of poetry in video form. He seems to effortlessly capture the feeling of what he says runs wild in the film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. The golden hour is what he describes at the end of the video. This is a warm, catchy notion that mimics the spirit of the film. An effective video essay like this almost seems to pull characteristics from the thing that it comments on. In this case, that warm, nostalgic feeling one gets after the end of a pleasant phase and before the next phase has even materialized.

Casting light onto the beloved characters with an approach that I haven’t seen before makes for an exciting premise to a video essay. Suggesting that Ferris Bueller is more of a side character if one can even call him a character is a striking thought. In this video, he is described more as a positive, benevolent force, who is unchanging and will go to extremes to cheer his friends up. I didn’t perceive this when I saw this film before, but I agree with CinemaStix’s point. Cameron, his best friend, is supposed to be the main character, since he is the one who changes. He is the one who rebels against the unmoving and terrifying force that is his father. He is also the one who, as Danny Boyd states, instills fear into the unflappable Ferris Bueller. It makes sense that characters like these are so interesting, because the creator of the story stressed how they ruled the film and the events which they move through are secondary. A probably common interpretation of the film is a standing up to those in power. It is likely that many of these interpretations of the film are accepted because of its very nature.

When people think of cinematic masters perhaps they think of the low hanging fruit like Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola or, as they are colloquially known, the “Movie Brats”. What all of these directors share is inspiration from another legend known as Akira Kurosawa. The impact of his legacy is can be attributed to his painstaking attention to aspects like blocking, shot composition, and wardrobe. For another less-experienced director, thinking of ways to tell a story as riveting as possible while also leaving enough energy to tell it precisely and consistently would prove a colossal undertaking. However, a maestro like Kurosawa never misses with each chance he gets. His signature masterful blocking gives the audience the ability to read the frame like a book. Overflowing with creativity, he introduces a multitude of layers into the mise en scene about each character and their dynamics with each other. He is such a virtuoso that he makes each shot look effortless.

Videos like this never fail to excite because they adapt so well to the source material they are about. Each point is reinforced by countless examples that catch the eye. The math behind his shots have effectively been broken down so that they become very simple. This appreciation for the simple shows us how masterful his creative decisions are and how well they work. It is admittedly easy to call anybody a genius, but after the word has been heavily used, this is one time that I would say that description is accurate. Just One more Thing finds the best aspects of Kurosawa as a director that make him what most people revere to ground the title “genius” with wonderful examples.

Blockbusters, Money, and mainstream. These are common words associated with movies, especially Hollywood movies. Films like these are loud and can effortlessly demand the attention of any filmgoer. This ruckus can sometimes drown out the other kinds of movies literally and figuratively. Blockbuster movies boast the latest special effects, explosions, and A-list casts. News of the money being spent on these blockbusters attracts even more attention to these mainstream films. Underneath this bright and flashy glamour are films like Raise the Red Lantern and other films by Zhang Yimou. While mainstream movies are likely focused on bringing in profits, art house films concentrate more on the characters and the story. In these kinds of films, things like sound design can be acutely focused on. The thoughtful construction of the narrative through the use of things including sound design and set design allows the audience room to breathe and time to think. Special care was taken to ensure that the theme of suffocation was evoked through the set design as effectively as possible. The sound design is so simple that you can sometimes count the number of sounds you hear on one hand.

Since the film has a wealth of examples that this video essay has to draw from, his points are that much easier to understand. His calming voice over allows his analytical commentary to be comfortably situated between the creative strata of the film. His thoughts astutely and succinctly capture the essence of Raise the Red Lantern, leaving no questions to be asked by the audience, since it has been so thoroughly explained.

Since I did not exist in the year 1969, I did not know that there were misgivings among filmgoers when Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey graced the silver screen. I had to find out after the fact. Way after. When you hear 2001, it’s possible that you might think of the actual date 23 years ago. When you hear two-thousand & one, more often than not, it’s about the film. It’s quite possible that the impact of Kubrick’s film has something to do with its “going against the grain” nature. Kubrick’s rendition of the final frontier was bold and unabashed. It was also sobering and mature. The visuals still hold up to the modern day. The technology portrayed predicted such inventions as video calling, tablets, and artificial intelligence. This film was made in the past but accurately depicted the future with striking spectacle and style.

The interviews of various people in the film world supplement the video because their accounts of Kubrick humanize him. Since we are all used to viewing him as an unflappable maestro, this is a nice change of pace. This piece about him is made that much more interesting and inviting because of this. This particular story of the enigmatic Stanley Kubrick is also supported by vintage footage of him on set with his actors. A good amount of this footage shows him smiling with his cast in an easygoing environment. While it is certain that he wasn’t always like this, it’s nice to see him in a way that he isn’t often shown: a person who gets a kick out of telling excellent stories.

Perfection or authenticity. According to Tomorrows Filmmakers, these are two of the things that should run through the mind of a Cinematographer when establishing the look of a film. To me, this is the kind of video that scratches an itch that I didn’t know needed scratching. Thoughts about the aesthetics of what I would watch on-screen came to mind in brief stints, but they ultimately sunk back down into my subconscious, only to be reawakened after having seen this. There is a plethora of factors that dictate the look of the image: the type of camera (film vs. digital) and the accompanying lenses, deciding when to plan things out before or doing things mostly in post, the lighting, etc.

Just one of these factors can drastically affect the image we see on the screen. They can also do the unexpected: a film camera with footage that looks like it was shot on a digital camera and vice versa. The lens choice can alter the footage so that there is no need for added effects in post-production. If this is decided for the end look, then the energy that would have been used to alter the footage in post-production can be directed elsewhere. The lighting is one area where perfection and authenticity come into play. In film, perfection is a paradox. Technically, it should be the best. Its quality is the best. But sometimes the best isn’t what the audience is looking for. Sometimes we like interesting aesthetics that don’t play it safe with flat lighting and compositions native to most high budget/ mainstream films. If that means a technically inferior image, so be it, but the experience of the audience would be that much greater.

Tomorrows Filmmakers uses excellent shots in films to illustrate each factor, further reinforcing his points. He show films that exemplify a certain quality. For example, he mentioned the aesthetics of Dune. Here, he’s talking about how the decisions made prior to shooting can cause a movie’s aesthetics and special effects to look indistinguishable from reality. He compares this with the plain-looking blockbusters that we’ve grown accustomed to watching. The structure and use of comparison makes the video a more engaging experience.

You can get the sense of the kind of person Quentin Tarantino is by the way this video is edited. This chaotic video essay stitched together by Dodford is bursting at the seams with exuberance. However, this intensity is not unwarranted: it captures the soul of the subject which it covers. In the same way that Tarantino’s action electrifies audiences, this video bombards them like the flying bullets in “Inglourious Basterds”. Countless clips of Tarantino’s films in conjunction with old photos, scans of his scripts, and videos of him in interviews fit together like mosaic tiles, combining to tell something greater. In a world where videos are dominated with the dialogue of their creators, Dodford’s simplicity sings through all that. The lack of narration is refreshing only when it is noticed because the featured celebrities spoke more than the video’s creator. Splashes of blood among other effects injects the video with personality. It as if the video is its own person. It is telling us something, rather than the one who made it.

Spectators might assume that the confident Tarantino never once doubted his directorial abilities. This is false. He was hyperfixated on it. He knew that directors have a history of diminishing returns after around 10 movies. He saw this coming. However, he did his own thing anyway, which is probably why he is a venerated Hollywood idol. There are people who like his stories, there are people who love his story and there are both. This video is for all of those people. Although he is often deified in the film world, Dodford examines him down at eye level. Tarantino acknowledges that making films are extremely challenging. It even took a while for his career to get off the ground. Taking this into account, we see that he’s human and he puts in the hours just like we do. He loves what he does and he wants to milk it as much as possible before his time is up.

The Film Lawrence of Arabia doesn’t have a spot on the cinematic Mount Rushmore because of one aspect. A multitude of choices dictated its critical and financial success, as well as its role as a cultural touchstone. The epic scale of the story was matched by the expansive sets that required a large format to stand a chance at capturing the magic. The specific film that was used was 65 millimeter film stock. Scope was a major player in this film, and specific lenses in addition to the aspect ratio were used to capture it. The wide frame allowed for the formidable nature of the desert to shine through, dwarfing any characters and armies featured in it. What stands out is the depth of field. The director of photography wanted to show both the characters in the foreground and the landscapes in the background in crisp detail, which was feasible with the 65mm film stock that they used. Strategies for the light and how the sun would behave in the desert were painstakingly planned out. Despite this, the actual shooting was difficult because the blinding nature of the sun on the sand during the day prevented any adequate checking through the viewfinder. It was interesting to find out that one of the methods used to block in this film, the “L-System”, which prevents strobing with horizontal movement, influenced Steven Spielberg. The wardrobe was intended to represent Lawrence’s rank and his moral status throughout the film. This film has a plethora examples of lighting, grandeur, and set design, which Wolfcrow fully took advantage of. In addition to the quantity of examples, the quality is also excellent, as the points that Wolfcrow raises are immediately perceptible in the shots he cut together. In this video essay, Wolfcrow introduces many of his points with a question. This keeps the viewers on their toes and leaves them waiting for the answer. Just like the film it studies, Wolfcrow’s video essay has many elements that contribute to its impact on the viewers.

In this video I was finally able to pin the root cause of what has been nagging at my subconscious since I was a young moviegoer. I find it interesting that there is a correlation between the increased amount of CGI in a movie and how good we perceive their effects to be. Generally, the more CGI a film has, the more likely it is to look subpar. This is counterintuitive, because one would want all the CGI shots in a film to look as good as possible. This is why films like jurassic park works so well, because the instances of CGI are sparse and serve the story instead being the story. I was reminded how bad the working conditions are on films with VFX artists and overused CGI. The fact that the artists, the people who are partly responsible for a film’s look, are treated badly and have to keep up with the proliferation of CGI is ridiculous to me. The narrative of technology continuously getting better while the effects look lackluster is becoming popular. Hopefully, this can be turned around. Making a film look spectacular requires a combination of various elements that shine when used the right way and by people in the right conditions. Center Row pulled from many sources in a way that made the CGI fiasco glaringly apparent. The common moviegoer might not pay attention to the CGI problem or might not be able to place the strange feeling when looking at films with heavy use of CGI, but this video essay effectively draws from different sources in such a way that even somebody who knows nothing about this topic can be engaged.

In the past, I’ve only seen a handful of Guillermo del Toro films. I was glad to see two I had already seen (The Shape of Water and Pinocchio). In this video essay, I learned how there is a common thread in many of del Toro’s works that really shine when they are next to each other. This helps me to appreciate his films, because it is fascinating to “observe” how similar roles serve unique stories in such a way that they are integral to every film. When the films were next to each other, I could see how similar the roles looked to each other. The militarized masculine roles usually wear dark uniforms and sometimes wear a hat. The resistant masculinities are usually children. The two shots at (00:36) are almost the same shot even though they are different mediums. I learned that video essays don’t have to have spoken words. The ones I’ve seen before always have a voice narrated over clips or images. Sometimes the videos even had talking heads. I wasn’t used to the lack of speaking, but it was refreshing. I was confused with the use and meaning of the grid structure at (03:46). Maybe somebody has some ideas about that? I did notice that this video essay was the closest thing to an actual essay that I’ve seen so far. I learned that, while the childlike fantasy genre may seem unassuming on the outside, the aggressive masculinities described in the video essay can ground the films and give them their stakes.