Get Low/Cinematography over Story

ussinners

ussinners

I almost didn't make it to the first turning point in this movie. The scenery was nice to look at. But, it was pretty boring.

Then the story kicked in.

Duvall plays "Felix", who's lived as a hermit for over 40 years. Numerous "tales" are told about him. None are good or nice. So he wants to hold a funeral party, where everyone can tell the tale they've been told. What's this old hermit's story?

It got interesting. I wanted to know his story. Obviously everyone had it wrong.

As I watched a sequence of the stars driving down a road, I thought to myself "Why am I enjoying this? This is boring as hell." Then it hit me. What made the story interesting was the story. And the story was only being told when the actors were speaking. It wasn't great dialogue. But, it gave little nuggets of info to keep you thinking.

If an editor took this movie and cut it down to the bare essentials of storytelling, it would be about 20 minutes long. There's some pretty shots. But, most of this movie was filler.

This is a problem with so many indies nowadays. It's a fairly new problem also, and it's getting worse. Because you don't find this in movies from the 80s and earlier. At least not in any good movies.

Pretty shots that don't really mean anything, and take up most the movie, will make it pretty boring.

This a good one to see that.
Felix's story was a big let down.



get_low.jpg
 
I thought it was good. Not a great drama, but a good 3 out of 4 star likable one for sure. Loved the climax, and it is definitely relate-able.
 
I really liked it. Felix's story isn't the plot of the film. In this movie, the journey of discovery was the story, not the story itself. It isn't a hero's journey flick or a stranger comes to town story. I can't put words to what exactly I enjoyed so much about it, but I liked it enough to buy it.
 
Lucky Hardwood said:
I really liked it. Felix's story isn't the plot of the film. In this movie, the journey of discovery was the story, not the story itself. It isn't a hero's journey flick or a stranger comes to town story. I can't put words to what exactly I enjoyed so much about it, but I liked it enough to buy it.
Click to expand...

The plot was "putting together the party". The MDQ was "What's this old hermit's horrible secret?" Pretty basic stuff.

People will like what they like. But, the next time you sit down to watch this, as each scene passes, think to yourself, "If the beginning of this scene was removed, would I miss part of the story?" The answer for most would be, no. The problem is, the silent parts outlasted any dialogue sequence. There were no great moments of character revelation, everything could have just been shorter. Pretty shots are great. But, more then half a movie of nothing is just boring.

But, that's just my opinion. You liked it enough to buy it. So, the movie was made for you. If we all liked the same thing there'd be no chocolate.
 
Somebody once said that dialog is the screenwriter's crutch, if you can tell your story without any dialog, you should. 'Get Low' proves that it can be done.:cool:
 
Some movies aren't about "the bare essentials". I thought this movie was nicely shot, and that the pacing was good. Most of the silence occurs when you're watching Duval's character by himself in the woods, which creates a separation for him, from the rest of the city folk. To me, the silence is a part of the character, almost.

If you follow the logic of "silence=nothing to the film", Kubrick's 2001 becomes a ten-minute conversation between a computer and a guy about a song regarding bicycles.

gelder
 
ussinners said:
This is boring as hell." Then it hit me. What made the story interesting was the story. And the story was only being told when the actors were speaking. It wasn't great dialogue. But, it gave little nuggets of info to keep you thinking.

If an editor took this movie and cut it down to the bare essentials of storytelling, it would be about 20 minutes long. There's some pretty shots. But, most of this movie was filler.

This is a problem with so many indies nowadays. It's a fairly new problem also, and it's getting worse. Because you don't find this in movies from the 80s and earlier. At least not in any good movies.

Pretty shots that don't really mean anything, and take up most the movie, will make it pretty boring.
Click to expand...

Most of the plots in movies are thin, especialliy B-grade action movies. But B-grade action movies are among the biggest money makers. A movie like Flesh and Blood by Paul Verhoeven is solid plot. Every single scene has something happening in it and is important to the plot. But it is not always possible to find or write a story like that. So to push the script to 110 pages, extra has to be added.
 
steve gelder said:
Some movies aren't about "the bare essentials". I thought this movie was nicely shot, and that the pacing was good. Most of the silence occurs when you're watching Duval's character by himself in the woods, which creates a separation for him, from the rest of the city folk. To me, the silence is a part of the character, almost.

If you follow the logic of "silence=nothing to the film", Kubrick's 2001 becomes a ten-minute conversation between a computer and a guy about a song regarding bicycles.
Click to expand...

This is good point about 2001. The silences make audiences think or as the academics say, "read" the text of the film.

I just saw a B-grade action film called Killing Streets a Menachem Golan production about kidnapping in Beirut in the '80's. After something would happen, there would be a silent shot of the kidnapper bad guy just looking at the ground or puffing a cigarette. These scenes told us that the kidnapper was thinking and added great dimension to his character.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top