fielding88 said:
bigtakilla said:
It was done well, but a masterclass? I'd say 300 and the use of color, speed ramping, and proper use of set design with painted backgrounds have more to offer someone looking to gain a better grasp of great direction. Or Sin City and V for Vendetta with it's use of colors vs black and white, proper use of negative space, great blocking. Or hell, even the Star Wars original trilogy. We spent a WHOLE DAY in film theory discussing the "terrible looking" fight scene between Vador and Luke.
I wouldn't use The Dark Knight trilogy as an example of directing masterclass. It was a bunch of professionals doing a damn good job and making a solid film.
*edit* Also forgot about Psycho. It's use of blacks and whites as well as shot positions and allegory to themes of birds in it's main antagonist is impressive. Did you know Alfred Hitchcock invented to modern way we storyboard films. F'n impressive director.
|
I'm curious as to your definition of the word 'masterclass'? What criteria is missing from the Dark Knight (not the other two films)? It was too professionally made? What would it need to do to be considered masterclass?
|
There's a certain level of visual storytelling that is required to say something is a masterclass of direction. The Dark Knight is like a great punk song. The four chords they play can be played perfectly and in perfect tune. The vocal pitch can be dead on, but I still wouldn't say the typical four chord punk song is a masterclass of songwriting.
*edit* And it's not that The Dark Knight was "too well made" as much as it was made extremely well with nothing standing out as exceptional.
I'll give an example too.
https://youtu.be/U1MnMA0TzGI
Watch this, and think about what the lighting, camera angles, colors, and blocking (essentially what's in the shot) are all telling you in this scene. That's masterclass directing.
