Yesterday I saw "Lolita" (1962). Mind you, not the saccharine 90s version with Jeremy Irons in the lead role but the film shot by Kubrick ", including the presence, as usual genius of Peter Sellers .
Sometimes, being a fan of contemporary cinema (declined in many different ways: violent, passionate, poetic, etc.). I wonder what a classic film can "mark" the difference compared to full production of effects and technical solutions previously unimaginable.
Here, in the case of Kubrick and other great directors like Wilders, Hitchcock, Ozu (just to name a few), the difference lies in the power del'intreccio and the way it visually, is narrated. For example, in "Lolita" Kubrick did not need to resort to scenes from "strong" and explicit to draw a convincing story, without forcing, able to describe first with irony, then with the jealousy and finally the madness history an unhealthy relationship and "normal" at the same time.
The value of the classics it's all here simplicity and power of discourse ...
Sometimes, being a fan of contemporary cinema (declined in many different ways: violent, passionate, poetic, etc.). I wonder what a classic film can "mark" the difference compared to full production of effects and technical solutions previously unimaginable.
Here, in the case of Kubrick and other great directors like Wilders, Hitchcock, Ozu (just to name a few), the difference lies in the power del'intreccio and the way it visually, is narrated. For example, in "Lolita" Kubrick did not need to resort to scenes from "strong" and explicit to draw a convincing story, without forcing, able to describe first with irony, then with the jealousy and finally the madness history an unhealthy relationship and "normal" at the same time.
The value of the classics it's all here simplicity and power of discourse ...
david.kujan
0 comments:
Post a Comment