This is the "I Fucking Love Science" of film.
not really
>>68191269
If that means it's shit, I agree.
Pretty much
He makes people who know nothing about film think they know something about film.
>>68191269
>>68191964
yeah pretty much
That implies movies get their value just from cinematography
I don't understand what's wrong with his videos?
he's sharing his own personal analysis from the perspective of an editor, and doesn't over-ascribes meaning to things.
Just simple and fairly basic breakdowns of techniques he identifies in movies he's watched, and doing so in a fairly accessible manner.
OP has it right I think, although I'd say that unlike "I Fucking Love Science" EFaP goes a little more in depth into explaining what's being shown as opposed to just showing cool things. Either way, both serve mainly as an introductory way to elevate the layman's level of discourse on the subject
>>68191964
that's hardly his fault
>>68192425
He does put way too much value on visual arraignments. Trying to to a video essay on the Coen Brothers and focusing entirely on their completely normalcamera positioning for dialogue and not the dialogue itself was retarded
he makes people who have nothing to contribute get buttblasted because people that they seem dumber than themselves enjoy something about their precious hobby that only they can enjoy
>>68192607
People don't like him because he knows as much as they do yet is popular and successful for it
could be worse he could be reviewing capeshit or something
He never ventures beyond camerawork in his analysis.
>>68193116
What about his Chuck Jones episode?
The Jackie Chan one?
The Martin Scorsese episode, the Robin Williams episode, the Satoshi Kon episode...
You're objectively wrong.
>>68193198
Change camerawork to the visual aspect of filmmaking and he's still mostly right. He's never done a real thematic analysis, which I personally find a lot more compelling. Not that it makes his existing videos bad
>>68191269
/Reddit YouTube channels/ general?
>>68193300
To expand on this after rewatching a couple of his videos:
Technical analysis can be really neat, but a movie either does or doesn't work for me. Knowing how the shots are arraigned or how X pulled off Y isn't going to suddenly make me like a movie, although it can maybe enhance my appreciation. On the other hand, I've read plenty of subjective readings of films that made me look at them differently, see other points of view and open myself up to what the movie is saying on a second viewing. Or let me value a movie I didn't like from someone else's positive response to it.
Subjective readings of a movie>>objective technical analysis
>>68193300
It's almost like that's the point. How strange that something called Every Frame a Painting would focus on visuals.
>>68193970
Pack it up folks, analysis is completely pointless. Anon finally cracked that nuts and we don't have to examine or study anything anymore.
I actually took him up on his offer to unsubscribe from him.
I don't normally do that and try to keep the politics of the person separate from the media they produce, but he outright DARED PEOPLE to unsubscribe from his channel over the fact that he watches and reveres Anita Sarkeesian's bullshit.
So I followed through.
The guy can't be that great at analyzing movies if he thinks that Jack Thompson 2.0 is a valid and talented analyzer of videogames. Shows what he knows.
>>68194053
Do whatever the fuck you want, I'm explaining myself
Kurosawa's editing and staging works if I know the specifics behind it or not, so knowing it doesn't really interest me. That's all
>>68194118
Link?
>>68192712
well, he's successful and popular because he's putting in the time and work necessary to impart that basic knowledge to others in a light and easily digested form
>>68191269
he isn't that bad he just makes videos like every six months
