-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
'I Dont Care How Hard It Was To Make The Revenant' (Reason for film's backlash)
- Thread starter pixelish
- Start date
- Status
Crimson-Death
Member
By Devin Faraci
Oh, that asshole of a clown.
Pfft.
Oh, that asshole of a clown.
Pfft.
Plasticine
Member
It's Devin Faraci, so, yeah.
I haven't seen The Revenant yet, but I'll say this, I'm pretty sure paying attention to awards campaigns and awards shows will make you hate everything. It's all political bullshit that's so divorced from the actual material. Everyone should ignore all of this.
I think color grading is often abused, but I would absolutely disagree about Fury Road being an example of that. That's a heightened, wild world. It's full of extremes.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
I agree with the author. I was more impressed by Hardy in this movie.
CharminUltra
Member
I didn't even know there was a backlash.
Regardless, I loved the movie and Leo in it. Not my MOTY, but it was deliciously intense and brutal and gory and beautiful, all at the same time.
Regardless, I loved the movie and Leo in it. Not my MOTY, but it was deliciously intense and brutal and gory and beautiful, all at the same time.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
The fact that I was even able to hear how difficult the movie was to make is such obvious Oscar baiting that it makes me want to see the film less.
apologies for not knowing who the author of this article was but his opinion is not a unique one so don't just bash him just because of who he is. i just chose one that seemed the most accessible and interesting to readers.
there are some film critics/writers who talked about this issue too like this, this and this.
there are some film critics/writers who talked about this issue too like this, this and this.
David H Wong
Banned
Oh look, a well thought-out criticism is met on GAF with an avalanche of childish personal insults directed at the author. Holy shit, guys, how fragile do you have to be to go into fight or flight mode just because somebody analyzed a fucking movie or game you liked and came away with a different opinion of it?
Nappuccino
Member
I too agree that movies shouldn't be rewarded just because they are challenging to make. If the end product is fantastic, that's what should be rewarded. Sometimes movies need to go to difficult lengths to get there, but those things don't make the film inherently better.
I don't think he's saying that you can't like the movie. I think he's saying don't praise it for the behind-the-scenes trials the production overcame.
I don't think he's saying that you can't like the movie. I think he's saying don't praise it for the behind-the-scenes trials the production overcame.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Oh hey, Wong is back.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Backlash to the backlash of the backlash.
Dude Abides
Banned
This guy needs to learn a phrase other than "emotional truth." Also Tom Cruise is not actually anything like Ethan Hunt.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Also, for people that seem familiar enough with Faraci to personally dislike the man and his writing, this isn't even one of his obnoxious joints. It's more-or-less measured.
Should be pretty easy to get to the meat of the criticism without feeling like he pissed on your chin with this one. The basic thesis is this: People seem to be connecting with the film not because DiCaprio has brought a character to life through his formidable skill as an actor, but because it's more or less "watch DiCaprio do some sick shit for reals."
Basically, everything around The Revenant, and to a lesser extent, everything in it, is setting you up to appreciate it metatextually instead of as a story in its own right.
Faraci isn't the first place I've heard this from. I still haven't seen the film, myself, but I admit it might end up being hard to divorce all the stories of its making from the film proper, same as it was last year when Boyhood was under that same magnifying glass for similar behind-the-scenes reasons.
Should be pretty easy to get to the meat of the criticism without feeling like he pissed on your chin with this one. The basic thesis is this: People seem to be connecting with the film not because DiCaprio has brought a character to life through his formidable skill as an actor, but because it's more or less "watch DiCaprio do some sick shit for reals."
Basically, everything around The Revenant, and to a lesser extent, everything in it, is setting you up to appreciate it metatextually instead of as a story in its own right.
Faraci isn't the first place I've heard this from. I still haven't seen the film, myself, but I admit it might end up being hard to divorce all the stories of its making from the film proper, same as it was last year when Boyhood was under that same magnifying glass for similar behind-the-scenes reasons.
AdventureRacing
Member
I don think a movie should be praised purely because it was hard to make. A movie could he ridiculously expensive and hard to make but if the end product is garbage it doesn't deserve praise (and won't get any either).
I have no problem with praising a movie that was difficult to make if the end product was good and the difficulties were necessary. Like the LOTR movies, they were huge undertakings and essentially had to be to achieve a product of such quality and scale. So in that case I think the difficulty of the production deserve praise.
In some ways the revenant fits as well. It would have been hard to get that end product without doing what they did to shoot it.
This.
I know nothing about this guy but I agree with the majority of his points. First, I don't give two shits what an actor had to "suffer" through for a performance, that in no way means that A) the performance is good or B) the movie is good. I said it in The Revenant movie thread but the whole point of acting is being able to pretend to be and/or do something that you are and cannot, and to do it so well people believe you are and/or can do X thing. Thus, whether Leo ate a real bison liver or some store bought tasty jerky makes no difference to me what matters is the performance.
Additionally, I think a lot of people play up the "suffer" part. Yes, they actually shot it in the wilderness where it rained and was cold but do you really think he was just suffering the whole time? They bring every modern convenience with them on a shoot so it's not like he actually suffered what Hugh Glass went through. Now, I don't mean this to denigrate his performance just to point out that "suffering" bears no weight to me as to whether an actor's performance is good. The same thing applies to shooting on location as opposed to shooting on a sound stage, neither means a movie is inherently good or bad.
That said, I thought Tom Hardy was the real star of the movie, dude put in a hell of a performance.
Read a GQ interview with Leo about this movie and I pretty much agree with the point of the article. You would think they spent months alone in the wilderness filming this instead of a huge crew with medical staff and probably first class accommodations.
Most of Leo's types in Malibu and Brentwood would pay out the ass for grass feed bison liver.
Most of Leo's types in Malibu and Brentwood would pay out the ass for grass feed bison liver.
come to think about it. this is probably the reason why birdman won best picture over boyhood last year.
birdman had a more film-related narrative going on with the "the movie was made as if it was one long take!!" and "this is michael keaton's comeback movie!!" whereas boyhood's "it took 12 years to make this"/"what if this actor/actress lost interest in the film mid-production?!?!" narrative (that did not influence the quality of the film) didn't resonate with most of the academy members.
yeah, it's a great movie but that's not the point of the thread.
I watched this interview recently where Tom Hardy explained shooting "The Revenant"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi3RicPREZQ
After that interview I was just really curious as to what working with AGI is like because it sorta sounds like he's a pretty hard dude to work with. Like, he talked about how AGI was very controlling about the characters initially and other stuff that piqued my interest.
Birdman definitely had layers upon layers of film related meta attached to its whole production and final product, much of that stuff academy voters seem to love (just look at Argo winning). I did feel it was a somewhat better movie than Boyhood, however not sure if that impression holds up over multiple viewings
Um, of course it was the case here. Do you really think they just went off in the wilderness with a few cameras and subsisted off of nothing but wild berries and captured game for eight months?
Admiral Woofington
Member
BlackGoku03
Member
Article felt like the typical NeoGAF, know-it-all, film review post. And from someone who only watched the trailers.
This is such stupid reasoning. The film goes to great lengths to make the audience understand the suffering Leo's character goes through both emotionally and physically. It's not just 'bad shit happening to Leo' for 120 minutes. Hell the film goes to lengths to show multiple sides and events as to what is occurring. Then whatever they did for the cinematography works as the film is absolutely goddamn gorgeous. If they only could film 90 minutes a day, so what? The movie is beautiful to look at.
This is essentially whining about people whining.
This is essentially whining about people whining.
Why do people keep saying this shit? Wouldn't it be even more sad if he doesn't get the Oscar at all? Obviously it's sad that he didnt get it for a better performance, but it happens. To many actors at that. Doesn't mean he can't earn it with another performance.
I mean hell Denzel got his best actor Oscar for Training Day of all films.
Not too well versed in his performances, which ones are even better than Training Day?
this. the salt is real with this one.
the movie is an outstanding piece of filmmaking, if the author cant see this, i feel sorry for him.
Hurricane and Malcom X for starters.
starchild excalibur
Member
I kind of agree with the author in the sense that I don't think DiCaprio necessarily deserves bonus points for, well, doing his job. It's interesting to read behind-the-scenes tales of any movie that had unusual circumstances and The Revenant is no exception. But it doesn't make his performance any more stunning than Jason Segal's in The End of the Tour, Fassbender's in Steve Jobs, Depp's in Black Mass, or Joaquin Phoenix's from The Master a few years ago.
He deserves a gold star for stepping out of his comfort zone, but not necessarily an Oscar IMO.
And the movie, while beautifully shot, becomes very tedious by the third act due to its running time. It's torture porn, but set out in the woods basically.
He deserves a gold star for stepping out of his comfort zone, but not necessarily an Oscar IMO.
And the movie, while beautifully shot, becomes very tedious by the third act due to its running time. It's torture porn, but set out in the woods basically.
Jeez, with all the insults towards this Faraci guy, you'd think he was stealing all the mooovies. Cálmate.
Subjective, but I guess Glory and Philadelphia are definitely up there. He won a best supporting actor for the former. Googling him reminded me that he's been in a ton of stinkers, too.
Subjective, but I guess Glory and Philadelphia are definitely up there. He won a best supporting actor for the former. Googling him reminded me that he's been in a ton of stinkers, too.
I think you should be able to separate the production of the movie from the movie itself as a viewer.
If the studio hyped up the process of making the movie let them do it. They are there to discuss the technicalities or promote the thing. Can't see why it should be used as a force against the product itself.
Revenant was pretty damn solid. I wasn't thinking about Leo actually going in the carcass or whatever.
If the studio hyped up the process of making the movie let them do it. They are there to discuss the technicalities or promote the thing. Can't see why it should be used as a force against the product itself.
Revenant was pretty damn solid. I wasn't thinking about Leo actually going in the carcass or whatever.
plasmawave
Banned
Was there a backlash for Mad Max for being too practical?
newtypepilot
Member
backlash? I'm sure there are just as many VFX shots as any normal AAA feature film. Good VFX are the ones you don't notice, not just adding cgi spaceships.
uncelestial
Member
Frankly I haven't seen much of a backlash. But I do agree with the premise that a movie being hard to make doesn't equal Oscars and quality. The film should speak for itself.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked