What the Oscar Nominees Teach You About Film Directing (Scorsese, Nolan, Glazer, Lanthimos, Triet)

Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorsese, Yorgos Lanthimos, Justine Triet and Jonathan Glazer are vying for the Academy Awards for Best Achievement in Directing. We all know it's Christopher's year. Interestingly for us, these five directors and their films are all extremely different in terms of visual style. We'll check how by analyzing their films here.
We'll go through the distinct ways these directors frame their shots, move their cameras, block their actors and plenty more. And when analyzing film direction, remember to always stick uniquely to what is presented on-screen.
This video is a defense of the analysis of film style. An achievement in directing shouldn't be judged by personal interpretation, cultural context, making-of stories, worldview or the simple fact of whether the film is good or bad. This video is a defense of the act of analyzing a director's job uniquely for their visual style. Some wise men once said:
"Criticism of film, despite the form’s visual nature, has tended to be derived primarily from literature and not from painting or, as might be more reasonable, a combination of the traditions of literature, painting, theater, and the unique forms of film itself".
- Stuart M. Kaminsky (International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers, Vol. 2 - Directors)
"Yet most film scholars don't analyze style, particularly visual style. Ironically, as films have become more available for close analysis than ever, interest in stylistics has waned. Why? Partly because film studies has for some time attracted scholars of a literary turn of mind, more comfortable with hermeneutics than stylistics (which remains a minor discipline in literary studies). In addition, even scholars have difficulty attending to the minutiae of technique. As we watch a film, we absorb its images but seldom notice how they're lit or composed. So critics and scholars find it more natural to talk about characters' psychological development, about how the plot resolves its conflicts and problems, or about the film's philosophical or cultural or political significance".
- David Bordwell (Figures Traced in Light)
00:00 Intro
01:23 Martin Scorsese for "Killers of the Flower Moon"
06:23 Christopher Nolan for "Oppenheimer"
13:43 Justine Triet for "Anatomy of a Fall"
17:06 Yorgos Lanthimos for "Poor Things"
20:20 Jonathan Glazer for "The Zone of Interest"
25:45 Outro
Join me on Patreon: / moviewise
"Rivette foams at the mouth": this is a reference to Jacques Rivette's famous Cahiers du Cinéma text "On Abjection".
Parametric storytelling: this one's too complicated. Check David Bordwell's "Narration in the Fiction Film", chapter 12.
#oscars #christophernolan #oppenheimer #martinscorsese #killersoftheflowermoon #yorgoslanthimos #poorthings #thezoneofinterest #anatomyofafall #academyawards #bestdirector #filmdirector #direction #cinematography #filmmaking
Danse Macabre by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Canon in D Major by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Investigations by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Brandenburg Concerto No4-1 BWV1049 - Classical Whimsical by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Dispersion Relation by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/

[@BabayChannel]

Putting your favourites at the beginning and the end of the video so that the viewer leaves with positive feelings? I give you an oscar for best screenplay.

[@venod3134]

The poop sandwich. Ole management tactics.

[@noneofyourbusiness1114]

You should do more Martin Scorsese cinematography videos. It’s wild how much detail that old wizard stuffs in his films and never a frame or second wasted.

[@Kevin_Street]

Scorsese seems like a natural fit for his "Why It's A Classic" series.

[@fredscallietsoundman9701]

I love moviewise's passing stab "such an artist gets to decide what is cinema and what isn't" 8-D

[@oliverdelica2289]

I was afraid at first that we won't get anything close to classic cinema. Didn't think of Scorsese immediately

[@64ccd]

Check out the channel in depth cine!

[@JunebugPresents]

"His wideshots are a mouthwatering lesson on cinematic composition." -- Moviewise on Scorsese. This is all I've been trying to say. This is all Spielberg meant when he told Martin Scorsese that Killers of the Flower Moon is his masterpiece. It's his best directing ever. Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver are all amateur night at the Apollo when compared to KOTFM. The Departed is a distant second. He was on fire with his latest movie, on some Kobe scoring 80 ish. Who cares that it's long? Every shot was so well composed. No amount of running can take away from that. People are getting off on Nolan and complaining about Scorsese merely because they wouldn't know good directing if it fell on their heads like an anvil for the sky. He will lose to the lesser Oppenheimer. But goddamn. There's an obvious best director of the year and it isn't going to be appreciated. Thank you, Moviewise.

[@klegdixal3529]

i'm not sure if you're telling that he continuously improved all his life or that he finally learned how to direct as an octogenarian.

[@snair4548]

If it helps, Scorsese has long transcended the Oscars. Even when he feld the need for their approval and validation, he was too big for them

[@user-pi8qw9jj7h]

@@snair4548The scars don't mean much except for leaving a trail to investigate past works. Though, the rest of that comment is exactly the type of comment that is the problem with film. Deification of the director and the blinding of his faults because of the Cult of the Auteur.

[@elijahalbiston]

I still support Nolan’s Oscar simply because it’s long overdue.

[@TheXelsky]

Started watching the TV-series "Marriage" with Sean Bean, and was glad to realise how much I noticed the terrible blocking and framing. You're a great teacher, Mr. Moviewise!

[@Moviewise]

Hope you notice some excellent framing and blocking in the future!

[@cocoacrispy7802]

On the positive side, with 'Shōgun" director Jonathan van Tulleken's framing and blocking, thanks to moviewise, gained a new appreciation of his contribution.

[@merry_christmas]

It's a blessing and a curse to develop a refined taste. From now on, you'll no longer be able to simply enjoy a movie. 😂😭

[@byronwylder]

So regarding the central framing of Oppenheimer, Hoyta Van Hoytema has talked about the reason being that IMAX is just so large that it's actually distracting having to look from left to right, so central framing becomes the main focus. Similar to what George Miller did with Fury Road. However the awkwardness and blocking (literally) of actors in key moments is quite sloppy at times.

[@bordidellapizza]

But George Miller did it with the intention of making the action scenes readable; for Oppenheimer it seems more like: "We have to do it like this otherwise it will be bad for those who see the film in IMAX". Clear, but most people (and the future survival of the film) will not be in IMAX, but on a wide format... In addition to the fact that there are scenes shot both in IMAX and on 65mm film, and even those in film have a central framing... But here there is no complex action scene, they are characters talking and seeing 3 hours of characters all talking in the center of the framing is a bit boring visually... Not even Wes Anderson or Peter Greenaway!

[@joaosantos5503]

This channel is the new Every Frame A Painting. The amount of knowledge and passion you put in, man... it's just great.

[@moon_orbit]

I think is even better

[@fhujf]

Yup, ever since Tony stopped uploading I yearned for a channel that focuses more on the visual/techinal side of things and not just the story. Finding this channel a couple of weeks ago was a treat.

[@intake_cinema]

David Bordwell passed away today, I see you referenced him in the description, an indispensable figure to cinema theory and appreciation. He will live on in his works, which will hopefully continue to be read and seen by future generations.

[@Moviewise]

I was shocked to find out today. No other person influenced so much my manner of looking at and explaining filmmaking.

[@jakeabraham2746]

I really enjoy your videos and think this one is strong as well. And while I think you bring up many valid points, I think every film on this list has a unique visual style that is well catered to its subject matter. This goes back to your video on cinematic staging/blocking and your desire to have films return to a more elegant and crisp form of visual storytelling, which I agree is fantastic, but at the same time, I think using that template as a rubric for everything is detrimental. Filmmaking has definitely become more visually progressive as formats have changed, and I think it's only natural that filmmakers use these tools to say something that couldn't be said before. Nolan for example has never really concerned himself with 'painterly' framing or anything like that, he shoots for the edit and tries to develop a momentum and compliment whatever narrative tricks he is utilizing. This is a function of personal style and trumps a traditional way of viewing framing/composition. The same goes for Triet's documentary-esque style; it is what the film needs, and I think she uses it to say something interesting about the artifice of what we deem to be authentic. And yes, Scorsese's work in Killers is still great; he does it like the masters of old, and it works like a charm. My point being is that there is room for everything; I personally wouldn't hold someone like Cassavetes to the same standard that I would John Ford. Their styles are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but both effectively enhance the kinds of stories they want to tell. Anyways, I really think you have some great points in this video (the Poor Things extra's criticism was one that I thought was particularly sharp). I will continue to watch!

[@lynnbowers4722]

Everything I wanted to say. Seconded.

[@keartan]

Just to counter your point on Nolan's framing/blocking. I have also heard the same said of him elsewhere which I still don't understand, because for me I don't see it on screen. His camera work often feels sloppy and unmotivated and confusing. One of my big issues with Oppenheimer is I couldn't follow the drive from scene to scene was, couple that with the constant over bearing sound design, I just wasn't having a good or immersive experience, in fact the opposite. I was getting irritated that I wasn't being brought on a journey. He may be trying to construct momentum but it is done to a detriment of coherent story telling. It baffles me the praise Oppenheimer in particular has received, there's so many creative and technical choices that are so jarring. It feels like an academic text book masquerading as a film with visual story telling as an after thought. But i'm in extreme minority. Perhaps time will change my opinion, or the consensus.

[@user-cr1vd3yp6w]

I've never finished one of your videos without feeling like I just had one of the best film lessons ever. Your explanations are thorough and detailed yet easily understandable. Great work man

[@Jilktube]

9:55 Holy shit I can't unsee this now.

[@kip388]

I remember seeing that scene from Oppenheimer and hoping Moviewise would tear it a new one some day.

[@MrShakespearefan]

Nobody tears a movie “a new one” by saying something negative or nasty. And why would you, anyway? I’ve never once had that feeling or desire watching a movie.

[@kip388]

@@MrShakespearefan it’s not inherently negative to criticize something, especially in regards to art.

[@chitranshutapas]

You are a film school moviewise!! Love you.

[@bryanperdomo1283]

I think Nolan changing the aspect ratio in such an abrupt way is a symptom of a problem in his directing, which is he prefers to change the aspect ratio to hide the blank spaces in the frame instead of thinking of creative composition like Scorsese does. In this sense, Scorsese is the most talented director and the one with a more complex visual style, meanwhile Nolan choose the easy answer in his cinematography

[@bryanperdomo1283]

Regarding my comment, I think the problem with Nolan's style will play in his favor in the Oscars, as he will excuse the aspect ratio thing not as a problem but as a creative decision and part of his style, which might fool someone who's not visually trained in cinematography (and might as well be his style) and for that he will receive extra points in the academy.

[@richardcahill1234]

The aspect ratio switching is technical not artistic. I suspect if he could Nolan would shoot an entire movie in IMAX but it just isn't feasible (yet).

[@SomeHarbourBastard]

@@richardcahill1234 Then he should just shoot the non-spectacle scenes in regular spherical 4-Perf Super 35 and forgo the pointless “ShitScope” (as the orator of this great channel calls it) in his movies. Or if he wants his Hi-Fidelity, VistaVision. VistaVision is ten times as viable as 65mm IMAX. It uses regular 35mm film, is twice the definition of Super 35, has a versatile aspect ratio (1.50:1, easily cropped to 1.43:1) and over 70+ movies back in the day were shot entirely with the format.

[@fredscallietsoundman9701]

Yeah he should crop both formats to a single ratio, and compose for that target. Unlike in Everything Everywhere Etc, in Nolan's movies the aspect ratio changes don't play any role in storytelling, and they're not even interesting visually. They're just a technical byproduct that should have been ironed out - like any other technical artifact. Film formats seem to give him too much of a hard on and he can't be bothered straightening the bump in his pants.

[@keartan]

@@fredscallietsoundman9701 Putting this on a t-shirt "Film formats seem to give him too much of a hard on and he can't be bothered straightening the bump in his pants."

[@LittlePhizDorrit]

Great video as always. I used to notice direction and editing a bit before, but you have taken me to a whole new level. Can't wait for the next one!

[@jjoanna2]

ppl like you - movie teachers and critics - should be the ones to select Oscar nominees. The Academy is a disgrace. i watched the Oscars decaying for the last 15 years. With great sadness. Oscars use to mean something. Nowadays it seems like the Academy doesn't even watch these movies, like if they only read the synopsis or something. Not to mention they would't even know good directing if they saw one. Movie industry needs more people who know how to analyse good directing, good screenwriting, good acting. The audience needs them. Someone who will help us elevate our taste... not just satisfy our lowest needs for entertainment. Thank you for your channel. i love it. I'm always waiting for the next video :)

[@rdk9773]

I have to thank you, your perspective on directing has teached me a lot to appreciate filmmaking on a more in depth analysis than just narrative which is the easiest to pin point when something is well and poorly done.

[@Hannibal082]

I love this channel. The only film critique channel on KZbin worth watching. Literally THE ONLY ONE.

[@maryrowles8934]

I learn so much from your videos! You make me a more perceptive cinephile. And I laughed out loud several times- what a delightful wit and sense of humor . You manage to critique these films and directors without insulting them .

[@hatomi_j4920]

I love you, Moviewise.

[@yasisoufi]

Where have you been all my cinephile life?!😍 AMAZING VIDEO!

[@kanchangahatraj]

Got to learn so much in a single video. Great video, keep the good work ❤

[@jrrtalkin]

this was absolutely fantastic. thank you!

[@ianlarsen]

I didn't notice the intricate framing and blocking at all while watching Killers of the Flower Moon, but I spent a lot of time asking why so much of the film was made up of shot-reverse shot dialogue scenes in close ups and mid shots. It turns out the stuff I was looking for was all there, but either went over my head or was just invisible to me, which I suppose means it did its job and I was wrapped up in the story during those parts. Very clever. Looking at Christopher Nolan's haphazard blocking, it's interesting to think that Steven Spielberg was the first person to watch Oppenheimer in 70mm. He declared his love for it, but I wonder what goes through his mind when he clearly has, and wants to preserve, something that the filmmaker who he is praising doesn't have. Nevertheless, I have to say that the pacing and structure of Oppenheimer is very much to my tastes. I often don't like Nolan's overbearing soundtracks and undisciplined cutting, but in this film I thought it built up a symphonic sense of despair that swept me right up and brought me to leave the cinema despondent about whatever future we might have. So, it was my favourite film of the year by far.

[@johnbrill7909]

I absolutely love the transition to the "Like...Subscribe...patreon". You are always entertaining in how you put that stuff in!

[@Kevin_Street]

Thank for this video! It's very educational. I don't think I can notice these sort of details when watching a movie for the first time (I'm too invested in the story), but I'll definitely notice them when re-watching it! Framing, camera movement, the actions of extras in the background... These seem like perfect details to pick up on when you want to understand the movie better.

[@marqc.9904]

I haven't seen Oppenheimer yet (I've had a lot going on) so when you showed the 4 second clip of Opp and his lawyer, I legitimately thought our focus was meant to shift towards the man on the far right getting up and walking away. That scene was so poorly blocked I didn't even know RDJ was there!

[@StephenTurnerLawyersOfTomorrow]

Thanks for this inciteful and funny education on film composition etc. Subbed! Have a great day. 🎉

[@johnfdm123]

When I was in college, I took an "Understanding Film" course. It really improved my appreciation of filmmaking, and taught me how to watch films. This channel is like a refresher course, renewing my appreciation for what goes into a film, what makes a film good, and what to look for. Really great channel!

[@jerryschramm4399]

Fascinating. As usual, you give the viewer a new perspective, and a new way of watching and judging the quality of a film.

[@forecheckbackcheckpaycheck]

This channel not having more subscribers is down right criminal, so here's a comment and a like. I'm doing my part.

[@abn3r507]

Thank you Moviewise, this has helped to make better blocking framing choices for upcoming projects

[@JohnMoseley]

Great instructive comparison of Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon. Lanthimos's fisheye fetish is tiresome to me, though I enjoyed the movie. I loved the look of Anatomy of a Fall. I really don't need every movie to look like a classical painting. 'Who'd want to watch that?' Me. I love that candid photographic style. I can't justify that, but that's the point: your view here is just as subjective. I really like your point about how the style fits the story and theme, though. But fantastic analysis of The Zone of Interest. As you were going through it, I was thinking of Playtime and Ozu, so it was great to find you were leading us there all along - and to learn the term 'parametric storytelling'.

[@Moviewise]

Check out David Bordwell’s Narration in the Fiction Film. Parametric Narration is a fascinating and highly complicated subject. And thanks for the comment!

[@JohnMoseley]

@@Moviewise And thanks much for the recommendation! I'll definitely follow up on it.

[@manikn4585]

Man i remember your Tar review and Oppenheimer is seems just like an anti thesis of that film Tar is Like you said "spacious" + long takes + extremely character focused with super subtle hinting in its dialogues Oppy just spazzes out with cuts, the shots are cramped and well the characters seem pretty hollow to me with there being an exposition bomb every minute of the film This video is very helpful for people like me who dont notice or know much about cinematography. Tells me how much thinking goes into the camera work.

[@LordBaktor]

Exposition bombs are Nolan's specialty. 99% of the dialogue in Inception is someone explaining something to someone else or doing an "as you know" to remind the audience of something.

[@gileadeandradesilva]

I don't think you're watching Moviewise's videos, because if you were, you'd know that he praised Oppenheimer's script as the best of all this year's Oscar-nominated screenplays.

[@manikn4585]

@@gileadeandradesilva ik I saw that. Never said he didn't say that though did I?

[@sandeepdas3526]

@@LordBaktor yeah thats why it was nominated for best screenplay

[@LordBaktor]

@@sandeepdas3526 Am I under any obligation to agree with the Academy's decisions or do I have a right to form and express my own opinion on this matter?

[@TheVid54]

Now I know why I thought KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON was my favorite movie of the year, and why I thought OPPENHEIMER wasn't much more enjoyable than FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY from way back in 1989.

[@soniashapiro4827]

I learn so much from this channel.

[@mckeldin1961]

Your videos have the cumulative effect of a solid introductory course in Cinema Studies. Thank you…

[@user-hc1uz2dn5s]

This channel is astonishingly good

[@JKRJ14]

Just discovered your channel, well as a keen film student I can say I found a gold mine. You Rock. Thank you for your content. 😍😍🔥🔥🔥

[@BloodyMary74]

I heard that the budget and the filming schedule on Oppenheimer was tight as violin string. Apple made a fortune on laptops so they can afford to be an art patron but for Universal film is business. They cannot overspend. buuut There are some moments in Oppenheimer where I can't believe no one on set offered to fix them with minimum effort. When Kitty and Robert go horse riding they put the reins on the bushes instead of tying them. Jean has to get out of bed, pick up a random book from the shelf, in a language she doesn't know, open a random page and ask Robert to read a quote that just happends to be the quote. Wouldn't it make more sense to put the book near the bed to suggest Robert is reading it? Add a bookmark, some notes to show he is learning the language? Maybe underline the quote so that Jean would want to know why it is important to him?

[@paulfrancisjenkins6483]

Good work as usual x

[@WMCheerman]

Amazing thanks for your work!

[@troybracy2915]

This dude is a fucking genius

[@paulschilling3117]

Well done. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’ve learned more about cinema from you than any other source. I really appreciate what you do and how you do it. Bravo!

[@paulschilling3117]

Let me also add please. You said once that you’d reveal your identity and some other nonsense. Please don’t. Your mystique is part of the fun of your show. Think of other KZbinrs that operate in your space. Is it better that I know who Mr. Plinkett is? The Critical Drinker? No! Nein! It’s better if they don’t let their identities be known. It’s better to be the character. Let your accent remain a mystery. Who cares where you are from or what your politics are or what you look like. Let me imagine you as a fantasy. Something that exists only as an intellect and a voice. You are perfect the way you are. Never change.

[@spider-ball]

Thank you @Moviewise because this excellent video had perfect release timing. Most of the "film critics" I follow were barking about Denis Villeneuve's comments about preferring great shots over dialogue, and this video is the perfect antidote. Also, one more difference in the opening comparison: does Chris Nolan get his ideas for aperture settings from Zack Snyder? Can we get some depth of field please?

[@tripencrypt]

Thank you Moviewise!

[@DaveTheTurd]

Excellent work, thank you.

[@johnsonctroy]

In your response to the frame being overly centered in Oppenheimer, Hoyte van Hoytema, DP for Oppenheimer explain that when shooting with IMAX cameras the projection is really curved so attempting to use the entire frame is pointless because it forces audience to stretch and lose themselves tryna find certain details in the frame. He says that it more of a 3D, or “you’re right there” vibe they were trying to give. It’s an interview on KZbin where he said this.

[@keartan]

You can still frame for the centre but dress the rest of the frame, and give some depth. Mad Max does this wonderfully, everything is centre framed, on the eyes, but the whole frame looks spectacular.

[@Lucas-qo7tt]

Yes!! You did it. Very good analysis, I was kind of expecting you don't liking Nolan's direction. I can't feel engaged by the images of any of his movies. Did you read Bordwell's little book on him? He talks how Nolan isn't very interesting in style, and great at cross-cutting narrative. So sad that he died today, one of the bests we had. I haven't watched Zone of Interest yet, but your analysis got me very excited to do it, probably I'll watch this weekend. I really got tired of Lanthimos directing in Poor Things. As for Anatomy of the Fall I really liked the narrative, especially the son's drama; but I kind agree with your take on the directing (it was the thing that didn't let me like more), some details I was even able to chatch it, but I still think is kind of effective. Well, Marty, what can i say?

[@stopthecap1]

Do you have a letterboxd sir? I'd love to read your reviews

[@therealnotanerd_account2]

Everytime I get a new Moviewise video I feel like Christmas.

[@olivercoulter260]

Nolan’s issue is he doesn’t utilise tonal variation. Each moment must escalate and outdo the last one until we are being foghorned in the face in an epic finale. The problem with that approach is how do you follow the cataclysm of man splitting the atom, the dropping of the bomb, with litigation in Judge Judy small claims court? Nolan’s verbose cinematic language seemed silly and clumsy when transposed in these small back rooms. Funnily enough if he had subverted the very style that’s become his signature I think the final act could’ve provide a more emotional and unexpected kick in the guts. Static wide shots, long takes, minimal score. There’s something so undignified and dreadful about this intriguing and intelligent figure being slowly dragged through mundane legal proceedings after everything he’s managed to do. That’s an intriguing story structure but better served through a drastic tonal change.

[@IcarusSuite]

You've made me start appreciating Killers of the Flower Moon.

[@Largentina.]

Huh? You didn't appreciate it before this video?

[@IcarusSuite]

@@Largentina. Not so much. The runtime and story felt tedious that I stopped even caring about the cinematography.

[@BloodyMary74]

Case and point, we need to bring back the intermission. Oppenheimer could have used the extra 30 minutes to flash things out. Killers would have been easier to take it with a break.@@IcarusSuite

[@Largentina.]

@@IcarusSuite Jesus Christ

[@alansmith8837]

Great vid again. The best.

[@vdiitd]

Your videos are impeccable! Your comedy is too good.

[@PerfectHandProductions]

Another great video. What does parametric mean in this context?

[@bimblebee]

so, this video was great, and I will watch it several times to extract as much knowledge as I can, but what I really want to know is how good the directing was on a scale of super cool dance moves

[@rpg7287]

Great stuff, as usual.

[@gabvideo]

Another great lesson on film making. Watching your videos I have come to the conclusion that how I feel and react to a film has a lot to do with how it’s all put together as well as the story or subject matter. Poor Things felt uneasy and disorientating watching but I loved the story. KOTFM was a joy to behold and very educational on the history of that period. Oppenheimer was like being bombarded with sound/dialogue/images and my brain got frazzled trying to keep up but I was fascinated by how such a monstrous weapon came about. I can’t wait for your next instalment so I can learn more.

[@MartinTHoffmann]

Super helpful analysis, in particular the analysis of Scorcese. I am not a movie expert, but coming from a photography and design perspective I am not quite sure why you consider empty space as something bad, when analysing Nolan? It creates a different mood and gives room for breathing.

[@DimitriFarkas]

I find your love to cinema an inspiration to be a more conscious (and hopefully better) filmmaker. You pinpointed all what’s wrong with Oppenheimer cinematography. I guess IMAX is lobbying hard this year. “Anatomy of a Fall” feels almost like a n episode of “The Office”. I was waiting for someone to break the fourth wall at some point. I Loved the cinematography of “Flowers of the Killer Moon” but I’m a nineties kid who grew up watching skateboard videos shot on fisheye, so my heart is with “Poor Things”. But “The Zone of Interest” tastefully whoops some asses here. Thank you very much. God bless.

[@Sanger2007]

I love the video. Could I please know how you were able to get footages for these movies? Really want to watch Zone of interest and poor things but can’t find them online

[@maryrowles8934]

Just watch app & site are pretty reliable- will tell you where, cost to stream or buy & alert you when available . But I urge you to see the Glazer film in a theater the first time you watch it.

[@lukemaas4628]

this is my favorite video ever

[@ctodd122]

Great stuff!

[@krishnsagar1276]

Hey, your perspective about direction in filmmaking is always interesting, and the same thing is true for this video. I just wanted to know your opinion about one thing that you said in the OPPENHIEMER part. You said that all the shots are centered too much, but I was listening to one of the videos where Hoyte van Hoytema was talking about the centered puncher shots (the most important thing in the frame for IMAX composition), as it's for Imax screens that are curved, so you have to block and stage according to that, so maybe if we see the film in the medium (Imax) that the director wants us to see, the blocking would make more sense. What do you think about that?

[@Moviewise]

I didn’t say all the shots were centered too much, on the contrary. I said many were, many gave the impression of being cropped, and a few used the length of the screen well. Curved screens became common in the 50s to reduce image distortion in widescreen movies. Since the projector’s light needs to travel different distances to reach the flat screen it caused distortion on the sides because they were farther from the projector. Curved screens were used to minimize that distance. IMAX is nothing new in that regard and huge curved screens never stopped filmmakers from making wide images.

[@krishnsagar1276]

Yes, it's true that curved screens are not new, and perhaps Oppenheimer hasn't used the vertical elements. However, in the video, you mentioned 'center framing taken to extreme,' and the left and right spaces are not utilized. After that, there was a comparison with 'Killers of the Flower Moon.' So, what I can infer is that 'Killers of the Flower Moon' is not shot in IMAX; they are using the standard method. Therefore, the framing is like that. But Oppenheimer is specifically for IMAX, so the comparison between these two for composition is like comparing apples and oranges. Maybe it would be better if we compared it with a movie that is also shot with IMAX and intended by the director to be seen in IMAX. I have a personal experience of watching a film that was not meant for IMAX (which is 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse'), and what happened was that I had to consciously move my head left or right to notice the details. It was a little jarring for me as it distracted me from immersing into the movie.@@Moviewise

[@Moviewise]

@@krishnsagar1276 Don't forget that Oppenheimer has plenty of shots that use the sides of the frame (06:52). Teller calling attention on the right (09:17) particularly invites the eye. Center framing is not a consistent excuse.

[@krishnsagar1276]

It is to be noticed that whenever the frame is full, it is on shots where the movement of actors is static, and this makes sense for Imax, and the actors who are speaking are most of the time center-framed; when the teller calls attention and a shot is cut to him, he is center-framed. During the meeting of the family where everyone is centered, the actors are moving, and maybe if they were occupying the whole screen, it would be jarring for the audience who is watching it in imax. The main thing is that if it is shot for IMAX, then we should compare it with a movie that is also shot in IMAX, and secondly, if a director can perfectly compose (its subjective) for some scenes, and then in some scenes you think that it's not composed properly, maybe there can be some reason behind it, which I think is that they are aiming for IMAX. @@Moviewise

[@Moviewise]

Oppenheimer is not competing with other films shot on Imax, though. It’s competing with these ones so it should be compared to these ones when discussing this category.

[@Miramepictures]

Hoyte said in imax the edges usually gets curved so they tried to stick to centre composition as much as possible.

[@rosezingleman5007]

Very helpful.

[@jakecarpenter3124]

I think most talk about visuals is dominated by how an image looks on an aesthetic level. There's not enough focus on staging and also how shots can cut together. Recently, I've noticed far more films with shots that just don't work next to each other in an unintentional way (it's a major problem in my own work too, to be fair).

[@tehu]

Justine Triet followed the Beaux Arts school as an aspirant painter. She made her debut as a documentary director, then switched to fiction with 'la bataille de Solferino' in 2013. It is a low budget film where Triet mixed real world capture with scenarized plans.

[@jespersichlau4343]

I love this walkthrough and that you aren't affraid to point out bad compositing. But I gotta' say a well-shot and well-composited movie does not automatically make it a great movie. At the end of the day it's about telling a great story, which is of course subjective in contrary to great craftmanship.

[@Samsonjukeria]

This is a master class for directing

[@Jeredos]

Cut to: Nolan winning the Oscar.

[@taysonm11]

This opened my eyes to a lot of what makes directing well directing. But narrative will always be what will makes movies great. That’s the mark of a true great director to me. Obviously, the coupling of the writing with shot composition is important for the pacing and overall vibe, but at the end of the day, it’s all subjective, so lets keep it that way.

[@Uppernorwood976]

Another great video! A question: how much of the poor framing and blocking is the fault to the cinematographer as opposed to the director?

[@bordidellapizza]

Watch the director's films with other cinematographers and that cinematographer's films with other directors and draw conclusions from that. Example: Watch Nolan films without Hoyte van Hoytema and watch films with Hoyte van Hoytema not directed by Nolan.

[@hatomi_j4920]

@@bordidellapizzaCon scappelamento a destra, come se fosse Antani.

[@PerfectHandProductions]

Would be curious to see your analysis of There Will Be Blood.

[@Mr_Simple007]

Can you do a video on what makes good editing or good sound design? Editing is the third most important part of movie making and I think not enough film analysers break it down well. Also, who are your favourite film critics?

[@cameronm4538]

What is the movie he mentions at 25:40 ?? Viv ca vie? Vive ca vive? Vee sa vee?

[@recetasfaciles2816]

Excellent video. I'm totally agree. Marty being the greatest living director.

[@daftyfunky]

I think the point of that 4 second take was to put the focus entirely on Oppenheimer's dismissive reaction to his lawyer saying that he might've taken in too far. Given that scene is in color and all color scenes are supposed to be from Oppenheimer's subjective perspective, this made sense to me. We also see that same scene multiple times throughout the film, from different angles, different close ups and both in color and in black and white. Strauss saw it as a humiliation, Oppenheimer intended it as one but was arrogant enough to revel in it and enjoy it and believe that it wouldn't backfire. On your point of the jarring editing. I've seen this criticism a lot and I totally get this isn't everyone's style. But to me, the frantic, messy editing is a strength of the movie. So much of the film feels like memory. We're watching Oppenheimer remembering his life story and watching him go through key memories of his life in his head. I don't know about you, but whenever I look back at my life in my head or recall certain memories, the images I see are series of rapid, disorganised and frantic images. The editing of this film is exactly how memory feels to me. It gives the whole film a contemplative and meditative quality. Which is why I found it to be so incredibly immersive. Nolan wanted to put us right into Oppenheimer's head. The rapid editing played a huge role in that imo. It also represented just how eventful and full of turmoil Oppenheimer's life was. The editing helped me understand just how difficult it must've been for him to deal with so many changes in a short amount of time. That same style of editing also helped the court room drama in the 2nd half of the film. The way it was edited and paced made it feel like an action movie. Which made the 3hr runtime fly past by me as if it was 2hrs long. One of the best paced films I've seen in recent years. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.

[@giggityguns123]

I disagree because, if we were to be drawn to Opp’s reaction the focus wouldve been on him and not the background. The lawyer’s look is what is being communicated in the scene visually. Had the camera, for example, zoomed on Opp’s face subtly after he glances it would visually show us the narrative you are talking about. Otherwise i think you have a point that sometimes moviewise has some takes that are more about preference. He’s still the goat of film analysis on youtube

[@bordidellapizza]

Watch JFK (which he himself has analyzed in other videos) and you'll realize how fast-paced editing isn't a problem in itself, but depends on how it's handled. Every cut of JFK has a purpose, a meaning, a reason for being there. And above all, it doesn't cut from all possible angles with camera movements that have no beginning or end; indeed, sometimes he breaks up long-takes with quick flashbacks. In Oppenheimer everything is more approximate and vague... It's difficult to make it clear with a comment, the best thing is to see JFK and Oppenheimer a short time apart to understand it. But in short, Oppenheimer's editing draws a lot of attention to itself, while JFK manages to create this "fluid" and organic flow of images.

[@daftyfunky]

@@bordidellapizza I've seen JFK, it's also one of my all time favourites because of the way it's edited and so tightly paced. When I came out of my first viewing of Oppenheimer I had to immediately think of JFK as both films have a lot of similarities. I think Nolan and his editor did a good job echoing that same style of editing, especially in the court room drama part of the film. For example that cross cut scene where Oppenheimer meets Pash was so well cut in terms of tension and suspense. But also the cross cutting of Oppenheimer's security hearing with Strauss senate confirmation was so well executed and put together and worked on so many levels, my favourite being that it worked as an analogy for the mutual assured destruction in a nuclear arms race. I think the vagueness you mentioned could be more due to the highly subjective nature of the film. We never get to see an objective pov. It's either Oppenheimer's perspective or Strauss'. Which means we don't necessarily get to always see the full picture. JFK on the other hand is interested in telling a more objective story. Ironically enough, despite it's attempt at this objective storytelling JFK is far more historically inaccurate than Oppenheimer with its highly subjective storytelling. But that's a different discussion. I really believe that Oppenheimer is an editing masterclass. Condensing that huge amount of information and the sheer scope and magnitude of Oppenheimer's story into 3hrs was no easy challenge. I think they pulled it off as best as one could.

[@bordidellapizza]

@@daftyfunky I agree that the scene with Pash has tension, but it has tension because of how it was written and conceived. The implementation from my point of view remains a problem. In the room with Oppy, Pash and the guy at the table (I don't remember his name), three shots were enough: shot/reverse shot and two shots. Instead Nolan includes a single two shot with an insignificant movement to the right, because it has no beginning and end (why move the camera, then?) and shots of characters that have nothing to do with it: what's the point of that half-length shot of two 2 seconds on the defense attorney in that scene? What's the point of all those shots of the guy at the table if he doesn't say/do anything and just listens? He doesn't even react! He has the same expression all the time. It's details like these that disturb and don't let the tension build organically. Without those insignificant shots and with a little more refined editing, the scene would have been truly perfect. And anyway this concerns the whole film, not just this scene. Even in the courtroom scenes, how many "insignificant" cuts and shots (i.e. those that are so short that they provide neither information, a character's emotional state, or add to the atmosphere) that are held for only milliseconds? What purpose do they serve? Every time I see it all I think about is how it could have been so much better if it had been refined here and there. And I agree that the editing is excellent! Because it unites scenes and creates absurd and fantastic connections... But at the same time it's the worst part of the film.

[@rathodkaran6190]

Thank you moviewise

[@N_Loco_Parenthesis]

All those Lanthimos zooms! Jean Rollin was famous for his zooms, wasn't he? Maybe a deep dive into the demi-monde, the seedy world of B-movies, would make a fun video essay?

[@Moviewise]

Zooms were insanely common in the late 60s and early 70s. Almost every director was using it, specially in Europe

[@James-Tanner]

Hey if I sent you my short film what would it take to get a critique? I love your opinions but I’m developing my intentionality in blocking and framing…

[@JosephTPorter]

Poor Things needing to break the 180-degree rule three times for a shot of someone eating gives me Taken-3-needing-fourteen-shots-to-show-someone-jumping-a-fence vibes

[@giacomomcdowell5673]

Moviewise speaks - we listen

[@MrBrown-co2lf]

More Directing Videos. They are perfection

[@purekinema]

I'm curious what you think of Maestro's direction. A lot of interesting shot choices and framing devices but it seems like Cooper is just playing with directing toys without trying to achieve a greater purpose.

[@cameronallenmusic]

I really respect the fact that your criticism constantly brings us back to the director's technical ability even though in my subjective opinion you occasionally over value formal qualities at the risk of undervaluing the responsibility the director has for protecting continuity and maintaining suspension of disbelief. Anyway, thanks for making us all into smarter audiences!

[@Of_infinite_Faith]

Can you provide a list of films and other sources that you used to learn these things?

[@KhoaHoVoang]

If I ever direct a film in my next life, I'd definitely learn from Martin Scorsese, Billy Wilder, William Wyler (if that's correct) and many directors that you've mentioned. Oh btw, because of you, I cannot enjoy most films or tv series due to........many terrible blocking.

[@frankyan3943]

Oppenheimer’s center framing is largely due to the format of IMAX. Because of the scale of IMAX, audience can’t really pay as much attention to the sides as those in regular screens

[@Moviewise]

Plenty of shots in Oppenheimer use the sides though

[@keartan]

You can still frame for the centre but dress the rest of the frame, and give some depth. Mad Max does this wonderfully, everything is centre framed, on the eyes, but the whole frame looks spectacular. Oppenheimer on the whole is pretty dull looking.

[@SS-ec2tu]

You should have half a million subscribers. At least you have gained 5k in the past months.

[@ledbowman]

even lesser scorsese work completely smokes all the other 4

[@Alessandrosaiyan]

Nonetheless, Nolan’s movies have a rewathacability I found nowhere. So even if I agree with your incredible analysis, I rather rewatch Oppenheimer than any of the others movies/films. Still, Martin Scorses is overall one my favorite directors ever and I rewatch a LOT of his movies like The Departed or Casino.

[@theroebuck123456789]

that shot at 5:09 breaks my brain, how do they stay consistent with the right side lighting. It can't be overhead lights the shadow angles look accurate to the window as a light source

[@A_few_words]

Very thorough analysis. High standard as always. Funny and pleasant to watch. No vomitting guy a tiny disappointment

[@64ccd]

Thank you yet another fantastic video! One not though - Nolan's poor use of the vertical aspects of the frame are intentional. I heard Hoyte van Hoytema feels he has to stuff everything in the middle of the frame because IMAX movies shown in non-IMAX theaters will have the sides cropped a bit. No the real question in my mind is why in the "?%&!# would you shoot in IMAX? It costs about 1000 dollars a minute (not exaggerating here) and for my money, Carol, shot on 16 mm looks as good, if not better than, Oppenheimer. How are we this obsessed with resolution still?

[@fredscallietsoundman9701]

Ok, look. Your videos are great, and I can't get enough of them. I think you should dispense with eating, sleeping, a job, family, and churn out 2 of them per day just to entertain me - ok? Get to it. (and yeah, I've watched some of your recommendations - they're good, but not as entertaining as your videos about them)

[@SamsMythDesign]

Love your style and analysis! However I don’t think that a more evenly-filled, meticulously framed composition is inherently better. This is just one of many approaches and styles.

[@bluehorizon9547]

Can you please analyze Tarantino?

[@ashroskell]

That was so fascinating. Thank you. I think we register many of these jarring shots and cuts on a subconscious level, without realising it. I think back to Scorsese’s earliest successful movies and wonder if these rules apply to his blocking and composition and I’m reminded of how the film Taxi Driver went over schedule and over budget just to get one shot for the climax of the movie. They removed part of a ceiling and put tracks through it, just so the camera could pan in an arch over the characters, looking down into the scene of Travis Bickle’s carnage below after the police officer enters. It’s as though the officer is stunned into an out of body experience. But it’s also a way for the viewer to step back and see a more collective image of this stunned officer, the crying girl and the suicidal Bickle, without taking you out of the flow. I can see how he agonised over shots like those and why they mattered so much to him. Before he could command such blank cheques as he gets now, it’s impressive to reflect back on such artistic achievement. You sir, have given me fresh eyes with which to appreciate the genius of one of my favourite directors. And I am grateful.

[@BanjoSick]

Amen! The same happens in literature. People obsess about meaning while sentence structure, rhyme and technique fall to the wayside. O tempore o mores.