DanielAtlas94
Joined Mar 2015
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings2.8K
DanielAtlas94's rating
Reviews11
DanielAtlas94's rating
Room 8 Have A Very Genius Story Line . Prisoner Found A Box In His Ward When He Open That We See Another Dimensions Of His Room . Its More Like The Humans Want Their Freedom At Any Cost No Matters What Happened After Or What Is Our Consequences & We Not Satisfied With What We Have & Always We Want More . Like When Some Elder Guy Say To Us Don,t Do That And We Do & Regret About It . Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Said If You Want Your Freedom You Should Leave Your Captives Life At Any Price Some One Happy About It And Some One Face Withe Their Consequences.
The Road Of Felleni Have A Simple Story With Heavy Effecting And Meaning , The Girl Going With Zampano To Be His Assisstant In His Job , She Is Very Simple , Kind , Giulitte Masina Doing One Of A Best Acting In History , She Is Extraordinay , She,s Act Is Always Stay In Memory Of Any Cinematic Mind And Antonie Quienn Is Great Too , And This Two Make One Of A Memorable Movie In History. The Road Don,t Have Any Heavy ,Mind Blowing Or Twisted Movie , It,s Just Like We Sit In Car And Going In A Straight Road To See What We Should See, Meaning Of Living And Love Each Other When We Need That Not When It,s Past. Living In Moment And Drope Out The Pride Just Fell The Moments.
"The Salesman" is a pre-bad (worse than bad) movie; a nugatory one. It neither sells anything nor buy. It is unable to sell and buy and incapable of dealing or discussing at all.
It's a not-yet-made, confused and passive movie to which the action happens- from the outside-. It doesn't have any sort of action of its own, let alone character. It's a movie with no story, script, directing, camera-work, or editing.
The movie doesn't even have an acceptable "what" due to a hollow script to which anything enters and from which anything exits. The script lacks many necessary things but contains lots of useless ones, instead. Of course, nothing has been aesthetically removed from the script, for nothing is there in the first place. Thus the writer doesn't have anything at all to remove.
The movie is incomplete, unfinished and "open". The director doesn't know that an "open" phenomenon is not a phenomenon yet. It can be open only after it is able to be closed and after it is completely finished.
Our director, as if he knows that his "The Salesman" needs a lot of effort yet to be a movie, attends lots of interviews and attaches himself to his dumb movie. He pretends to be oppressed, spark controversy about himself, and soothe himself by making a "modern" pretension to be intellectual and relativist. Thus, he pleases himself for "causing the audience to have a mental challenge" and "that the audience is full of questions while coming out of the theatre is of worth" for him.
One should remind him that it is not worthy at all if the audience come out of the theatre being confused by lots of unanswered questions. It is not worthy at all if all of those questions are about the "what" of the story but not "how" it is told. it is not worthy at all if the origin of the questions is the audience not facing a specific and finished story by which he can reach the "how" and experience.
He (the director) has left us no other choice but to remind him that cinema is neither a horn nor a riddle. A work of art is a live experience, not a proposition or the answer to several questions. Art is not a statement, but the way of stating. The audience's challenge with a good work of art is intuitive and emotional, then intellectual. The intellectual who doesn't have the slightest idea of feelings, is one of the concept-oriented people who can never understand art.
The audience's main question about this vague and passive movie is the following: "Is someone raped or just attacked?" In order to pretend that the movie is important, the director decisively says, in one of the interviews, that "no one is raped." Nevertheless, the movie implies the opposite. Not in its mise en scene- which isn't actually there-, but by two dialogues; one is of the wretched violator's ("I was tempted.") and the other one is of the doleful victim's ("I wish I were dead."). In another interview, with a Hitchcock sense of humor- which doesn't fit him at all- the director mentions that he hasn't been in the bathroom, so he doesn't know what has happened.
It's a not-yet-made, confused and passive movie to which the action happens- from the outside-. It doesn't have any sort of action of its own, let alone character. It's a movie with no story, script, directing, camera-work, or editing.
The movie doesn't even have an acceptable "what" due to a hollow script to which anything enters and from which anything exits. The script lacks many necessary things but contains lots of useless ones, instead. Of course, nothing has been aesthetically removed from the script, for nothing is there in the first place. Thus the writer doesn't have anything at all to remove.
The movie is incomplete, unfinished and "open". The director doesn't know that an "open" phenomenon is not a phenomenon yet. It can be open only after it is able to be closed and after it is completely finished.
Our director, as if he knows that his "The Salesman" needs a lot of effort yet to be a movie, attends lots of interviews and attaches himself to his dumb movie. He pretends to be oppressed, spark controversy about himself, and soothe himself by making a "modern" pretension to be intellectual and relativist. Thus, he pleases himself for "causing the audience to have a mental challenge" and "that the audience is full of questions while coming out of the theatre is of worth" for him.
One should remind him that it is not worthy at all if the audience come out of the theatre being confused by lots of unanswered questions. It is not worthy at all if all of those questions are about the "what" of the story but not "how" it is told. it is not worthy at all if the origin of the questions is the audience not facing a specific and finished story by which he can reach the "how" and experience.
He (the director) has left us no other choice but to remind him that cinema is neither a horn nor a riddle. A work of art is a live experience, not a proposition or the answer to several questions. Art is not a statement, but the way of stating. The audience's challenge with a good work of art is intuitive and emotional, then intellectual. The intellectual who doesn't have the slightest idea of feelings, is one of the concept-oriented people who can never understand art.
The audience's main question about this vague and passive movie is the following: "Is someone raped or just attacked?" In order to pretend that the movie is important, the director decisively says, in one of the interviews, that "no one is raped." Nevertheless, the movie implies the opposite. Not in its mise en scene- which isn't actually there-, but by two dialogues; one is of the wretched violator's ("I was tempted.") and the other one is of the doleful victim's ("I wish I were dead."). In another interview, with a Hitchcock sense of humor- which doesn't fit him at all- the director mentions that he hasn't been in the bathroom, so he doesn't know what has happened.