tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5577490778732005247.post7960827781742716889..comments2024-03-27T00:17:30.149-07:00Comments on Criterion Confessions: THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (Blu-Ray) - #541Jamie S. Richhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10574127694740978803noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5577490778732005247.post-51140018277875097982011-01-02T12:02:09.103-08:002011-01-02T12:02:09.103-08:00I don't feel that's a contradiction at all...I don't feel that's a contradiction at all. In evaluating the technical achievement of a shot or special effect and its aesthetic intention, one must also ask if it works in service to the story. If it takes you out of the movie by calling attention to itself, then it may not be the best choice. That's how I feel about the riverbank scene. Though Laughton wanted something magical, the magic fails when I stop watching the film as a story and start thinking, "Gee, that looks great."Jamie S. Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10574127694740978803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5577490778732005247.post-5577397690798460832011-01-01T08:37:31.849-08:002011-01-01T08:37:31.849-08:00"as lovely as those riverbank images of the f..."as lovely as those riverbank images of the forest animals can be, they always look like they've been arranged, they aren't natural. Obviously, there are shots throughout the movie that are meant to look like something out of a storybook [...] and Laughton has done a good job composing them--but it's too good. The illusion bursts."<br /><br />Huh? You need to have a long, hard think about the contradictions within this paragraph. You're basically saying "Obviously it's not meant to look natural, but it fails to succeed in this because it looks artificial". Like, what??A reader who normally thinks you're so right about everythingnoreply@blogger.com