Do you consider it good visual storytelling? What would you consider meaningful or bad use of symbolism if there is such a thing? Do you guys consider the accusation that use of symbolisms is just faux-intellectualism and makes movies into game puzzles?
Pic unrelated as anno admitted his symbolism is mostly for aesthetic
Anime isnt film you pathetic nobody.
That's a retarded opinion and even more retarded because I literally said.
>Pic unrelated as anno admitted his symbolism is mostly for aesthetic
So learn to read you brainlet.
If it looks visually appealing then i'm all for it
So you don't particularly care for storytelling through symbolisms?
>"I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image. People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? An image cannot be a symbol in my opinion. Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite"
It can be good if done properly, but putting visual symbolism in a film for mere aesthetic purposes doesn't make it bad or anything.
>Do you consider it good visual storytelling?
no, absolutely banal and juvenile surface-level gimmickery
>bad use of symbolism
any Snyder flick
>Do you guys consider the accusation that use of symbolisms is just faux-intellectualism and makes movies into game puzzles?
yes
I never implied that was bad. I was just wondering your take on what's considered good use of symbolism ?(if you consider them good that is)
Is this man retarded?
Hmm... What do you consider to be good visual storytelling? Good camera work and editing like Fincher, Edgar wright, Bong Jon hoo etc...?
>"anno admitted his symbolism is mostly for aesthetic"
>You gotta say that when your symbolism is about (((seele))) being Jews, good magicians never reveal their tricks.
>What do you consider to be good visual storytelling?
When you tell the narrative and the emotion through the framing, composition, lighting directly, when all the filmmaking elements form a whole and tell the narrative. When you use symbolism you literally make the meaning of one scene simple and finite, the exact opposite of true artistic expression. And once you "get" the symbol there is nothing more to see or experience in it. The scene itself becomes banal.
Most great films don't have a singular set meaning you have to get out of it. Subtext is not what makes a film, the experience and engagement you get from it is the important thing.
Films are not puzzles which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to "get" them. There is no canonical consensus on any great film in terms of the meaning of this or that frame, which is why they are so great. Take any Tarkovsky or Lynch film for example
The only thing he 'admitted' to in front of a bunch of middle schoolers in a reality show is that the name was chosen because it sounded cool
In that sense would you consider into the spiderverse to be a great films as it uses visuals to create an experience?
Not that guy, while I consider spiderverse to be a good film it does something I consider worse than bad symbolism, Easter eggs and references that you "get" if you're a fan of the franchise.
It's sad that you equate the word "experience" to capeshit. 2001 is an experience, Blade Runner is an experience, Mirror is an experience. That's good visual storytelling and using the medium of film at it's full potential.
>anno admitted his symbolism is mostly for aesthetic
All the crosses and some of the things names were aesthetic only, but most of the symbolism was spot on
nightmare fuel is not symbolism
I personally don't like the film myself. It didn't do anything for me. It's goals were to do something unique with the animation, that's why I asked.
I agree with your examples.
Tbf the cross imagery get groanworthy at times
I think NGE had the most kino use of cross imagery as it was mostly meant for a cool factor.(as others have said not all symbolism were purely for coolness). They were a lot more creative and crazy with it. Cross shaped explosions and all.
Snyder is a very good example lazy christian symbolism.
>....[works] ought to resemble a Swiss lake: their clarity should reveal their depth.
Pretentious hacks.
>you're pretentious if you want your work to be clear and direct, not hid behind 12 layers of le epic references
yikes my dude
evangelion is garbage and the actual plot of the show is beyond retarded but people defend it because muh deep meaning and symbolism when in reality the author himself has said that he used all the religious iconography because he thought it looked cool
the guys is a shit writer like every other chinese cartoon author there is
If it has acting, directing, a script, an original soundtrack etc and it's an hour+ long and it plays in a movie theater then guess what? it's fucking film, faggot.
>Pic unrelated as anno admitted his symbolism is mostly for aesthetic
no he didnt you fucking retard
he said the christian imagery was mostly for the cool factor
jesus christ this is a single digit iq post if i ever saw one
(you)
Cringe. That's not what a film means. You need real people.