Well, this was a total trainwreck

Perfect Blue is way way better than Parika. But of course a brainlet like you wouldn't notice the difference between a good story supported by fitting cinmeatic devices and cinematic devices used for their own sake and wasted on garbage story.

It is when you try to tell a story.

Style is substance. Especially in this film.

Has anyone read the novel?

No. Paprika is not an art film. It tries to tell a pretty damn satright forward story with a conventional suspense curve. There's an exposition, a triggering event, an escalaton, a resolution and an epilogue. And this story is simply not good and not very well supported by cinematic choices.

Paprika was decent. Nobody over the age of 14 should be pretending it was a conceptually deep film.

lmao there's nothing saying an art film can't have a traditional dramatic structure you idiot

Based

it was the easiest movie of Satoshi Kon

This post is embarrassing. Imagine having watched Paprika, yet still being unaware of what its visuals actually support.

nah.

Define skillful directing?

Then tell me what other characteristic sets it apart from just a regular movie.
Again, tell me then. I have asked you faggots several time already to actually point out what makes that movie special with concrete examples, but none of you were able to.

>were able to
Someone who unironically thinks for Paprika's visual directing and animation to primarily intend to support its shoestring, is someone so far gone that there's only one thing left to do: ridicule them.

it's one of the most ambitious portrayals of dreamspace since 8 and a fucking half

I can't because that's very braod, but often it manifests as subtle cinematic choices that support what the director wants to convey. Want an example? Look at this scene from Wolf Children:
youtube.com/watch?v=pdSKot0psNg
I think the dude talking about it misses the main point of that tracking shot, though. In my opinion, it's to point out that what the viewer sees is meant as representative situations during the kids' school time, not as individually significant situations. Suppose the tracking shot were absent and instead cuts would've been used. Now take the situation where the two other kids bully Ame and Yuki helps him as an example. Now the viewer might be under the impression that this was one specific situation that was shown because it had an impact on Ame's and Yuki's development. The tracking shot makes it obvious that this isn't the case. Instead the scene is meant as a represenative situation,meaning it is one of many different but similar incidences that shaped Yuki's and Ame's characters.

I disagree but that doesn't even matter. What does portraying "dreamspace" have to do with being or not being an art film? Hint: the answer is "nothing".

Okay, so as I suspected you cant actually support your claims with evidence. If you disagree feel free to post some, otherwise I won't bother replying anymore.

surrealism is one of the most common art film categories and true surrealism like paprika is extremely rare outside of art film

You don't need to reply. I will ridicule you nonetheless. You're not even smart enough to understand the youtube videos you yourself choose to post but instead delude yourself into believing to have some hotshot ideas. It's adorable, really.

>Some pretentious nobody underachiever criticizes Paprika again because it doesn't conform to his movie school dropout "standards"
How very unusual

>What does portraying "dreamspace" have to do with being or not being an art film
Surrealism literally refers to portrayal of the unconscious mind, and surrealism is a chief tenent of art

>sur·re·al·ism /səˈrēəˌlizəm/
>noun
>a 20th-century avant-garde movement in art and literature which sought to release the creative potential of the unconscious mind, for example by the irrational juxtaposition of images.

How hard is it to understand a dream within a dream? I mean this movie inspired the premise of Inception (c.2010)

Now this is an argument at least. Anyway, Paprika's usage of dream scenes in order to explore the mind of individual characters who are important for an easily interpretable overarching story does not make Paprika a surrealistic movie. Just look at any classic surrealistic films. What they all have in common is the absence of precisely such a clearly defined overarching story. The movies themselves are surrealistic, because they are protrayed as such and don't just portray surrealistic themes within them.

How did I not understand it?

>Some pretentious nobody underachiever criticizes Paprika again because it doesn't conform to his movie school dropout "standards"
Nice ad hominem, I studied physics, though, and wtach movies only as a hobby.

>>youtube.com/watch?v=pdSKot0psNg
Quickly looking at his stuff he only has 2 anime videos and the other one is praising Kon's directing, using a lot of Paprika footage for it.
Paprika has some of the best flow I've seen in a film, which works perfectly with the concept of layered dreams.

Attached: paprika an hero.gif (636x341, 2.9M)

>How did I not understand it?
>he replied again
Jesus Christ, Jose.

Attached: 1544503636472.gif (512x512, 510K)

>and wtach movies only as a hobby.
It shows.

Attached: 1557003167547.jpg (224x190, 11K)

>I studied physics
Says a lot about the average STEM graduate. I knew they were autistic and retarded, but I didn't expect for it to be this bad.

Yeah, as I noted, I didn't post that video for the dude's analyses but for the wolf children scene to give an example for what I consider good directing. If you like Paprika's directing, feel free to do the same.

Haha you got me again, buddy!

Yes, please enlighten me as a professional anime watcher!

Unlike you, I'm not a pretentious hobbyist with no sense of shame, so I'm afraid I can't really give you any kind of help.
What you need is a good psychiatrist or some IRL experience that makes you actually regret opening your mouth to spout worthless drivel, any kind of "argument" you can have on this anonymous imageboard is less than worthless if what you're seeking is help.

Attached: 1551288276267.jpg (540x405, 32K)

retard that's why I said he would quit halfway through the better film that has deeper themes, because OP is too stupid to understand a shallower film like paprika

I seriously hope you've been diagnosed with autism. Otherwise this post becomes even more embarrassing given your (supposed) academic background.

Or maybe Perfect Blue is just good while Paprika is shit.

>any kind of "argument" you can have on this anonymous imageboard is less than worthless if what you're seeking is help.
I'm mostly here for the mild amusement, though. If I wanted actually thought-provoking discussins I'd be in the Madoka thread.

But user, I have seen no indication of OP not understanding Paprika.

The old detective had a nice character arc, and the girl too I guess.
But then she hooks up with the fat guy for some reason?

That's what I said.

It's a story in a VISUAL medium.
Some ideas and techniques are better in different mediums.

>I have nothing of value to say, so I'll call him an autist
Wow, greatest and most creative comeback I've seen in a while. Btw the fact stands that none of you faggots was able to give me an actual EXAMPLE of good directing in Parika with an explanation for why you consider it good.

>easily interpretable overarching story
Paprika is a very challenging, convoluted movie that often contradicts itself. Almost every critic notes this in reviews of it.

>deeper themes
Haha dude, it addresses society as well as a mental condition! That's, like, so MUCH DEEPER than a natural phenomenon!

To add on that, what do you think of Wild Strawberries? An arthouse film that often uses dreams to explore the mind of the main character in a very simple narrative.

>Btw the fact stands that none of you faggots was able to give me an actual EXAMPLE of good directing in Parika with an explanation for why you consider it good.
You're a complete idiot and an absolute amateur if you think the dreamscape and fractal narrative in Paprika isn't good, this isn't something open for debating, it's a simple, basic fact that anyone who actually knows their shit when it comes to direction can see, it's basic cinematography that even the "uninitiated" can appreciate.
Perhaps you should crawl back to your meguka threads and stop trying to be the next Ebert, rest assured you're just as much of a slack jawed idiot without needing the actual physical disability.

Attached: MWAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA.png (954x716, 1.31M)

>an actual EXAMPLE of good directing in Parika with an explanation for why you consider it good.
Mostly because it looks like you aren't accepting the use of smooth transition cuts throughout the film as examples of good direction.
The way that it will smoothly transition between her as different characters and will go between moving deeper into parts of the scenery and cutting back outwards gives the constant uneasy feeling that any scene could be a dream. It gives an interesting tension and horror throughout, so that even during what may seem like normal scenes it could change at any second.
I hope you aren't just wanting an impressive cut, as though one scene can represent the direction as a whole.

when the fuck is millenium actress gonna hit blu, it's by far kon's best

>There's a new technology enabling you to record dreams and even interact with dreamers within their dreams
>Some psychotherapist uses this illeagly to help patients
>One gets stolen
>Psychotherapists and friends try to catch the thief and interacts with people in their dreams who the thief manipulates
>The thief is actually the director of the lab and he wants to create a dreamworld that he can control (which is retarded btw)
>He also manipulated psychotherapists love interest, she confesses ad thus makes him awake from the dream (which is reatrded and cliched btw)
>psychotherapists real version and dream alter ego fuse and eats the director who turned into a figurative "nightmare"
>This means that fiction can bring fourth reality
The overarching story
The overarching story is pretty straightforwrd. It's the dream scenes themselves that are supposed to be confusing and metaphorical.

Yes, that doesn't change the fact that if you tell a story, that story can be criticized. If you ONLY want to draw pretty pictures or cool looking scenes feel free to do so, but that's not what was done here.

Anyway I have to go now, will look into this thread later if it's still up.

based

Someone add Paprika to the anti-plotfag grid.

Perfect Blue is better imo but MA is a very close second and yes we need a blu ray release asap.

user, please, don't be like that. If Paprika is so undebatebly good it's surely easy for you to enlighten an uncultured fool like me as to why this is the case. Come on, help me out, since I clearly lack the intellect to understand it by myself.

>Mostly because it looks like you aren't accepting the use of smooth transition cuts throughout the film as examples of good direction.
I'm not saying they're bad directing, but by itself it's pretty basic stuff for what is intended to be achieved. Good directing lies in the samll things, like why a certain angle was chosen, why there's camera movement instead of a cut in a certain scene etc. As long as you don't look at that you can't really judge.
I hope you aren't just wanting an impressive cut, as though one scene can represent the direction as a whole.
Not an impressive cut, good directing is often subtle after all, but a small scene that examplifies how the director uses cinematic devices to make the viewer perceive certain things in an intended way.

You try to evaluate a piece of animation using nothing but traditional crinematic techniques when it, in fact, presents its setting in a way that had never been done before, will likely not been done again and is borderline impossible to achieve in live action. The reason why noone takes you seriously is because you lack the ability to discern film and animation. You're the typical Yea Forums tourist, who, after reading an entry level book on cinematography and having watched some Tarkovsky, Bresson or Tarr, thinks they understand artistic expression. Every single one of your posts makes you look like the typical letterboxd teenage critic. I mean, really, would you look at this
>good directing is often subtle after all
As far as you're concerned, artistic expression is limited to the contents of some tiny box. A box, filled with nothing but the most simplistic directional devices, limited by the restraints of live action. Please go back home. We don't need any more of you.