#Director

[inside-myself]

https://rachel-740.szhdyy.com.cn/ob/o06ufjN

[leighlew3]

Greta Gerwig made a film that was critically acclaimed, culturally impactful, hilarious, unique, visually exceptional, perfectly cast and acted, left people laughing, crying and thinking AND made a billion dollars at the box office.

But no Best Director nom?!

[389]

[guillotineman]

Furiosa: A Max Mad Saga

(2024, dir. George Miller)

[shihlun]

Chantal Akerman

[mrsrushman]

She’s so short and cute 😭 director Scarlett please yell at me

[tygerland]

Orson Welles: Portrait with Symbols 1945, by Irving Penn.

[thewaltcrew]

Director Kirk Wise, screenwriter Linda Woolverton, and actor Robby Benson on casting the Beast [x]

They gave me an incredible amount of freedom. I didn't want Beast to be a cartoon character. I played it as though I were doing a Broadway show. As if this was a living person. And I wanted him to be funny. By funny, I don't mean shtick or one-liners. I am talking about real comedy. When real comedy works, and is truthful, especially with the Beast, it comes out of the fact that he is so pathetic. For some reason, I really understood that. Ha! Because of that, they gave me a lot of leeway. [x]

My first audition was recorded on, of all things, a Sony Walkman. As a musician, I had branched out into recording engineer and loved to play with sound. When I saw the Sony Walkman I knew it had a little condenser microphone in it, and if I were to get too loud, the automatic compressor and built-in limiter would 'squash' the voice— and there would be very little dynamic range to the performance. I did a quick assessment and wondered how many people who had come in to audition for the part were making that error: playing the Beast with overwhelming decibels, compressing the vocal waveforms. I decided to give the Beast 'range.' Because of my microphone technique, and an understanding of who I wanted Beast to be, they kept asking me to come back and read different dialogue. After my fifth audition, Jeffrey Katzenberg the hands-on guardian of the film, said the part was mine…

Beauty and the Beast was so refreshingly fun and inventively creative to work on that I couldn't wait to try new approaches to every line of dialogue. Don Hahn is one of the best creative producers I have ever worked with. The two young directors, Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale, were fantastic and their enthusiasm was contagious. I not only was allowed to improvise, but they encouraged it. It never entered my mind that I was playing an animated creature. I understood the torment that Beast was going through: he felt ugly; had a horrible opinion of himself, and had a trigger-temper. Those are things that, if done right, are the perfect ingredients for comedy. Painful and pathetic comedy— but honest. The kind of comedy I understood...

In the feature world of Disney animation, the actors always recorded their dialogue alone in a big studio, with only a microphone and the faint images of the producers, writers, directors and engineer through a double-paned set of acoustic glass. Paige O'Hara and I became good friends; it was her idea that for certain very intimate scenes, such as when Beast is dying, we record together. We were able to play these scenes with an honest conviction that is often absent in the voice-over world...

The success of this film was the culmination of a team effort but I must say, the honors go to the animators— and for me (Beast), that's Glen Keane — and to Howard Ashman and Alan Menken. This was the perfect example of a crew who 'cared'. And the final results (every frame) of the film represent that sentiment. [x]

[canmking]

S p i k e L e e

[catgirl-kaiju]

Honestly, I think any director who hurts their actors physically or psychologically because they don't trust them to, y'know, ACT is a hack. No movie is worth hurting someone or allowing someone to be hurt. Like, I like The Shining a lot. It's very creepy and tense, and Wendy Carlos' score is great. But, frankly, I think the film would have been much better if Stanley Kubrick hadn't decided to psychologically torture Shelly Duvall and just trusted her to do the thing he hired her to do.

As it is, Duvall's performance is noticeably stiff because of how terrified she is on set and that's on Kubrick. Not to mention, even if a version of the film made without hurting Shelly Duvall was legitimately worse, a director's vision is no excuse to be cruel. Part of a director's job is working with and directing the actors. You need to be able to work with people, and when you would rather hurt your actors than talk to them you are revealing a deep incompetence in how to do your job.

[oliveoomph]

Maisie Richardson-Sellers

[maisiersellers]

[389]

Bill Murray & Sofia Coppola Venice, 2003

[one-time-i-dreamt]

The wife of a famous director had her private TikTok account leaked, which lead to said director’s half sister going on Instagram live with her niece and nephew to ask for privacy.

[coutureicons]

behind the scenes with sofia coppola

[mademoiselle-cookie]

It was at this moment that she decided to assassinate Ambrosius.

She could have continued to protest Ballister's words, she could have tried to make an excuse or even sent Ambrosius back to his post. But no. She gives up extremely quickly and almost jumps straight to murder.

Is it only me who’s shocked that it’s happening so quickly?

She who does all this in the name of Gloreth has absolutely no problem killing her (as far as we know) only descendant. Which means if he dies, Gloreth's lineage is over.

Ambrosius is a Goldenloin, a noble, a knight, the very example of a knight! He's exactly what she's trying to "protect." And she kills him with her own hands. (If that's not a metaphor, I don't know what is)

But concretely, there are several reasons for this sudden choice:

She has no good excuse at her disposal, either because she had overestimated her influence on Ambrosius, or underestimated his trust in Ballister;

She realized that Ambrosius is too attached to Ballister, which means that not only will he try not to hurt him and will not accept him being killed or treated unfairly, but also that the first chance he gets, he'll take Ballister's side and not hers;

As Ballister's (only) friend, he is one of the only obstacles in making him out to be a heartless assassin;

If someone as important and influential as him were to get in her way, she will have great difficulty doing what she wants and may even risk losing her position and power;

She knows she will never be able to convince him of the "merits" of her quest;

She has a great alibi: Ballister.

This last point is very important. She can get rid of a nuisance as she wishes with complete impunity. No one is there and Ballister has already managed to sneak into the Institute without anyone noticing before then (it's not like anyone is going to accuse her instead of the 'Queen's Killer'). So she also has a golden opportunity to silence any doubt about Ballister's guilt. I mean, others could be like Ambrosius and question her again, and Ballister managed to obtain evidence that she had killed the Queen while he didn't know before that it was her, so someone else provided them to him, so the idea of him being innocent can spread. By accusing him of killing the most popular knight in the Kingdom, she ensures that no one questions his position as a monster and criminal.

It's the Institute, where knights are trained to defend the Kingdom, there's no chance that the Director didn't have access to another weapon than Ballister's. But she chose to use his sword.

But Ballister's sword was destroyed, no one will wonder about the appearance of a second?

No one asks questions about a man who decides to assassinate for no reason the person who allowed him to rise from his social condition, in public, surrounded by knights, right next to an armed man, and visibly without any plan to escape?

The more I think about it, the less sense this supposed assassination makes. It only worked because of media manipulation and because Ballister was the culprit. If the roles had been reversed with Ambrosius - in the event that they had exchanged swords (and the Director didn't notice the exchange and/or couldn't disable the attack) - it certainly wouldn't have gone that far because:

Ambrosius is loved by all and known for being trustworthy/kind/insert knightly quality. Ballister is a commoner, who, even after several years of working hard and being miles better than others, is not seen as trustworthy. People will be much more likely to make excuses for Ambrosius than for Ballister.

The Director has no interest in using the media to blame him. On the contrary, she will try to defend him and claim that he was framed.

Ballister had no excuse for having a deadly laser sword, he has no one to blame for him. Ambrosius yes. There's Ballister. Not only because it is the untrustworthy newcomer dirty commoner that his fellow knights despise, but above all it is HIS sword that was trapped. The Director and the population will accuse him of framing Ambrosius.

People will WANT him to be the culprit instead of their lovely and respected knight. They don't want the literal descendant of their hero to be an awful person who did something this horrible. They don't want the representation of the Institute, of their society to be shaken. (I'm a pro jedi fan. I know that when people want to defend their blorbos, they can go veeeeeery far, including putting responsabilities on other people, even complete innocents or victims)

In fact, this situation will be even more credible than the original one. Why he didn't plan his escape? Bc he didn't need to. Why he did that? Obviously to take revenge on better people in better situation than him, and on society itself, by targetting the Queen, leader of the Kingdom, and a Goldenloin, who's also the Kingdom's most prestigious knight and the descendant of the founder of the Institute.