criterionforum.org

Fassbinder, Buñuel and Lynch all take similarly stylized, deadpan approaches to acting.

Lynch's use of deadpan to me though is very different, more to bring a deliberate sense of unreality to characters playing off of archetypes. In this case the deadpan isn't I'd say intended to undermine the depth of character so much as playing on a lack of communication.

moreorless wrote:Lynch's use of deadpan to me though is very different, more to bring a deliberate sense of unreality to characters playing off of archetypes. In this case the deadpan isn't I'd say intended to undermine the depth of character so much as playing on a lack of communication.

Even if you think that's not what Lynch does, Fassbinder uses deliberately stilted performances to comment on a disconnect between his characters.

Honestly I'm not so well versed on Fassbinder(only seen Petra von Kant a very long time ago) but I don't remember it being of a similar style to what we see in his last two films especially where theres a clear disconnection between characters communication and there dramatic nature played for a mix of comedy and drama. I mean yes deliberately stilted dialog has obviously been used in cinema before now but I would argue the fashion he uses it does show originality as indeed does his writing generally.

Its questionable I spose just how many films this style can maintain but thus far I'v found it very effective

I see almost a Bressonian direction with the actors.

Urgh, I think Lanthimos is just a shallow wannabe. Nothing about his films strikes me as an original vision, it’s just stale whimsy cobbled together from more talented artists. And he isn’t in some post modern dialogue with the films he takes from, like a De Palma or Tarrantino. All the filmmakers he keeps getting compared to here have a personal vision and he is nowhere in their league.

I really wouldn't say his films are whimsical, there absurdist but there's none of the safe quirky middle class comfort zone of someone like Wes Anderson. Again I think his strength is really mixing in inventively written the comic absurdism with effective tragedy, each enhancing the other.

The influences on his visuals are pretty obvious but that doesn't make them any less efftive for me, I mean something like Jonathan Glazers Birth has a similar kind of Kubrick influence to Sacred Deer yet I think that's a classic film.

moreorless wrote:I really wouldn't say his films are whimsical, there absurdist but there's none of the safe quirky middle class comfort zone of someone like Wes Anderson. Again I think his strength is really mixing in inventively written the comic absurdism with effective tragedy, each enhancing the other.

The influences on his visuals are pretty obvious but that doesn't make them any less efftive for me, I mean something like Jonathan Glazers Birth has a similar kind of Kubrick influence to Sacred Deer yet I think that's a classic film.

As an aside, to certain forum members named "jazzo", BIRTH might even be their favourite film of the current century. I don't know why those bastards feel the need to share that, but they do.