Demic

fidoz said:

awookiee said:

RyanReeseman said:

1917 is unlike anything I’ve ever seen, and unlike anything in the history of film. I can’t even begin to imagine how they constructed some of the shots in this movie. It’s intimate and harrowing and dirty and loud and just the most nerve-racking 2 hours. I’m OK with this winning everything now.

100% agree with you on this.  I would pay a lot of money to have someone break down how exactly this was shot and how they managed to do what they did.  I doubt they'll get into that much of it in the special features once a Blu Ray comes out but I really hope it does include something showing/explaining how they did it.  This should win all of the awards for directing and especially for cinematography.  

Saw it last night. Absolutely incredible. I just sat there in wonder of how they did this. 

Don't know if you've seen it but here's one behind the scene/making of video that you might find interesting. 

First of all, temper you expectation going into the final episode. It's not going to tie up everything in a neat bow.

Because of the disastrous fiasco of the piano teacher episode and the rambling mess of the Mexico episode, I felt quite anxious about Episode 8 as soon as I realized that it was going to center around queer and trans characters. At worst, it was going to be an out-of-touch illustration; at best, it was going to be what @A_Ron_Hubbard called "80's woke". Fortunately, it was neither. It wasn't that this episode introduced any new ideas or interpretations on gender and sexual identity, but at least it felt real and compassionate. There were still plenty of problematic parts-- it made no sense that Jack wouldn't recognize his own family's story when Candace was telling it, unless he was paying zero attention; The Matryoshka doll style of storytelling with different narrators was not especially exciting; Evil stepmothers were a played-out stereotype; The twist ending didn't feel particularly earned. 

Episode 6 (Panorama) was all over the place. There were the critique of charlatans who exploit desperate people with false hope, hints of the danger of being a journalist in Mexico (16 were killed/disappeared in 2017 alone according to Wikipedia), commentary on how the modern day oligarch amass their wealth by screwing the little guys, a parent's guilt of passing on a genetic disorder to her child. But the focal point of this episode was.... a guy, who was very bad at his job and not very good at connecting with people, falling in love with someone he barely knew? Half way through I seriously thought maybe the Mexican Tourism Board sponsored this episode. But even with the spectacular views from the top of the Pyramids of Teotihuacan, it was too shallow to be called a love letter to Mexico. Everything Abel said about Mexico sounded like a paragraph right out of a travel guide. There was no personal connection that anchored his emotion. I wonder if Weiner saw The History of Mexico mural and decided to build an hour of television around it. There have been films based on a single artwork-- Girl with a Pearl Earring comes to mind. While the movie received mixed reviews, it told a coherent story of a painter and his life in the Dutch Golden Age. However, Weiner here seemed to want to touch on 25 different topics in 80 minutes but none had successfully stuck because there was no meaningful exploration on any of them. Maybe he could've consulted with someone who had a better understanding in Mexico's culture and history?

Let me just preface by saying that with this episode, I wouldn't blame the guys if they stop covering the show. From Friday's LWJ&A it seemed @A_Ron_Hubbard was already under a lot of stress these days. There's no need to do this to yourselves! Go watch the Deuce! Or something!

@majjam0770 like you said, the only known liar from this episode was the piano teacher, and in the end his professional and social lives remained unchanged. So what's the point of the impassioned speech from Ron Livingston (and his dad)? It's especially awful coming from Weiner. Like, whose life was ruined by "false" accusations? The multi-millionaire who's backed by one of the largest company in the world and has hundreds of talented professionals under his employment satisfying his every whim, or the young writer who never had a TV writing job after she was fired without reason in 2009 despite winning an Emmy? People in your social circle finding out you're a crappy/creepy boss who throws temper tantrum is not a thing you get to cry about and ask sympathy for. The nerve of this man. Whew!

@CapeGabe I do think there's something about how David the fabulist who tells other people's stories as his own is like the way many people who claim to be an heir to the house of Romanov. But the episode was so messy it got buried.  

@JaimieT Emily Nussabaum from the New Yorker has a theory that at this point, some people watch the show just to decide which house they love the best. If you ever come back watching, this could be the least infuriating way to enjoy the show. Personally, I can't decide among the Paris apartment, the Brooklyn brownstone, or this gorgeous Northern Californian modern castle. 

I will have to say that when the boy wandered into David's piano practice and became enchanted by the music was probably the only genuine and delightful moment from the episode. Also, it's a tough competition, but the preschool teacher was the worst person of all. 
 

Episode 5 was so bad, y’all! It was so icky that I felt like I needed a shower after watching. It’s a mystery that how nobody told Weiner this episode was a terrible idea and why all the wonderful actors just went along with what I can only refer to as the hour-long drama version of Brett Kavanaugh’s rage-cry face. Alan Sepinwall’s review pretty much summed up how I felt about this episode. 
https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-recaps/romanoffs-recap-episode-5-matthew-weiner-sexual-misconduct-metoo-750470/