>>3571
>I found the lighting to be terrible
I found it to be obviously overdone at times, notably in the bathroom where strong lighting appeared outside the lamp positions.
>Most A24 movies are generally riddled with cinematography that looks good if you’ve never used cameras
I am not fond of A24 cinematography but i've used cameras and it highly depends on the personal and particular palate of every person IMO, i've seen tons of stuff but i keep coming back to flashy complex camera movements which are considered pure trash and unnecessary by the few actual technicians i've met, their reasoning is that the camera should be discreet and pragmatic which in my opinion and recent experience ends with placing it stationary and not following the action at all, might as well put the gaffer to be the cinematographer if it is that simple.
But i also sadly consider those dear friends cattle-tier because they think the cinematography of Tarantino is good but John Woo bad despite both using the very same techniques often and for the same uses, so i don't know their full reasoning.
I recall The Substance overusing many placements quite fast, for example the contemporary audience zoomers by today's trendy vocabulary loves zenithal shots due to i don't know, food videos and overall product photography bombarded at them?, and in the first 10 minutes i think they used that placement 7 or 8 times, i even pointed it out to my friend so he could start planning how much money he would lose.
>lighting is truly the lost art form
Now i am retarded with light but perhaps the problem is the same? technicians going for the minimalistic approach and doing the bare minimum? and when they want to do something flashy they put more hardware quantity rather than quality design?
>don’t remember any standout shots
I don't want to defend that movie but i guess i will download it so i can find the examples i mentioned, they were 3 seconds at most but i recall smiling at the editing, remind me a lot of 90's action movies.
>The problem imo has less to do with the fact that a woman spearheaded the movie
My problem was that it took a very partisan view of the topic, it wanted to propose a serious theme about it but employed hyperboles that went into cartoonish lengths and didn't explore it meaningfully, didn't help that it was redundant at times, the messages were very obvious to read but it kept hammering them down. My problem is that writers and directors make stuff considering the audience is mentally stunted or downright retarded.
>so in effect they’re making things that essentially their 19 year old selves would have created
I think 19yos can create great things but they need either a great spirit like you mentioned and moderate experience in life, while also a very important point is someone or something that can put the creator back into square one and make them watch everything critically. A problem in the movie i suppose was that the safety positions like a critical producer and a creative editor are done by the same person, the director who was also the writer, so she was probably suffering from tunnelvision and/or drowning in their own mind and ideas to look back and see the absolute mess that was appearing.
>social statements are lauded more than transcendent ideas and images.
Statements are trendy and in the moment like most people, they live on the spot, transcendent products are often enjoyed by people who take into consideration several ideas and times, and to be fair those are people with time to spare to think which is not the case for many due to either their rhythm of life or intellectual capacities.
>>3572
It wasn't? well then i swear i saw the logo somewhere in the credits, either opening or closing.