The problem here is 'legalism', not scientism. Forget whether the player's hair touched the ball or not. Here's what the offside rule was originally created for: a striker breaks through the defense early or purposely stays behind, finds himself with ten yards of open grass between him and the last defender and only the goalkeeper in front. The rule is one of the oldest in the game because the people who first played it saw something clearly unfair about it, i.e., an advantage that doesn't require skill to create, which, if allowed, would have made the game unwatchable. The problem is that over time people began to conflate the advantage aspect with the mechanics of detecting it, especially since TV programs in the 70s began showing slow-motion replays of gray-area calls over and over in post-match analysis to keep football fans endlessly arguing and their ratings high. This is how you get, for instance, cases in which a forward who times his run perfectly, catching the defender off guard (often running in the opposite direction) and then scoring, is still called "unfair" by other fans because his shoulder or nose or whatever was ahead when the pass occurred, despite the fact that if it would have been behind, if anything, it'd have given him even *more* time to score. It's the same thing that often happens in court. A law is written to stop a particular harm, then lawyers spend decades arguing over the exact wording until the very harm it was meant to stop gets almost forgotten and the letter becomes the law. Nobody watching Croatia's disallowed goal possibly believes that the Croatian player’s touch (even if it happened) created an advantage for his teammate. The ball clearly reaches the latter thanks to the (non-deliberate, thus irrelevant) deflection off the Portugal player. But nobody is thinking about the purpose of the rule anymore, only the technicality of its wording. Hence scientism, which is downstream of legalism in this context and eventually convinced the entire sport that it needed sensors inside the football to detect a hair touch because... why not?
the most brutal offside call i've ever seen in terms of impact. if the croatia player had a shorter haircut, we'd be going into extra time. his head didn't even change the trajectory of the pass, and now they're going home. it's not why the rule was made. gutting
Hate to be that person, but if you watch enough films, you will realize that every filmmaker borrows from other filmmakers.
The only reason why you think your favorite filmmaker is "original" is because they borrow it from some niche, underground film that played for six people at a festival in 1973, made in a country most people couldn't even find on a map, in a language they've never heard spoken. So nobody notices it.
Tarantino just gets singled out because he's completely unapologetic about wearing his influences on his sleeve.
David Lynch on having a career in film:
“There’s no launching a career. They call it a film business. But money is the last thing a person should be thinking about in my book. You fall in love with ideas and you get fired up and you go and you try to translate those ideas into cinema. And it’s a beautiful, beautiful journey.” (2006)
Spielberg was 26-27 when he made Jaws
Raimi was 21 when he made Evil Dead
PTA was 26 when he made Boogie Nights
Chazelle was 29 when he made Whiplash
Cameron was 29 when he made Terminator
Welles was 25 when he made Citizen Kane
Singleton was 23 when he made Boyz n the Hood
Elia Kazan on why an Artist should be arrogant:
"Arrogance, however disguised, is the essence of every artist. What could be more arrogant than saying, “Pay attention to what I’ve done, it’s of great worth and importance.” The energy to paint, compose, sculpt, be an architect, comes from a belief that is without qualification at least during the hour of creation. When someone calls you arrogant, don’t deny it. Smile and gently say, “Yes, I suppose I am.”"
("Kazan on Directing", Kazan, 2009)
Clip from:
A Face in the Crowd (1957)
Director: Elia Kazan
so many intricate layers of VFX went into creating the fake fiery death scenes of Remmick, portrayed by Jack O’Connell, and the rest of the vampires in Sinners it’s really inspiring to see
I wonder if people are aware how many seldom-seen and experimental films are just sitting on Vimeo, often uploaded by the directors themselves. Here's a thread of some interesting stuff:
I DONT like morally grey protagonists
I DONT like complex stories
I DONT like unsatisfying endings
I DONT like irredeemable villains
And I DONT like going to theaters
I am Mr Movie man and I DONT like movies
"I don't care about stories. I never did. Every story is the same. We have no new stories. We're just repeating the same ones.. The film isn't the story. Its mostly picture, sound, a lot of emotions. The stories are just covering something"
R.I.P Béla Tarr ~ The ~Turin Horse
The Safdies did AFTER HOURS twice but then Benny tried to do RAGING BULL and everybody said wait no, we want to watch Josh do AFTER HOURS a third time instead
This to me, is the most exciting potential for digital filmmaking. People shouldn’t be beholden to a $50k camera that costs $3k a day to rent. A GH7 is $1800, and an Aperture 600D is $800, and like $120/day to rent. Two of those and you can recreate any lighting situation.