u/transginda

Hi! I'm a viewer who's new(ish) to watching movies. So last night I watched *Hereditary* (Ari Aster, 2018), and today I find myself wondering about the casting process. Which scene, from that movie, or any other one, really, would give the director the best read on the performance? What goes into deciding that? Or do they write fake scenes explicitly for auditions? How does the director know that an actor who could pull the right emotions for the scene used for the audition will be able to do the others? I'm thinking here about Toni Colette who walks her character in *Hereditary* through a huge range of different emotions throughout the movie, and I can't imagine having to pick *one* scene to represent her.

Curious to hear any insight from folks who know about this sort of thing.

Edit: typo

So a few nights ago I watched *The Player* - Robert Altman, 1992, and at the beginning there's a scene where a character criticizes modern movies for being too much like MTV, too many cuts, and praises the opening tracking shot (what even is that?) of *Touch of Evil* (a movie I really didn't like), and the implication seems to be that the opening of that movie, which I don't remember very well, has very few cuts in it, and that this is somehow... virtuous?

Anyway, tonight I watched *Camera Person* - Kirsten Johnson, 2016, which is a kind of meta documentary made from the scraps of unused footage from other projects, and I find myself wondering what the big deal is. I've only started getting into movies in the last two years or so, (my favorite so far is *Fanny and Alexander*) so I'm learning more about what makes good film making all the time, and I wonder if someone could talk about this a little.

Are cuts considered a kind of failure state? A flaw? Why? Why is it that some movies which feature a large number of cuts and are very disjointed, like *Camera Person*, work anyway?

Does anyone have any homework for me to learn more about film editing as a viewer?

So I made a post about a graphic novel series I'm reading at the moment, pointing out a few of my dislikes about the series, and how it differed from the kinds of themes I expected to be explored, and asking for recommendations on what else I might try reading.

But, some of the phrases I used in that post activated some *opinions* of the people who wandered in, and that led to some of the comments derailing.

And I learned some things!

A) Most folks online are... just... online. It seems like some of those folks aren't, or, maybe even don't know? people who actually believe in things and spend their time working towards those goals. Someone in there called me a larper, which whatever, it's internet name-calling, but... I have scars running up my right arm from a scuffle with ice last fall. I've lost people. But the strength of my belief just reads as fake to them, and I suspect - though I'm open to other interpretations - that these are people who aren't actually doing anything in the real world.

B) I'm always very aware of the physical space I'm in and the kinds of people around me, and I definitely play my cards, so to speak, very differently depending where I am or who I'm talking to. But whereas I can tell what kind of people I'm around by political paraphernalia, or fashion, or even just what street I'm on, the Internet doesn't have the same kind of signposting. Easy to wander into a space and not realize where you are. What kind of politics they have.

C) There are some ostensibly leftist people who still think crime is immoral? That surprised me. I live in an area with a lot of MAGA, so I'm used to hearing that from them, but, uh. I don't know. Does anyone have any insight into this one?

Edit: grammar

I'm eighteen issues into Sex Criminals, and I'm... losing my love for it? I really liked it at first, and there are some things I enjoy about it, and I'll finish it, but I was really hoping the narrative would have more teeth. Like, the comic treats bank robbing like it's unethical? What?

The political theory underpinning the writing just doesn't line up with what I expected from a sex-positive, queer(ish), Bonnie and Clyde story.

I guess I'm looking for something with a comparable, or even better quality of writing that has a more "Fuck the Police" or "Death to the Aristocracy" vibe.

Something \*actually\* punk, not just pretending to be.

They've taken over the sub at this point.

I'm doing research for REDACTED and I'm looking for resources that contain the candid anecdotes, insights, and technical advice of professionals involved in the various elements of game development. I am *not* a gamedev, and so ideally these sources would be coherent to an outsider, but obviously I'll work with what I can get my hands, eyes, and ears on. I have a fair amount of experience deciphering technical documents of various kinds, it's just slower.

I have watched every episode of Play, Watch, Listen, and taken lots of notes on what I've learned in the process, but I'm looking for similar resources. I'm specifically interested in content, not format; I've been working my way through Joshua Sawyer's YouTube videos, and I've also watched some interviews with developers that were featured on places like Kinda Funny or the FriendsPerSecond podcast. I'm familiar with the Psychonauts documentary over at Double Fine as well.

I should point out that I'm aware of GDC and the fact that some of those presentations are recorded, but my experience so far has been that they can be fairly technical, and I'm looking for a little more... human perspective, if possible.

With these examples, hopefully you folks have some idea of the kinds of resources I'm after: resources made by professionals about professionals.

Do y'all have any leads for me?