Henrik Sylow wrote:

>
>
> I totally agree with Rick, when he says that "Editing can't transform
> an improbable story, bad dialogue, and weak acting".

Potemkin?

>
>
> ... "Blue Velvet"... we now consider as one of Lynch's greatest
> films.


ugh! ugh!! ugh!!! (Hope that's not forbidden language.)

>
> I also disagree, that films by the Italian Neo-Realism ("Open City"
> was mentioned) is bad technical cinematography. It may appear lesser
> structured than a studio production, but Arata was a maestro. The
> "look" is due to the stock, grain, no filters and problems with light.

It is a studio production. All studio shot except the few exteriors
(and inside of a church, maybe a few other shots). Absolutely
traditional in its production methods. Fully scripted, argued, etc.
Amidei was one of the great champions of the "well-made play" among
scriptwrights. Highly experienced actors, mostly from vaudeville, top
stars; chosen parly because they were "bankable." And you're sure right
about Arata. Rossillini liked cameramen who PAINTED (kind of a
Vidor/Murnau look). Extremely professional, experienced bunch of
people, a good percentage of the best talent of the Fascist cinema. The
stock grain looks fine if you can see an actual original print. They
had a lot of trouble when they started shooting, but they seem to have
re-shot a lot of that later.