I am, of course, following the upcoming Star Trek movie (referred to as Star Trek XI since its final, official title hasn't been released yet). It's a prequel about Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the Enterprise bridge crew as they make their way through Starfleet Academy. As a result, they've had to re-cast all of the principal characters. They finalized that just recently and /Film (pronounced slash-film) recently posted a photo-shopped first-look of the crew on their site. The crew looks good so far. Here's hoping the movie is a good one, too.
Connolly in Potter, Fry on the Web
Monsters & Critics is reporting that comedian Billy Connolly will be playing Zenophilious Lovegood (Luna Lovegood's father) in the upcoming Harry Potter movie 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince'! That's brilliant because Connolly is an exceptionally funny actor who has just the right amount of wackiness to play this particular role.
It's cool how, despite the fact that they're playing mostly bit parts, this franchise has gotten a whole bunch of seriously talented actors and actresses [1] to act in this series of movies. All of them are perfect for their roles [2], of course, though one wishes one could see more of them. Oh well.
Fry on the Web
Speaking of fantastic comedians (which is how we started), Stephen Fry now has a blog. His first (and, so far, only) entry is about the iPhone. Apparently, he's a huge PDA fan ("I have never seen a SmartPhone I haven't bought"). Who'd've thunk? Anyway, it makes a great read and, hopefully, he'll be an active blogger. Now wouldn't that be awesome.
Footnotes
Yes, I have footnotes in a blog posting. Want to make something of it?
[1] Or, if you want to be more politically correct (Hollywood style), just "actors".
[2] Like Alan Rickman as Serverus Snape, Kenneth Branagh as Gilderloy Lockhart, Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall, Emma Thompson as Sybill Trelawney, Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange, Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, and Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort.
It's cool how, despite the fact that they're playing mostly bit parts, this franchise has gotten a whole bunch of seriously talented actors and actresses [1] to act in this series of movies. All of them are perfect for their roles [2], of course, though one wishes one could see more of them. Oh well.
Fry on the Web
Speaking of fantastic comedians (which is how we started), Stephen Fry now has a blog. His first (and, so far, only) entry is about the iPhone. Apparently, he's a huge PDA fan ("I have never seen a SmartPhone I haven't bought"). Who'd've thunk? Anyway, it makes a great read and, hopefully, he'll be an active blogger. Now wouldn't that be awesome.
Footnotes
Yes, I have footnotes in a blog posting. Want to make something of it?
[1] Or, if you want to be more politically correct (Hollywood style), just "actors".
[2] Like Alan Rickman as Serverus Snape, Kenneth Branagh as Gilderloy Lockhart, Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall, Emma Thompson as Sybill Trelawney, Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange, Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, and Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort.
The Bourne Ultimatum…Wow!
Nadia and I watched 'The Bourne Ultimatum' last night. Nadia hated it (and stole the title of this blog posting too), but I thought it was one of the best movies I've seen this year. I'll talk about both points of view, starting with mine first. Yes, this will be a long post.
The Plot
The movie starts off almost exactly where the last one left off: with Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) in Moscow, evading capture from the police. He does so, of course, but while doing this realizes that his "fight" isn't with everyone who is trying to capture him -- it's with the people who started it all. And that's pretty much what the rest of the movie is about: him getting back at the people who made him what he is now. Of course, that's easier said than done. There are wheels within wheels within wheels (to use an oft-repeated phrase from the 'Dune' series of books) and, in the movie, we're taken on a journey in which all this plays out. And while the film's plot is really good -- even though they had to change it considerably from the book's plot because a lot of what's in the book simply isn't relevant in this day and age -- it's actually the production of the movie that I really enjoyed.
First-Person Immersion
I've seen only one other Paul Greengrass movie, 'The Bourne Supremacy', and I really like his style of directing. This time, though, he's stepped everything up a notch. Especially in the action sequences. Not only do you feel like you're in the action, which at times makes you want to step back to avoid injuring yourself, you also see all of the action in the first person. For example, there's this long chase scene in Tangier in which Bourne is both dodging the police and trying to save Nikki Parsons (Julia Stiles) from Desh Bouksani (Joey Ansah), a CIA assassin who has been instructed to kill them both.
What's really cool about this is that, at no point during the entire sequence, do you see an overview of anything. Except for initial framing shots, there are no shots from obviously crane-mounted cameras, no shots from helicopters, and no long or wide shots that let you think "ah, so he's there, she's there, and he's...there; okay, now it all makes sense to me". No, it's all in the first person: you only see as much as, say, Bourne sees from his rooftop vantage point. You see Parons' bobbing blonde head in the middle of a crowd at the end of a narrow alleyway (at the top of your screen) and, jerking the camera down a bit, you see Bouksani's purposeful but quick-moving figure at the start of that alley (at the bottom of your screen). Next, the camera whips around (as your head would if you were to look over your shoulder) and you see a couple of policemen climbing over the roof, shouting and gesturing. You look over the other way (another camera whip-around) and you see (i.e. choose, evaluate, and estimate) the route you'll be taking next. Yes, you're seeing everything as Bourne sees it and this immersion into the action itself gives the movie a whole different feel to the movie.
It's the same with most other shots. Parsons looks over her shoulder and the next shot is of a crowd of people covering the bottom-half the screen. Incongruous among them is Bouksani who is looking directly at you and is making his way through the crowd as quickly as he can. You only ever see the top two-thirds of his face. But, then, that's all Parsons sees so that's all you're going to get too.
Later, when Bourne and Bouksani finally fight hand-to-hand (as expected), you feel as if you're actually standing in that small room (which, in fact, the cameraman is), watching the fight happen right next to you. It's close combat and, well, you're very close to it all. At one point you almost want to jump back to avoid being rammed into the wall. It's quite exciting.
What I love about this kind of direction is the immediacy of it all. If you've played first-person shooter games on the computer, you'll feel right at home. The immersion thing works, and it works really well. Yes, the camera bobs around (making some people nauseous) and jerks from one shot to the next (making the whole thing a little hard to follow) but the director makes sure that you get the time to follow everything that's going on nonetheless.
Compare this to other, more traditional, fight sequences. Had this been a traditional action movie, in that Bourne-Bouksani fight, you would have had shots from outside the window, from inside one of the walls (just before someone was slammed into it, of course), and through a really-wide door or a conveniently camera-sized gap in one of the walls. Yes, you would have been an obviously-outside observer looking in. Not an obviously-inside observe looking at the fight going on right next to you. It might be hard to see the difference between the two at first, but imagine the difference between watching a tennis match on TV and watching the same match from a ball boy's point of view. Who actually hears and feels the ball fly by? Who has to swing his head left to right in order to follow the action? And who, occasionally, gets whacked on the head by a stray ball? That's the difference between the two styles.
Evolution in Style
In fact, Greengrass has almost completely undone the stylistic advantage that Hong Kong cinema had over Hollywood in terms of filming fighting and action sequences. In Hong Kong cinema, you'd be perpendicular to the action and would see the punch being delivered (say, from left to right), land on the opponent, and the opponent react to it (because he actually got lightly whacked). In the Hollywood style you would often see the punch being delivered not across your line of vision, but towards you or away from you. The actual punch could therefore easily end well before the opponents face and the opponent would time his backward jerk with the moment of supposed contact. That was what made Hollywood look fake and Hong Kong cinema look so much more realistic. Now an English director is using hand-held cameras and whipping-around motion to capture everything much more realistically (because you're in the action itself) than Hong Kong cinema ever did. And he's doing it really well too.
Particularly good, by the way, are the nicely choreographed fight sequences between Bourne and the other CIA operatives (or, as they're called in the movie, "assets"). These people are Bourne's equals. They know what he knows and both of them know that it's only a minor thing that could swing the fight either way. The fight in Tangier was one such example. What's really cool is when you realize that this is also an example of a new evolution in movie fight sequences between reasonably matched opponents. Its brutal, visceral, and real. You're not the underdog and you're not the obviously superior fighter. You're equal. It's sort of like the extended fight sequence between Neo and Agent Smith in the Matrix Revolutions (though with a lot less literal flying-through-the-air!). The hero doesn't get pummelled all the way till the end when he delivers the oh-so-unexpected knock-out punch. No, like I said earlier, it's like a tennis volley. Left, right, left, right, left, right, oops you missed and so now you're dead.
Other Niceties
I also like the way silence is used in the movie (sorry Nadia!). It's sort of the way M. Night Shyamalan uses it in his movies, but not quite (Shyamalan uses it more effectively). Here the silences reflect, in many ways, the blanks in Bourne's mind. There's a lot to say, a lot that can be said, maybe even a lot that you want said, but no...there's just silence. Again, this adds to the feeling of immersion. And to the feeling of real life. In a regular movie, some of those silences could have been filled with smartly-written dialogue. In this movie, well, things aren't that neat and tidy. You don't know what to say, so you don't say anything. Yes, it's long and uncomfortable, but there it is. It's not supposed to cut quickly into the next scene.
Speaking of not being neat and tidy, there are number of loose threads that don't get neatly tied at the end either. Whether that's to leave room for a sequel or to reflect life where things aren't always perfect, I don't know. I just like the fact that increasingly film makers are realizing that you don't always have to box everything nicely and neatly at the end. You can leave some questions unanswered. And that's okay.
Yea-Sayers
It's not just me who likes the movie, by the way. Salon's Stephanie Zacharek, one of the critics I admire most, loves it too. She writes:
The people at Monsters & Critics like it too:
I agree. The layering is nicely done. And you really have to be into the movie to fully follow what's going on.
Nay-Sayers
Of course, there are others who don't it at all. And there are, indeed, things about the movie that made me roll my eyes. Like some of the trying-too-hard-to-be-a-spy dialogue. Greengrass also tried to be too much like Shyamalan in some cases when he unnecessarily filmed even non-action scenes with a hand-held camera. Some of the references to earlier Bourne movies were also a little too obvious; except for the ending scene which mirrors the starting scene of the entire trilogy. That bit was cool.
A lot of people didn't like the motion sickness-inducing shots in particular and, in general, don't like Greeengrass' style at all. Craig Rhodes explains it really well in a reply to Zacharek's article on Salon:
After which he goes on to say:
There is really only one appropriate reply to this second quote of his: "Like, duh!"
The fact is that movie-making is evolving. Newer writers, directors, producers, and cinematographers are trying different things. And they've been trying different things for years. Take Steven Soderbergh's 'Traffic' in which different colour tints are used in the film's different story lines (also used very effectively in the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy). Or take Robert Zemeckis' 'Cast Away' in which there is no background music for the first 1 hour 43 minutes of the movie (only 15 minutes of musical score were written for the entire film). More often that not, though, recent shifts in movie-making styles have been based around special effects (both subtle and large-scale). The quick-cutting style, meanwhile, is something that started with television. And yes, with MTV music videos (and ads). However, more and more "serious" shows are now using it now too. And that is starting to validate its use where and when appropriate.
It's also partly a generational thing. Two generations ago we had Francis Ford Coppola's 'Apocalypse Now' and the original 'Star Trek' television series -- both simpler and slower classics. One generation ago we had James Cameron's 'Terminator' and 'The A-Team ' -- both good, solid action pieces that have stood the test of time. In this generation we have Sam Raimi's 'Spider-Man' and 'NYPD Blue' -- with the TV show being a little ahead of its time in the way it was shot, specifically in terms of camera angles and movements. Maybe the next generational shift is targeted, not at people who enjoy reading books, but at those who are used to switching between five separate windows on their computer, one of which is a live chat and another of which is a media player. Maybe the next generation of film and television styles will be exemplified by Paul Greengrass' 'The Bourne Supremacy and 'CSI' (again with the cool camera angles). Or maybe we'll look back at this particular effort of Greengrass' and will think that it was clunky and amateurish (though still ahead of its time) compared to what is yet to come. Who knows?
My point is, 'The Bourne Ultimatum' could have been shot in a more traditional manner but that would have it made just any other good action movie. Like 'Die Hard 4.0', for example. That was a good movie with a fun story line that matched the current action movie-making style. You couldn't have done that with Ultimatum, just like this style wouldn't have worked in 4.0. In Ultimatum, you need to be on the ground, part of the action, in a chaotic and confused environment, but still be able follow what was going on. That's what the movie required and I think Greengrass pulled that off exceptionally well.
The Plot
The movie starts off almost exactly where the last one left off: with Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) in Moscow, evading capture from the police. He does so, of course, but while doing this realizes that his "fight" isn't with everyone who is trying to capture him -- it's with the people who started it all. And that's pretty much what the rest of the movie is about: him getting back at the people who made him what he is now. Of course, that's easier said than done. There are wheels within wheels within wheels (to use an oft-repeated phrase from the 'Dune' series of books) and, in the movie, we're taken on a journey in which all this plays out. And while the film's plot is really good -- even though they had to change it considerably from the book's plot because a lot of what's in the book simply isn't relevant in this day and age -- it's actually the production of the movie that I really enjoyed.
First-Person Immersion
I've seen only one other Paul Greengrass movie, 'The Bourne Supremacy', and I really like his style of directing. This time, though, he's stepped everything up a notch. Especially in the action sequences. Not only do you feel like you're in the action, which at times makes you want to step back to avoid injuring yourself, you also see all of the action in the first person. For example, there's this long chase scene in Tangier in which Bourne is both dodging the police and trying to save Nikki Parsons (Julia Stiles) from Desh Bouksani (Joey Ansah), a CIA assassin who has been instructed to kill them both.
What's really cool about this is that, at no point during the entire sequence, do you see an overview of anything. Except for initial framing shots, there are no shots from obviously crane-mounted cameras, no shots from helicopters, and no long or wide shots that let you think "ah, so he's there, she's there, and he's...there; okay, now it all makes sense to me". No, it's all in the first person: you only see as much as, say, Bourne sees from his rooftop vantage point. You see Parons' bobbing blonde head in the middle of a crowd at the end of a narrow alleyway (at the top of your screen) and, jerking the camera down a bit, you see Bouksani's purposeful but quick-moving figure at the start of that alley (at the bottom of your screen). Next, the camera whips around (as your head would if you were to look over your shoulder) and you see a couple of policemen climbing over the roof, shouting and gesturing. You look over the other way (another camera whip-around) and you see (i.e. choose, evaluate, and estimate) the route you'll be taking next. Yes, you're seeing everything as Bourne sees it and this immersion into the action itself gives the movie a whole different feel to the movie.
It's the same with most other shots. Parsons looks over her shoulder and the next shot is of a crowd of people covering the bottom-half the screen. Incongruous among them is Bouksani who is looking directly at you and is making his way through the crowd as quickly as he can. You only ever see the top two-thirds of his face. But, then, that's all Parsons sees so that's all you're going to get too.
Later, when Bourne and Bouksani finally fight hand-to-hand (as expected), you feel as if you're actually standing in that small room (which, in fact, the cameraman is), watching the fight happen right next to you. It's close combat and, well, you're very close to it all. At one point you almost want to jump back to avoid being rammed into the wall. It's quite exciting.
What I love about this kind of direction is the immediacy of it all. If you've played first-person shooter games on the computer, you'll feel right at home. The immersion thing works, and it works really well. Yes, the camera bobs around (making some people nauseous) and jerks from one shot to the next (making the whole thing a little hard to follow) but the director makes sure that you get the time to follow everything that's going on nonetheless.
Compare this to other, more traditional, fight sequences. Had this been a traditional action movie, in that Bourne-Bouksani fight, you would have had shots from outside the window, from inside one of the walls (just before someone was slammed into it, of course), and through a really-wide door or a conveniently camera-sized gap in one of the walls. Yes, you would have been an obviously-outside observer looking in. Not an obviously-inside observe looking at the fight going on right next to you. It might be hard to see the difference between the two at first, but imagine the difference between watching a tennis match on TV and watching the same match from a ball boy's point of view. Who actually hears and feels the ball fly by? Who has to swing his head left to right in order to follow the action? And who, occasionally, gets whacked on the head by a stray ball? That's the difference between the two styles.
Evolution in Style
In fact, Greengrass has almost completely undone the stylistic advantage that Hong Kong cinema had over Hollywood in terms of filming fighting and action sequences. In Hong Kong cinema, you'd be perpendicular to the action and would see the punch being delivered (say, from left to right), land on the opponent, and the opponent react to it (because he actually got lightly whacked). In the Hollywood style you would often see the punch being delivered not across your line of vision, but towards you or away from you. The actual punch could therefore easily end well before the opponents face and the opponent would time his backward jerk with the moment of supposed contact. That was what made Hollywood look fake and Hong Kong cinema look so much more realistic. Now an English director is using hand-held cameras and whipping-around motion to capture everything much more realistically (because you're in the action itself) than Hong Kong cinema ever did. And he's doing it really well too.
Particularly good, by the way, are the nicely choreographed fight sequences between Bourne and the other CIA operatives (or, as they're called in the movie, "assets"). These people are Bourne's equals. They know what he knows and both of them know that it's only a minor thing that could swing the fight either way. The fight in Tangier was one such example. What's really cool is when you realize that this is also an example of a new evolution in movie fight sequences between reasonably matched opponents. Its brutal, visceral, and real. You're not the underdog and you're not the obviously superior fighter. You're equal. It's sort of like the extended fight sequence between Neo and Agent Smith in the Matrix Revolutions (though with a lot less literal flying-through-the-air!). The hero doesn't get pummelled all the way till the end when he delivers the oh-so-unexpected knock-out punch. No, like I said earlier, it's like a tennis volley. Left, right, left, right, left, right, oops you missed and so now you're dead.
Other Niceties
I also like the way silence is used in the movie (sorry Nadia!). It's sort of the way M. Night Shyamalan uses it in his movies, but not quite (Shyamalan uses it more effectively). Here the silences reflect, in many ways, the blanks in Bourne's mind. There's a lot to say, a lot that can be said, maybe even a lot that you want said, but no...there's just silence. Again, this adds to the feeling of immersion. And to the feeling of real life. In a regular movie, some of those silences could have been filled with smartly-written dialogue. In this movie, well, things aren't that neat and tidy. You don't know what to say, so you don't say anything. Yes, it's long and uncomfortable, but there it is. It's not supposed to cut quickly into the next scene.
Speaking of not being neat and tidy, there are number of loose threads that don't get neatly tied at the end either. Whether that's to leave room for a sequel or to reflect life where things aren't always perfect, I don't know. I just like the fact that increasingly film makers are realizing that you don't always have to box everything nicely and neatly at the end. You can leave some questions unanswered. And that's okay.
Yea-Sayers
It's not just me who likes the movie, by the way. Salon's Stephanie Zacharek, one of the critics I admire most, loves it too. She writes:
[Action] movies desperately need more guys like Greengrass. The violence in "The Bourne Ultimatum" is exciting, all right. But very few contemporary directors know how to film action and violence with the kind of chaotic clarity Greengrass does. That may seem like a contradiction, but Greengrass knows how to use a movie frame so we know where to look every instant -- and still, we can't ever be certain that we're catching it all, because violence by its nature is unmanageable.
The people at Monsters & Critics like it too:
Greengrass has emerged as a master of balance. He builds tension expertly, singularly. But his work isn’t simple. Key narrative shots are reached through layers of filters, but then life is like that.
I agree. The layering is nicely done. And you really have to be into the movie to fully follow what's going on.
Nay-Sayers
Of course, there are others who don't it at all. And there are, indeed, things about the movie that made me roll my eyes. Like some of the trying-too-hard-to-be-a-spy dialogue. Greengrass also tried to be too much like Shyamalan in some cases when he unnecessarily filmed even non-action scenes with a hand-held camera. Some of the references to earlier Bourne movies were also a little too obvious; except for the ending scene which mirrors the starting scene of the entire trilogy. That bit was cool.
A lot of people didn't like the motion sickness-inducing shots in particular and, in general, don't like Greeengrass' style at all. Craig Rhodes explains it really well in a reply to Zacharek's article on Salon:
I loved "The Bourne Identity" but hate both sequels largely because of the Greengrass formula. The directing, editing and shooting are from the MTV school of film making. The result indicates a mediocre director trying to compensate by throwing in every music video trick in the book. Character development and plot are secondary to technique.
After which he goes on to say:
The fact that most critics are praising Greengrass' latest effort sadly indicates how the "nano-second attention span" has been fully integrated into our culture.
There is really only one appropriate reply to this second quote of his: "Like, duh!"
The fact is that movie-making is evolving. Newer writers, directors, producers, and cinematographers are trying different things. And they've been trying different things for years. Take Steven Soderbergh's 'Traffic' in which different colour tints are used in the film's different story lines (also used very effectively in the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy). Or take Robert Zemeckis' 'Cast Away' in which there is no background music for the first 1 hour 43 minutes of the movie (only 15 minutes of musical score were written for the entire film). More often that not, though, recent shifts in movie-making styles have been based around special effects (both subtle and large-scale). The quick-cutting style, meanwhile, is something that started with television. And yes, with MTV music videos (and ads). However, more and more "serious" shows are now using it now too. And that is starting to validate its use where and when appropriate.
It's also partly a generational thing. Two generations ago we had Francis Ford Coppola's 'Apocalypse Now' and the original 'Star Trek' television series -- both simpler and slower classics. One generation ago we had James Cameron's 'Terminator' and 'The A-Team ' -- both good, solid action pieces that have stood the test of time. In this generation we have Sam Raimi's 'Spider-Man' and 'NYPD Blue' -- with the TV show being a little ahead of its time in the way it was shot, specifically in terms of camera angles and movements. Maybe the next generational shift is targeted, not at people who enjoy reading books, but at those who are used to switching between five separate windows on their computer, one of which is a live chat and another of which is a media player. Maybe the next generation of film and television styles will be exemplified by Paul Greengrass' 'The Bourne Supremacy and 'CSI' (again with the cool camera angles). Or maybe we'll look back at this particular effort of Greengrass' and will think that it was clunky and amateurish (though still ahead of its time) compared to what is yet to come. Who knows?
My point is, 'The Bourne Ultimatum' could have been shot in a more traditional manner but that would have it made just any other good action movie. Like 'Die Hard 4.0', for example. That was a good movie with a fun story line that matched the current action movie-making style. You couldn't have done that with Ultimatum, just like this style wouldn't have worked in 4.0. In Ultimatum, you need to be on the ground, part of the action, in a chaotic and confused environment, but still be able follow what was going on. That's what the movie required and I think Greengrass pulled that off exceptionally well.
Science Fiction Lists
Continuing my discussion on popular science fiction books, Sci-Fi Lists maintains a list of the Top 100 Sci-Fi Books, Short Stories, Films, and TV Shows. I don't know how accurate this lists is -- or if there can ever be a definitive list of top 100 anything -- but this is a good a list as any. Actually, it's better than most. It's also useful as a guide or check list for good science fiction.
Though for films, IMDb probably has the best set of listings. Maybe even for the top rated sci-fi titles because it's not just science fiction fans that contribute to the ranking. That kind of listing is more relevant in the "real world" since making films is, unfortunately, a little more about the financial bottom line than, well, anything else really. Such is life.
Though for films, IMDb probably has the best set of listings. Maybe even for the top rated sci-fi titles because it's not just science fiction fans that contribute to the ranking. That kind of listing is more relevant in the "real world" since making films is, unfortunately, a little more about the financial bottom line than, well, anything else really. Such is life.
Typography: Man on Fire, Helvetica
Continuing my discussion on the use of type in films (see my previous post), I also recently read a good article on the use of subtitles in Tony Scott's 'Man on Fire'. I've mentioned this in passing on this blog before, but Speak Up does a whole lot more...and has screen shots as well :)
If you're into typography, make sure you give it a read.
Helvetica
The Helvetica documentary is now available on DVD! I still haven't watched it and am dying to get my hands on it. Hmmm...something must be done. I wonder if it'll be available for sale in any of the bookstores here. I hope so!
In Man on Fire, Tony Scott turns its obligatory subtitles into visual stimuli for the movie, intertwining -- sometimes gently, other times abruptly -- typography into its scenes. The subtitles, rendered most of the time in Franklin Gothic, are not confined to the top layer of the film, they have depth and perception, they wait for their turn and they, like their real-life actors, hit their mark as told. This, however, is not groundbreaking, many movies have used typography better and many of the visual puns in Man on Fire are reminiscent of Typography 101 exercises (How do you make type scream? You make it big and bold, silly). Nonetheless, Man on Fire achieves small, visual victories that add charisma and personality to commonly bland and uninspiring subtitles.
[Source: http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/002231.html]
If you're into typography, make sure you give it a read.
Helvetica
The Helvetica documentary is now available on DVD! I still haven't watched it and am dying to get my hands on it. Hmmm...something must be done. I wonder if it'll be available for sale in any of the bookstores here. I hope so!
Typography in HP&OTP
I love typography (and everything that goes along with it). In fact, the only bit of artistic drawing that I can do is related to the shapes and styles of words and letters (or, more generally, simple geometric shapes). Typography is also a large part of my work (website design). As a result, I visit typography websites (such as Typographica.org), subscribe to design blogs, download and experiment with lots of fonts, use lots of fonts, and so on. Over the last couple of weeks, I read a couple of interesting articles on the use of typography in Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix (HP&OTP) movie that I thought I should share:
The first is by Design Observer who says:
And then Perez-Fox goes on to say:
They're good articles and, if you're into this type of thing (haha, I made a pun!), be sure to check them out.
The first is by Design Observer who says:
But it's not just the villains who pull focus, for this most recent theatrical release includes an even more pronounced paradigm shift: it may just be the first film in which letterforms, once the purview of the production designer, break free and actually join the cast.
[Source: http://www.designobserver.com/archives/026935.html]
And then Perez-Fox goes on to say:
In Order of the Phoenix, the wizarding world is engulfed in a sort of media war. Since Voldemort is still underground, most of the dramatics are surrounding slander and perceptions, rather than gunslinging, so to speak. So it is fitting the wizarding paper of record, The Daily Prophet, gains a life of it’s own, and really tells the story better than ever before
[Source: http://www.perezfox.com/2007/08/10/the-typography-of-harry-potter/]
They're good articles and, if you're into this type of thing (haha, I made a pun!), be sure to check them out.
Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows
WARNING: This post contains spoilers. If you haven't read the book yet, don't read this post. You have been warned.
So yesterday I finished re-reading Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows (HP&DH). Damn, it's a good book. And although Rowling didn't tie up all the loose ends of the plot (I'm dying to know what happens to Umbridge, for example), she did fill us in on most of the important details. The rest she discussed in various interviews and web chats. If you want to know more, here are some of the articles that you should read:
I could talk about the book some more but, now that she herself can discuss it, Rowling has done most of the talking anyway.
By the way, if you want an incredibly concise summary of the book, check out the spoiler t-shirt at the Harry Potter Plot Enlightenment Project :)
The Movie
What I can talk about, however, is what the movie version of this book will be like. If you have read HP&DH, and have also read my post on Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix (HP&OTP), you will have noticed that, of the three items missing from the movie that I was unhappy about, two of them play a rather important part in the last book. Namely the fact that Harry's tell-all article doesn't get published in the Quibbler (which feeds into the Xeno Lovegood story arc) and that, in Snape's memories, we don't see the bit where Lily defends Serverus (which is needed for the final Snape story arc; "The Price's Story" as it's called in the book). The second omission can be easily fixed since, for the final movie, they'll probably just append that bit to scene they did show in the HP&OTP movie.
The first omission, on the other hand, doesn't bode well. At least for Xeno Lovegood because I'm guessing they'll cut him out of the final movie entirely. Instead, Harry, Ron, and Hermione will figure out the Hallows-Peverell connection themselves and the whole scene will be summed up in a short dialogue between Hermione and Ron. Oh well.
They'll probably also cut out the wedding. The trio will make a run for it soon after the Minister has given them the stuff that Dumbledore left them in his will. That whole time-in-the-wilderness bit will also probably be replaced by a montage. And they might skip the whole Ron leaving and coming back story arc as well. Yes, indeed, there's lots to cut out. If I had the time, I would write down a summary of the book's plot and would chip away at it until I came up with the smallest plot threat that could tell the whole story. I would then cut it down further to see what could be done (i.e. which parts of the plot could be told) quicker. And cheaper, which fewer special effects. And then I would wait for the movie to see how my version compared with what they came up with. Yes, that would be an interesting exercise. If I had the time. Oh well.
So yesterday I finished re-reading Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows (HP&DH). Damn, it's a good book. And although Rowling didn't tie up all the loose ends of the plot (I'm dying to know what happens to Umbridge, for example), she did fill us in on most of the important details. The rest she discussed in various interviews and web chats. If you want to know more, here are some of the articles that you should read:
- Finished ‘Potter’? Rowling tells what happens next
- Rowling: I wanted to kill parents
- Stop your sobbing! More Potter to come
- Confused by Potter? Author sets record straight
- Read the full Bloomsbury transcript of the webchat with J.K. Rowling on 30 July 2007
(or, if you have a low-bandwidth connection, here's the direct link)
I could talk about the book some more but, now that she herself can discuss it, Rowling has done most of the talking anyway.
By the way, if you want an incredibly concise summary of the book, check out the spoiler t-shirt at the Harry Potter Plot Enlightenment Project :)
The Movie
What I can talk about, however, is what the movie version of this book will be like. If you have read HP&DH, and have also read my post on Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix (HP&OTP), you will have noticed that, of the three items missing from the movie that I was unhappy about, two of them play a rather important part in the last book. Namely the fact that Harry's tell-all article doesn't get published in the Quibbler (which feeds into the Xeno Lovegood story arc) and that, in Snape's memories, we don't see the bit where Lily defends Serverus (which is needed for the final Snape story arc; "The Price's Story" as it's called in the book). The second omission can be easily fixed since, for the final movie, they'll probably just append that bit to scene they did show in the HP&OTP movie.
The first omission, on the other hand, doesn't bode well. At least for Xeno Lovegood because I'm guessing they'll cut him out of the final movie entirely. Instead, Harry, Ron, and Hermione will figure out the Hallows-Peverell connection themselves and the whole scene will be summed up in a short dialogue between Hermione and Ron. Oh well.
They'll probably also cut out the wedding. The trio will make a run for it soon after the Minister has given them the stuff that Dumbledore left them in his will. That whole time-in-the-wilderness bit will also probably be replaced by a montage. And they might skip the whole Ron leaving and coming back story arc as well. Yes, indeed, there's lots to cut out. If I had the time, I would write down a summary of the book's plot and would chip away at it until I came up with the smallest plot threat that could tell the whole story. I would then cut it down further to see what could be done (i.e. which parts of the plot could be told) quicker. And cheaper, which fewer special effects. And then I would wait for the movie to see how my version compared with what they came up with. Yes, that would be an interesting exercise. If I had the time. Oh well.
Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix
So I watched 'Harry Potter and Order of the Phoenix' a few of days ago and, I must say, they did a really good job with it. The special effects -- particularly the duelling scenes in the Room of Requirements and the Department of Mysteries -- were fabulous. And the way the members of the Order and the Death Eaters zipped around the place was cool, too.
They also did a good job with the new characters introduced in this movie, particularly Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge, Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange, and Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood. All of them rocked. Luna, who plays a pivotal role in this book, is also one of my favourite characters in the whole series and Lynch played her perfectly. Good for Rowling to insist that a first-timer be cast in this role. (Hmmm...having lived in Australia for a year I almost wrote "Good on Rowling..."!)
On the other hand, it wasn't good of Rowling to let the screenwriters do whatever they wanted with the script. I don't like the fact that they left out some, in my opinion, important parts of the book from the movie, though I do certainly understand the need for brevity and simplicity -- especially in a children's movie. As it is, as far as I'm concerned, only the Walsh-Boyens-Jackson trio (of the 'Lord of the Rings' fame) have done justice to a fantasy fiction book-to-film translation. That said, I guess everyone has their pet peeves about what was left from of the book. My top three are:
1. Making Cho be the one who tells on the D.A.
And, while it was nice of them (the film's producers, directors, and screenwrites) to explicitly point out that Cho was given veritaserum by Umbridge so it's not like she had a choice, dammit that wasn't enough. Of course, it was much easier to do it this way. In the book, Harry gets about as pissed off at her as he is in the movie but that's there to show us that he's human (and not the perfect hero) just like the rest of us. When you're reading the book, you have to decide for yourself whether Harry is being unreasonable or not (by remaining pissed off at her). It's bits like that that make reading books so cool. Unfortunately, that level of subtelty is difficult to communicate in a movie (let alone communicate it well). Oh well. Hollywood 1, Cho 0.
2. Skipping the bit in which Harry's tell-all interview is published in the Quibbler.
They go to some length to show that no one believes Harry about Voldermort's return when they first get to school. The same happens in the book. But in that, it's the publishing of that interview that really starts to change everyone else's minds (big, teary hug from Mrs. Weasely aside). And Seamus' apology to Harry in the Great Hall comes after that. Instead, in the movie the changing of everyone else's mind is left up to Seamus' uncalled-for apology (since the article hadn't come out over the holidays and changed his mind) and Fudge's "He's back!" line at the end of the movie.
3. Skipping the bit in Snape's memory in which Harry's mother, Lily, rescues Snape from Harry's father, James', hovering charm.
This was a pretty crucial bit to cut out. And not just because it's another important shades-of-grey point in the book. But...I won't get into the other reason since a lot of people still haven't read the last book and it contains a spoiler. Coming to the shades-of-grey reason, though: in this memory, Harry's father comes across as an egotistical bully, Snape comes across as weak and helpless, and Lily comes across as a good, strong person. While Harry expected that of his mother, he was shocked to see his father (and, of course, Snape) acting that manner. Seeing this (and know it's true since it is a memory) shakes Harry's faith in a lot of things (including himself) and it takes him a while to get over all this. Again (and I'm getting sick of saying this over and over) since that's difficult to show in a movie...snip, snip, snip. *sigh*
Of these three omissions, though, the last one was the easiest to show with just a little bit of good screenwriting. And, having read the last book, it was the most important of the three as well. Who knows, though. Maybe they did shoot it but it wound up (metaphorically) on the cutting room floor because addings its counterpart scenes (Harry getting back his faith) would have made the movie too long. I guess we'll have to wait and see which scenes they add in the DVD.
Overall, though, Goldberg and Yates did a pretty good job with the movie and I know they -- hopefully someone else! -- will find smart ways of working around those omissions. As long as it's not Goldberg who does the screenplay -- I still haven't forgiven him for changing some crucial parts of Carl Sagan's 'Contact' -- we should be okay.
Next time...a spoiler-full review of the last Harry Potter book :)
They also did a good job with the new characters introduced in this movie, particularly Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge, Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange, and Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood. All of them rocked. Luna, who plays a pivotal role in this book, is also one of my favourite characters in the whole series and Lynch played her perfectly. Good for Rowling to insist that a first-timer be cast in this role. (Hmmm...having lived in Australia for a year I almost wrote "Good on Rowling..."!)
On the other hand, it wasn't good of Rowling to let the screenwriters do whatever they wanted with the script. I don't like the fact that they left out some, in my opinion, important parts of the book from the movie, though I do certainly understand the need for brevity and simplicity -- especially in a children's movie. As it is, as far as I'm concerned, only the Walsh-Boyens-Jackson trio (of the 'Lord of the Rings' fame) have done justice to a fantasy fiction book-to-film translation. That said, I guess everyone has their pet peeves about what was left from of the book. My top three are:
1. Making Cho be the one who tells on the D.A.
And, while it was nice of them (the film's producers, directors, and screenwrites) to explicitly point out that Cho was given veritaserum by Umbridge so it's not like she had a choice, dammit that wasn't enough. Of course, it was much easier to do it this way. In the book, Harry gets about as pissed off at her as he is in the movie but that's there to show us that he's human (and not the perfect hero) just like the rest of us. When you're reading the book, you have to decide for yourself whether Harry is being unreasonable or not (by remaining pissed off at her). It's bits like that that make reading books so cool. Unfortunately, that level of subtelty is difficult to communicate in a movie (let alone communicate it well). Oh well. Hollywood 1, Cho 0.
2. Skipping the bit in which Harry's tell-all interview is published in the Quibbler.
They go to some length to show that no one believes Harry about Voldermort's return when they first get to school. The same happens in the book. But in that, it's the publishing of that interview that really starts to change everyone else's minds (big, teary hug from Mrs. Weasely aside). And Seamus' apology to Harry in the Great Hall comes after that. Instead, in the movie the changing of everyone else's mind is left up to Seamus' uncalled-for apology (since the article hadn't come out over the holidays and changed his mind) and Fudge's "He's back!" line at the end of the movie.
3. Skipping the bit in Snape's memory in which Harry's mother, Lily, rescues Snape from Harry's father, James', hovering charm.
This was a pretty crucial bit to cut out. And not just because it's another important shades-of-grey point in the book. But...I won't get into the other reason since a lot of people still haven't read the last book and it contains a spoiler. Coming to the shades-of-grey reason, though: in this memory, Harry's father comes across as an egotistical bully, Snape comes across as weak and helpless, and Lily comes across as a good, strong person. While Harry expected that of his mother, he was shocked to see his father (and, of course, Snape) acting that manner. Seeing this (and know it's true since it is a memory) shakes Harry's faith in a lot of things (including himself) and it takes him a while to get over all this. Again (and I'm getting sick of saying this over and over) since that's difficult to show in a movie...snip, snip, snip. *sigh*
Of these three omissions, though, the last one was the easiest to show with just a little bit of good screenwriting. And, having read the last book, it was the most important of the three as well. Who knows, though. Maybe they did shoot it but it wound up (metaphorically) on the cutting room floor because addings its counterpart scenes (Harry getting back his faith) would have made the movie too long. I guess we'll have to wait and see which scenes they add in the DVD.
Overall, though, Goldberg and Yates did a pretty good job with the movie and I know they -- hopefully someone else! -- will find smart ways of working around those omissions. As long as it's not Goldberg who does the screenplay -- I still haven't forgiven him for changing some crucial parts of Carl Sagan's 'Contact' -- we should be okay.
Next time...a spoiler-full review of the last Harry Potter book :)
Transformers: Prime and Fox
If you expected great drama and a serious plot line from 'Transformers (2007)' then you must have been sorely disappointed. Though, of course, you would have been an idiot to have gone into the movie with that in mind. Dude, Michael Bay of the highly enjoyable 'Pearl Harbour', 'Armageddon', 'The Rock', and 'Bad Boys' fame produced and directed it...what did you expect? It was -- and was supposed to be -- a fun, big budget, special effects extravaganza. And boy did it deliver on those fronts.
On the other hand, if you watched the movie specifically for the special effects, Optimus Prime's voice, and Megan Fox (or Shia LaBeouf, whatever), then you must have been pretty happy with it. As was Jeremy Slater who says in his 'Big! Fucking! Robots!' review:
That's an awesome review, by the way. Make sure you read it.
Other people have had fun with the movie, too. Phil Plait (bless him) from the Bad Astronomy blog took the the time to talk about the differences between Hollywood physics and real physics in his review of the movie ("Still, there were a few things I want to point out, because they're fun to think about."). Fortunately, he's enough of a fan of movies to conclude:
Nadia, of course, loved it as well. While General Motor's marketing team must have had...well, let's just say a very happy week.
My conclusion, on the other hand, can be summed up into one word: damn!
On the other hand, if you watched the movie specifically for the special effects, Optimus Prime's voice, and Megan Fox (or Shia LaBeouf, whatever), then you must have been pretty happy with it. As was Jeremy Slater who says in his 'Big! Fucking! Robots!' review:
Bay knows he's making a movie about action figures, and this is how action figures behave: you set them up, then you make them fight. We don't need to know why the Police Car Robot is evil; he just fucking is. That's enough for me, and I'm guessing it will be enough for most audiences.
That's an awesome review, by the way. Make sure you read it.
Other people have had fun with the movie, too. Phil Plait (bless him) from the Bad Astronomy blog took the the time to talk about the differences between Hollywood physics and real physics in his review of the movie ("Still, there were a few things I want to point out, because they're fun to think about."). Fortunately, he's enough of a fan of movies to conclude:
Surprisingly, that's about it. There were lots of other little things, but nothing I remember worth noting. Despite my science review, I really do recommend seeing this movie since it was a lot of fun and the special effects were truly awesome. It's a dumb movie, don't get me wrong, but there is room in the world for dumb movies sometimes.
Nadia, of course, loved it as well. While General Motor's marketing team must have had...well, let's just say a very happy week.
Imagine you're a huge automobile manufacturing company. (Imagine harder! You're a complex of buildings, factories, offices and... Oh, never mind. Bad metaphor.)
OK, specifically: Imagine you're a marketing exec at GM. Now imagine the ginormous year-end bonus you're going to get as a result of your collaboration with Paramount Pictures and toy-maker Hasbro on this summer's Transformers movie. Are you imagining swimming in cash? Good job.
[Source: 'GM, Transformers' product placement marketing match' from CNET's Crave blog]
My conclusion, on the other hand, can be summed up into one word: damn!
Near-Term Goals for This Here Blog
There is a lot that I want to blog about.
For example, I have recently watched the following movies:
Read the following interesting articles:
Read or re-read the following awesome books:
Started listening to some really good netcasts on TWiT, including:
Discovered a couple of really good musicians:
Bought tickets to a couple of great concerts:
All of which are blog-worthy items. I have also recently started extensively using the moste excellent Google Reader which is something that I really want to blog about.
Finally, aside from everything already listed above, I am now formally declaring the following topics as future postings of mine for this here blog:
All of which I will about write soon. I hope.
Huh?
Why have I just written all of this? Well, all this is thanks to first item on Web Worker Daily's '10 Ways to be Productive with Your Blog' which is: "Post goals". Tthat's step one done with. Let's see how the others go :)
Oh, and I have also recently added a new page to my website called '(Much) More About Me', the title of which is rather self explanatory.
For example, I have recently watched the following movies:
Read the following interesting articles:
Read or re-read the following awesome books:
- Frank Herbert's first Dune trilogy: "Dune", "Dune Messiah", and "Children of Dune"
- JK Rowling's "Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows"
Started listening to some really good netcasts on TWiT, including:
Discovered a couple of really good musicians:
Bought tickets to a couple of great concerts:
- The Cure: 12 August, 2007 at the Rod Laver Arena
- The Police: 26 January, 2008 at the Melbourne Cricket Ground
All of which are blog-worthy items. I have also recently started extensively using the moste excellent Google Reader which is something that I really want to blog about.
Finally, aside from everything already listed above, I am now formally declaring the following topics as future postings of mine for this here blog:
- Facebook (and social networking in general)
- Living in Australia
- Why blog?
- The problem with this blog
All of which I will about write soon. I hope.
Huh?
Why have I just written all of this? Well, all this is thanks to first item on Web Worker Daily's '10 Ways to be Productive with Your Blog' which is: "Post goals". Tthat's step one done with. Let's see how the others go :)
Oh, and I have also recently added a new page to my website called '(Much) More About Me', the title of which is rather self explanatory.
Dakota Fanning
Dakota Fanning is one of my favourite actors. Unlike most other child stars that are considered to be "good actors", she's the only one I know who can act like and adult when she needs to and, importantly, can also act like a kid when she needs to. Actors like Haley Joel Osment, who plays great adult roles, and Macaulay Culikin, who played decent kid roles, don't seem to be able to pull that off. The coolest part in all this, of course, is that she's only 13 years old. That means we should expect many more years of awesome acting from her. I, for one, am really looking forward to that.
Speaking of Dakota, I should talk about two more things. First that Denzel Washington continues to reinforce how great an actor he is with every role that he plays. I watched "Man on Fire" (2004) yesterday -- which is what prompted this particular posting -- and, despite the occasionally distracting ("edgy"?) directing by Tony Scott, quite enjoyed the movie. I particularly loved the innovative way in which they displayed subtitles throughout the film.
Second, I really liked Tom Cruise in "War of the Worlds". It was refreshing to see him play a panicked, not-so-smart, insignificant individual set against the backdrop of a much larger story. His character does grow to find redemption reasonably neatly at the end of the movie but, overally, the film was a little too one-dimensional for me. Yes, the special effects were awesome, but both story arcs were just too simple for a modern action/sci-fi thriller. Part of the reason for that was the fact that Wells' book itself was rather simple when compared to modern stories. Particularly modern science fiction stories. And Wells' book was one of the first book in that genre so naturally it wasn't as developed. They did update the story quite a bit (and quite nicely too) but, in my opinion at least, they stuck too close to the original storyline (which, had they been overly true to, would have resulted in a pretty crappy movie).
The converting of books into movies is a whole other topic that I don't want to get into right now. So I won't. The topic of simple story lines versus more complex ones, specifically in science fiction, is another topic that I'll get into later. I particularly want to compare the original Star Trek TV series with the newer ones. That should be a fun post to write. Anyway, I just wanted to say those two things. And I have. Thus endeth this post.
Speaking of Dakota, I should talk about two more things. First that Denzel Washington continues to reinforce how great an actor he is with every role that he plays. I watched "Man on Fire" (2004) yesterday -- which is what prompted this particular posting -- and, despite the occasionally distracting ("edgy"?) directing by Tony Scott, quite enjoyed the movie. I particularly loved the innovative way in which they displayed subtitles throughout the film.
Second, I really liked Tom Cruise in "War of the Worlds". It was refreshing to see him play a panicked, not-so-smart, insignificant individual set against the backdrop of a much larger story. His character does grow to find redemption reasonably neatly at the end of the movie but, overally, the film was a little too one-dimensional for me. Yes, the special effects were awesome, but both story arcs were just too simple for a modern action/sci-fi thriller. Part of the reason for that was the fact that Wells' book itself was rather simple when compared to modern stories. Particularly modern science fiction stories. And Wells' book was one of the first book in that genre so naturally it wasn't as developed. They did update the story quite a bit (and quite nicely too) but, in my opinion at least, they stuck too close to the original storyline (which, had they been overly true to, would have resulted in a pretty crappy movie).
The converting of books into movies is a whole other topic that I don't want to get into right now. So I won't. The topic of simple story lines versus more complex ones, specifically in science fiction, is another topic that I'll get into later. I particularly want to compare the original Star Trek TV series with the newer ones. That should be a fun post to write. Anyway, I just wanted to say those two things. And I have. Thus endeth this post.
Watching Movies/TV, Listening to Music
Since I've started talking about the different layers that make up a scene in a movie or television show (i.e. by talking about scripts), let me go ahead and tell y'all how I watch movies in the first place. No, not the obvious open-eyes-stare-at-screen type how I watch movies, but more like what my movie-watching philosophy is. Of course, calling it a 'philosophy' gives it a little too much credit, but it sounds much cooler that way so I'm going to stick with it. (Also, when I say just 'movies', I do actually mean both movies and TV. It's just that it's much easier to stick to the one word, which is exactly what I'll do for the remainder of this post.)
Levels & Layers
Simply put, I watch movies at multiple levels and often (usually when I really like a movie) I watch it at least twice. When I say 'multiple levels' I mean that, because I know a little about how movies are made, I can see and appreciate the inputs of various contributors to the overall product. Let me give you an example from the first part of 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'. And from that let's take the scene in which Gandalf and Frodo are riding on Gandalf's cart towards Bag End (i.e. Bilbo's house). The scene seems to be reasonably straightforward but there's a lot going on in there. For example:
Now it's true that I know a lot of this stuff because (a) there is a lot of production information available about the LoTR movies in the DVD extras as well as online, (b) I'm a Peter Jackson fan and so I keep up with his work, and (c) I'm a huge LoTR fan. But that's part of the point: it is because I know about all this stuff and have read about it that I know a lot about what's going behind the scenes. And it's that which helps me watch the movie at multiple levels.
The fun thing is that, even if I don't know a lot about the movie I'm watching, I can still see how it was made. For example, regardless of which movie I'm watching, I will consciously notice continuity mistakes, the score and what it is trying to convey, the lighting, the cinematography, the camera angles, the number of cameras being used, the cuts between takes and scenes, the work being put in by the actors, the effects added on by the visual effects people, the audio being added on by the folio people, and so on. This is in much the same way that an editor would look at a book and see spelling and grammar mistakes, different font faces, writing and editing styles and choices, printing and layout choices, etc. (Aside: Being a web developer and designer, I do the same when viewing web pages.)
Layers in Music
Being a musician, meanwhile, helps me do the same thing when listening to music. For example, I can usually tell what bit was recorded live and what was added on later, what the song structure is all about, what the time signature is, when the key changes are, how the song is arranged spatially, what is being done with the backing vocals (when, who, how many, higher/lower, how spatially arranged, etc.), which instruments are playing in which audio frequency areas, what melodies and counter melodies are being used, what exactly each instrument is contributing to the song (which individual melody they're playing, etc.), and exactly which drum component the drummer is striking at any given time.
The Benefit
All of this, for both movies and songs, does a couple of things for me. First, it helps me get a lot more from the movie I'm watching or the song I'm listening to. I end up appreciating them not just for what they are, but also for how they came to be that way. Second, it makes me doubly dislike badly done songs/movies and makes me really like those that have been well done. That doesn't seem like a big thing but, believe me, it is. Take Shakira's song 'Hips Don't Lie' for example. The song is really good and it's great to dance to but, dammit, its production could have been better. Or take 'Rock the Party' by the Bombay Rockers in which the chorus sound like "frack the part, frack the party" instead of "rock the party, rock the party".
On the other hand, it is thanks to this that I can appreciate just how awesome the band Dire Straits was because its production is just incredible. (Unfortunately, Knopfler's obsession with getting everything exactly right led to a high turnover of band members). You also start to appreciate different individual music producers -- like Steve Lillywhite, Daniel Lanois, Brian Eno, Butch Vig, Mark Knopfler, Rick Rubin, Mike Campbell, and Peter Gabriel, to name some of my favourites -- and what they bring to bands and their sounds. To get an idea of the same thing happening in a different context, ask Nadia how she likes Dan Brown's 'The DaVinci Code' and why she has never been able to get past the first page because the writing is so darned crappy!
To make my life a little happier, by the way, I have had to develop both the ability to separate content from production and the ability to enjoy something even if it's not all that well done. So I can still enjoy listening to 'Hips Don't Lie' and I can still enjoy reading 'The DaVinci Code' (without cringing all that much) and I can still have a great time watching 'Terminator 3' even though there are minor acting issues and storyline inconsistencies.
Let's Watch That Again
Last thing: I mentioned at the start of this posting that I like to watch good movies more than once. One of the advantages of doing this is that I can peel off additional layers with each new viewing. And when a movie is really good, you get something new from it almost every single time you watch it. It is especially useful to watch good comedies more than once because you don't always get all the jokes the first time round (presumably because you're laughing so hard the first time round). Another advantage of multiple viewings is that, at the first viewing, you can leave your technical eye at the door and simply enjoy the story and get caught up in the action and excitement (especially if you're watching it in the cinema). Once you've done that, you can think "that was cool, how did they do that?" and then watch it again.
So that, ladies and gentlemen, is how I watch movies, TV shows, and plays; view websites; read books; and listen to music. Yes, life is rich and life is fun.
Levels & Layers
Simply put, I watch movies at multiple levels and often (usually when I really like a movie) I watch it at least twice. When I say 'multiple levels' I mean that, because I know a little about how movies are made, I can see and appreciate the inputs of various contributors to the overall product. Let me give you an example from the first part of 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'. And from that let's take the scene in which Gandalf and Frodo are riding on Gandalf's cart towards Bag End (i.e. Bilbo's house). The scene seems to be reasonably straightforward but there's a lot going on in there. For example:
- The two actors are actually sitting five feet away from each other on a specially designed cart that, when viewed from the side, uses perspective to make Frodo look much smaller than Gandalf. As it moves along, the bench they're sitting on adjusts to ensure that there is no break in scene continuity.
- The actual jump that Frodo makes into Gandal's arms was made by Elijah Wood's stunt double, Kiran Shah.
- This is an important scene for Gandalf because, first, it's the first time we're seeing him on screen and he has to look believable and, second, because Ian McKellen worked really hard to get Gandal's voice, humour, mischievous nature, concern for Bilbo, and hidden power all just right for this scene.
- A lot of work went into Gandalf's costume. It comes from drawing by John Howe (created for the cover illustration of the one the book editions) and both he and Alan Lee worked extensively with the producers to get the look and feel of Middle Earth just right.
- The firework effects were added later and, in the scene, the children are reacting to just audio (if that). One of the children in the scene is actually Peter Jackson's.
- The location of the scene is a park in New Zealand and all of the construction that was done to make it look like Hobbiton was completely undone after filming was completed.
- Howard Shore's musical score is currently on the hobbit theme. This theme will be played (sometimes intermingled with other themes) every time there's talk about hobbits and the Shire. Bits of the fellowship theme are thrown in throughout the first half of the movie, but that theme won't be fully developed (i.e. played) till the famous crossing-the-mountain-ridge scene later on in the movie.
Now it's true that I know a lot of this stuff because (a) there is a lot of production information available about the LoTR movies in the DVD extras as well as online, (b) I'm a Peter Jackson fan and so I keep up with his work, and (c) I'm a huge LoTR fan. But that's part of the point: it is because I know about all this stuff and have read about it that I know a lot about what's going behind the scenes. And it's that which helps me watch the movie at multiple levels.
The fun thing is that, even if I don't know a lot about the movie I'm watching, I can still see how it was made. For example, regardless of which movie I'm watching, I will consciously notice continuity mistakes, the score and what it is trying to convey, the lighting, the cinematography, the camera angles, the number of cameras being used, the cuts between takes and scenes, the work being put in by the actors, the effects added on by the visual effects people, the audio being added on by the folio people, and so on. This is in much the same way that an editor would look at a book and see spelling and grammar mistakes, different font faces, writing and editing styles and choices, printing and layout choices, etc. (Aside: Being a web developer and designer, I do the same when viewing web pages.)
Layers in Music
Being a musician, meanwhile, helps me do the same thing when listening to music. For example, I can usually tell what bit was recorded live and what was added on later, what the song structure is all about, what the time signature is, when the key changes are, how the song is arranged spatially, what is being done with the backing vocals (when, who, how many, higher/lower, how spatially arranged, etc.), which instruments are playing in which audio frequency areas, what melodies and counter melodies are being used, what exactly each instrument is contributing to the song (which individual melody they're playing, etc.), and exactly which drum component the drummer is striking at any given time.
The Benefit
All of this, for both movies and songs, does a couple of things for me. First, it helps me get a lot more from the movie I'm watching or the song I'm listening to. I end up appreciating them not just for what they are, but also for how they came to be that way. Second, it makes me doubly dislike badly done songs/movies and makes me really like those that have been well done. That doesn't seem like a big thing but, believe me, it is. Take Shakira's song 'Hips Don't Lie' for example. The song is really good and it's great to dance to but, dammit, its production could have been better. Or take 'Rock the Party' by the Bombay Rockers in which the chorus sound like "frack the part, frack the party" instead of "rock the party, rock the party".
On the other hand, it is thanks to this that I can appreciate just how awesome the band Dire Straits was because its production is just incredible. (Unfortunately, Knopfler's obsession with getting everything exactly right led to a high turnover of band members). You also start to appreciate different individual music producers -- like Steve Lillywhite, Daniel Lanois, Brian Eno, Butch Vig, Mark Knopfler, Rick Rubin, Mike Campbell, and Peter Gabriel, to name some of my favourites -- and what they bring to bands and their sounds. To get an idea of the same thing happening in a different context, ask Nadia how she likes Dan Brown's 'The DaVinci Code' and why she has never been able to get past the first page because the writing is so darned crappy!
To make my life a little happier, by the way, I have had to develop both the ability to separate content from production and the ability to enjoy something even if it's not all that well done. So I can still enjoy listening to 'Hips Don't Lie' and I can still enjoy reading 'The DaVinci Code' (without cringing all that much) and I can still have a great time watching 'Terminator 3' even though there are minor acting issues and storyline inconsistencies.
Let's Watch That Again
Last thing: I mentioned at the start of this posting that I like to watch good movies more than once. One of the advantages of doing this is that I can peel off additional layers with each new viewing. And when a movie is really good, you get something new from it almost every single time you watch it. It is especially useful to watch good comedies more than once because you don't always get all the jokes the first time round (presumably because you're laughing so hard the first time round). Another advantage of multiple viewings is that, at the first viewing, you can leave your technical eye at the door and simply enjoy the story and get caught up in the action and excitement (especially if you're watching it in the cinema). Once you've done that, you can think "that was cool, how did they do that?" and then watch it again.
So that, ladies and gentlemen, is how I watch movies, TV shows, and plays; view websites; read books; and listen to music. Yes, life is rich and life is fun.
Reading Scripts
I not only love to watch movies and TV shows, I love to read their scripts as well. And since there are lots of them available on the Internet, I've read quite a few. I used to read just film scripts but, over the last year or so, I've also started reading TV scripts and transcripts. In fact, I'm going through a TV script-reading phase these days: I finished reading all seven seasons of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' a couple of months ago and now I'm on season three of 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' (ST: TNG, or just TNG).
I really do enjoy reading this stuff. It gives you a whole new perspective on things. For one, you get to tap right into the writers' minds since (ignoring transcripts for the time being) you're reading their actual words. Because of this, you get to skip the layer of interpretation, presentation, and representation added on by the director, cinematographer, and actors respectively. You also don't get the soundtrack so there's no emotional augmentation from the music either.
Less Than a Book, More Than a Play
Reading a script is not like reading a book, by the way. Books are books -- they describe thoughts, feeling, and emotions in the text as well as through dialogue. With scripts, actors get cues from the scriptwriter, direction from the director, and they also bring their own abilities (and interpretation) to the delivery. Still, some pacing and acting cues help describe how things should pan out, like in this snippet from a TNG episode:
Worf, Korris and Konmel walk along.
KONMEL
The opponent that killed Kunivas
should have been an enemy -- then
his death would have been even
more glorious.WORF
(stunned by the revelation)If the opponent was not an
enemy... who was it?For a beat, neither Korris nor Konmel answer.
WORF
(continuing)Tell me -- what really happened?
Korris gives Worf a long steady gaze.
That's not like a book and not like a stage play script either. In the latter, a lot more is left open to interpretation -- aside from the fact that that's written for a wholly different medium, of course. The closest that books come to being written like movie scripts are when Michael Crichton writes them. His books come across like screenplays and the action almost plays out as if you're watching it on a screen. Most cool, that.
Scripts are sometimes doubly enjoyable when you've actually seen the episode/movie that you're reading the script of because you can have it playing in the back of your head while you read. This lets you see exactly what the actors, cinematographers, visual effects people, soundtrack people, producer, and director added on to the scene. Since I am a movie/TV buff, this is something that I really enjoy doing/seeing. Much in the same way that I enjoy browsing the web at a deeper level than most users because, since I used make websites for a living, I know how people have made the sites I'm seeing. And while bad sites irritate me more than they would irritate others, visiting good sites actually makes me happy! Yes, I'm a little weird.
Fun With Changes
Anyway, coming back to scripts: they're even more enjoyable when the script actually differs from what was in the filmed version of the movie/episode. I can, at this point, go off on a tangent and start talking about script versions -- i.e. drafts, originals, revisions, shooting scripts, and transcripts -- and how scripts evolve but, don't worry, I'm not going to get into that right now. Maybe in a later post. But still, it's fun when you read unfinished scripts that say things like (from another ST:TNG episode):
73 INT. EXECUTIVE OFFICE - DAY (TO BE WRITTEN)
Beata, Trent, the away team. Basically, Beata tells
Riker he's pretty smart for a man. She's given his
words a great deal of thought, sees his point, has
(with the help of her parliament) reached a decision.
...(stuff deleted)...
Beata urges them to be on their way. She strikes the
meditation crystal, giving in to its soothing warmth
as Riker belays the previous order to "kidnap" the
Ramsey group, and our away team DEMATERIALIZES.
In the filmed version, they've obviously added dialogue to that scene but it is interesting to note that someone else (the actors or the director, maybe) actually came up with the words that were said at that time.
Different Endings
It's also fun when the ending is different from what was in the movie, something that often happens in earlier drafts. For example, in an early 'Alien: Resurrection' draft, Ripley actually fights (and eventually crushes to death) the new, hybrid alien on the surface of the planet Earth while in the movie he gets killed before they enter Earth's atmosphere (the cool blow-out from the cargo hold, for those that have seen the movie). Sometimes scriptwriters write multiple endings, letting the directors or producers choose the one they like the most. And sometimes it doesn't end there either: the director and producer go ahead and shoot those multiple endings, delaying the final decision till the editing stage. (Some DVD extras show you these alternative endings too).
Tightening The Narrative
What's more subtly cool, though, is when you read a script and realize that the director and/or editor has deviated from the script in order to tighten the narrative up a bit. For example, in another ST:TNG episode, the second-last scene in the filmed version is much more appropriate than the one in the script. In this episode (1-08, 'Justice'), we're on an alien planet in which Wesley has unknowingly committed a 'crime' (tripped and broken some glass in a greenhouse). Unfortunately, all crimes on this planet have the same, single punishment: death. At the same time, the planet is "overseen" by a highly advanced being that can do pretty much anything. The locals call it "God". Anyway, everything boils down to Picard having to choose between saving the life of a crewmember and sticking with a strict interpretation of the Prime Directive (according to which he can't interfere with local laws and so Wes must die).
In the script, the second-last scene ends with Picard saying the line "I realize now that there can be no justice...no justice so long as laws are absolute. Life itself is an exercise in exceptions." just before they beam back up, taking Wesley with them and leaving the locals pissed off. In the actual episode, however, Picard actually gives the order to beam up before he makes that speech...but nothing happens. "God" is blocking their transporter. It is then that Picard makes the speech, soon after which the transporter kicks in and they start to get beamed up. As they phase out, Riker says something along the lines of "I guess God agrees with you"�. The difference between the two may be subtle -- and I know I haven't explained it all that well (you have to have seen the episode itself to appreciate this properly) -- but, trust me, it makes a big difference to the episode. In the original script, they've technically gone against the Prime Directive and have angered the planet's inhabitants with their flagrant disregard for their local laws. In the filmed version, however, they have successfully appealed to God, something that the inhabitants have seen and have understood.
Read Scripts and Transcripts!
Anyway, I hope this encourages at least some of you to go out and read some scripts. They really are a lot of fun. Assuming, of course, you like that kind of thing. I haven't talked much about transcripts in this post. Instead of saving them for a later post (because there's not much to say about them), let me just say that I like reading those too. While they don't necessarily give you a deeper understanding of the production process, they do give you a deeper understanding of the story, various story arcs, writing styles, acting styles, and all of that other stuff. Their quality does depend on the person writing the transcript, though. So you do get spelling errors and there are different styles of describing the action seen on the screen in words but, for the most part, the transcripts I've read have been pretty darned good. I guess that's partly because they're written by fans of the show who really do care about the quality of what gets written down.
Damn that was a long posting. I'll stop rather abruptly now.
Terminator 3
How cool is the Terminator trilogy? The first movie was groundbreaking enough and the second is one of my favourite movies of all time. And then, just when you thought it was all over...they came up with Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. Now I know that a lot of people had a lot of problems with this instalment (most of which I don't agree with, by the way) and yes, it did have its problems. But if that's all you get fixated on, then you've missed half the movie!
Ignoring all that, how cool was the fundamental story behind T3? At one level it has that whole feeling of futility in the complete undoing of the first two movies. On the other hand, it has the whole inevitability-of-it-all thing going for it -- something that Nick Stahl manages to pull of really well in the last scene, I think. And the fact that they managed to do it (the whole reversal, back-to-where-you-started thing) in just one movie made the whole thing even cooler. I wonder what they're going to do with T4?
I also really like Nick Stahl, though he was better in Carnivale, and I am an Arnold Schwarzenegger fan. I don't like Claire Danes too much (as Nadia pointed out, she does too many roles in which she cries all the time) but I thought she did a pretty good constantly-freaked-out job in this role. I really missed Linda Hamilton in this one, though. She made the first two movies, didn't she?
Ignoring all that, how cool was the fundamental story behind T3? At one level it has that whole feeling of futility in the complete undoing of the first two movies. On the other hand, it has the whole inevitability-of-it-all thing going for it -- something that Nick Stahl manages to pull of really well in the last scene, I think. And the fact that they managed to do it (the whole reversal, back-to-where-you-started thing) in just one movie made the whole thing even cooler. I wonder what they're going to do with T4?
I also really like Nick Stahl, though he was better in Carnivale, and I am an Arnold Schwarzenegger fan. I don't like Claire Danes too much (as Nadia pointed out, she does too many roles in which she cries all the time) but I thought she did a pretty good constantly-freaked-out job in this role. I really missed Linda Hamilton in this one, though. She made the first two movies, didn't she?