I Really Liked 'The Happening'

A lot of people disliked M. Night Shyamalan's 'The Happening'. A major reason for that, in my opinion, is because bad marketers keep trying to promote Shyamalan's films as spooky, summer-blockbuster thrillers like 'The Sixth Sense' when, in fact, they're far from it.

Take for instance the tag line for this movie: "We've Sensed It. We've Seen The Signs. Now... It's Happening."  WTF?! 'The Happening' is not a paranormal thriller or alien invasion movie. Why the heck is it being marketed as one?

It is because of all this crappy marketing that viewers go into cinemas expecting to be frightened or, at the very least, weirded-out. When that doesn't happen (on doesn't happen in the way they were expecting it to happen) they get upset. Hence the poor reviews.

Not a Spooky Movie

I, on the other hand, really liked the movie. Before I explain why, let me clarify a few things. This film is not a spooky, supernatural thriller (like 'The Sixth Sense'). It is not a hero movie (like 'Unbreakable'). Heck, it's not even about faith (like 'Signs').

It is, however, about a bunch of regular everyday people trying to stay alive when the world around them is going to hell and they have no idea why. In many ways, it's like Steven Spielberg's 'War of the Worlds' (another film that many critics and viewers didn't like) in which Tom Cruise's character -- a not-so-bright, not-so-smart, not-so-successful regular Joe -- does the best he can given the circumstances he finds himself in. And one of the main reasons he stays alive is because he gets lucky; i.e. it's not because he's a great leader, quick thinker, or is otherwise larger than life.

'The Happening' is, in fact, very much a good old-fashioned science fiction story. And I don't mean a Hollywood 'sci-fi' story but a 1950s or 60s classic 's.f.' story. One written by H.G. Wells or John Wyndham. Or of the kind that Clarke and Asimov might have written: an understated, cerebral, but still oh-my-god-what-an-awesome-concept type of story.

Very Real

So, keeping that in mind, I loved how the movie was done so realistically. I mean, seriously, if something like this was to happen in real life, would you expect to find yourself in a typical Hollywood action-thriller-disaster movie or in one of Shyamalan's? I know I'd expect to find myself in the latter.

There's a point in the movie, for example, when people coming from four directions meet at a crossroads. They're all running away from 'attacks' that have occurred just a few miles behind each of them. When they get together and try to figure out what to do next, the person who gets to be in charge is the obviously out-of-his-depth but still barely still-holding-it-together Army private who's the only formal authority figure there. Everyone automatically turns to him for leadership. That's probably what we'd do in real life as well.

In most other Hollywood movies this scene would have been dramatically different. That's actually a pun because it would, indeed, have been a very 'dramatic' scene. There would have been a heated argument and two clear leaders would have emerged with strongly differing opinions on what to do next. There would have been lots of shouting, panicking, and pleas for sanity. A couple of idiots would have snuck off and, as expected, quickly gotten themselves killed. Eventually, they would have split into two groups with our hero feeling terrible about the people who didn't listen to him and will surely die. Think, for example, the library scene from 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Did something like that happen in 'The Happening'? Nopes. And that's what I loved about it.

Oh and there were no obvious "No! Don't go in there!" type moments, either. I really appreciated that.

Atmosphere

Shyamalan did a great job with the atmosphere throughout the film -- starting, literally, from the first scene -- and the overall feeling was of great disquiet tinged with ohmygodwhatthefuck?! Both the acting (everyone was appropriately tharn) and the musical score (particularly the cello solos) really did that justice.

And even though I watched the movie a few days ago, some of those feelings still linger. That tends to happen with Shyamalan's films, doesn't it?

A Different Movie...

Ultimately, though, what I like about Shyamalan's films is how they're different from the usual Hollywood fare. Their locations are different (he insists on filming in Philadelphia, where he lives), their pacing is different, and though the stories themselves are not always ground-breaking they don't follow the usual Hollywood cliches.

...But Not a Really Great One

That said, they do tend to follow the usual Shyamalan cliches. Which is what makes this a less-than-great movie. Still, as Chris Hewitt from TwinCities.com says: 

Shyamalan movies demand that you surrender to his way of telling stories. If you're up for that, you should go.

Since I am more than happy to enjoy films the way he makes them and I don't go into his movies (or any other movie, for that matter) with any preconceived notions of what they should be like, I generally have a good time. And that's exactly what happened with 'The Happening'.

So, be warned: If you don't generally like Shyamalan's movies, you won't like this one either. But if you do like his movies, then you should really enjoy this one as well.

Others Views & Reviews

Iron Man!

I watched Iron Man yesterday and it rocks! I particularly liked that the writers took their time in developing Stark's character and back story -- like the Yinsen story arc -- before jumping into the action, which was also nicely done. In fact, what made the movie special was that it was much more of an action-drama (the birth of a superhero) than just a pure action movie (a superhero goes around kicking ass). The dialogue, acting, and smatterings of humour were all really good too.

Of course it was interesting to hear Raza, one of the main bad buys, speaking Urdu. The last time we had a cool but seriously evil bald bad guy that spoke a language from this region was when Amrish Puri played Mola Ram in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom -- though, of course, he spoke Hindi and not Urdu.

Faran Tahir (who is of Pakistani origin, by the way) also played Raza a little less one-dimensionally than I was expecting, which was nice. That said, Raza was very much a mix between Puri's Mola Ram and Crispin Glover's Creepy Thin Man from the Charlie's Angels franchise: "menacing" to the point of being almost funny, but still reasonably believable (like the bad guys from xXx, for example). [See update below]

Oh, and all US patriotism aside -- this is an American superhero movie about a military weapons manufacturer, after all -- it was interesting how they made the main bunch of over-the-top bad guys a reasonably international group of weapons traders who spoke Urdu, Arabic, Russian, Hungarian, and a whole bunch of other languages. All the cool terrorists are either Middle Eastern, Central European, or Scandinavian these days. Gone are the days of the evil Japanese, Vietnamese, Germans, and Russians...though the ultimate bad guy is still, of course, British.

Also, to keep up with the times, they moved the entire Iron Man story from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Even Yinsen (originally Ho Yinsen) had his back-story moved from "communist Vietnam" to "terrorist Afghanistan". I guess that means the Bond franchise now has dibs on European bad guys; the Spider-Man, X-Men, and Batman franchises have dibs on American bad guys; the Transformers and Superman franchises have dibs on outer-space bad guys; and the Bourne franchise has dibs on the CIA and other intelligence agencies as bad guys. Have I missed any?

Anyway, I don't have much more to say about the movie itself -- a lot of others have already said pretty much everything I wanted to say (and have probably said it better) -- so I'll just link to some good reviews, instead:

All in all, it's an excellent movie that I would highly recommend.

UPDATE: Trekker alerted me to this excellent PULSE News article on Faran Tahir and his role in Iron Man. In it, Tahir is quoted as saying:

"The thing I loved about playing Raza was the approach. It's so easy in today’s reality, when you have a movie set somewhere in the Middle East or Afghanistan, to have everything become about the current terrorism in those nations. However, it wasn't about that. It was about a different ideology. My group of people, my minions and I, are the real soldiers of fortune. We use whatever we can to get the power. It wasn't about religion, but we'd use religion, corporate espionage -- whatever we needed to get ahead. We have no alliance to anyone. We have our own ideology: profit, power, prestige -- it brings everything to an honest level. People do a lot of things under the guise of ideologies, but it's all about power in the end."

Awesome. Now I'm really looking forward to seeing Tahir in the upcoming Star Trek movie.

Freddie Highmore

I watched The Spiderwick Chronicles today. And while the movie was pretty good, I was most impressed by actor Freddie Highmore who played the twins Jared and Simon. (Sarah Bolger, who played their sister Mallory was also pretty good).

Highmore's done a lot of other cool stuff as well. For example, he played Charlie in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and was the voice of Pantalaimon in The Golden Compass. He'll also be doing the voice for Astro Boy (slated for a 2009 release).

Chalk up one more young actor whose career I am looking forward to following (the other one being Dakota Fanning). Hmmm...I must now watch August Rush.

Film Club in Lahore

During my undergrad I became president of Alpha Hour -- LUMS' extracurricular club that showed movies, invited guest speakers to campus, and arranged discussion groups on interesting topics.

While I was president, though, it ended up being more of a film club than anything else. Every Friday evening, then, I'd borrow the video projector, book the school's largest auditorium, and screen a couple of films. We'd show all kinds of stuff and, by the time I handed the club over to my juniors, it had become pretty popular.

The movie screening formula that I used also worked nicely: I'd show a popular movie or cartoon first (usually a comedy, romantic comedy, or action movie), take a half hour break, and then show a more serious movie (usually a drama, artsy movie, or cult classic). The first session usually filled the 370-seat auditorium, especially when we showed films like Titanic or Star Wars: Episode I. The second session, meanwhile, was targeted mostly to film buffs and/or hostel residents (I was both). I remember in particular our second-show screening of Apocalypse Now because, by the end of the movie, there were only eight people in the room :)

Coming to the point of this blog post: Having run a film club in the past, it made me really happy, then, when a friend e-mailed to tell me about the Punjnad Film Club that has recently started in Lahore ("alpha hour - all jumped up on volunteer adrenaline", he wrote). We have a number of cinemas in Lahore but all of them focus on mainstream movies (mostly blockbusters) and PFC is a breath of fresh air for people who want to watch other kinds of movies as well. Here's hoping they're wildly successful.

Geeky Home Cinemas

Deputy Dog has a list of 10 Stunning Ultra-Geeky Home Cinemas. Being a geek myself, I fully intend to build me one of those as soon as I can afford it -- though I probably won't go as far as these people have. Mine will based on the bridge of the Enterprise D, of course -- a bit like #5 on the list -- but it'll be a lot simpler and a lot more practical. Something like this, maybe:

Ameel's Home Cinema

Check back with me in about five years and I'll let you know how it turned out :)

2 Good Articles: Cover Songs, Will Smith

I read two fun articles (via Digg) today.

The first is a list from the Onion's A.V. Club called 'Let It Die: 23 Songs That Should Never Be Covered Again'. Excellent article. Very spot on.

The second is The Deadbolt's interview with Will Smith which is, among other things, about his upcoming movie, 'I Am Legend'. I'm really looking forward to watching that movie and will write about it as soon as I do. Smith is one of my favourite actors and is also one of my favourite people-I've-never-met. I like him particularly because, despite all his success, he's still an honest to goodness, real down to Earth guy.

Science Fiction Film "Babes" on Flixster

Ah, the science fiction "babe". An elusive creature, if there ever was one -- though that trend finally seems to be changing in film and on TV (thanks, Joss!).

Still, Flixster recently posted an article called 'Science Fiction Film Babes Through Time' that lists five decades worth "babes" in order of "babe-itude". It's a fun read. And though I don't know a couple of the women listed there, in my opinion, their list is pretty accurate.

Too Many Movies

I have too many movies to watch and not enough time (or money!) to watch them all. Which is sad. My current list includes (in order, I think):

The list is in order of preference, but I might have to adjust it depending on which of those movies (like Stardust, for example) doesn't have much time left at the cinema we regularly go to. Yes, life is complicated.

Star Trek XI: First Look

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.

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:
[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.

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 :)
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:
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.