Friday, January 8, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
emphasis on plot/character
ive heard some interesting remarks that i place too much emphasis on plot/dialogue/character development . granted, however there is a time and a place for texts which lack or are very subtle in the previously listed aspects; look at any of Kubrick's work, minimal plot, or one that is very subtly managed. however in saying that Kubrick was not directing for the masses, he could take huge liberties with his screenplay/script.
this brings me to movies for the masses. mainstream movies using the classic 'three-act-structure' are only enhanced by plot and/or character development, plot and characters go hand in hand with soundtrack, special effects, camera movement etc, basically everything that makes up what we know as 'film'.
in 2009 we saw Spike Jones release his much anticipated 'Where the Wild Things Are'. this movie was a huge achievement for adaptation, taking a 13-lined picture book and transforming it into a 100minute spectacular. this movie maintained the simple plot structure of the picture book, but fleshed itself out with its intricate lattice of symbolism and dialogue, and attributing each of the 'wild things' with various aspects of Max's personality and emotions. this movie was trashed for being too 'complex' for many to follow, and too scary for some children. however, this was a remarkable movie, due to the characters being driven by various pure emotions (rage, spite, loneliness, calm), it creates an array of characters which the audience can automatically relate to. although more importantly it told a story which addressed many of the issues faced by children and their parents in the 21st century. it did this within such a delicate framework that though it brings up some darker themes, they were so brilliantly disguised that children may not be fully aware of them, all the while creating a story which doesnt talk down to them. for its minimalist plot 'wtwta' gives us a great story, intimately linked to its central character, and held in perfect balance with its soundtrack, special effects and dialogue.
which brings me onto 'avatar'. james cameron makes no excuses for copying other works; from Pocahontas (1995), Dances with Wolves (1990), Ferngully (1992) 'Battle for Terra' (2007) and 'Call me Joe' (1957) to name a few, thus it became ABSOLUTELY necessary for him to include a set of convincing characters, and compelling dialogue to make the story appealing. he didnt. this is a quote from Robert McKee, basically screenwriting Einstein, "God help you if you use voice-over in your work, my friends. God help you! That's flaccid, sloppy writing. Any idiot can write voice-over narration to explain the thoughts of a character.”, not a good start for Avatar then, taking 15 minutes of excruciating voice-over before any of he real story begins, i mean seriously terrible it sounds like a six year old having their 1st reading lesson. what we are left with is a marine who the audience really particularity like nor car about, he has nothing to loose, his actions are not heroic, he sells out his own race, an i dont know about you guys but i rather like being human, he will get his legs back either way, by being human or becoming na'vi, how the hell are we meant to side with him at all?
leaving character and onto soundtrack, hmm this one was a a head-scratcher, it was confused at the best of times, not really knowing weather it wanted to be a grand orchestral piece or a bombastic tribal sounding choir piece, it didnt work well at all with the mis-en-scene, sounded sloppy and pretentious.
judging by these two movies, one has to ask the question, why is cameron's movie a romping success for the wrong reasons completely? saying that plot and/or character development is arbitrary in this movie because of its special effects is a poor excuse on the movies behalf, its a little bit like saying that 'although this band has crappy songs they are good because they have cool music videos', it doest take a genius to figure out where the music industry would be if people thought like that...
if all the actors just shut the fuck up and this movie had none or very little but will thought out dialogue it could have been great. getting a well thought out orchestral piece to play over the top of its grand visuals would have eliminated all the problems in this movie; it would have challenged the wider audience as to their expectations of what a movie should be (think 2001: A Space Odyssey), it would have covered up cameron's inability as a screenwriter, and it would have been 'poetic'. its a shame that james thinks that he is the new Shakespeare...
this brings me to movies for the masses. mainstream movies using the classic 'three-act-structure' are only enhanced by plot and/or character development, plot and characters go hand in hand with soundtrack, special effects, camera movement etc, basically everything that makes up what we know as 'film'.
in 2009 we saw Spike Jones release his much anticipated 'Where the Wild Things Are'. this movie was a huge achievement for adaptation, taking a 13-lined picture book and transforming it into a 100minute spectacular. this movie maintained the simple plot structure of the picture book, but fleshed itself out with its intricate lattice of symbolism and dialogue, and attributing each of the 'wild things' with various aspects of Max's personality and emotions. this movie was trashed for being too 'complex' for many to follow, and too scary for some children. however, this was a remarkable movie, due to the characters being driven by various pure emotions (rage, spite, loneliness, calm), it creates an array of characters which the audience can automatically relate to. although more importantly it told a story which addressed many of the issues faced by children and their parents in the 21st century. it did this within such a delicate framework that though it brings up some darker themes, they were so brilliantly disguised that children may not be fully aware of them, all the while creating a story which doesnt talk down to them. for its minimalist plot 'wtwta' gives us a great story, intimately linked to its central character, and held in perfect balance with its soundtrack, special effects and dialogue.
which brings me onto 'avatar'. james cameron makes no excuses for copying other works; from Pocahontas (1995), Dances with Wolves (1990), Ferngully (1992) 'Battle for Terra' (2007) and 'Call me Joe' (1957) to name a few, thus it became ABSOLUTELY necessary for him to include a set of convincing characters, and compelling dialogue to make the story appealing. he didnt. this is a quote from Robert McKee, basically screenwriting Einstein, "God help you if you use voice-over in your work, my friends. God help you! That's flaccid, sloppy writing. Any idiot can write voice-over narration to explain the thoughts of a character.”, not a good start for Avatar then, taking 15 minutes of excruciating voice-over before any of he real story begins, i mean seriously terrible it sounds like a six year old having their 1st reading lesson. what we are left with is a marine who the audience really particularity like nor car about, he has nothing to loose, his actions are not heroic, he sells out his own race, an i dont know about you guys but i rather like being human, he will get his legs back either way, by being human or becoming na'vi, how the hell are we meant to side with him at all?
leaving character and onto soundtrack, hmm this one was a a head-scratcher, it was confused at the best of times, not really knowing weather it wanted to be a grand orchestral piece or a bombastic tribal sounding choir piece, it didnt work well at all with the mis-en-scene, sounded sloppy and pretentious.
judging by these two movies, one has to ask the question, why is cameron's movie a romping success for the wrong reasons completely? saying that plot and/or character development is arbitrary in this movie because of its special effects is a poor excuse on the movies behalf, its a little bit like saying that 'although this band has crappy songs they are good because they have cool music videos', it doest take a genius to figure out where the music industry would be if people thought like that...
if all the actors just shut the fuck up and this movie had none or very little but will thought out dialogue it could have been great. getting a well thought out orchestral piece to play over the top of its grand visuals would have eliminated all the problems in this movie; it would have challenged the wider audience as to their expectations of what a movie should be (think 2001: A Space Odyssey), it would have covered up cameron's inability as a screenwriter, and it would have been 'poetic'. its a shame that james thinks that he is the new Shakespeare...
On stars playing thier characters in real life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jan/05/christopher-lee-symphonic-metal-album
if there were anyone who could produce a symphonic metal album it would be Christopher Lee, the man who played Dracula and Saruman, well either him or Wild Thing from the muppets.
Lee plans to tell the story of Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor, his own direct ancestor, through the universal language of metal. if anyone ever thought that metal gave you unrealistic expectations of the epicness of life, then this is not one of them.
this brings me onto an interesting thought, what if stars just play out their typecast's in real life?
if there were anyone who could produce a symphonic metal album it would be Christopher Lee, the man who played Dracula and Saruman, well either him or Wild Thing from the muppets.
Lee plans to tell the story of Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor, his own direct ancestor, through the universal language of metal. if anyone ever thought that metal gave you unrealistic expectations of the epicness of life, then this is not one of them.
this brings me onto an interesting thought, what if stars just play out their typecast's in real life?
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
'Avatar' and the state of modern society
after hearing all the hyperboles that have been used to describe james cameron's latest offering, i have become more aware of the complacency of modern society. sure, the movie was a grand step forward in the world of CGI, however an equally dramatic leap back in terms of everything else.
in the past people had no qualms about making their opinions heard, so then why is it that society has welcomed the poor excuse for a drama that is avatar with open arms? in a world where everything has to be done more extreme, more powerful, and quicker, do meaningful stories, lovable characters, and compelling acting have to be shunted to make a great drama? i sure as hell hope not.
i grew up with my parents reading Aesop's fables to me and showing movie to me like 'The Lion King' and 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs', where the story is so key to the movie that the dialogue and each of the characters are indispensable for the success of the whole work. this stretches right back through human history, right from the time of the Epics, through the Romantics to the Classics, and right up until this day. there is no point to a story where the audience don't care about the characters or what happens to them.
with 'Avatar'there is an overwhelming sense that these essentials, are, well, not essential. Cameron has chosen to show off his tech-wizardry rather than develop any sort of new or original story. he sets up two lead characters which for starts are portrayed in a very under average manner, lead by Aussie, Sam Worthington(who cant shake his weird accent), however the main problem is that the audience dont really particularly care about what happens to them, they are too busy either being bored with the average plot or being overwhelmed by the CGI that's being rammed down their throats. the only actor worth mentioning in the entire movie is stage actor Steven Lang who give a note worthy performance as the deranged leader of the army, however he too is crippled by the appalling script.
there is a definite air of 'ive seen it before' lurking in the film, which freely borrows its plot, characters, even some scenes from an array of other films. this was the most surprising aspect, in a film which was meant to challenge our expectations of what cinema should be why did it have so much of a 'secondhand' feel to it? in a time where everything needs to have some sort of edge, something unique, is it fair to the paying audience that the only new thing they are seeing are some computer animated Smurfs? i think not.
my view is not that 'Avatar' was an appalling film, ive seen worse, but rather the picture of society that is painted with its automatic stamp of approval. are we truly ready to give up on thousands of years of storeys, traditions, plots which linger long after the piece has finished, or characters whom the audience really engage with, feel what they are feeling, and experience all that is going on in their own world? i for one sure as hell hope not. i sincerely hope that this film fails for the success of our culture; in a world where Shakespeare is "too long and boring" or where great films such as 'Casablanca' or "Being John Malkovich" are deemed "too slow" or "unrealistic", what will become of the characters we love so dearly or the predicaments that ensue which captivate us so completely?
this film could have been great, think about what brilliance it could have been if there was a plot that created a spark in the minds of the audience rather than the audience just left thinking bout the CGI. For one thing, CGI is ALWAYS getting better, ten years from now when the new directing wizz kid is releasing his film i sure as hell hope he learns from the blunders of society in the 00's and the mistakes that prevented 'Avatar' from reaching 'modern classic'. CGI is ever changing, however brilliant stories will live forever, pity that this was just not one of them.
in the past people had no qualms about making their opinions heard, so then why is it that society has welcomed the poor excuse for a drama that is avatar with open arms? in a world where everything has to be done more extreme, more powerful, and quicker, do meaningful stories, lovable characters, and compelling acting have to be shunted to make a great drama? i sure as hell hope not.
i grew up with my parents reading Aesop's fables to me and showing movie to me like 'The Lion King' and 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs', where the story is so key to the movie that the dialogue and each of the characters are indispensable for the success of the whole work. this stretches right back through human history, right from the time of the Epics, through the Romantics to the Classics, and right up until this day. there is no point to a story where the audience don't care about the characters or what happens to them.
with 'Avatar'there is an overwhelming sense that these essentials, are, well, not essential. Cameron has chosen to show off his tech-wizardry rather than develop any sort of new or original story. he sets up two lead characters which for starts are portrayed in a very under average manner, lead by Aussie, Sam Worthington(who cant shake his weird accent), however the main problem is that the audience dont really particularly care about what happens to them, they are too busy either being bored with the average plot or being overwhelmed by the CGI that's being rammed down their throats. the only actor worth mentioning in the entire movie is stage actor Steven Lang who give a note worthy performance as the deranged leader of the army, however he too is crippled by the appalling script.
there is a definite air of 'ive seen it before' lurking in the film, which freely borrows its plot, characters, even some scenes from an array of other films. this was the most surprising aspect, in a film which was meant to challenge our expectations of what cinema should be why did it have so much of a 'secondhand' feel to it? in a time where everything needs to have some sort of edge, something unique, is it fair to the paying audience that the only new thing they are seeing are some computer animated Smurfs? i think not.
my view is not that 'Avatar' was an appalling film, ive seen worse, but rather the picture of society that is painted with its automatic stamp of approval. are we truly ready to give up on thousands of years of storeys, traditions, plots which linger long after the piece has finished, or characters whom the audience really engage with, feel what they are feeling, and experience all that is going on in their own world? i for one sure as hell hope not. i sincerely hope that this film fails for the success of our culture; in a world where Shakespeare is "too long and boring" or where great films such as 'Casablanca' or "Being John Malkovich" are deemed "too slow" or "unrealistic", what will become of the characters we love so dearly or the predicaments that ensue which captivate us so completely?
this film could have been great, think about what brilliance it could have been if there was a plot that created a spark in the minds of the audience rather than the audience just left thinking bout the CGI. For one thing, CGI is ALWAYS getting better, ten years from now when the new directing wizz kid is releasing his film i sure as hell hope he learns from the blunders of society in the 00's and the mistakes that prevented 'Avatar' from reaching 'modern classic'. CGI is ever changing, however brilliant stories will live forever, pity that this was just not one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
