|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Deja Vu >>> OFF TOPIC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 12-18-2006 01:58 AM
quote: Mark J. Marshall
Domino was a masterpiece? Please explain.
On some commentary track somewhere, John McTiernan talks about how the medium of movies is locked into this narrative form which is ultimately self-destructive. He talks about music, and how the work of someone like Mozart transcends language and culteral barriers and impacts people on an emotional and visceral level which is only possible in a piece of abstract art. He thinks that movies haven’t nearly begun to realize their full potential, and won’t until filmmakers throw away their need to tell stories, at least in such a painfully literal fashion. He also thinks that someday there will be a filmmaker who does with film what Mozart did with music. As I see it, DOMINO is the best example of a mainstream movie to successfully take steps in this direction.
The movie is built from the ground up as a biography which is not factually accurate, but emotionally accurate. Every aspect of the film, from the script to the casting to the photography to the editing, is designed not to show you what this person did, but who she was.
I’ve said this many times in the past and I’ll say it many more times in the future, but movies are a lame medium for telling stories. What can you do in two hours? Not much. People always complain about style getting in the way of a good story. Well, frack that. Style’s the only thing most movies have going for them. If you want good writing, stay home and watch TV. That’s a writer’s medium. As far as DOMINO’s concerned, the plot actually does work. But who the hell knows what’s going on in it? Better yet, who cares? Scott has found a way to make the best of his short time span by stripping the story down to its essence, which is characters. The plot may be all over the place, but the characters are consistent. You may not know what’s going on in the movie, but emotionally you’re there every step of the way.
This is achieved with the help of the photography and editing which present a constant stream of information which the viewer can sometimes only process on a visceral level. But that’s all that’s needed. It makes the movie a much more interactive experience. And if you do choose to go back and rewatch the film with a more distanced analytical eye, layers upon layers of text come to the surface.
All of that (and Keira Knightley) is why DOMINO is a masterpiece.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 12-18-2006 10:29 AM
quote: Mike Schindler
As far as DOMINO’s concerned, the plot actually does work. But who the hell knows what’s going on in it?
Those two sentences don't even make sense. If you don't know what's going on, how do you know it makes sense?
quote: Mike Schindler
Scott has found a way to make the best of his short time span by stripping the story down to its essence, which is characters.
I don't remember caring about any of the characters in Domino. And if the movie watcher isn't emotionally invested in the characters, then you lose them. Spielberg is (or at least WAS) one of the best directors when it comes to getting you emotionally involved in the characters within five minutes of the opening credits.
quote: Mike Schindler
The plot may be all over the place, but the characters are consistent.
Yeah... they're consistently out of focus, they're consistently in and out of frame, they consistently flash and change color, they're consistently shaking all over the freakin screen...
quote: Mike Schindler
You may not know what’s going on in the movie, but emotionally you’re there every step of the way.
You're right that I didn't know what was going on. But emotionally, I felt like I was on drugs or having a seizure. Hence my coining of the phrase "Seizure-Cam."
quote: Mike Schindler
This is achieved with the help of the photography and editing which present a constant stream of information which the viewer can sometimes only process on a visceral level.
I consider myself to be a relatively intelligent guy, but unfortunately I couldn't process it at all.
quote: Mike Schindler
It makes the movie a much more interactive experience.
Well, I did keep turning to my date to ask "What the hell is going on here??"
quote: Mike Schindler
And if you do choose to go back and rewatch the film
Why the hell would I do that?? I only go back and rewatch movies that I enjoyed sitting through the first time. And to actually PAY to see it? I am sure Domino enjoyed lots of repeat business.
quote: Mike Schindler
All of that (and Keira Knightley) is why DOMINO is a masterpiece.
Which I suppose is why it made $20 million dollars world-wide.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 12-18-2006 01:35 PM
quote: Mark J. Marshall
Those two sentences don't even make sense. If you don't know what's going on, how do you know it makes sense?
When I say that the plot works, I mean that there aren't any logic gaps. For example, there aren't any video cameras that can record data in a 3-D space. But the plot isn't carried out in the typical, easy to understand, hit the nail right on the head, Hollywood fashion. It doesn't need to be because it's not important that the viewer understands everything. In many ways, the form is more important than the content in this movie. But if you do choose to go back and dissect it, everything in the movie works.
quote: Mark J. Marshall
I don't remember caring about any of the characters in Domino. And if the movie watcher isn't emotionally invested in the characters, then you lose them. Spielberg is (or at least WAS) one of the best directors when it comes to getting you emotionally involved in the characters within five minutes of the opening credits.
This is a matter of personal taste. For me, I love Spielberg, but his movies also have a way of oversimplifying things to the point of boredom. With DOMINO, Scott had me from Scene 1.
quote: Mark J. Marshall
Yeah... they're consistently out of focus, they're consistently in and out of frame, they consistently flash and change color, they're consistently shaking all over the freakin screen...
Obviously, I was talking about the characters themselves, and not how they're presented. But since you brought it up, the look of this film is amazing. I didn't notice much out of focus. Yeah, they use pretty long lenses sometimes with really shallow focus, but this enables them to draw the viewer's attention to where it should be. Likewise, if anything is out of frame, it's because the frame is constantly changing. It's playing catch-up with the action, which creates a sense a realism that draws the viewer into the film. It also creates a sense of chaos which is very appropriate to the subject matter. The flashing results from the use of a hand-cranked camera which, again, enforced the film's overall aesthetic by keeping things frenetic, while also allowing the filmmakers to make multiple exposures to the negative, thus subjecting the viewer to even more information in a limited amount of time. The color is an aesthetic choice, more eye-candy than anything else, but the colors are beautiful in this movie, so why complain? And everyone seems to hate the hand-held camera except me. Not just in this movie, but in every movie. I guess that's just how I was brought up. When a movie sticks a camera on some sort of stabilizing device, it immediately draws me out of the movie because it looks staged and fake and boring. I'm much more interested in something that looks like it was found instead of planned out from the beginning. And I know all of the arguments against what I just said. What it boils down to is a matter of upbringing and personal preference. No one's right or wrong. It's like arguing whether or not red is a better color than blue (just for the record, it's not).
quote: Mark J. Marshall
You're right that I didn't know what was going on. But emotionally, I felt like I was on drugs or having a seizure. Hence my coining of the phrase "Seizure-Cam."
If someone were to say to me, "This movie makes you feel like you're on drugs or having a seizure," I'd be like, "I have to see that movie NOW!" Most movies are so boring and passive that when one comes along which actually makes me feel something, even if it's something awful, I just latch onto it. That's what happened to me with DOMINO. I got half-way through the movie and realized that I was not aware of a single cut thus far. I had no concept of the editor's role in this work. That's when I knew that the movie had me.
quote: Mark J. Marshall
I consider myself to be a relatively intelligent guy, but unfortunately I couldn't process it at all.
I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence. I think it has more to do with what preconceptions you had going into it. The same thing happened to me with THE FOUNTAIN. I thought it was going to be one thing. But when it turned out to be something else, I couldn't separate it form what I thought it would be, and it didn't work for me. I blame marketing. Trailers suck.
quote: Mark J. Marshall
Why the hell would I do that?? I only go back and rewatch movies that I enjoyed sitting through the first time. And to actually PAY to see it? I am sure Domino enjoyed lots of repeat business.
Well, I wasn't referring to you specifically. I wouldn't rewatch a movie I didn't like either. But one of the reasons why I consider it to be a masterpiece is because it's dense, and has more and more to offer with each repeated viewing.
quote: Mark J. Marshall
Which I suppose is why it made $20 million dollars world-wide.
Yes, and it's a very well-established fact that financial success is a great way of determining artistic merit.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-18-2006 03:01 PM
quote: Mike Schindler
On some commentary track somewhere, John McTiernan talks about how the medium of movies is locked into this narrative form which is ultimately self-destructive. He talks about music, and how the work of someone like Mozart transcends language and culteral barriers and impacts people on an emotional and visceral level which is only possible in a piece of abstract art.
That's all fine and good, but John McTiernan left out a couple of very key points.
1. A motion picture is primarily a story-telling medium meant to communicate effectively to a very wide, diverse audience. Unfortunately, effective communication often means holding to some well proven story telling conventions. If you go off too far in artsy la la land you'll lose a great deal of the audience in the process.
2. Works of abstract art are very open to interpretation and are very often misunderstood by viewers, even viewers who consider themselves experts on art. Lots of so-called modern art does not speak effectively to a wide audience, much less even capture the attention of wide audiences.
Major movie releases cost a shit load of money to produce, market and distribute. Studios want as many people as possible to comprehend (not to mention be entertained) by what they see.
If a film maker like Tony Scott wants to put together a piece of abstract motion art, he can do like so many other motion graphics artists have done: get some art gallery space booked and put on an art show. Serve wine and cheese, invite super models and lots of rich snooty people to the opening night party.
A movie like Domino isn't exactly what I would consider art house fare either. Not to put down people who only like action movies, but the folks who make up that particular market seem to enjoy lots of conventional story telling as long as it is punctuated with enough gun fire and explosions.
quote: Mike Schindler
For example, there aren't any video cameras that can record data in a 3-D space. But the plot isn't carried out in the typical, easy to understand, hit the nail right on the head, Hollywood fashion.
No. It just reminds me I'm only watching a movie where some dumb ass involved in the production thought, "wouldn't it be cool if the CIA could extract 3D images from a cheapie surveillance CCD camera," without bothering to consider if it was even physically possible at all. I won't even get into the issue that very few surveillance camera systems have been actively networked into the Internet.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
A movie maker can try doing all the "visceral" stuff he wants. But when he inserts bullshit into the story that is outright implausible it offends my abilities to suspend my disbelief. I just start rolling my eyes thinking "bullshit."
quote: Mark J. Marshall
You're right that I didn't know what was going on. But emotionally, I felt like I was on drugs or having a seizure. Hence my coining of the phrase "Seizure-Cam."
I liked Brad Miller's suggestion of putting a certain director's head in a paint shaker for 2 hours so he could understand what he is doing to audiences everywhere.
At the very least, all the seizure cam work, and other way overdone camera moves as well, distracts me away from being involved with the story. The overblown technique calls too much attention to itself and reminds everyone "it's only a movie."
quote: Mike Schindler
Yes, and it's a very well-established fact that financial success is a great way of determining artistic merit.
Well, money does happen to be the barometer Hollywood (and most other forms of business) uses.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 12-18-2006 03:36 PM
quote: Mark J. Marshall
Well, I guess we just have very different tastes. But it sounds like we might share common ground on two things.
1. To the extent that Domino "worked" for me (which was practically a ZERO), The Fountain "worked" less.
2. Red is definitely not a better color than blue.
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
quote: Bobby Henderson
A motion picture is primarily a story-telling medium meant to communicate effectively to a very wide, diverse audience. Unfortunately, effective communication often means holding to some well proven story telling conventions. If you go off too far in artsy la la land you'll lose a great deal of the audience in the process.
Again, this is all about preconceptions. Why does film have to be a stroytelling medium? Wouldn't busting out of that convention go a long way towards making new and different movies instead of the same old shit over and over again? As far as abstract art goes, I think that classical music has proven that it can have a large audience and communicate effectively.
quote: Bobby Henderson
A movie like Domino isn't exactly what I would consider art house fare either. Not to put down people who only like action movies, but the folks who make up that particular market seem to enjoy lots of conventional story telling as long as it is punctuated with enough gun fire and explosions.
I absolutely agree with you on this. Both art house people and action people are too close-minded to accept something like DOMINO. That's why a movie like DOMINO is important, because it bridges the gap.
quote: Bobby Henderson
No. It just reminds me I'm only watching a movie where some dumb ass involved in the production thought, "wouldn't it be cool if the CIA could extract 3D images from a cheapie surveillance CCD camera," without bothering to consider if it was even physically possible at all. I won't even get into the issue that very few surveillance camera systems have been actively networked into the Internet.
A movie maker can try doing all the "visceral" stuff he wants. But when he inserts bullshit into the story that is outright implausible it offends my abilities to suspend my disbelief. I just start rolling my eyes thinking "bullshit."
I think you misinterpreted my statement. I agree with you on this. My point was that DOMINO doesn't have any of that bullshit. Everything in the movie makes sense.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Well, money does happen to be the barometer Hollywood (and most other forms of business) uses.
And that's exactly why most movies suck.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic