Chaos Cinema
August 10, 2013 11:56 PM Subscribe
By employing directors with backgrounds in drama, the studios hope action-heavy films will be infused with greater depth. The catch, however, is that drama directors are usually inexperienced at, and thus incapable of, properly handling [the] material that is the film's main selling point .... "The Wolverine" is the latest example of this burgeoning trend. To name just a few examples from the past couple of years, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (dir: Gavin Hood), "Quantum of Solace" (dir: Mark Forster), "Skyfall" (dir: Sam Mendes) ... were all brought to the screen by filmmakers whose careers were predicated on dramas or comedies, not action. That fad remains in full effect this summer .... While no studio exec would dare hand over an Oscar-hopeful drama to Michael Bay, the opposite model—Hey, Marc Forster directed "Finding Neverland," so he's obviously the ideal candidate for a Bond film!—now reigns supreme.Nick Schager writes about action films helmed by a director who is not an action director.
Quantum of Solace was a boring sin of a film built around a boring premise shot in a boring setting. I don't know if that's because of Forster's directing, but I wouldn't watch it again. I enjoyed Skyfall, though. I'm not sure if that makes Mendes a better director or if it betrays that Skyfall had the better story.
posted by disillusioned at 12:44 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by disillusioned at 12:44 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
When Werner Herzog re-made "Bad Lieutenant", I thought, would it not be great if he just kind of runs out the clock doing re-makes. Werner Herzog's "On Golden Pond", Werner Herzog's "Cannonball Run". You get the idea! A few Herzog-ized action films would be classics, in that universe.
posted by thelonius at 1:03 AM on August 11, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 1:03 AM on August 11, 2013 [13 favorites]
Herzog also remade his own documentary, Little Dieter Needs to Fly, as Rescue Dawn.
posted by Ad hominem at 1:12 AM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Ad hominem at 1:12 AM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think that there are points to be made on both sides (which, in fairness, is what the author acknowledges). Greengrass, who was a documentary film-maker, did an amazing job, I thought, with the two Bourne sequels. The famous Waterloo chase sequence is incredibly complex and fast-paced but also easy to follow - and relies on knowing where three different actors are at any one time in a huge and busy environment. It really is a brilliant tour-de-force of action cinema. Unfortunately, his style of shakey-cam action (even more so than Michael Bay) was as definitive and imitated as the Matrix movies were a generation earlier.
Unfortunately, Christopher Nolan is (notoriously) bad at this - the linked article connects, in turn, to a really interesting breakdown one of the chase sequences in THE DARK KNIGHT, where an editor showed that it was actually completely incoherent. If you have a moment and haven't already seen it, it might be worth checking out.
For my part, I think that the problem is much more at the economic level than the artistic. We currently have a weird situation where fantasy/action and science-fiction/action films are the main way that the movie industry tries to make money every year. They need to keep these fresh enough to reel in new viewers without making them so innovative as to put people off. It's a very odd requirement to have to meet and one that is bound to throw up a lot of art that doesn't really satisfy anybody.
One thing I'm very sure of, though, is that this sort of thing -
Generations that never experienced life without the Internet are increasingly cocooned in a fractured reality of Internet clips, smart phone updates, and social media messages in which the data stream never lets up. "Can it be possible that those young people born after the advent of 8-bit video games experience everything faster, harder, more intensely and more vaguely than the generations that came before it, on multiple levels, in both ecstatic and numbed-down ways?" asked Ian Grey in "The Art of Chaos Cinema."
- is just dimwitted Millenial-bashing and silly speculation.
posted by lucien_reeve at 1:22 AM on August 11, 2013 [23 favorites]
Unfortunately, Christopher Nolan is (notoriously) bad at this - the linked article connects, in turn, to a really interesting breakdown one of the chase sequences in THE DARK KNIGHT, where an editor showed that it was actually completely incoherent. If you have a moment and haven't already seen it, it might be worth checking out.
For my part, I think that the problem is much more at the economic level than the artistic. We currently have a weird situation where fantasy/action and science-fiction/action films are the main way that the movie industry tries to make money every year. They need to keep these fresh enough to reel in new viewers without making them so innovative as to put people off. It's a very odd requirement to have to meet and one that is bound to throw up a lot of art that doesn't really satisfy anybody.
One thing I'm very sure of, though, is that this sort of thing -
Generations that never experienced life without the Internet are increasingly cocooned in a fractured reality of Internet clips, smart phone updates, and social media messages in which the data stream never lets up. "Can it be possible that those young people born after the advent of 8-bit video games experience everything faster, harder, more intensely and more vaguely than the generations that came before it, on multiple levels, in both ecstatic and numbed-down ways?" asked Ian Grey in "The Art of Chaos Cinema."
- is just dimwitted Millenial-bashing and silly speculation.
posted by lucien_reeve at 1:22 AM on August 11, 2013 [23 favorites]
It's strange to suggest that Shane Black doesn't understand action, considering all he's ever done is write action movies.
posted by dng at 1:54 AM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by dng at 1:54 AM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
lucien_reeve: "Unfortunately, Christopher Nolan is (notoriously) bad at this - the linked article connects, in turn, to a really interesting breakdown one of the chase sequences in THE DARK KNIGHT, where an editor showed that it was actually completely incoherent. If you have a moment and haven't already seen it, it might be worth checking out. "
Oh god that was good. Clinical.
Also, thanks for the Greengrass reminder. I hadn't really thought of him for awhile, although I still think the hand-to-hand fight scene in one of the Bourne movies (sorry, they all lump together in my brain - it was the rooftop chase in Morocco?) is the best action sequence of the last ten years. I remember seeing Bloody Sunday in theatres and the absolute tension throughout the crowd was palpable. Glancing at his IMDB page, he hasn't done anything since 2010 but seems to have two movies in the works, so that's encouraging.
posted by mannequito at 2:01 AM on August 11, 2013
Oh god that was good. Clinical.
Also, thanks for the Greengrass reminder. I hadn't really thought of him for awhile, although I still think the hand-to-hand fight scene in one of the Bourne movies (sorry, they all lump together in my brain - it was the rooftop chase in Morocco?) is the best action sequence of the last ten years. I remember seeing Bloody Sunday in theatres and the absolute tension throughout the crowd was palpable. Glancing at his IMDB page, he hasn't done anything since 2010 but seems to have two movies in the works, so that's encouraging.
posted by mannequito at 2:01 AM on August 11, 2013
Greengrass, who was a documentary film-maker, did an amazing job, I thought, with the two Bourne sequels.
Speaking of the Bourne movies, the formula seemed to have payed off by hiring Doug Liman (Swingers, Go!) to helm the first installment.
posted by ShutterBun at 2:29 AM on August 11, 2013
Speaking of the Bourne movies, the formula seemed to have payed off by hiring Doug Liman (Swingers, Go!) to helm the first installment.
posted by ShutterBun at 2:29 AM on August 11, 2013
I wonder how long it took to write "Michael Bay Can't Direct For Shit" on that elephant over there.
posted by fullerine at 2:46 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by fullerine at 2:46 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
A good second unit director, ADs, and editors who specialise in action sequences can more than make up for a director moving into action, whereas I think that's harder to do the other direction. I think its sometimes the case that big action set-pieces can sometimes be directed by a number 2
Action sequences are a speciality, but that's what they are - sequences, whereas a good director should be able to do structure, dramatic tension, and layers that are required for a better film.
posted by C.A.S. at 2:56 AM on August 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
Action sequences are a speciality, but that's what they are - sequences, whereas a good director should be able to do structure, dramatic tension, and layers that are required for a better film.
posted by C.A.S. at 2:56 AM on August 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
A good second unit director, ADs, and editors who specialise in action sequences can more than make up for a director moving into action
Yeah, it was a shrewd move of Edgar Wright to hire Bill Pope the DP of the Matrix films for Scott Pilgrim and The World's End
I'd recommend Soderbergh's Haywire as a pretty decent small-ish film - has some of the best fight scenes I've seen in recent years.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:25 AM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
Yeah, it was a shrewd move of Edgar Wright to hire Bill Pope the DP of the Matrix films for Scott Pilgrim and The World's End
I'd recommend Soderbergh's Haywire as a pretty decent small-ish film - has some of the best fight scenes I've seen in recent years.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:25 AM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
"...is just dimwitted Millenial-bashing and silly speculation."
Actually, that's a quote from a defense of "Chaos Cinema." But I agree with you that it's an inaccurate description of young people today.
Nick Schager has written a really good article there, he makes a lot of insightful points. And following his argument, one could say that the movie execs are hiring all these drama directors to balance the hyperkinetic action scenes. They know what a good chunk of the movie is going to be like in advance (fast cuts, thrilling at the time but ultimately forgettable) so they get guys who are good at character and feeling to make sure the rest of the movie has some value. They need something to distinguish one movie from another so we'll buy all the DVDs in the series.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:27 AM on August 11, 2013
Actually, that's a quote from a defense of "Chaos Cinema." But I agree with you that it's an inaccurate description of young people today.
Nick Schager has written a really good article there, he makes a lot of insightful points. And following his argument, one could say that the movie execs are hiring all these drama directors to balance the hyperkinetic action scenes. They know what a good chunk of the movie is going to be like in advance (fast cuts, thrilling at the time but ultimately forgettable) so they get guys who are good at character and feeling to make sure the rest of the movie has some value. They need something to distinguish one movie from another so we'll buy all the DVDs in the series.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:27 AM on August 11, 2013
I agree about The Dark Knight's shuddering spray of car parts and shouting people but found it odd that Inception's action wasn't like that at all. Even individual fight scenes had a better sense of space and continuity, which makes me wonder if the second unit/AD was the deciding factor or what.
posted by mobunited at 3:41 AM on August 11, 2013
posted by mobunited at 3:41 AM on August 11, 2013
a really interesting breakdown one of the chase sequences in THE DARK KNIGHT, where an editor showed that it was actually completely incoherent
That was great - thanks for linking that! It made me realise how little I know about basic cinema, uh, stuff.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 4:01 AM on August 11, 2013
That was great - thanks for linking that! It made me realise how little I know about basic cinema, uh, stuff.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 4:01 AM on August 11, 2013
Quantum of Solace was a boring sin of a film built around a boring premise shot in a boring setting. I don't know if that's because of Forster's directing, but I wouldn't watch it again.
QoS got caught up in the writers' strike. Haggis had written a few pages and then had to stop but they decided to basically keep filming, so certainly a lot of the problems with it are down to it just not having a script.
posted by opsin at 4:02 AM on August 11, 2013
QoS got caught up in the writers' strike. Haggis had written a few pages and then had to stop but they decided to basically keep filming, so certainly a lot of the problems with it are down to it just not having a script.
posted by opsin at 4:02 AM on August 11, 2013
By employing directors with backgrounds in drama, the studios hope action-heavy films will be infused with greater depth.
In my mind, this is pretty much all due to Chris Nolan. At least give him a lot of credit for rebooting the Batman franchise. Batman Begins was a breath of fresh air. Just thinking back to a six-packed Michael Keaton with a hot mustard yellow utility belt makes me shudder.
Man of Steel, which Nolan co-wrote, was a hot turd. This is probably due to the fact that Hollywood is obsessed with comic book origin stories, and Superman's origin story really isn't all that interesting, and then they fucked it all up with this "hey look at all this crazy shit that happened in Krypton, his parents were killed by Zod" revenge opening sequence.
You would think non-action directors would bring better character development to an action movie, but instead, the exact opposite happens. Characters just pop in and out of the movie to further along the necessary action sequence. Don't even get me started on how poorly they handled the Lois Lane character.
But there's a big aesthetic downside: these films deny us the methodically mounting suspense and exhilaration and the distinctive adrenalized personality that come from watching expertly constructed action.
Take Pacific Rim for example. I knew from the first minute I sat down, when they show the kaiju and the jaegers in the opening sequence, that I was in for an extremely boring, self-explanatory ride. How about a little suspense, Guillermo? Well, I think the reason this is happening is because the action is the payoff. It's the action that escalates during the course of the movie, and any character development that occurs only exists to explain why everybody on screen is kicking somebody else's ass. The Asian girl (Mako Mori) loses it in the drift? Holy shit!! She's going to kill everyone with the Jaeger!! Mako Mori and Idris Elba have history together? Holy shit!! That was when she was like six, look at that Kaiju toppling buildings and almost killing that innocent girl! So on and so forth. It's a thinly veiled and totally disingenuous tactic repeated over and over again.
The last really solid action movie I saw that had actual character development that was driving a meaningful plot was - and I can't believe I'm saying this - Zach Snyder's Watchmen. Of course he also directed Man of Steel, which is why I can imagine him and Nolan having coffee and Nolan saying, "Listen, in order for this to work, we need an origin story." And of course even that has to involve everything in Krypton blowing up. But since Watchmen flopped, Snyder is compelled to agree.
posted by phaedon at 4:02 AM on August 11, 2013
In my mind, this is pretty much all due to Chris Nolan. At least give him a lot of credit for rebooting the Batman franchise. Batman Begins was a breath of fresh air. Just thinking back to a six-packed Michael Keaton with a hot mustard yellow utility belt makes me shudder.
Man of Steel, which Nolan co-wrote, was a hot turd. This is probably due to the fact that Hollywood is obsessed with comic book origin stories, and Superman's origin story really isn't all that interesting, and then they fucked it all up with this "hey look at all this crazy shit that happened in Krypton, his parents were killed by Zod" revenge opening sequence.
You would think non-action directors would bring better character development to an action movie, but instead, the exact opposite happens. Characters just pop in and out of the movie to further along the necessary action sequence. Don't even get me started on how poorly they handled the Lois Lane character.
But there's a big aesthetic downside: these films deny us the methodically mounting suspense and exhilaration and the distinctive adrenalized personality that come from watching expertly constructed action.
Take Pacific Rim for example. I knew from the first minute I sat down, when they show the kaiju and the jaegers in the opening sequence, that I was in for an extremely boring, self-explanatory ride. How about a little suspense, Guillermo? Well, I think the reason this is happening is because the action is the payoff. It's the action that escalates during the course of the movie, and any character development that occurs only exists to explain why everybody on screen is kicking somebody else's ass. The Asian girl (Mako Mori) loses it in the drift? Holy shit!! She's going to kill everyone with the Jaeger!! Mako Mori and Idris Elba have history together? Holy shit!! That was when she was like six, look at that Kaiju toppling buildings and almost killing that innocent girl! So on and so forth. It's a thinly veiled and totally disingenuous tactic repeated over and over again.
The last really solid action movie I saw that had actual character development that was driving a meaningful plot was - and I can't believe I'm saying this - Zach Snyder's Watchmen. Of course he also directed Man of Steel, which is why I can imagine him and Nolan having coffee and Nolan saying, "Listen, in order for this to work, we need an origin story." And of course even that has to involve everything in Krypton blowing up. But since Watchmen flopped, Snyder is compelled to agree.
posted by phaedon at 4:02 AM on August 11, 2013
I finally got around to watching Skyfall just last night, and enjoyed it quite a bit. I liked the "drama" aspects of the film, as opposed to the runaway-train approach of constant action-action-action of what most of these films have become.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:55 AM on August 11, 2013
posted by Thorzdad at 4:55 AM on August 11, 2013
Yeah, Skyfall is definitely an example of this trend paying dividends. I thought Kenneth Brannagh on Thor was another one that turned out to be a surprisingly good call.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:28 AM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:28 AM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
Watched a bunch of Sergio Leone westerns recently and there was someone who knew how to block out an action sequence. I've been watching a lot of old movies lately working my way through Ebert's 300+ Great Movies, and it's making it harder and harder to go back to watching newer movies. Or at least the big budget ones.
posted by octothorpe at 5:35 AM on August 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 5:35 AM on August 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
Whedon has always been very good at action, he just hasn't always had the budgets to pull it off without it being slightly campy. Serenity has some really good action scenes and if you think the action in The Avengers is bad you need glasses.
posted by nathancaswell at 5:44 AM on August 11, 2013
posted by nathancaswell at 5:44 AM on August 11, 2013
Oh shit, I just Whedon'd the thread, sorry everyone.
posted by nathancaswell at 5:44 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by nathancaswell at 5:44 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
These films are just not all that good. What makes action movies and horror really go is limiting the amount of excitement on the screen so that there is build up and you really are worried about whether the lead character will get that guy, etc.
But really, films are for teens now. Adults would rather avoid the lines and time wasting. So current films are for who watches them--teens. For them, recounting all the cool parts is everything, at least in the mind of Hollywood. So you get 45 minutes of action in 90 minutes of film.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:25 AM on August 11, 2013
But really, films are for teens now. Adults would rather avoid the lines and time wasting. So current films are for who watches them--teens. For them, recounting all the cool parts is everything, at least in the mind of Hollywood. So you get 45 minutes of action in 90 minutes of film.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:25 AM on August 11, 2013
Weird to talk about James Mangold and not mention Knight and Day or the thriller Identity.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:59 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:59 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
For the first time, over-45s are the largest cinema-going demographic.
posted by Simon! at 7:00 AM on August 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Simon! at 7:00 AM on August 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'll trade twenty of Keaton's yellow utility belts for one of Bale's raspy voices.
posted by Brocktoon at 7:06 AM on August 11, 2013
posted by Brocktoon at 7:06 AM on August 11, 2013
Speaking of the Bourne movies, the formula seemed to have payed off by hiring Doug Liman (Swingers, Go!) to helm the first installment.
I'm guessing that they hired Liman to do the first Bourne movie, because Go! was nominally a coming-of-age film, but it had an amazing non-gratuitous car chase that was freshly staged, suspenseful, and actually emerged organically out of the plot. Liman brought some of the same craft and skill to the first Bourne film, which is why I tend to like it better than the shaky-cam installments directed by Greengrass. In addition, Liman's dad worked for Lawrence Walsh as an investigator of the Iran-Contra scandal. Based on this background, Liman ended up using the first Bourne film as a critique of Cold War-era "secret government" that set the tone for the rest of the series, which I liked.
posted by jonp72 at 8:00 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm guessing that they hired Liman to do the first Bourne movie, because Go! was nominally a coming-of-age film, but it had an amazing non-gratuitous car chase that was freshly staged, suspenseful, and actually emerged organically out of the plot. Liman brought some of the same craft and skill to the first Bourne film, which is why I tend to like it better than the shaky-cam installments directed by Greengrass. In addition, Liman's dad worked for Lawrence Walsh as an investigator of the Iran-Contra scandal. Based on this background, Liman ended up using the first Bourne film as a critique of Cold War-era "secret government" that set the tone for the rest of the series, which I liked.
posted by jonp72 at 8:00 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
For the first time, over-45s are the largest cinema-going demographic.
Does that trend apply to the US as well?
posted by jonp72 at 8:01 AM on August 11, 2013
Does that trend apply to the US as well?
posted by jonp72 at 8:01 AM on August 11, 2013
Is it just possible that, like everything else, 90% of "action films" are, will be, and always have been terrible? That the filters of time and nostalgia allow us to remember the few that do stand up as typical of a completely fabricated "good old days?"
posted by Western Infidels at 8:07 AM on August 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Western Infidels at 8:07 AM on August 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
I'll trade twenty of Keaton's yellow utility belts for one of Bale's raspy voices.
I haven't had my coffee yet so I briefly thought this was a reference to Buster Keaton. Which would be a pretty awesome batman movie, you have to admit.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:26 AM on August 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
I haven't had my coffee yet so I briefly thought this was a reference to Buster Keaton. Which would be a pretty awesome batman movie, you have to admit.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:26 AM on August 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
You would think non-action directors would bring better character development to an action movie, but instead, the exact opposite happens. Characters just pop in and out of the movie to further along the necessary action sequence.
Also, non-action directors aren't necessarily adept about using action sequences as a way to advance characterization instead of viewing action sequences as a delay toward getting to the "real" characterization.
posted by jonp72 at 9:32 AM on August 11, 2013
Also, non-action directors aren't necessarily adept about using action sequences as a way to advance characterization instead of viewing action sequences as a delay toward getting to the "real" characterization.
posted by jonp72 at 9:32 AM on August 11, 2013
His list of non-action directors is pretty strange. Kenneth Branagh certainly knew how to block a fight before Thor: here's some good classical sword work. Calling Whedon a non-action director after Buffy and Firefly is insane. Some of the fight work on Buffy is pretty rough but he was putting together a fight scene or three every week for years and the experience shows in his later work.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:47 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:47 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
lucien_reeve: "Unfortunately, Christopher Nolan is (notoriously) bad at this - the linked article connects, in turn, to a really interesting breakdown one of the chase sequences in THE DARK KNIGHT, where an editor showed that it was actually completely incoherent. "
I really enjoyed this piece and would like to see his cut. But to be fair, a good deal of what Emerson presents as incomprehensibility in that video is merely inelegance. Emerson (rightly) points out where more traditional shot selection and editing would have made things flow better and more logically. Where he muddies things up a bit is in his insistence that these choices represent mistakes that make the movie hard to follow. They make the movie inelegant and jumpy, though. He's right about that much.
So while I agree with him, for instance, in his assertion that preserving the 180 degree rule would have given the convoy sequence a better flow, his suggestions that the audience is troubled and confused over which side of the van Dent is sitting on or unsure if the driver is still in the same vehicle are on their very face, preposterous. That's kind of where he takes useful criticism into get off my lawn territory.
Still... I think you ought not be allowed to direct an action film in Hollyowood unless you've been locked in a room with six old Hollywood action editors and cinematographers and forced to watch Stagecoach about 25 times. Or maybe Don Siegel films.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:00 AM on August 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
I really enjoyed this piece and would like to see his cut. But to be fair, a good deal of what Emerson presents as incomprehensibility in that video is merely inelegance. Emerson (rightly) points out where more traditional shot selection and editing would have made things flow better and more logically. Where he muddies things up a bit is in his insistence that these choices represent mistakes that make the movie hard to follow. They make the movie inelegant and jumpy, though. He's right about that much.
So while I agree with him, for instance, in his assertion that preserving the 180 degree rule would have given the convoy sequence a better flow, his suggestions that the audience is troubled and confused over which side of the van Dent is sitting on or unsure if the driver is still in the same vehicle are on their very face, preposterous. That's kind of where he takes useful criticism into get off my lawn territory.
Still... I think you ought not be allowed to direct an action film in Hollyowood unless you've been locked in a room with six old Hollywood action editors and cinematographers and forced to watch Stagecoach about 25 times. Or maybe Don Siegel films.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:00 AM on August 11, 2013 [4 favorites]
"But really, films are for teens now."
"For the first time, over-45s are the largest cinema-going demographic."
Hilarious that the knee-jerk reaction to a rise in dumb movies is, "It's those damn teenagers!" Seriously, though, my parents are the ones who go out and shovel money into this industry.
Unrelated: Spike Lee is remaking Oldboy??? What in the name of fuck?
posted by buriednexttoyou at 10:03 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
"For the first time, over-45s are the largest cinema-going demographic."
Hilarious that the knee-jerk reaction to a rise in dumb movies is, "It's those damn teenagers!" Seriously, though, my parents are the ones who go out and shovel money into this industry.
Unrelated: Spike Lee is remaking Oldboy??? What in the name of fuck?
posted by buriednexttoyou at 10:03 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
"But really, films are for teens now."
"For the first time, over-45s are the largest cinema-going demographic."
Hilarious that the knee-jerk reaction to a rise in dumb movies is, "It's those damn teenagers!" Seriously, though, my parents are the ones who go out and shovel money into this industry.
Actually 12-24 year olds drive the movie business. They are 18% of the population and buy 31% of the movie tickets according to the Motion Picture Association of America's statistics released in their annual report. They are the biggest buyers of tickets relative to cohort size.
This isn't a "kneejerk reaction," its the actual facts of the movie business.
See this PDF
posted by Ironmouth at 10:25 AM on August 11, 2013
"For the first time, over-45s are the largest cinema-going demographic."
Hilarious that the knee-jerk reaction to a rise in dumb movies is, "It's those damn teenagers!" Seriously, though, my parents are the ones who go out and shovel money into this industry.
Actually 12-24 year olds drive the movie business. They are 18% of the population and buy 31% of the movie tickets according to the Motion Picture Association of America's statistics released in their annual report. They are the biggest buyers of tickets relative to cohort size.
This isn't a "kneejerk reaction," its the actual facts of the movie business.
See this PDF
posted by Ironmouth at 10:25 AM on August 11, 2013
Actually 12-24 year olds drive the movie business. They are 18% of the population and buy 31% of the movie tickets
Some of your teenagers are pretty long in the tooth.
12-17 year-olds bought 12% of the tickets.
18-24 year-olds bought 19% of the tickets.
25-39 year-olds bought 24% of the tickets.
I think you've got to squint hard at that to support "teenagers drive the movie business".
posted by bleep-blop at 10:43 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Some of your teenagers are pretty long in the tooth.
12-17 year-olds bought 12% of the tickets.
18-24 year-olds bought 19% of the tickets.
25-39 year-olds bought 24% of the tickets.
I think you've got to squint hard at that to support "teenagers drive the movie business".
posted by bleep-blop at 10:43 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
There's a well-worn set of supposed truisms in the movie business that work like this:
Please correct me and/or add a link if possible. Also note that I am citing a commonly held set of beliefs, not advocating for them.
1) A female will go see anything a male will see, but males will not go see movies targeted at females.
2) A younger child will want to see anything an adolescent wants to see, but adolescents do not want to see anything aimed at younger children.
3) Adults will go see anything adolescents want to see.
4) Therefore, to target your optimal audience, make movies for older adolescent males.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:51 AM on August 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
Please correct me and/or add a link if possible. Also note that I am citing a commonly held set of beliefs, not advocating for them.
1) A female will go see anything a male will see, but males will not go see movies targeted at females.
2) A younger child will want to see anything an adolescent wants to see, but adolescents do not want to see anything aimed at younger children.
3) Adults will go see anything adolescents want to see.
4) Therefore, to target your optimal audience, make movies for older adolescent males.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:51 AM on August 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
5) Giant mechanical spiders
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:53 AM on August 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:53 AM on August 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
And gay robot sidekicks.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:56 AM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:56 AM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
DirtyOldTown: "And gay robot sidekicks."
Okay, I am finally going to ask the question I have supressed for so many year - How can a robot be gay? They don't have sex (well, not REAL sex with emotions and stuff), just a simulation.
posted by Samizdata at 11:02 AM on August 11, 2013
Okay, I am finally going to ask the question I have supressed for so many year - How can a robot be gay? They don't have sex (well, not REAL sex with emotions and stuff), just a simulation.
posted by Samizdata at 11:02 AM on August 11, 2013
Samizdata: "How can a robot be gay? They don't have sex (well, not REAL sex with emotions and stuff), just a simulation."
This is a question for Jon Peters. (citation)
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:05 AM on August 11, 2013
This is a question for Jon Peters. (citation)
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:05 AM on August 11, 2013
DirtyOldTown: "Samizdata: "How can a robot be gay? They don't have sex (well, not REAL sex with emotions and stuff), just a simulation."
This is a question for Jon Peters. (citation)"
Here's the problem - I don't want to go anywhere near Jon Peters, for fear of ideological infection.
Anyone else?
(And I read the script a long while back.)
posted by Samizdata at 11:08 AM on August 11, 2013
This is a question for Jon Peters. (citation)"
Here's the problem - I don't want to go anywhere near Jon Peters, for fear of ideological infection.
Anyone else?
(And I read the script a long while back.)
posted by Samizdata at 11:08 AM on August 11, 2013
I think the idea was to have the robot behave in a sassy, poncy style which could be read as stereotypically gay in a sort of clunky, Hollywood, gay panic kinda way. As in, they'd sort of write the generic quippy gay BFF, only as a robot. It doesn't really speak well of the people involved.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:14 AM on August 11, 2013
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:14 AM on August 11, 2013
It's strange to suggest that Shane Black doesn't understand action, considering all he's ever done is write action movies.
As a writer I can tell you the difference between writing action and directing action is the difference between being able to draw a picture of a car and being able to build a car. On my first television script I wrote a scene in which a car goes over a cliff. So I write:
"the car slowly rolls backwards until it reaches the lip of the cliff and then plunges down the cliff into the surf below" or something like that. That's what it takes to write it.
As a result of me typing that sentence, there were hours of meetings involving the director, the first AD, stunt guys, CGI guys, car guys. There was a day of shooting, there were storyboards drawn, there were a dozen other things that I as the writer will never know about. And then on TV screens, a car fell off a cliff. An amazing feeling as a writer, to see a simple sentence come to life like that, but it's not qualifying me to direct action.
posted by Bookhouse at 11:16 AM on August 11, 2013 [11 favorites]
As a writer I can tell you the difference between writing action and directing action is the difference between being able to draw a picture of a car and being able to build a car. On my first television script I wrote a scene in which a car goes over a cliff. So I write:
"the car slowly rolls backwards until it reaches the lip of the cliff and then plunges down the cliff into the surf below" or something like that. That's what it takes to write it.
As a result of me typing that sentence, there were hours of meetings involving the director, the first AD, stunt guys, CGI guys, car guys. There was a day of shooting, there were storyboards drawn, there were a dozen other things that I as the writer will never know about. And then on TV screens, a car fell off a cliff. An amazing feeling as a writer, to see a simple sentence come to life like that, but it's not qualifying me to direct action.
posted by Bookhouse at 11:16 AM on August 11, 2013 [11 favorites]
How can a robot be gay?
Oh my god, it's Fuck-Bot 5000!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 11:28 AM on August 11, 2013
Oh my god, it's Fuck-Bot 5000!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 11:28 AM on August 11, 2013
But to be fair, a good deal of what Emerson presents as incomprehensibility in that video is merely inelegance. ... They make the movie inelegant and jumpy, though. He's right about that much.
Yeah this is a difficult thing to nail down conclusively. One could argue that the 180-rule was broken to create confusion and heightened awareness on the part of the viewer, or one could say the problem is exacerbated by the narrowly linear corridor chosen for the sequence.
It's really a testament to the unlimited ability of CGI to convince the viewer that what he/she is watching is real that you have people slowing movies down and saying, "Hey, that van looks like it fell into the water going the wrong way," as if that made the scene unconvincing. You don't see people deconstructing older movies with scale models and cel animation the same way.
In terms of believability, one might ask equally valid questions about the plot in Dark Knight Rises, like how they managed to install a working television inside the world's worst underground desert prison, or how somebody can fix a broken back in a matter of days. The bottom line is things need to explode and the hero needs to win, so it's really a question of who can pull the biggest escapist turd out of their ass on the way to making that happen. One day the chase following the 180 rule might totally get thrown out and replaced with a 3-minute epileptic seizure. But I digress.
Anyway this has gotten me to start thinking about chase sequences that do observe the canonical 180 rule. Terminator 2 has three pretty classic chase scenes, all moving right to left, and it's interesting to theorize why they work. Sure there were a lot of failures then, but in my opinion, the '80's and '90's produced the greatest heart-pounding action movies, to a degree that none of these comic book reboots has managed to reach. Take Predator for example. "So you cooked up a story and dropped the six of us in a meatgrindah?" Fuck origin stories, that is pure perfection.
posted by phaedon at 11:36 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah this is a difficult thing to nail down conclusively. One could argue that the 180-rule was broken to create confusion and heightened awareness on the part of the viewer, or one could say the problem is exacerbated by the narrowly linear corridor chosen for the sequence.
It's really a testament to the unlimited ability of CGI to convince the viewer that what he/she is watching is real that you have people slowing movies down and saying, "Hey, that van looks like it fell into the water going the wrong way," as if that made the scene unconvincing. You don't see people deconstructing older movies with scale models and cel animation the same way.
In terms of believability, one might ask equally valid questions about the plot in Dark Knight Rises, like how they managed to install a working television inside the world's worst underground desert prison, or how somebody can fix a broken back in a matter of days. The bottom line is things need to explode and the hero needs to win, so it's really a question of who can pull the biggest escapist turd out of their ass on the way to making that happen. One day the chase following the 180 rule might totally get thrown out and replaced with a 3-minute epileptic seizure. But I digress.
Anyway this has gotten me to start thinking about chase sequences that do observe the canonical 180 rule. Terminator 2 has three pretty classic chase scenes, all moving right to left, and it's interesting to theorize why they work. Sure there were a lot of failures then, but in my opinion, the '80's and '90's produced the greatest heart-pounding action movies, to a degree that none of these comic book reboots has managed to reach. Take Predator for example. "So you cooked up a story and dropped the six of us in a meatgrindah?" Fuck origin stories, that is pure perfection.
posted by phaedon at 11:36 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
I thought the real problem with action movies these days was that they were stuffing 90 minutes of movie into a 150-minute-sized bag, and it shows. A lot.
(Also I noticed the sideswipe at Red 2, which was made by the same director as Galaxy Quest and for which the only action sequence I really noticed was the one in the trailer where Helen Mirren was doing double-gun badassedness in a spinning car. The rest of the action was forgettable. The character pieces were what made the movie.)
posted by immlass at 11:38 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
(Also I noticed the sideswipe at Red 2, which was made by the same director as Galaxy Quest and for which the only action sequence I really noticed was the one in the trailer where Helen Mirren was doing double-gun badassedness in a spinning car. The rest of the action was forgettable. The character pieces were what made the movie.)
posted by immlass at 11:38 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Unfortunately, Christopher Nolan is (notoriously) bad at this - the linked article connects, in turn, to a really interesting breakdown one of the chase sequences in THE DARK KNIGHT, where an editor showed that it was actually completely incoherent.
There were a few points in that (notably his asking which of the police cars was about to be hit) where I thought "Just because you can't tell what's going on doesn't mean that I can't. And another one where he criticised the stylistic choice of panning the camera from a fixed point rather than sliding it because it caused confusion. It was consistent and caused confusion - that was the point. The Joker is about confusion, and confusion rather than speed (as the approach to rotating the camera he wanted) was the theme of the film.
posted by Francis at 11:44 AM on August 11, 2013
There were a few points in that (notably his asking which of the police cars was about to be hit) where I thought "Just because you can't tell what's going on doesn't mean that I can't. And another one where he criticised the stylistic choice of panning the camera from a fixed point rather than sliding it because it caused confusion. It was consistent and caused confusion - that was the point. The Joker is about confusion, and confusion rather than speed (as the approach to rotating the camera he wanted) was the theme of the film.
posted by Francis at 11:44 AM on August 11, 2013
It's really a testament to the unlimited ability of CGI to convince the viewer that what he/she is watching is real that you have people slowing movies down and saying, "Hey, that van looks like it fell into the water going the wrong way," as if that made the scene unconvincing.
I believe that scene they did rely mostly on physical models and live effects instead of CGI. Which is probably why when they end up with a van spinning the wrong way, they misdirect from that during editing instead of animating it to spin the right way.
A lot of people fixate on the 180 rule because it seems an easy one to grasp, but there's a lot of subtlety and nuance to how an axis is established and when can it change. He seemed to be objecting to cutting across the path of the movement of the vehicles while the Joker was shooting at the police. But I think as soon as the Joker starts shooting, that establishes an axis from the shooter to his target. (It also crosses that axis. But he doesn't mention that in favour of his objection that I think is a non-issue.)
The one bit I will unequivocally agree is a problem is the bit where it does look like the Joker and the Batmobile are going to have a head-on collision, when Batman is really in the next lane over. I can sort of see they may have wanted the Joker in there to establish why he had stopped shooting for a few seconds.
That said, it's still interesting and I'll watch some of his other videos.
posted by RobotHero at 12:30 PM on August 11, 2013
I believe that scene they did rely mostly on physical models and live effects instead of CGI. Which is probably why when they end up with a van spinning the wrong way, they misdirect from that during editing instead of animating it to spin the right way.
A lot of people fixate on the 180 rule because it seems an easy one to grasp, but there's a lot of subtlety and nuance to how an axis is established and when can it change. He seemed to be objecting to cutting across the path of the movement of the vehicles while the Joker was shooting at the police. But I think as soon as the Joker starts shooting, that establishes an axis from the shooter to his target. (It also crosses that axis. But he doesn't mention that in favour of his objection that I think is a non-issue.)
The one bit I will unequivocally agree is a problem is the bit where it does look like the Joker and the Batmobile are going to have a head-on collision, when Batman is really in the next lane over. I can sort of see they may have wanted the Joker in there to establish why he had stopped shooting for a few seconds.
That said, it's still interesting and I'll watch some of his other videos.
posted by RobotHero at 12:30 PM on August 11, 2013
How can a robot be gay? They don't have sex (well, not REAL sex with emotions and stuff), just a simulation.
You've clearly never read any Transformers fanfic.
posted by kmz at 1:02 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
You've clearly never read any Transformers fanfic.
posted by kmz at 1:02 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
It was consistent and caused confusion - that was the point.
Well, you can make an arguable case that "chaos cutting" makes sense as a way to express the Joker's worldview, but damn, it's just spread to fucking everywhere in action films, and generally sucks. Shitty action scenes that basically take your eyes and ears and shake them in your head until you feel agitated and then the scene ends and BAM wasn't that an awesome action scene experience?? - ugh.
Anyway, Schager's article has only an indirect link to Matthias Stork's 2011 critique of Chaos Cinema; here's the two-part video and an interview with Stork. Looking forward to reading the various responses Schager links. I think Schager nails it with this summary, though:
...it's an anarchic mélange of sound and imagery that at times seems only somewhat related to the plot events being portrayed onscreen. This style isn't too interested in letting you know where people and vehicles are in relation to each other. Often there doesn't seem to be a very close relationship between the visuals, which can be blurry or imprecise, and the sound, which tends to be detailed and very exact. Strangely, considering how indiscriminately it's applied, the Chaos style is often defended as a cinematic attempt to mirror the frantic nature of the action, or the excited or terrified mental state of the characters.
The Chaos Cinema system requires less precision during production than the classical method of blocking and shooting action. It farms out stunt-and-fight-heavy scenes to second units that are mainly concerned with efficiency and thoroughness and collects as much footage as possible from as many angles as possible, thus letting directors defer a good number of choices until later, when the film is being edited.
posted by mediareport at 1:13 PM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
Well, you can make an arguable case that "chaos cutting" makes sense as a way to express the Joker's worldview, but damn, it's just spread to fucking everywhere in action films, and generally sucks. Shitty action scenes that basically take your eyes and ears and shake them in your head until you feel agitated and then the scene ends and BAM wasn't that an awesome action scene experience?? - ugh.
Anyway, Schager's article has only an indirect link to Matthias Stork's 2011 critique of Chaos Cinema; here's the two-part video and an interview with Stork. Looking forward to reading the various responses Schager links. I think Schager nails it with this summary, though:
...it's an anarchic mélange of sound and imagery that at times seems only somewhat related to the plot events being portrayed onscreen. This style isn't too interested in letting you know where people and vehicles are in relation to each other. Often there doesn't seem to be a very close relationship between the visuals, which can be blurry or imprecise, and the sound, which tends to be detailed and very exact. Strangely, considering how indiscriminately it's applied, the Chaos style is often defended as a cinematic attempt to mirror the frantic nature of the action, or the excited or terrified mental state of the characters.
The Chaos Cinema system requires less precision during production than the classical method of blocking and shooting action. It farms out stunt-and-fight-heavy scenes to second units that are mainly concerned with efficiency and thoroughness and collects as much footage as possible from as many angles as possible, thus letting directors defer a good number of choices until later, when the film is being edited.
posted by mediareport at 1:13 PM on August 11, 2013 [3 favorites]
Oh, and have to agree Schager's case certainly isn't helped by the clueless characterization of Whedon as a "non-action director." I know, I know, fanboy etc, but come on; it's weird that Schager apparently doesn't see that the action in Serenity (from the Reavers/Alliance space battle to the multiple scenes of hand combat between Mal and the Operative) is a perfect example of the kind of character- and story-driven action he wants to see more of: "methodically mounting suspense and exhilaration and the distinctive adrenalized personality that come from watching expertly constructed action." I watch a lot of action flicks and that movie's action was handled so intelligently and was so obviously a cut above the standard chaos cutting garbage that it's surprising Schager somehow managed to not recall that.
posted by mediareport at 1:20 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by mediareport at 1:20 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
How can a robot be gay? They don't have sex
Well explain to me how Evil Robot Ted had a full on robot chubby.
posted by biffa at 1:39 PM on August 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well explain to me how Evil Robot Ted had a full on robot chubby.
posted by biffa at 1:39 PM on August 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
He's a fully integrated, multi-fetish artificial being.
posted by mannequito at 2:24 PM on August 11, 2013
posted by mannequito at 2:24 PM on August 11, 2013
a really interesting breakdown one of the chase sequences in THE DARK KNIGHT, where an editor showed that it was actually completely incoherent
I could only get half-way through his silly claims to not see what is obviously right there on the screen. We see Harvey Dent get in the truck and exactly where he's sitting; why is he claiming he doesn't know? Why does he think Nolan has to somehow establish that again? The SWAT van gets hit in the front and very clearly spins out so that it enters the river facing the opposite direction, leaving the "Slaughter" truck in the lane left of the convoy. Lame.
posted by straight at 2:58 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
I could only get half-way through his silly claims to not see what is obviously right there on the screen. We see Harvey Dent get in the truck and exactly where he's sitting; why is he claiming he doesn't know? Why does he think Nolan has to somehow establish that again? The SWAT van gets hit in the front and very clearly spins out so that it enters the river facing the opposite direction, leaving the "Slaughter" truck in the lane left of the convoy. Lame.
posted by straight at 2:58 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Say what you want about Quantum of Solace (I know, everybody hates it but me), that was a beautiful looking film. I would put the Tosca sequence against any action sequence of any Bond film.
And then Skyfall came along and it was even more pretty. And, you know, maybe the action isn't as ambitious as previous Bond films or other action films, but whatever. When it looks that good, I'm okay with Sam Mendes directing Bond films. I'm looking forward to the next one for that very reason.
posted by crossoverman at 8:00 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
And then Skyfall came along and it was even more pretty. And, you know, maybe the action isn't as ambitious as previous Bond films or other action films, but whatever. When it looks that good, I'm okay with Sam Mendes directing Bond films. I'm looking forward to the next one for that very reason.
posted by crossoverman at 8:00 PM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Notably absent, because he doesn't support the writer's case: Zhang Yimou. There's a "non-action" director who does action really well.
posted by Mister Moofoo at 10:01 PM on August 11, 2013
posted by Mister Moofoo at 10:01 PM on August 11, 2013
So while I agree with him, for instance, in his assertion that preserving the 180 degree rule would have given the convoy sequence a better flow, his suggestions that the audience is troubled and confused over which side of the van Dent is sitting on or unsure if the driver is still in the same vehicle are on their very face, preposterous.
I dunno. Part of my own problem with that sequence is having driven Lower Wacker many times in my life and having an innate sense of where everything actually is. The basic physical problem Nolan was wrestling with is that LWD is just not long enough for the sequence, so for his hypothetical Lower Gotham Drive he's got to cheat it a lot. The distance traveled at those speeds in the movie sequence might be more or less real-time measurable and would make the road about five to ten times the distance he had to work with.
The bit where the van ends up going "backward" into the river, for instance -- that's mostly because of the configuration of the ramps, and the opening to the river is not directly opposite the 90-degree entrance onto the Drive from Post Place (which is where I think they did the ramming). So, OK, it had to be cheated a little -- that sort of constraint I can deal with. Heck, I saw a T-bone within the last month outside my house where one car forced the other to spin around 180 degrees, so that could happen (although the momentum in the other direction couldn't). And again, we're talking about a constructed, notional Lower Gotham Drive here, not the real one.
But then you have the completely unnecessary laziness, made all the more frustrating because of the significant amount of time during the chase when what I call (from my lofty perch) "action logic" is mostly respected. Like which way Harvey is facing. It's lazy, it's dumb, and it's beneath a director like Nolan who spends so much time setting up his set pieces in such detail. Hell, I don't even know why he didn't have Harvey sitting against the wall when the shotgun dimples appear -- it would have raised the stakes for the character immensely.
What's great about properly executed action logic is that, as with Chekhov's Gun, you have a sense that something, even something rather particular, might happen -- you just don't know exactly when, why, or how. So setting up the what-might-happen for the viewer is not just a courtesy (as if the director had any responsibility to the ticket purchaser!), but should be part of the director's canny manipulation and preparation of the audience. Hitchcock, certainly, understood this. Even though the shower scene is famous for its montage, which could be construed as incoherence, none of what happens there violates our expectations or confuses us.
Now, maybe that's what Nolan (and defenders) are saying here. That audiences are so savvy now you don't need to bother setting these things up properly (which is a weird, back-handed compliment), or worse, that audiences just don't care anymore (certainly ticket sales would bear this out). But then you can elastically stretch that justification to nearly anything -- a sort of "and with one bound Jack was free" distillation of action logic down to the very minimum necessary. "Gosh, all we really needed there was the impression of Harvey in danger, the Joker responsible, and the Batman attempting to save him. What more do you want?" I don't know, but I find this approach to be insulting.
posted by dhartung at 11:57 PM on August 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
I dunno. Part of my own problem with that sequence is having driven Lower Wacker many times in my life and having an innate sense of where everything actually is. The basic physical problem Nolan was wrestling with is that LWD is just not long enough for the sequence, so for his hypothetical Lower Gotham Drive he's got to cheat it a lot. The distance traveled at those speeds in the movie sequence might be more or less real-time measurable and would make the road about five to ten times the distance he had to work with.
The bit where the van ends up going "backward" into the river, for instance -- that's mostly because of the configuration of the ramps, and the opening to the river is not directly opposite the 90-degree entrance onto the Drive from Post Place (which is where I think they did the ramming). So, OK, it had to be cheated a little -- that sort of constraint I can deal with. Heck, I saw a T-bone within the last month outside my house where one car forced the other to spin around 180 degrees, so that could happen (although the momentum in the other direction couldn't). And again, we're talking about a constructed, notional Lower Gotham Drive here, not the real one.
But then you have the completely unnecessary laziness, made all the more frustrating because of the significant amount of time during the chase when what I call (from my lofty perch) "action logic" is mostly respected. Like which way Harvey is facing. It's lazy, it's dumb, and it's beneath a director like Nolan who spends so much time setting up his set pieces in such detail. Hell, I don't even know why he didn't have Harvey sitting against the wall when the shotgun dimples appear -- it would have raised the stakes for the character immensely.
What's great about properly executed action logic is that, as with Chekhov's Gun, you have a sense that something, even something rather particular, might happen -- you just don't know exactly when, why, or how. So setting up the what-might-happen for the viewer is not just a courtesy (as if the director had any responsibility to the ticket purchaser!), but should be part of the director's canny manipulation and preparation of the audience. Hitchcock, certainly, understood this. Even though the shower scene is famous for its montage, which could be construed as incoherence, none of what happens there violates our expectations or confuses us.
Now, maybe that's what Nolan (and defenders) are saying here. That audiences are so savvy now you don't need to bother setting these things up properly (which is a weird, back-handed compliment), or worse, that audiences just don't care anymore (certainly ticket sales would bear this out). But then you can elastically stretch that justification to nearly anything -- a sort of "and with one bound Jack was free" distillation of action logic down to the very minimum necessary. "Gosh, all we really needed there was the impression of Harvey in danger, the Joker responsible, and the Batman attempting to save him. What more do you want?" I don't know, but I find this approach to be insulting.
posted by dhartung at 11:57 PM on August 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
So while I agree with him, for instance, in his assertion that preserving the 180 degree rule would have given the convoy sequence a better flow, his suggestions that the audience is troubled and confused over which side of the van Dent is sitting on or unsure if the driver is still in the same vehicle are on their very face, preposterous
Yeah, I think it's actually quite common for details like that to pass the audience by. You watch the sequence, you have an impression of what is going on, you don't sit there scratching your head and saying "but which direction is he going...?"
However, what you lose by being unintelligible is any audience engagement that comes from suspense. If the audience is thinking - "Oh crap, he's really screwed now" - well, then, in order for them to be able to think that, you have to set that up (show the grenade landing in the back of the jeep, but the hero is still driving and has no idea it's there - and the audience is screaming "look behind you, you chump! you have a grenade in the back seat!" and so on).
I mean, combat can be confusing, I get that. But a story can do so much with - frankly - messing with and torturing the audience during an action sequence. It seems a shame not to! But to do that requires intelligibility.
What's great about properly executed action logic is that, as with Chekhov's Gun, you have a sense that something, even something rather particular, might happen -- you just don't know exactly when, why, or how.
James Cameron is really good at this. There is an art to laying this kind of pipe - fitting it into the background so that it feels plausible when a hero does something with it later. It's not easy, and it's sometimes kind of boring to do (from the creator's p.o.v. at least), but it creates a feeling of robustness that I admire. It's a bit like having characters be plausible - not necessarily three dimensional or complex, but at least vaguely like real people. A fundamental standard that films ought to be able to meet.
"Gosh, all we really needed there was the impression of Harvey in danger, the Joker responsible, and the Batman attempting to save him. What more do you want?" I don't know, but I find this approach to be insulting.
I tend to think of this as "cargo cult" film making - they are reminding the audience of other, better movies rather than building new moments themselves.
posted by lucien_reeve at 3:39 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I think it's actually quite common for details like that to pass the audience by. You watch the sequence, you have an impression of what is going on, you don't sit there scratching your head and saying "but which direction is he going...?"
However, what you lose by being unintelligible is any audience engagement that comes from suspense. If the audience is thinking - "Oh crap, he's really screwed now" - well, then, in order for them to be able to think that, you have to set that up (show the grenade landing in the back of the jeep, but the hero is still driving and has no idea it's there - and the audience is screaming "look behind you, you chump! you have a grenade in the back seat!" and so on).
I mean, combat can be confusing, I get that. But a story can do so much with - frankly - messing with and torturing the audience during an action sequence. It seems a shame not to! But to do that requires intelligibility.
What's great about properly executed action logic is that, as with Chekhov's Gun, you have a sense that something, even something rather particular, might happen -- you just don't know exactly when, why, or how.
James Cameron is really good at this. There is an art to laying this kind of pipe - fitting it into the background so that it feels plausible when a hero does something with it later. It's not easy, and it's sometimes kind of boring to do (from the creator's p.o.v. at least), but it creates a feeling of robustness that I admire. It's a bit like having characters be plausible - not necessarily three dimensional or complex, but at least vaguely like real people. A fundamental standard that films ought to be able to meet.
"Gosh, all we really needed there was the impression of Harvey in danger, the Joker responsible, and the Batman attempting to save him. What more do you want?" I don't know, but I find this approach to be insulting.
I tend to think of this as "cargo cult" film making - they are reminding the audience of other, better movies rather than building new moments themselves.
posted by lucien_reeve at 3:39 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Is this why large sections of the first Transformers movie are unwatchable? I thought it was because the CGI was overdone, or (more likely) that my eyes are getting old and can't handle that many explosions. I can't remember why I watched it - I do have young children - but I was expecting some spiffy action scenes, if nothing else. And then??? Gibberish.
posted by sneebler at 4:56 PM on August 12, 2013
posted by sneebler at 4:56 PM on August 12, 2013
« Older Kevin gets a Kiss | 'Paying Till It Hurts': Why American Health Care... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by dogwalker at 12:34 AM on August 11, 2013 [1 favorite]