Odds & Ends
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Touch of Evil! Touch of Evil! Touch of Evil!
Hot on the heels (at least in the order I found out about them) of the restored Metropolis comes the news that Touch of Evil will get a new DVD release carrying three versions of the film. The current DVD features only a highly speculative "restoration," which even the people who made it felt should not have replaced the earlier versions, as noted by Jonathan Rosenbaum: I was a consultant on the third version--a re-edit by Walter Murch based on a memo written by Welles to Universal in the 50s--and it was never the intention of Murch, me, or our producer Rick Schmidlin to replace the film's original release version or the longer preview version that supplanted it in the 70s. We were hoping that all three could be released in a DVD box set.Well, now we have that set, correcting one of the worst bits of DVD butchery we've seen for a while. That's sensational news. Click the image below to order it.  Labels: welles Posted by Stephen Rowley @ 10.7.08 - 0 comments  
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Coolest Movie News Since.... Ever?
You've probably seen this already, since it's one of those rare pieces of news about film restoration that was so earth-shattering it made the mainstream media: a near-complete version of Metropolis has turned up. Ain't It Cool have images here.  I love Metropolis: I'm a fan of city movies, and silent movies, and big epic special effects movies, and science fiction movies, so it really does have everything for me. Everything except, of course, about a quarter of its footage: the previous best-available version used intertitles to give a sense of what was missing. That DVD was released by Kino overseas, and seems to be the basis of the version released by Madman in Australia. Kino were already planning a re-release (with a Blu-Ray version) in 2009; that has been hastily revised to include the rediscovered footage. Obviously the new footage is likely to be in poor shape, visually, but its historical importance is extraordinary. What could possibly be next: the ten hour version of Greed? Labels: commentary, rumours, silent film Posted by Stephen Rowley @ 5.7.08 - 0 comments
Monday, June 30, 2008
Quantum of Solace Trailer
Here's the new trailer for Quantum of Solace (aka the Bond movie with the title that makes everyone snicker but which has actually kind of grown on me). High definition version, which as always is worth it if you can, here. I've said way to much about Bond over the years for it to be worth any detailed comment, but it is kind of cool. I love that finally we have some linkage between the films, in a way we haven't had since the sixties. This looks like it could be the Bond revenge story that should have, but didn't, follow the best Bond movie of all, On Her Majesties Secret Service. You also have to love that Bourne-ish shot following the motorcycle jump. Also - the first review I've seen anywhere of Baz Luhrmann's Australia, is here, from some random mallgoer in America. As such, the word "review" is used loosely but it's interesting to see such an early word on a film about which I am now increasingly curious - no matter who the source. Tha trailer for that one is here. Labels: australia, bond, rumours, trailers Posted by Stephen Rowley @ 30.6.08 - 0 comments
Friday, June 27, 2008
Stan Winston and the Monsters that You Can See
While I was on holiday a couple of big names passed away. One was Cyd Charise, but I'd never try to pass myself off as qualified to write about her: I did enjoy Jaime Weinman's commentary though, with some great YouTube clips, here. Special effects artist Stan Winston, however, has his fingerprints all over the post-seventies Hollywood that I find so interesting. The market for special effects is so big now that nobody can really stamp their name on it the way old-school artists like Willis O'Brien or Ray Harryhausen did, but Winston was as close as we had to that kind of iconic effects artist in the past few decades. He was also the last of a breed, in that he was a master of physical creature effects - achieved through make-up, puppetry, robotics, and the like - in an age where such creatures are increasingly being done by computer. His career paralleled another great effects artist, Rick Baker, but where Baker was probably best known for make-up effects (as with his work on all those films where Eddie Murphy plays multiple characters) and had a sideline in creature work, Winston's emphasis was the other way round.  Despite this "old-school" emphasis, Winston wasn't a luddite; his effects frequently (even usually) co-existed with other kinds of effects, and he was co-founder of the effects studio Digital Domain, which (as the name implies) specialised in digital work. Many of the works in his later filmography are textbook examples of the flawless integration of physical and digital effects: perhaps the best example is the T-Rex scene in Jurassic Park, which seamlessly combines a digital T-Rex with physical effects by Winston. Such a combination works very well, because each technology does what it's best at. Generally speaking, physical effects can't make a full-bodied, non-humanoid creatures that can walk convincingly in a full frame shot (although there have been some heroic attempts, like the Landstriders in The Dark Crystal). Computer effects (and before that, stop-motion animation) are needed to get that sort of effect. What physical effects are good for are close-up partial body shots, and for getting some genuine interaction between the creature and actor. Physical effects tend to look more tangibly present in the same space as the actor for the simple reason that they actually are: a really exact match of lighting and cinematography can be achieved with CG effects (and again, the T-Rex scene in Jurassic Park is a great example), but it's much harder. And physical effects certainly encourage performances that better "sell" the effects. As Steven Spielberg puts it in his tribute to Winston at Ain't It Cool: It's so much harder getting performances from actors when the principal nemeses are two grips holding 15-foot poles with Day Glo tape at different intervals. Joey Mazzello and Ariana Richards were crazy scared on JURASSIC PARK when Stan's T-Rex lowered his softball-sized eye right into the window of their Ford Explorer to scope them out. These moments were multiplied and divided amongst the cast, who had to act with a life-sized Triceratops, Brachiosaurus, Dilophosaurus, and two Velociraptors, that could even fog up a window with one powerful snort.Such praise of physical effects might seem a little ironic coming from Spielberg right after the CG-fest of Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but it's a common sentiment at the moment. The proliferation of badly done computer effects has led to something of a backlash against them that's very noticeable in reviews (and again, the new Indiana Jones has become something of a lightning rod for this kind of comment). This is just because there's so many such effects shots being done on tight (read: rushed) schedules, and because too many films rely on CG imagery alone. When only one technique is used, the audiences' eye starts to pick the illusion: if it's all physical (not a common option at the moment) then they are likely to become aware of the stiffness of the creature, or the fact that its whole body is never shown. With CG they are likely to start to register subtle problems with lighting and texture, which give that almost subconscious sense that the creature isn't really "there." Blending effects can hopefully achieve the best of both worlds, which is why Winston's comfort with working across methods was so crucial. Indeed, Winston's best work defied the old maxim that a monster in a movie should be shown as little as possible: the "it's scarier if you don't see it" fallacy. I still see this idea thoughtlessly bandied around, but when applied as a broad maxim it's nonsense. It had some truth when monsters in movies were men with rubber heads and became laughable the moment they were revealed; and showing a creature only fleetingly, or holding it until the end, continues to be an option to help avoid the illusion "breaking." There are also all sorts of suspense effects that happen to rely on not showing the monster, such as POV shots from the monster's perspective, or shots where the monster is obscured and happens to leap into frame to cause a scare. However, these quite specific pragmatic and stylistic reasons for limiting the exposure of your creature should not be mistaken for, or extrapolated into, a broader model of screen suspense. There are all sorts of people and creatures and we see in movies that we are scared of, and they aren't all lurking outside of, or at the edges of, the frame. Indeed, at some point, an off-screen menace will surely become an intangible menace, and there will be no substitute for your monster appearing on-screen and chewing someone's head off. That's putting it flippantly, but the point needs to be made. If the effects are good enough, there is absolutely no reason you can't show your creature if the context calls for it. Winston was one of those exceptional artists who demonstrated this, by giving top directors such as John McTiernan, James Cameron and Steven Spielberg creatures they could craft suspense sequences around, and feature squarely on-screen when necessary. Proponents of the "hidden = scary" model decry such front-and-centre effects as lacking in in imagination and technique, but this is over-simplistic. A really good director will use all sorts of methods to induce suspense, and being able to show the monster just increases the directors options. Look through Winston's filmography and you'll see many particularly remarkable creature effects. Some highpoints:  The Terminator (1984) Winston provided the physical terminator puppet / robot, alternated with a stop-motion version in the climactic scenes. This was the film that brought him to wide attention, and marked the start of his extended collaboration with James Cameron. While far from his most "flawless" work, it's impressive for what he did on a low budget (he would get to revisit and perfect it for Terminator 2: Judgement Day.) Predator (1987) Winston did the very impressive alien creature at the end of this movie: if we don't count the varied creatures of the Alien series (see below) this might be the most effective "man in a suit with a mask" monster ever done. Edward Scissorhands (1990) An example of Winston's versatility: Winston led the combination of animatronics and make-up work to realise the title character. Jurassic Park (1993) Winston produced a lot of robotic dinosaurs for Jurassic Park, and, as already noted, its best sequences are a highpoint for on-screen realism and combination of robotics with CG. The T-Rex sequence is also notable for the particular challenge the sheer size of the creature created: the robotic Rex was mounted on a platform designed for commercial flight simulators. A.I: Artificial Intelligence (2001) That adorable yet kind-of-creepy teddy bear was Winston's. A good example of a special effects creature that is a character in the film, rather than simply a monster. For me though the highpoint of Winston's career is undoubtedly:  Aliens (1986) This is really the pinnacle of an old way of doing monster movies. Winston built on the work of others (notably Carlo Rambaldi) from the first film, but he had to show much more: James Cameron featured hordes of aliens, doing lots of different things. These were achieved almost entirely with physical effects: there's little if any animation, and CG as we now know it wasn't around yet. What's more, he had to deliver a large alien queen that could remain convincing for a sustained fight at the film's climax. This is the kind of creature nobody would dream of doing without CG these days, but the sequence remains both absolutely gripping and completely plausible. In particular, note how fast the alien queen is: not an easy thing in physical effects when the creature is so large. But it greatly increases her menace. (There are some nice tributes to Winston from colleagues, including James Cameron, over at Ain't It Cool, here). Labels: commentary, special effects, spielberg, stan winston Posted by Stephen Rowley @ 27.6.08 - 1 comments
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Hit and MIFF
I got my mailout from the Melbourne International Film Festival people the other day. They seem to have rejigged the arrangements this year. Previously, I always bought my MiniPass (which is ten sessions, plus three bonus sessions for films before 4pm) when the main program comes out. What I got the other day (presumably for being on their database as a previous MiniPass purchaser) is a preview magazine (online here) listing a few festival highlights. Included are details about how to purchase the various levels of festival passport, including the MiniPass, they say these will then be sent out "in early July." It isn't 100% clear whether you could purchase a MiniPass later, after the program is released, or whether there is a risk that MiniPasses could run out if you wait and see: the preview magazine talks about their being a limited number of the unlimited admission Festival Passports, but doesn't say this about MiniPasses. However, the website does suggest MiniPass numbers are limited here. It's also a bit confusing as to when the program is going to be released. The second page of the preview magazine says they "welcome... your reactions to this year's program once all is finally revealed at our festival launch on June 17th." Yet elsewhere (eg page 11) the magazine says the program will be available on 11 July. Either way, the pressure seems to be on to get people to book passes now, before the program is released. I can see some advantages to the system: having my pass posted out well ahead of the festival seems better than queuing for it like I did (had to?) last year. And the program over the last few years has been solid enough that buying a pass blind is probably not too much of a gamble (the Ozploitation program, in particular, should be fun). But it's still a bit rough putting the hustle on to people to pay quite a bit for the MiniPass (which, at $13:50 a session if you don't use the bonuses, isn't really that cheap) without a clear idea of what they might be buying. It's even worse when the distributed material is not 100% clear about how it all works: the whole thing has the whiff of a PR person a bit more eager to sell the concept than to actually be clear on what is going on. And with that, there'll be a brief pause: I'm off on holiday for a fortnight and will return later in June. Labels: miff Posted by Stephen Rowley @ 7.6.08 - 1 comments
Because We All Remember How the Last Movie I Posted the Trailer For Turned Out
Baz Luhrmann's Australia hadn't really been on my radar, despite its profile. I think it was partly the stink of self-indulgence that hung over the project, as well as my increasing reservations about Lurhmann's style. I enjoyed Strictly Ballroom without loving it, and Romeo + Juliet really impressed me, but by the time of Moulin Rouge I thought Luhrmann's self-conscious technique had become a liability. However, the appearance of the first trailer on the internet has put this right at the top of my list. Luhrmann - as best as we can tell - appears to have limited his stylised approach to the framing story and gone for a more old-school epic style of shooting for the rest of the film. I realise a trailer can make anything look good, but damn: this movie looks absolutely gorgeous. We never really have had a really good Australian western, despite a few attempts and the fact that the genre is so suited to being trasnposed here (it isn't cool to say this, but Man From Snowy River probably got closest). Luhrmann just might have cracked it. For the full, high-def experience (very much the preferred option) click here, but if you can't do that, a YouTube version is below. Labels: australia, commentary, luhrmann, trailers Posted by Stephen Rowley @ 7.6.08 - 3 comments
Friday, May 16, 2008
Return of the Spielberg Guy
I really, really, don't want to be typecast as the guy who's always banging on about Spielberg... but it's going to be a difficult couple of weeks on that front. Obviously Indiana Jones is one of those things that I'm just compelled to write about, just as I am always compelled to write about new Star Wars. So obviously there will be material here covering Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in the next week or so. However, the Spielberg-centrism increases, as my review of two Spielberg-related books has just gone up at Senses of Cinema; you can read it here. The books they asked me to review were Lester Freidman's Citizen Spielberg and Andrew M. Gordon's Empire of Dreams; I liked Friedman's but thought Gordon's was made somewhat silly by its over-enthusiastic adoption of various dubious theoretical models. The article therefore ended up becoming something of a sequel to my previous complaint about silly theory, Is Film Theory Bullshit? I was glad to be able to discuss the books in some sort of wider context though.
As an aside - and here I am starting to speak mainly to any academic or uni student readers I might have - I used the review as a chance to try out Zotero and its associated Word plugins ahead of hopefully using them in my Masters. Count me as very impressed. Zotero is a plug-in for Firefox; you use it to gather, store and annotate research sources into a reference database, and then use the Word plug-in to have it automatically manage your citations. The beauty of it is that it can automatically capture the details of each source out of online resources such as Amazon or library catalogues. I've never got deeply into EndNote, so I can't do a detailed comparison, but I was very taken by the kinds of things Zotero can do, and the ease with which it did it (I was wary of the learning curve with EndNote). I've been doing some Masters research since writing the review and it has been seamlessly grabbing information from academic search indices; it also has very nifty website capturing, storage and cataloging capabilities. If you regularly do research on the web, or write anything that uses formal referencing, I suggest you have a look at it.  Labels: book reviews, research, spielberg, theory Posted by Stephen Rowley @ 16.5.08 - 0 comments
|
This page is for assorted musings and editorialising that don't fit elsewhere on Cinephobia. Coolest Movie News Since.... Ever? Quantum of Solace Trailer Stan Winston and the Monsters that You Can See Hit and MIFF Because We All Remember How the Last Movie I Poste... Return of the Spielberg Guy Stills Avery, Jones, Clampett The Other Jones December 2003 May 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 Want to contact me? 
|
