I was reading Roger Ebert's review of 'Act of Valor' and found this passage very interesting:
Yet the movie can be discussed on another level. In the same week I saw "Act of Valor," I also saw an extraordinary film named "Hell and Back Again." It's one of this year's Oscar nominees for best documentary feature, and will open in many markets on the same day as "Act of Valor." It is about a real man, Marine Sgt. Nathan Harris, and his real wife, Ashley. Harris led men in combat in Afghanistan. Shortly before the scheduled end of his six-month tour, a sniper's bullet entered his right buttock, shattered his hip socket and bounced back to destroy leg bones. He's quite willing to show people the entry scar and describe how he has two rods filling in for bones.
I know both of these films history well as I have owned a Canon 5d Mark II for a few years. 'Act of Valor' uses the 5D extensively. Dafung Denis was a still photographer embedded and he used the video capabilities of the camera in it's infancy. I only acknowledge this because I have conversations with industry people who fight back and forth over pixels and formats and resolution. What camera is better? The RED is so much better than the 5d. The Alexa is better than everything. 35mm is the king. Etc and so-on. Yet, Roger Ebert, a life-long critic of films doesn't bat an eye. 'Act of Valor' gets two and a half stars on the merit of story (he even mentions how good it looks). 'Hell and Back Again' is 'extraordinary'. Both films shot with the same camera that he doesn't even acknowledge and rightfully so. The camera doesn't make the a film bad or great. It's a tool and the content is king. Filmmakers need to focus more on story and less on technology. It will win out every time.
Friday
Wednesday
Friday
Return of the Jedi and the Phantom Mess
I was seven years old when Star Wars was released. I don't think I would be going too far out on a limb to say that Star Wars was a huge part of my childhood. From 1977 to 1983 me and my brother Andrew were obsessed. 'Battlestar Galactica' tried to fill the void but we knew it was a cheap knock off (it didn't stop us from stealing a few BG toys anyway). The blu-ray release of Star Wars has been a way to reconnect to those childhood memories. I avoided the dvd's as I already had all the originals on Laserdisc (yes, Originals) but couldn't help myself to see it all in high definition, even if they are slightly bastardized.
As a filmmaker and a teacher of film writing I do find another layer of enjoyment to the craft of the original films. It gives me a perspective as to why the prequels were disappointing. It also makes me reflect on some of the shortcomings of the original films.
I would say that Return of the Jedi is the least successful of the first three films. It goes between cartoony Ewok action and some very dark moments between Vader, Luke and the Emperor. The tone is uneven. Still, it's an enjoyable film. What stuck out to me on the last viewing was the wonderful Speeder Bike chase. Watching the film again after seeing the prequels I noticed that the Speeder Bike scenes are very similar to Pod Racer scenes in Phantom Menace. It made me understand why I found the Pod Racer scenes monotonous and the Speeder scenes riveting.
In Return of the Jedi the Speeder Bike scene has so much weight to it. Our heroes have landed on the moon to put out the shield generator and if they are caught, all is lost. The consequence of failing is catastrophic. This means that the audience has much more anxiety watching the action unfold and they are desperate to see Luke and Leia succeed.
Compare this to the Pod Race scene. What is at stake here? A part for their broken ship. Sure, they need to get the ship fixed but does this really justify an immense action sequence? If they don't win the Pod Race will all be lost? It seems to me a couple of Jedi's could find a way out of this problem. The consequence of this scene isn't powerful. If the kid loses they'll come up with plan B. If Luke and Leia lose the whole rebel fleet will be destroyed and the war will be won by the Empire.
I'm not sure if they redid the sound on these scenes but they sound very much like the Pod Racing scene.
As a filmmaker and a teacher of film writing I do find another layer of enjoyment to the craft of the original films. It gives me a perspective as to why the prequels were disappointing. It also makes me reflect on some of the shortcomings of the original films.
I would say that Return of the Jedi is the least successful of the first three films. It goes between cartoony Ewok action and some very dark moments between Vader, Luke and the Emperor. The tone is uneven. Still, it's an enjoyable film. What stuck out to me on the last viewing was the wonderful Speeder Bike chase. Watching the film again after seeing the prequels I noticed that the Speeder Bike scenes are very similar to Pod Racer scenes in Phantom Menace. It made me understand why I found the Pod Racer scenes monotonous and the Speeder scenes riveting.
In Return of the Jedi the Speeder Bike scene has so much weight to it. Our heroes have landed on the moon to put out the shield generator and if they are caught, all is lost. The consequence of failing is catastrophic. This means that the audience has much more anxiety watching the action unfold and they are desperate to see Luke and Leia succeed.
Compare this to the Pod Race scene. What is at stake here? A part for their broken ship. Sure, they need to get the ship fixed but does this really justify an immense action sequence? If they don't win the Pod Race will all be lost? It seems to me a couple of Jedi's could find a way out of this problem. The consequence of this scene isn't powerful. If the kid loses they'll come up with plan B. If Luke and Leia lose the whole rebel fleet will be destroyed and the war will be won by the Empire.
I'm not sure if they redid the sound on these scenes but they sound very much like the Pod Racing scene.
Monday
Sunset Boulevard
Sylvia and I caught Sunset Boulevard the other night on Turner Classic Movies. Sylvia hadn't seen the film before (which surprised me) and we came in a little late as William Holden turns into Norma Desmond's garage to escape the repo men. Since Sylvia hadn't seen it we sat back and enjoyed the rest of the film.
What was interesting to me as a writer and filmmaker is that Sylvia didn't know that Holden (Joe) was dead in the pool at the beginning of the film and the he was narrating from the grave. I didn't really think of the device much before and it seemed fairly clever that a dead man was narrating the story of how he got to be that way. That is until we finished the film and I told Sylvia what had happened in the beginning of the film. She much preferred that she didn't know what happened to him and found the film to be quite suspenseful and engaging. The fact that Joe was killed was quite a shock to her.
It's a concept that the writer always has to grapple with, the audience. How much to they know? How much to they need to know? What is the best time to reveal information and when are you going to get the greatest impact? Do you kill the suspense of the ending, knowing that he is going to die? Or do you enhance the experience by letting the audience in on it? Are they on the edge of their seats pleading with Joe?
At the end of the day you need to make a choice and that was the choice Wilder made. Is it wrong? No. It's just a choice. A great film whatever way you slice it.
What was interesting to me as a writer and filmmaker is that Sylvia didn't know that Holden (Joe) was dead in the pool at the beginning of the film and the he was narrating from the grave. I didn't really think of the device much before and it seemed fairly clever that a dead man was narrating the story of how he got to be that way. That is until we finished the film and I told Sylvia what had happened in the beginning of the film. She much preferred that she didn't know what happened to him and found the film to be quite suspenseful and engaging. The fact that Joe was killed was quite a shock to her.
It's a concept that the writer always has to grapple with, the audience. How much to they know? How much to they need to know? What is the best time to reveal information and when are you going to get the greatest impact? Do you kill the suspense of the ending, knowing that he is going to die? Or do you enhance the experience by letting the audience in on it? Are they on the edge of their seats pleading with Joe?
At the end of the day you need to make a choice and that was the choice Wilder made. Is it wrong? No. It's just a choice. A great film whatever way you slice it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)