Category: english

Will The Avengers be exceptional or generic?

When the first trailer for The Avengers hit the net on Tuesday, I tweeted something which has been on my mind for a few days now: I haven’t been this excited about a film and followed every step of its development since The Lord of the Rings, ten years ago. My exclamation met with incredulity from my fellow film buff friend Carsten: “I don’t get it”, he wrote. “Looks totally generic.” And I couldn’t help but tell him, he’s right.

Others have already voiced their skepticism about Marvel’s big project. “Wired” author Erin Biba tweeted “So I guess The Avengers is just gonna be Iron Man 3 then”, and “Cinemablend” made an excellent list of 5 Reasons The Avengers Trailer Was Kind Of A Letdown: nothing new, no character dynamics, not enough characters, terrible music and the best reason: “It just didn’t make The Avengers seem as special as it is.”

Want to watch the trailer again? Here it is.

I think “Cinemablend”‘s last reason is key here, and it ties in with Erin’s Tweet. If The Avengers will really only be a sort of Tony Stark show with a couple of other guys in the background, then it will become another generic comic book movie, maybe even a comic book movie that suffers from the extra plot stuffed in for franchise reasons like Iron Man 2. And the trailer doesn’t do much to ward off that sentiment.

Nevermind that the movie turned out to be terrible, but do you remember the first teaser trailer for The Phantom Menace? It did have that “Every saga has a beginning …”-feel to it. It had Anakin Skywalker meeting Obi-Wan for the first time, it had the moment where Darth Maul unveils his double-bladed lightsaber. It definitely got me excited. The first teaser for The Fellowship of the Ring said “It wasn’t until now that the legend could finally come to life!” – even more excitement there. The Avengers trailer doesn’t even say “Avengers assemble!”. The teaser at the end of Captain America did a much better job at making this exceptional movie project actually look exceptional (not least because of the “Some Assembly Required” tagline).

The question stands: Will The Avengers, the movie itself, not the effort that went into building up the project, actually be exceptional? Something the trailer pulled into question for me is: Does Marvel see this film as a culmination? A finale of sorts to the five movies that preceded it? Or will it be just a continuation of the universe they are building? If people keep expecting the former and the movie turns out to be the latter, with too many loose ends, not at least some sense of closure and no general feeling of Big Momentness – it will definitely disappoint a lot of people.

I don’t read comic books continually and generally haven’t followed any periodical narrative regularly for some time now (I only watch tv series on DVD sets), but what Marvel has been trying to do with the building of their universe and the creation of their franchises is basically to import comic book narrative mechanics into the movie world. The first Avengers book was a decisive narrative moment in time, because it brought together heroes that hadn’t worked together before, but it was no culmination, it was a beginning – and it ultimately did feel quite generic to me when I caught up with reading it recently. In one of the last panels, one of the characters says something to the effect of “A team of superheroes, huh? We could give it a try.” Not really very momentous.

If Joss Whedon knows what he’s doing, like I hope he does, he will not make this look like Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Cap and the rest of them are merely giving it a try. He will make this The Moment We’ve All Been Waiting For(tm), when the heroes of five movies finally assemble. And then, The Avengers will be exceptional – and not as generic as its first trailer.

RePotter PostScript #1 – The other RePotters

I was obviously not the only one who looked back at the Harry Potter films this summer. I read some other interesting retrospectives and wanted to share them.

The most thorough retrospective I found was “Slant” Magazine’s “Week with a wizard”. Author Ted Pigeon examines each film in a separate blog entry with film scholarly expertise – and comes to many similar conclusions as me and my interviewees. There is no easy way to link to the series, so here are the individual blog entries:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

A friend pointed me to a more humourous take at the “Guardian”, where Charlie Lyne sat through a marathon viewing of all but the last film.

And then there is my favourite one: Matt Zoller Seitz sitting down with his teenage daughter. They mostly discuss the last film, but also try to look at the larger picture of what the Harry Potter movies did for the Potter generation, something I was very interested in in my podcast series.

If you find any other good Potter Retrospectives, be sure to point them out in the comments.

RePotter: Collaborative Blog and Podcast Project about the Harry Potter films

I bought the box and I want to re-watch the Harry Potter movies and discuss them here before the last one is out – working title: “RePotter”. The form of discussion is not determined yet. I’m up for recorded phone or skype conversations, live conversations, Instant Messaging sessions, written reviews or anything else you can imagine. Who will join me? You don’t have to commit for all the films, a single one will do.

Reply in the comments or e-mail me at kontakt@alexandergajic.de.

Kenneth Branagh’s Thor and the 5 Joys of 3D Done Right

Edit: Uh-oh, it took a friend to alert me to the fact that Thor was not conceived and filmed in 3D. I feel really stupid now. However, to turn this in my favor, it shows a) that good 3D-conversion can work and b) that good direction can be even better in 3D. I rest my case.

Kenneth Branagh’s film Thor is the most 3D-fun I’ve had in a live action film so far. There, I said it. Suck on that, Cameron. Part of that might have to do with the script which, I thought, cleverly juggled the absolute preposterousness of the setting with the right amount of pathos and humour whenever they were needed. Part of it might have to do with the performances by Natalie Portman, Chris Hemsworth, Stellan Skarsgård and the rest of the gang which exhibited that same tongue-not-quite-but-almost-in-cheek balance. And a large part was the really good 3D-mise-en-scène by Kenneth Branagh.

Looking back at the film, here is what I think Branagh kept in mind while shooting.

1. Keep Moving

There’s two ways to experience space on the screen. Either you leave a lot of time to sink your mind into it and explore it (this is the approach that Wim Wenders took in Pina) or you are constantly reminded of it, because stuff (including the camera) doesn’t just move left to right anymore, but front to back as well. All the time. Thor is very kinetic (except in close-up shots, see point 3) and the movement gives depth to both characters and environments.

2. Use the 3D-Space

Branagh really makes everything of the three axes he has at his disposal. His camera flies, swoops, cranes up and down all the time. This is a sort of standard procedure in CG-landscapes these days and of course Thor has its fair share of roaming establishing shots in pure computer space. But Branagh does the same in non-CG environments. For example, from a medium shot in which the character walks towards the camera, Branagh suddenly pulls out and up into a topshot. What a great way to feel that you are experiencing space without being poked in the face.

3. Behold the power of the closeup

Branagh breaks the relentless kineticism of his fight scenes with comparatively endless dialogues in closeup. And this is where the real magic happens. I don’t think Natalie Portman has ever seemed as enchanting as she was when I had her face 15 feet high in 3D right in front of me. My girlfriend, who was sitting next to me, pretty much admitted the same thing about Chris Hemsworth. The best film critics have written about the power of the closeup in the cinema. Well, it’s back – and this time, it’s personal.

4. If you don’t have diagonal lines, create them

3D thrives on diagonal lines in the image that visualize distance. If you’re not in Tron, you don’t get diagonals in every image. Branagh very cleverly sidesteps this dilemma by just putting the camera at an angle whenever he can. Even his close-ups are often ever so slightly tilted up or down compared to traditional camera positions. Shazam! Instant 3D-space.

5. Cut as fast as you want

Some of the fight scenes in Thor are fast as hell and I wasn’t confused at all. There is either some very clever stereo-continutity at work here that I didn’t grasp or it just doesn’t matter. I guess it’s the latter, and this is one of the points I will retract from my five Predictions of eight months ago: Filmmaker’s, don’t be nice to your audiences. Shock them and slap them in the face. In the long term, this has always led to the most interesting films.

Rango – and new ways of directing animated films

A behind the scenes featurette for Gore Verbinskis upcoming animated movie Rango has been floating around the web for over six weeks now.

Verbinski is the fourth live action director who, in recent times, tried his hand at directing an animated feature – if you leave out folks like Robert Zemeckis and James Cameron who worked with Perfomance Capturing. Like his three predecessors, George Miller (Happy Feet), Wes Anderson (Fantastic Mr Fox) and Zack Snyder (The Legend of the Guardians), who also weren’t raised in an animation environment, Verbinski brought an interesting new directing style to the table.

As the featurette shows, he actually gathered the actors together on a small sound stage and let them act out the movie with a few basic props. This, apparently, made it easier both for the actors, because they could interact with each other (while usually vocal recordings are done with one actor at a time alone in a booth), and for Verbinski himself, who could actually direct a cast rather than keep the complete puzzle of recordings in his head and stitch it together afterwards.

The featurette also mentions that the material created during the shoot served as a reference for the animators. The question that arises in this context is, how much of that is true. Pierre Coffin, one of the directors of Despicable Me recently debunked the featurette myth that video footage from actors recording voices in a booth is important for the animators’ work.

Live action reference footage has been used in animation since the early Disney days (for some great insights into the process, watch the bonus material on the latest DVD edition of Pinocchio), but even Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston, in their Disney Animation Bible “The Illusion of Life”, explain that

Animators always had the feeling they were nailed to the floor when their whole sequences were shot ahead of time in live action. Everyone’s imagination as to how a scene might be staged was limited by the placement of the camera (…).(p. 331)

At the beginning of the chapter on live action footage they note that

Live action could dominate the animator, or it could teach him. It could stifle imagination, or inspire great new ideas. It all depended on how the live action was conceived and shot and used.(p. 319)

I had the rare pleasure of seeing storyboard artist Christian De Vita give his talk on the development process of Fantastic Mr Fox at eDIT Frankfurt last year. He explained that the “direction” of the film consisted mostly of Wes Anderson, De Vita (who would sketch out Anderson’s ideas) and a film editor holed up in a hotel room in Paris. Anderson would act out every character in every scene and the editor would stitch the footage together in order to create reference footage for the animation studio in Britain, who had to animate from that footage and wasn’t always too happy about it.

In a way, this did create a similar situation to the one that Verbinski used on Rango – with the difference that all actions were staged and performed by one person, the director.

What all of this shows is, once again, how the field of feature animation has changed in its second coming of the last decade. Live action actors have pretty much replaced trained voice actors for principal roles. The Pixar process has put a lot more emphasis on animation as a director’s medium – whereas in the Golden Age of Disney and Warners, the industry stars were basically the animators and animation supervisors (e. g. the Nine Old Men). And now live action directors bring approaches from their background into the game that diminish the recognition of animators as the true artists behind animated films even further. On top of all this, there is the ongoing hybridisation of live action and animation through visual effects and performance capturing.

It will be interesting to see what the animation industry will make of this and if there will at some point be an oversaturation of live action elements in animation that will result in a return to more pre-Disney, i.e. liberated, animation techniques in the future – or if the two approaches will just continue to co-exist like they do now.

5 3D directors – and what we can expect from them

3D is coming at us from several angles at the moment, but has yet to prove that the medium is not the message. I take a look at five directors who drive 3D forward and try to predict what role they will play in the future of stereoscopic filmmaking.

Rise to Power: Made two of the best, action packed Science-Fiction Sequels and created some of the most memorable effects scenes in cinema history with Aliens, the Terminator films and The Abyss. Then went off and realized the highest-grossing film ever. Twice.

Claim to Fame: Almost single-handedly convinced the movie industry that 3D is worth pursuing.

Defining Characteristics: Epic epicness coupled with sentimentality of the highest degree.

Lined up: Two sequels to Avatar that will continue to explore the world he created.

The Verdict: Cameron is a force of nature. What his films lack in artistic merit, they make up for in sheer, inescapable, gripping bombast. There are no signs of this changing in the near future.

Rise to Power: Married effects, character drama and the manipulation of the space-time continuum in classics like the Back to the Future trilogy and Forrest Gump.

Claim to Fame: Pioneered and developed “perfomance capturing”, and with it digital 3D, in a series of films that were really not great but succesful enough to keep him going.

Defining Characteristics: Creates settings that eerily sit between animation and live action aesthetics with few cuts and sweeping camera moves to explore 3D.

Lined up: As producer, Mars needs Moms for Disney in which Seth Green plays his inner child. As director, Yellow Submarine, the remake of a film about a band whose latest achievement is making it onto iTunes.

The Verdict: Zemeckis has left his mark in the development of 3D but his style has become a bit predictable and even seems slightly old-fashioned compared to the general zeitgeist.

Rise to Power: After directing several commercials, he revived the American zombie film and brought a new quality of aestheticized violence to Hollywood cinema with 300 and Watchmen.

Claim to Fame: Directed an animated fantasy film about, of all things, owls, which looked stunning but suffered from an overcrowded story.

Defining Characteristics: Applies 3D to both space and time with his signature slow motion fight scenes. Seems to like the grandiose iconography of fascism.

Lined up: His first original screenplay, Sucker Punch, will be converted to 3D, while he tackles the next reboot of the most boring of all superheroes, Superman: Man of Steel.

The Verdict: One of the most challenging visual directors around, to whom 3D seems to come naturally. However, the quality of his films seems to be very dependent on that of the source material.

Rise to Power: Gave stop-motion animation its mainstream groove back by directing Tim Burton’s phantasmagoria The Nightmare before Christmas.

Claim to Fame: Coraline, a film that reads like the book on how 3D should work, especially in animation.

Defining Characteristics: Builds worlds that are slightly askew, both visually and storywise.

Lined up: Has returned to Disney/Pixar to work on more stop motion films.

The Verdict: Might produce the first film for Pixar that actually embraces 3D in its mise-en-scene.

Rise to Power: Made films about maniacs of all colours as part of Germany’s new wave in the 70s, then became one of the most leftfield directors around, creating motion pictures in every genre, form and country.

Claim to Fame: Got exclusive access to ancient French caves to film them in 3D in Cave of Forgotten Dreams.

Defining Characteristics: Embraces everything that fascinates him and turns it into something strange … and good.

Lined up: No word yet if there’s more 3D to come.

The Verdict: Herzog, with his oddball mentality and his talent for tearing down cinematic borders, might be one of those who leads 3D from childhood to maturity.

Photos by Steve Jurvetson, David Shankbone, rwoan, Thomas Crenshaw and erinc salor, used under a Creative Commons 2.0 licence.

Stuff I learned this week – #49/10

Tron:Legacy – My favourite Quote (so far)

I am fascinated, if not obsessed with the idea that we live in the future now. Adam Rogers’s behind-the-scenes article on Tron: Legacy for “Wired” recently demonstrated this point in a way I never really thought about. But it’s true.

All those artists at Digital Domain know they’re creating Tron’s reality by creating it in reality. “We’ve achieved what the first film predicted,” [Director Joseph] Kosinski says. Jeff Bridges had to get a full-body laser scan during preproduction, an eerie hearkening to his digitization in the first movie. When he shot his scenes as Clu, the motion-capture rig he wore to translate his facial movements to Rev 4 included a visor that looked uncannily like the helmet he wore in the original. And the prospect of an unimpeachable, photorealistic avatar for Bridges ought to make the Screen Actors Guild freak out.
(read the whole Article)

It’s really a shame that the new Tron doesn’t arrive in German theaters until the end of January. It’s a film I will hopefully be blogging a lot more about soon.

Requiem // 102 – 19

I feel humbled to be able to take part in Requiem // 102, which I wrote about in detail earlier. See all the fascinating contributions on the project’s official site. Here is mine.

Darren Aronofsky’s Requiem for a Dream comes with a reputation attached. Even though I had somehow managed to not see it yet before I signed up for this project, I knew from countless conversations that Requiem is 1. very disturbing, 2. cut very fast and 3. groundbreaking. While watching it, with the advantage of ten years hindsight of course, I found that it is 1. much too blatant to be disturbing and 2. not actually cut that fast in most portions (and not even that fast in the fast sequences, now that moviegoers’ brains are used to Paul Greengrass movies). I’ll try to get to 3. in the end and talk about my frame first.

The image is from minute 19 of the film and shows Jennifer Connelly’s character Marion looking at herself in her appartment’s bathroom mirror before one of the film’s famous drug montages shows the use of both heroin and cocaine. The drugs turn the desaturated gloom of this image into a triumph: The expressionless face in this frame changes to an expression of bliss, Marion slowly raising her arms while the image fades to white. In the scene before this one, Marion and Harry have decided to spend the money they make through drug dealing on a shop where she can sell her self-made clothes. The couple is not only high on drugs, they are drunk on their expected success.

The juxtaposition of the two facial expressions before and after the consumption of drugs is echoed again in the very fact that Marion is placed in front of a mirror for this scene. There are really two Marions here, the one that she sees („The most beautiful girl in the whole world“, as Harry tells her again and again) and the soon-to-become-lifeless junkie the audience recognizes.

The fact that the self-perception of the characters usually differs greatly from their actual appearance could be called one of the main thematic devices of the film. Here, Marion believes she is on her way up while it’s already pretty clear that the only way for all four main characters is down – after all, the film claims to be a requiem for their dream. Sara’s story expresses this notion even more explicitly: She believes she is looking and feeling great, while her general demeanor already has something quite harrowing about it when Harry visits her, and will collapse into complete delusion later on. Finally, Harry will believe that the wound on his arm is not actually that serious – only to have the same arm amputated in the final scenes.

Aronofsky revisits the bathroom setting, which is exclusively Marion’s domain, for two later scenes which nicely complement this one in the season triptych that structures the narrative. While the junkies are swimming in drug abundance this early in the film, the next scene featuring the bathroom has Marion in a stupor of withdrawal, knocking over furniture in search for drugs (for all his blatantness, Aronofsky resists the cliché of having her smash the mirror). The third act, of course, puts Marion in the bathroom again for one of the film’s most iconic scenes, in which she soaks in the tub and then screams into the water after she slept with Big Tim.

Marion is almost naked in this scene, wearing a bra but no panties, and glimpses of nudity like this one are probably among the reasons why the film caused such a stir at the time. Presented and lit the way it is here, of course, the exposed skin serves both as an indicator for the state of depravity that Marion is already in and as a symbol for her vulnerability.

My general feeling was that Requiem for a Dream, in accordance with its title, works very much like a piece of dramatic classical music, like an opera. Not only because its soundtrack is one of its best assets, but because it paints with such broad strokes, has such a clear-cut, symbol-laden three-act structure (Summer, Fall, Winter) and lets you expect early on that everyone will end up in a most tragic finale. The message that „Because of modern consumerism, we’re all junkies in one way or another“ is hammered home by means of the drug montages throughout the whole film. The concept might have been clever at the time (my comment on the issue of the film being groundbreaking), but I find it quite annoying in much the same way that Requiem seems unnecessesarily pessismistic in the way all characters are denied redemption – not because they’re unwilling to redeem themselves, however, but apparently because as junkies they deserve to be treated like shit by society.

When it comes to drug movies, I have to say I much prefer the three-years-older Trainspotting. It seems superior in the way it first presents you with a vibrant and funny image of being on drugs, only to punch you in the stomach with the horrors that follow. Requiem instead treats you with regular doses of foreboding, hyperbole and sentimentality – overwhelming you in much the same way a drug would do.

Stuff I Learned this Week – #47/10

Mind over Meta!