It’s always fun when this happens. It takes movies beyond their sheer identity as art and entertainment and discusses them as the media circus they are. The Producers of Skyline gave Cinematical an interview, in which they try to defend themselves against the hailstorm of bad reviews their film has garnered so far.
However, rather than lash out and actually defend their film, they actually give in a bit, saying stuff like “Pretense be damned. I know it’s not a perfect movie, but I’ve enjoyed plenty of movies with flaws before”, which is probably one of the worst things you can think about your own work, if you’re trying to stand up for it. Later, they blame the way the film was marketed, as an epigone to Independence Day rather than as a piece of chamber horror with aliens.
I haven’t seen Skyline yet, it hasn’t been released in Germany so far, but I wanted to share this fun bit of Meta-Hollywood. The link again.
November sees the return of the interview series(Link is in German) I started in April, in which I talk to people, who were able to harness the power of the web to change their lives and careers. My aim is not to talk to huge celebrities and dotcom bosses (yet), but to portray those, who have remained relatively low key but whose lives have taken an online turn nevertheless. After four German interviews, the next two will be in English.
YouTube is still only five years old, but man has it changed the way we watch the world. Now, moving images of almost everything are only a click away, especially when it comes to music. Several people have managed to kickstart some sort of career from taping themselves. Merton is one of them.
If you haven’t come across Merton’s awesome piano improv sessions on Chatroulette, you’ve probably been living under a rock. Merton managed to merge his talent for improvisational piano playing with one of the web’s newest crazes and created something unique that sent ripples through the net and even all the way to Ben Folds. After being the first person, who answered my opening question with a definitive “Yes”, I spoke to him about his success, his online persona and his plans.
Do you consider yourself an internet success story?
Yes. I have a type of talent that would have been difficult to show to the world before the internet (and YouTube in particular) existed. Until five years ago, I would have had very little chance of gaining wide exposure, but now YouTube has made it possible for individuals to bypass the audition or jury process and just present ourselves directly to the public. That’s priceless, and I don’t take it for granted.
Tell me a bit about your background? What was the genesis of the Chatroulette-Piano-Improv?
I have played improvisational piano for my whole life. I’ve never written a piece of music, I only make it up. I’ve always liked performing in unorthodox situations, like in a public place where people are not expecting to see a pianist. When I saw ChatRoulette, I liked the possibility of playing for strangers in a low-pressure environment. I hadn’t been much of singer prior to that, but I didn’t think I could be very interactive with just piano-playing so I began to sing in order to connect with people more easily.
How did it feel when your YouTube videos got so successful? Did you expect it?
I thought that my first video was very funny, but no, I did not expect it to become that big. This is a cliché, but it was like a dream. The viewcount grew larger than any number of people I could rationally imagine, and it was very surreal.
Then, how did it feel when Ben Folds paid tribute to you? Did you feel exploited or honored at first?
I felt honored, simply because it was obvious that he was not really pretending to be me. That would be absurd, because I could just go out in public and show who I am and he would be disproven. He sent me an e-mail, explaining that it was just a tribute in good fun.
How did the whole story continue? Apparently you met up eventually.
He was playing in Colorado, near where I was going to be, so we decided to meet up. We only had about 15 minutes, but we had a nice talk about music and life and pianos.
Have you always been an internet person?
As a consumer, yes. As a performer, no. Prior to the ChatRoulette videos I had posted a few solo piano videos, which after 4 years on YouTube had about 200 views each.
Some people might now consider you one of the YouTube-15-Minutes-of-Fame Has-beens. How do you see yourself in this context?
I may have had my one big moment as a mass-media newsbite kind of phenomenon, but it has launched me into a career as a musical performer. My Subscribers currently number 346,000 and they increase every day, and I get increasingly larger offers for advertising and performance opportunities.
Did your YouTube fame lead to anything else? Did you make any money off it? (Did you even want to?)
I’m just starting to accept larger appearances, after spending the summer finding out if I could actually perform live and generate the same personal chemistry as on ChatRoulette. It works well in the right kinds of situations. Although I became well-known because of an internet tech gimmick, the basic format of what I do (a guy with a piano) can happen almost anywhere. If I make more money from it, I’d like it to be in the form of interesting performance opportunities, like being paid to play in an unusual public location.
You’ve built a brand around yourself, you are so recognizable that your outfit was even suggested as a Halloween costume by a webzine. Yet you prefer to remain a character with only a stage name. Why is that?
I’m a very private person, and it’s nice to have the advantage of taking off my celebrity costume and being unrecognizable. It’s the best of both worlds. It won’t last, but I really appreciate this little part of my life where I can perform for millions of people and yet remain anonymous.
What are your general thoughts about the social web? What does it do to music? To musicians? If you could, would you change anything?
I’m curious to see where we’ll find the balance between people’s desire for free music and the artists’ desire to make money. It seems to be moving towards some arrangement where the individual consumer doesn’t pay, but a company pays to advertise somewhere in relation to the product. I think it’s great that musicians can now get widespread public exposure without having to convince a record company that they’re worth the pressing of thousands of albums.
Next week: Gavin Castleton and “Won over Frequency”.
This post is part 5 of the series Success Story Internet?
The series talks with people, in whose lives the internet has changed something, about the internet.
Geek Buzz has really become important for movie marketing. Last year’s Avatar was the first film to actually preview around twenty minutes of footage for audiences several months before the film’s release in the hope of building up a positive word-of-mouth vibe for the film’s release (a strategy that seemed to have worked; even though audiences on the whole weren’t too thrilled about the preview footage). The maker’s of Tron Legacy, a late sequel to 1982’s Tron, tried the same tonight.
They did a good job. Even though the storyline for Legacy looks as preposterous as that of its predecessor, the preview footage shows that the new film will definitely be something to look forward to for lovers of excellent imagery. As could be glimpsed in the trailer, Tron Legacy stays true to Tron‘s original backlit, “black theatre” look while adding some more CGI-cool. This world of dark grey tones, nerved by fluorescent lights, is really something you haven’t seen for a while. It manages to conjure up 80s nostalgia while still looking pretty nifty by today’s standards.
In addition, director Joseph Kosinski and his team really seem to get 3D and use it in the narrative way Alice in Wonderland inexplicably didn’t. The non-computer-world is 2D, making the 3D world of the computer system (ironically, the “simulated” world, of course) exquisitely hyperreal. However, they go beyond that: The preview footage included the scene in which Sam (Garrett Hedlund) discovers the old lab of his father Flynn (Jeff Bridges) but left out the actual transition scene from Earth to Grid. However, when Sam discovers the secret door behind the “Tron” video game and descends into the lab, i.e. gets closer to the computer world, the image slowly but steadily gained depth while staying 2D, cleverly anticipating and foreshadowing what’s to come. The only other movie that used 3D in this psychological way so far, was the amazing Coraline.
The verdict: “Tron Night” worked for me. I am definitely looking forward to Tron Legacy, at least for a good two hours of fun in the cinema.
The digital age proves again and again that it can be a great catalyst for creative ways to deal with a given source material. The DVD audio commentary, which was supposed to be the actual focus of this series, is one of those ways. But how about a commentary for a music album? Gavin Castleton has done just that, and it’s pretty awesome.*
Castleton’s 2009 album Home is a concept album, on which he autobiographically works through the beginnings of a failed six year relationship and then introduces – a zombie attack, from which he is eventually saved by – beetles. As crazy as that sounds, it actually makes for a great art pop album with lots of hooks over intricate rhythmic arrangements.
On his home page, Castleton has now included the possibility to listen to the album in full – with audio commentary. In the commentary, he not only explains what musical influences went into which part of the album and why. He also gives some more background on the events of the story and how he tried to reflect them in the music. One rarely gets a chance to have an artist talk the listener through a piece of music like that. It is well worth listening to for everyone who likes to investigate creative processes while they are unfolding in front of his eyes, or ears in this case.
* He is probably not the first, but the first one that I took note of.
1. This is what 3D is supposed to feel like. Zack Snyders trademark style, which basically lets the camera rule the space-time continuum it inhabits, lends itself perfectly to the new way of telling stories. While Snyder hardly makes use of z-axis space to convey information he couldn’t bring across in 2D, his great advantage in Legend of the Guardians is that he actually has three dimensions to move in. Almost all of the film is spent either in flight or in trees (which also means movement in three dimensions) and this is where 3D really shines. Add to that Snyders famous slo-mo-shots and some sweeping vistas and your eyes can’t stop ogling the beauty you are presented with on screen. Watching Legend of the Guardians really makes you wish, 300 and Watchmen had been in 3D. 300, especially, a film without a plot to speak of that lives purely by its visuals, could have been enhanced no end by stereoscopy. If he carries on like this with the movies he has lined up (Sucker Punch and Superman), Snyder might become one of the most prolific 3D directors around.
2. Snyders treatment of Kathryn Lasky’s novels confirms my earlier thesis that we have a lot to look forward to, if more live action directors with a clear thematic profile take to animation. Legend of the Guardians overtly reflects Snyders preoccupation with the fascist imagery and ideology of grandeur and fights of the weak against the self-styled strong. It is probably owed to the fact that Legends is aimed at kids that the lines of good and evil are drawn in an extremely simplistic way here.
3. Kudos to Animal Logic for their pitch-perfect creature and effects animation. They got to practice beaks and feathers in Happy Feet and really make the most of it in Legends. Owls, with their round faces and crooked beaks, probably topped the list of animals least likely to be anthropomorphised as heroes until this point, but the animators really did a superb job in making them believable, likeable and distinguishable. Much of this can be attributed to the realistic fluffiness of the feathers, which really serve their purpose to give every owl its individual character.
4. I have not read Kathryn Lasky’s book that the film is based on, but it wasn’t difficult to glimpse the detailed and imaginative world that Lasky has probably created in her series of novels through the bric-a-brac script that strives to cram every bit of Ga’Hoole mythology into 100 minutes of film while still leaving enough time for action sequences. The result is a desaster: The film jumps from one scene to another with hardly any transition, introduces new characters and plot twists by the minute and leaves no time at all for contemplation in much the same way that The Golden Compass or Inkheart did two or three years earlier. When will Hollywood finally stop turning fantasy novels that live by their worldbuilding into movies that pale in comparison? Hasn’t film history proven over and over again that – when it comes to fantasy genre films – short stories, novellas and graphic novels make much better source material? TV minseries are a much better medium to capture the intricacies of novels as this one, even if it means sacrificing some visual kablooie.
5. Even Rocky had a montage. But the training/getting to know their new home montage of Legends is an incredibly weak piece of filmmaking the film could have totally done without. It adds almost nothing to the exposition monologue which one of the characters, who is probably important in the novel but extremely flat here, just gave a few minutes earlier. The montage is also accompanied by a pop song which breaks with the whole atmosphere of the movie, but had to be included because it makes tie-in money and because it fits perfectly with this artist called Owl city. Get it? Because they are in a city of owls. Mercy! Please!
Addendum: Zack Snyder talks quite detailed about his 3D-ideas here and there is an extensive series of interviews with the key creatives of the film here.
A lot of interesting aspects of filmmaking in the current era were discussed at the recent eDIT Filmmaker’s Festival in Frankfurt and I could only cover a few of them in my podcast. However, I picked a few select quotes from some of the other panels during the festival that, I believe, offer some insight into the film industry as it stands right now, wedged between 3D, digital imaging and a marketing-driven economy.
It’s been a pretty crappy time for imagery in the past 10 years.
John Mathieson Director of Photography, Robin Hood
John Mathieson said this in response to my question about whether he considers the digital intermediate process a part of cinematography these days. I guess he pretty much doesn’t. Before, Mathieson had given a presentation on Robin Hood, in which he spent most of his time making fun of the movie and championing Gladiator, which he also photographed. Mathieson, born in 1961 but apparently a bit old school when in comes to filmmaking, not only lambasted Robin Hood for being shot on uninventive locations, he mostly criticized its look – for which he was partly responsible.
Films shot in the digital era, he said, look overly grey and desaturated, featuring ashen flesh tones and lighting that, while it’s a lot more cohesive than before, is boring and lacking life. He blamed not only the Digital Intermediate process, which is a popular target for ridicule and worry but also the newer film stocks that, apparently, no longer result in satisfying images. I would love to explore this topic further and see what other cameramen think.
I didn’t change my cutting style one iota for 3D.
Ken Schretzmann Editor, Toy Story 3
Ken spent a lot of his excellent presentation explaining the inside-out process of editing animated films. While everyone sat glued to their seats watching him piece together dialogue from dozens of takes and laughed at the opening scene of Toy Story 3 as it was originally planned, the fact that the movie was planned and executed in 3D didn’t seem to enter anyone’s mind. It certainly didn’t enter mine until after the Q&A, but I managed to ask Ken afterwards and the above quote is what he told me.
This was news to me, especially since I have heard a lot of people tell their stories about how 3D demands a different style of filmmaking. Come to think of it, though, producer Mark Gläser, just two days earlier, had said that while he did wear a t-shirt saying “NO FLARES, NO WIPES, NO WINDOW VIOLATION” on his first 3D-shoot, the team quickly found out that in fact they could make a lot of things work which are supposed not to work in 3D.
Ken Schretzmann added that 3D at Pixar was handled in a completely different department. His editing of the film happened in 2D, he said, not least because everyone knew that the film would spend most of his lifespan on 2D media (i.e. DVD and BluRay). So: will 3D be “only” an evolution or will it be a revolution in cinema – apparently, both approaches work.
In animation featurettes, animators always explain that they desperately need the footage of the actors recording their lines as reference. It’s all bullshit!
Pierre Coffin Director, Despicable Me
I loved the fact that Coffin debunked one of the favourite myths about animated filmmaking with a wave of his hand. His witty, self-deprecating presentation was definitely one of the funniest of the festival, and brought some welcomed European chaos to the well-ordered Hollywood parade that took up a lot of the spaces before him (nothing against well-ordered Hollywood filmmaking, by the way, Despicable Me suffers immensely from the fact that it’s all over the place in terms of storytelling).
While I don’t believe that it is really “all bullshit” – there are always moments where you can see that the voice actor inspired the (animated) acting of a given character – it does shed some light on the fact that the production of films, as presented to the audience in featurettes, has become immensely streamlined in terms of the story it tells. The production of almost every movie, it seems, does have a certain stereotypical narrative that is repeated over and over again for marketing purposes until it perpetuates itself. The story of “We need the footage of the actors to develop our animation” has been told so many times now that it has become a truism, making a chaotic artistic process like animation both more accessible for audiences and more flattering for celebrity voice actors.
The marketing of movies has never been as important as today, especially with every studio eyeing every movie for the possibility to turn it into a franchise. Marketing gone stale can not only result in promotion sickness, it can also, on a less annoying note, produce these kinds of narratives that journalists are all too happy to repeat over and over again.
For my English readers and/or future listeners, this is the trimmed down version of the first Real Virtuality Podcast – it features only the interview with Stephen Rivkin, one of the editors of Avatar.
This is my first podcast. Please enjoy and ignore the fact that my accent is all over the place.
I’m an advocate of 3D, always have been, and I firmly believe it will take over the way colour once did. But especially after speaking to Ludger Pfanz for my last article about 3D-TV, I have thought a lot more about how I believe 3D might actually change the way moving pictures will look in the future.
It basically comes down to this: You will get to see less shots and they will be more beautiful – until, that is, 3D has become so accepted that visionaries come along and turn it on its head again in maybe ten to 15 years. Here is how I would break it up:
1. Editing: Less and more Deliberate Cuts
I’m sure David Bordwell has numbers instead of a gut feeling about how fast films have become. Intensified continuity has taken over almost every genre now and action scenes in particular have become muddled and confusing (I just watched The Expendables and man was that anti-climactic and devoid of any money shots). 3D, which wants our minds to sink into the picture, will return to longer shots and more of an overview of what is happening on the scene, maybe souped up with slow-mos and time compression the way Zack Snyder tried in 300 and Watchmen.
2. Cinematography: Goodbye, Shaky-Cam
What was still pretty radical when it was boosted by the Dogme film makers in the nineties has now become a staple of every film that wants to look in any way “gritty”: hand-held, shaky cameras that appear to be right in the thick of it, thereby (like the fast cutting) often hiding what is actually going on. I expect more swooping, elegant camera moves in the future, especially because digital compositing allows the marriage of many shorter shots into one impressive one so well nowadays.
3. Mise-en-scène: The Return of Staging
3D means z-axis information, cultivated for our viewing pleasure. How better to make use of this than by going back to arranging actors on screen – their position sometimes telling us a lot more about their relationships than the words they say. In the last twenty years, talkative situations were solved mostly either by cutting or by static shots that made an artistic statement through their very immobility. The future might bring back moving actors again – a more theatrical way of movie-making, certainly, but not for the worse.
4. Composition: Artistry triumphs
Since its Grand Return, 3D has mostly been associated with fantasy, horror, dance and animated films. For good reason. These paradigms of cinema offer the broadest canvas on which to paint that otherworldy, uncanny feeling that stereoscopy (rather than holography) spreads throughout the cinema, where the viewer can experience space without being able to move within it as he pleases. Designed, precisely choreographed images allow for a much greater control of this feeling than captured, “realistic” images do. This applies even to documentaries, who, while photographing “real life” might just take more time to set up their images in the future than they did in the past.
5. And Finally: The Power of the Close-Up
This will be the big selling point of bringing 3D to genres that few can imagine in 3D at the moment: romantic comedies, melodramas, movies about people rather than images. The close-up, carefully and glamourously lit, was what put the stars right in our grasp. 3D can rely heavily on that idea. Watching the latest star-studded love film with your favourite poster boys and girls larger-than-life in 3D will make you want to sink into their baby blue eyes, their weather-lined faces, their luscious lips more than ever before. Better get the smelling salt ready for the faint of heart.
It’s not every day that you get challenged by Jeff Jarvis. Very well then, I accept. However, I’m not sure that I’ll win. There is more of an olympic spirit posesssing me right now.
A bit of background: Jeff took three tweets (1, 2, 3) to attack a Newsweek article that basically says that the amount of people using the internet to do meaningful interactive things in their free time (Blogging, Wikipedia, News Commenting etc.) is shrinking and gives the reason simply as “sloth”. While I certainly wasn’t fully convinced by the article I think it did make some points that I think might be true, and that scared me.
Like Jeff, I have always been adamant that people love doing things for free and can be just as good as professionals. However, I could imagine with (a) the web becoming more and more mainstream and part of our lives and more and more people using it that don’t want to contribute to it and (b) the web growing larger and larger, becoming ever more differentiated – that the actual amount of peopleactive at any one site goes down.
However, that was not the challenge. The challenge was to convince Jeff that magazines are not dead. Well, I don’t think they are, at least not for a while. While I am a supporter of a lot of the Buzzmachine theories, especially the one that the future of Journalism lies in ecosystems and not monoliths, I just don’t want to go along with the one that in essence says that journalists should stop presenting finished articles to audiences – which is what magazines do.
While I would say that written articles should be open to debate, change, admittance of mistakes and dialogue between author and audience in the wake of their publication, I also believe there should be the right to say “I like this article I have written as it is; I will gladly correct factual errors or supplement interesting addendums but I don’t want to crowdsource the whole thing until it is no longer mine but the crowd’s”. I don’t think that this is arrogance, it is artistic freedom.
But journalism is not art, you say. Indeed, most of it isn’t. I worked in a news agency for a year and I found it fascinating how we produced truly mutable articles that might begin with a quick announcement at the start of the day and end up as a summary with a completely different focus at the end of it. Then, the newspaper journalists would go and change and mold it once again for publication. A kind of b2b-crowdsourcing, if you will. I gladly accept that this process should continue down to a level of mutabilty that is indeed not restricted to journalists but open to everyone. That’s why I think Newspapers are definitely dead. The kind of articles they present us with were made to be changed all the time.
However, magazine articles and indeed a magazine as a whole, are different. They are much closer to an artistic statement than news are. A good magazine’s contents are carefully curated, designed and sometimes even timeless. The articles are long statements about “big pictures”.
I, for one, like being presented with a magazine like this as a finished – or at least mostly finished (see above, factual errors) – product, whose life cycle is a bit slower than that of an online news article. It means that I can also take the time to enjoy it because I know it won’t change for a while and the authors like their articles as artistic statements that might be refuted (or refudiated) and should please spawn debates – but for now they should stand as they are.
And because I think that a lot of people would agree, I believe that magazines are not dead yet.
I do agree that magazines have to change, shouldn’t rely on print, shouldn’t rely on advertising, build a community around their brand etc., but I still can believe that a particular form of curated, bundled journalistic content with a longevity that makes it closer to art/literature than commodity, will persist.
I saw this marquee in Vienna’s Prater amusement park last weekend and was amazed at the promise of a “5D” experience. Conventionally nowadays, three dimensions means stereoscopic vision while the fourth “dimension” is practical effects like shaking chairs and water attacks. Apparently, the fifth dimension here denotes smell-o-vision. Oh brave new world that has such people in it.
The nerd in me can never stop imagining a film made in five actual mathematical dimensions – impossible of course, but exciting: “Come closer everyone, and see the amazing orthogonality that couldn’t be represented – until now!”
You’ve built a brand around yourself, you are so recognizable that your outfit was even suggested as a 
The digital age proves again and again that it can be a great catalyst for creative ways to deal with a given source material. The DVD audio commentary, which was supposed to be the actual focus of this series, is one of those ways. But how about a commentary for a music album? Gavin Castleton has done just that, and it’s pretty awesome.*
