Archive for the ‘Movies and TV’ Category

Music Video of the Year

Saturday, March 6th, 2010

I seriously doubt anyone will top OK Go’s “This Too Shall Pass” Rube Goldberg Machine.

My comments posted over at Twenty-Sided:

A very big Thank You! to those evil capitalists at State Farm. Good neighbors, indeed.

It pays to download the HD version of this and single step through certain scenes. It’s hard to see how some of the stuff works in the regular YouTube window.

Some of my favorite bits:

At 00:23, when the big finger turns on the iPod playing the song, the speaker kicking out the ball bearing is reminiscent of another famous Rube Goldberg machine: Honda’s “Cog”. [01:39 Here.] That one had to be filmed in two takes, because it was too big to fit in the available space.

The sequence starting at 1:40, right after the piano falls (you can see scraps of wood from previous drops) and the shopping cart of film cans rolls down the ramp: a plastic saint ascends into heaven, which triggers the coming of an actual morning, portrayed by a yellow umbrella (umbrellas are a recurring motif), flying birds, and sprouting flowers, synched of course with the “when the morning comes” chorus.

Then, at 1:54, after the balls roll down the pin board (used in the classic demo of a “random” process generating a Gaussian curve): A small streamer flies over the flag-waving mousetraps to trigger the big red ball. I suspect the streamer had more predictable timing than the mousetrap chain.

The water machine at 2:15: there’s a little shiny weight swinging back and forth in time with the piano dinging

Forensics digression:
There’s a video out there claiming that the opening curtain covers a continuity break. A light can be seen through the curtain when it’s closed, but when it opens, the actual light is in a different place.

Stepping through frame by frame in HD, though, you can see that the first light is actually a specular reflection off the very shiny fabric. For two or three frames, after the light turns on, both the reflection and the actual light behind the curtain can be seen simultaneously.

Everybody sees the wrecked TVs behind the rolling globe — but at 2:36 you can see three or four reserve TVs, bound and gagged for sacrifice.

The car at 3:06 is the Make:Way race car from Make Magazine.

At 3:18, you can just see some of the gang graffiti that the crew painted over when they occupied the building. They had to rewire the place, too: the gang had stolen all the copper.

Finally, the big finale, after the flying dummy triggers the rain of umbrellas and the flock of paper airplanes at 3:20. (Just before the airplanes, you can see somebody standing up in the balcony.) The chorus is echoed by a string of painted boards unfolding like that little magic trick where the wooden cards, bound by cloth tape, seem to fall through themselves. The song ends in that wonderful crash starting from when the falling kitchen stove triggers the silent falling balloons.

At 3:32, off to the left, you can see painted silhouettes from a previous take.

Remarkable.

There’s another real time video for this song, done with a marching band and…but that would be a spoiler. The thing I love about that one is the kids beating on the drum at the end of the take.

The Forgotten

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

Waiting for the election coverage to come on at ten, I stumbled across an episode of ABC’s The Forgotten.

I was caught by a description of a woman who had pulled a gun out of her purse to fend off a somewhat overenthusiastic admirer. I waited for the expected demonization.

Instead, “I like this woman!” exclaims one of the regulars, a member of a volunteer team that tries to track down the stories behind missing person cases.

The woman in question turns out to be the focus of this episode’s investigation, and she turns out to be something of a heroine.

I don’t know that I’ll watch it regularly, but it’s good show as these things go. It stars Christian Slater, and I like him.

“The Dinner Guest”

Saturday, January 2nd, 2010

Joe Gleason shows us some people waiting for somebody.

via The Anchoress.

It makes me want to smoke a cigarette, simply because that would be a nice thing to do, like setting out flowers, or listening to music.

Or making a very fine short feature.

How Movies Are Made

Sunday, December 27th, 2009

Kung Fu Monkey shows us where Cut-Me-Own-Throat Dibbler’s sausages come from:

Movie executives do not lead happy lives. If you are an executive, this is your day: a scruffy man in a Hawaiian shirt walks into your office and says, “I need you to be personally responsible for giving me one hundred million dollars so I can go to Ireland and have people who pretend for a living act like they’re fighting imaginary dragons.”

“Will I get to see the dragons first?” you ask hopefully.

“Oh, no the dragons won’t exist until after we’re done shooting. The professional pretending people will be yelling at sticks. Occasionally, they will flee from a mop.”

And your job, as the exec, is to write him the check. Any sane man would break.

Now days, of course, they don’t even do that — they just stand in front of a big blue or green wall, and the entire set and all the fantasy stuff is computer generated later. In some movies, the pretending people don’t even appear — the computer clothes them with their characters’ bodies. All that’s left is their movement and voice.

By the way, the author of this piece, John Rogers, would be the scruffy man in the Hawaiian shirt, if I’m not mistaken. Oh, wait, I am mistaken. That would be the director. Rogers is the script writer. His cut would be a little more than $100,000, which, as he explains, amounts to about $10,000 a year, after expenses.

It’s the first article in a series on adapting books to movies, and it’s a great read.

Obama Caught in the Webb

Monday, December 21st, 2009

Wow. Too close to home to be funny. This is just flat out the truth.

Via Curmudgeonly and Skeptical.

Hollywood Doesn’t Know Its Own Message

Sunday, November 15th, 2009

Over at Big Hollywood, Leigh Scott writes about “The Hidden Truth Behind ‘V’”:

Scott Peters didn’t set out to make a show that exposed the dangers of hero worship and the insidiousness of fascist and statist societies. He didn’t want to compare the Obama administration and the Democrats to flesh eating reptiles.

But he did.

Peters simply imagined how, in today’s society, one group could control the masses. Replace religion with secular or scientific “hope.” Promise things that are impossible like free universal health care. Manipulate the media and force journalists to only portray the positives in order to protect their careers and their egos. Utilize the Internet through social networking and slick websites. Create a sense of “coolness” and “hipness” in order to woo the youth of the world.

All of these tactics are amoral, corrupt, shifty, and slimy. It’s not Peters’ fault that they would actually be used by an American politician.

The artist, the creative force that is Scott Peters, subconsciously knows that these tactics are wrong. He knows, deep down inside that the path of the Visitors, like all totalitarians, is similar to what Obama used to gain power. Behind the slick marketing campaign lies something else. Whether or not that “something else” in the real world is evil or just incompetent is yet to be seen.

It’s shocking that a major network would put out a high-profile show that seems to skewer this president and his lackeys. What is even more shocking is that the writer of the show, who nailed Obama’s marketing campaign right down to the key slogans and key policies, would dedicate his time and money to support something that his own inner voice discerned was wrong.

I have not seen V, nor will I be able to watch AMC’s remake of Patrick McGoohan’s classic surreal meditation on freedom, The Prisoner. (Although, depending on notices, I will get them both on DVD.) But Ian McKellen, the actor who portrays Number 2, seriously, seriously misses the point:

The liberal actor told Associated Press that his character embodies “the drawbacks of capitalism.”

“Capitalism offers you freedom, but far from giving people freedom, it enslaves them. That’s part of the show’s message,” McKellen said.

That’s a very different message from the 1960s original British television series which pitted individual rights and freedom against collectivism and state control.

I sincerely and devoutly hope that McKellan is every bit as confused about his show as Peters was.

There was a lot of 70s sillyness in McGoohan’s version, as I remember, but one thing there was not: at no time was there ever any doubt that Number 6 was imprisoned by a government, not a corporation. (nor, incidentally, was there any doubt about why Number 6 had been taken. The reviews and trailer for this version make it sound like Jim Caviezel’s six was just plucked at random.)

Nor is there any doubt about the intent of the original show:

Patrick McGoohan, creator and star of the TV series, once told New Video magazine about his alter-ego Number 6: ‘He shouldn’t have to answer to anyone. It’s entirely his prerogative, his God-given right as an individual, to proceed in any way he sees fit. That’s the whole point of it all.’

If what McKellan says is true, if the idea that “capitalism” is the root of all evil actually plays out in the show, then he has ruined something he does not understand, as if he tried to cast Romeo and Juliet as a warning against unprotected sex.


For a glance at what the alternative to capitalism has to offer, check out the excruciatingly poignant Lives of Others. For awhile, East Germany was a real life Village, and it was not quaint or well-scrubbed. The people were not pleasantly potty. The evil was right out in the open, and it touched people every single day, in ways large and small.

And far from capitalism, the evil was that most virulent form of the malignant fantasy of socialism, Communism.

It was no paradise, not for workers, not for actors, not even for the thugs who ran the place.

The No True Vampires Fallacy

Friday, October 16th, 2009

Ace of Spades points to Howard Kurtz, Horror Movie Retard:

Ever watch a horror movie where there’s tons of vampire-shit going down — bitten necks, bodies drained of blood, wolves suddenly baying in suburban subdivisions, mysterious nosferatu-looking cats who just took over the local funeral home?

And for almost an hour of the film’s running time, no one will even utter the word “vampire.” They keep suggesting serial killers, animal attacks, and maybe the power lines are sending out strange radiation which is making the wolves all bitey.

Because, in the movie’s fictive universe as in real life, vampires don’t exist (well… except for this one time), so it seems insane to even postulate the existence of such things. Better to claim that maybe all these transparently-vampirish shenanigans are the work of “some local kids trying to scare us.”

Enter Howard Kurtz, Horror Movie Retard. He sees a lot of vampy kind of stuff happening all around him, but he’s furiously groping for alternative explanations.

In Howard Kurtz’ world, “liberal media bias” is as insane to posit as the existence of vampires, so despite glaring evidence of liberal media bias, he can only guess that maybe there’s a rabid wolf out there that somehow can drain blood from its victims.

An interesting counterpoint to Hume’s Maxim, as described in the Michael Shermer piece, How Thinking Goes Wrong, that I pointed to a bit back.

The weird thing is, of course, that while there are many reasons from physics, chemistry, and biology why vampires can’t exist, at least in the forms attributed to them by the popular culture, there is absolutely no reason at all why the news media can’t be biased, on way or the other.

Oh, except that liberals are always good, right, evidenced based, and cool, while conservatives are ignorant, superstitious, racist fools. There really is no liberal bias, because that’s not bias at all, that’s just good common sense.

I keep forgetting.

Only In Texas

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

“She smokes, she drinks, you can’t control her. Time to trade her in.”
— Local car dealer ad. No, I swear, I saw it just minutes ago.

Bet I never get to see it again.

The Deification of Imbecility

Thursday, August 6th, 2009

Craig Ferguson has a genuinely profound insight, and I say that meaning absolutely no irony at all.

I’ve seen other expressions of this insight, but this is far and away the clearest, and the most engagingly told.

Let me say it another way: “Never trust anyone under thirty.”

[update]
Craig, not Colin. I hat bean stoopid.
Via MKFreeberg at House of Eratosthenes.

Transformative versus Revelatory Arcs

Monday, May 11th, 2009

John Rogers over at Kung Fu Monkey explains something I’ve never understood before. It’s disguised as a review of the current Star Trek movie, but don’t be fooled: his topic is much wider and much more important.

A transformative arc is the classic feel good “a bad person becomes a good person.” This is the Disney arc, the classic arc, although frankly many people confuse a character’s circumstances changing with a transformative arc.

A revelatory arc # is one in which the story of the movie is revealing how the hero (and the virtues he represents, which you the writer wish to highlight) is exactly the right person to solve the movie’s problem. It’s more an echo of the old school morality play. “Behold how misfortune comes unto the world. Now see what kind of man may set it right!” The protagonist of this sort of movie triumphs by holding on to whatever virtues he has, and often by becoming even more confident in them.

The very best thing about this essay is that it sounds like Rogers is viciously attacking the ST movie; many of his commenters make that mistake, and take him to task for it. Wrong.

These are not flaws, by the way. These are the moves of a supremely confident director/storyteller. And it adds weight to an argument I’ve been making for some time: heroic franchise characters often have revelatory arcs rather thn transformative arcs.

We have become so accustomed to expecting transformative arcs that we now regard revelatory arcs as inherently bad when they are pointed out to us — even though the revelatory arc is in fact the classic hero story.

Continuing here his discussion of our modern preference for transformative arcs, how we tend to see them even where they don’t exist:

…Frankly many people confuse a character’s circumstances changing with a transformative arc. Star Wars is the perfect example. “Luke Skywalker is a farm boy who becomes a hero.” Well, sure. But he wasn’t a cowardly farm boy. He wasn’t an insecure farm boy. As soon as holo-Lea shows up, he is on-mission. He didn’t leave his loving family behind, he was burnt out of his shitty hut he hated anyway.

He wasn’t a farm boy who never believed in the Force, once he’s introduced to the idea. Hell, turning off his targetting computer during the trench run is the least surprising thing he could do. Now if HAN SOLO suddenly showed up believing in the Force, well, that’s a change. As a matter of fact, Han’s the one with the transformative arc in the movie… Just like Spock’s the one with the character story (kinda) in Trek.

The idea of the revelatory arc is profound, and I’m going to have adjust a lot of my thinking to make use of it.


One thing I want to say, and this is just a rough sketch of an idea this has given me:

The transformative arc appeals to us because we are, most of us, painfully aware of our flaws. We want to believe that we can be better than we are.

The revelatory arc, however, is the American story: ordinary people, flawed though we may be, are in fact competent to direct our own lives, even in matters of life and death. There are no nobles who are born to be our masters; we are our own betters, our own nobles.

The best revelatory arcs are those that show ordinary people having their extraordinary characters revealed to themselves.


[update]
Two kinds of revelatory arcs: one in which the hero himself recognizes his exceptionalism; and one in which the people around the hero recognize him as the great leader he is.

Two kinds of transformative arcs: one in which a weak character grows to become a hero, and one in which, as Rogers says, “a bad person becomes a good person”. He calls the later “the Disney arc”, but frankly, I can’t think of many Disney movies where a bad person is redeemed.

Perhaps these can be arranged in a spectrum:

redemption <> growth <> self-realization <> public recognition


A key feature of the “public recognition” variety of revelatory arch is that the protagonist, to be a hero, must be right. Good examples would be Washington or Lincoln (both of whom, I believe, had greater doubts about themselves than their followers did). Otherwise, you get Hitler or Stalin.


Eric Burns-White disagrees with Rogers over at Web Snark. Warning: Very spoiler heavy, more so than Rogers was. I’ve skimmed, but will wait until I see the movie to read it in detail