Sometimes it's a bit tough to remember when something iconic was new. This really hit home when I recently watched "Raiders of the Lost Ark". I was just a kid when this movie came out in 1981, and the viewing of the movie is fairly vivid in my mind. But branded even deeper than images of Indy outrunning a bolder, crawling beneath a moving truck and surviving the biggest face melt in movie history was the music. The "Raiders Theme" also known as the "Indiana Jones Theme" is one that nearly everyone on the planet knows. Just hearing the first few bars and most people are immediately reminded of Harrison Ford in a fedora.
Of course this memorable piece of music was written by John Williams. Williams was at the peak of his creative skills back in the late 70's and early 80's. He came up with iconic themes for "Star Wars", "Superman", "Jaws", "Close Encounters of a Third Kind" and of course "Indiana Jones". I bet as you read that list you could at least hum one tune from each of those movies. Williams style was so potent that it influenced nearly all movie scoring for the rest of the 80's and early 90's (things would shift around once Hans Zimmer showed up). What is amazing about these early scores by Williams, is that they are all so memorable and that they immediately transport the listener to the scene in the movie that they occur.
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a great example of this. If you were to listen to the score you would be able to figure out exactly what is going on in each sequence. Part of the reason is Williams created themes for Indiana Jones, Marion Ravenwood, The Ark of the Covenant and the Nazis. He even went so far as to create mini-themes for key sequences in the film. The most obvious is titled "The Basket Game" in which Indy runs around Cairo searching for Marion as she abducted in a wicker basket. The whole scene uses it's own little jaunty theme, that rises and falls, speeds up and slows down to create tension and paint the action on the screen. When the chase scene ends in an explosion (and the "death" of Marion) Marion's theme swells to tragic proportions.
What struck me as I watched "Raiders" again was how much of the film relied on music and visuals. The entire opening of the film is all music, camera movement, sound effects and lighting. It all builds to a mini-climax when Indy uses his whip to snap the gun from the man's hand. In that moment we know all about Indy and his bad ass skills (and we didn't even hear the theme yet!). Plenty of other moments rely solely on music, including the map room scene, the truck chase and even the opening of the ark (once that puppy is open there is very little talking and a whole lot of epic choral scoring).
In a sense Williams composed a mini-opera. The story is told in a large part with music and visuals (almost working like a silent film) and if the music isn't going to have it's own power the movie isn't as effective. In a sense, as good at Ford's performances is, as good as Kasdan's script, is and as good as Spielberg's direction is - the music is a vital part of "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
Do you have a favorite film score or film composer? What do you think of the score to "Raiders"? Do you think John Williams is over-rated?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Macguffins gone wild - The Maltese Falcon (Novel)
I can't remember when I first heard of the term Macguffin. I remember someone explaining that the Death Star plans used in "Star War: The New Hope" were a perfect example of a Macguffin. So, I'll use that as my example for those of you who aren't familiar with the term. A Macguffin is a story element. It's only true purpose to keep the plot moving and drive the action. Usually the Macguffin has very little to do with the characters, but we come to know the characters because of what they will do to get the Macguffin. In "The New Hope" the Death Star plans fit this mold. The Empire wants them, and Darth Vader is driven to get the plans for most of the movie. We see that he will do anything to get them, even torture Princess Leia. On the flip side, the heroes risk life and limb to bring the plans safely to Alderaan. The bonus is that this Macguffin isn't completely useless (as many Macguffins turn out to be), the Death Star Plans lead right into the climax of the film, with attack on the Death Star fueled by the secrets revealed in the plans.
Even though Alfred Hitchcock is given the honor of coining the wird Macguffin, the use of a plot element that drives story action and character development can be traced back centuries. One of the more famous Macguffins is the Maltese Falcon itself. Just a warning, I’m going to give away the ending, so go read the book or watch the movie before reading on.
The novel by Dashiell Hammet has been brought to the screen at least three times, in various incarnations. The classic detective novel brings us Sam Spade and his interactions with a group of shady characters all bent on finding the Maltese Falcon. These people are all willing to lie, cheat, steal and kill to find this statue of a bird. Sam is intrigued, but he may have something else on his mind other than fabulous wealth. As the story progresses we begin to understand the lengths these characters will go for even a scrap of a clue to the whereabouts of the statue. Sam is used like a pawn, a wall and an information source on a number of occasions. With each twist he (and the reader) understands a bit more about the bird and the characters.
Eventually Hammet has to show his hand, and the characters obtain the statue. It's a tense moment in the book as all the surviving characters open the package and the bird is revealed. Just as promised the jewel encrusted bird is covered in a layer of black porcelain. A few scrapes later and it is revealed that the bird is nothing more than lead. The way each character reacts to the revelation that the Macguffin is nothing but a worthless lump is very telling and it propels the story to it's final confrontation.
What I thought was especially interesting is the fact that Sam Spade is never terribly invested in the Maltese Falcon. He is interested in the money it may bring in, but he is much more cautious than most of the other characters, never really believing in the tales up until it literally falls into his hands. Even then, he is guarded, is this bird worth all the trouble and how can such a group of scoundrels even be trusted? The story winds up with Spade in nearly the same place he started, but at the same time his life has changed in several ways. You could say that the lump of lead really did change him, even if it didn't bring him any money. But at the same time he is out a partner, and his mistress is free to pursue him. Still you are left with the feeling that Sam may not be too happy about the situation.
What do you think of Macguffins? Have they become a necessary evil or are they an outdated cliché? What is your favorite or most effective Macguffin? What do you think of "The Maltese Falcon" (the film or the book, they are surprisingly close to each other)?
Even though Alfred Hitchcock is given the honor of coining the wird Macguffin, the use of a plot element that drives story action and character development can be traced back centuries. One of the more famous Macguffins is the Maltese Falcon itself. Just a warning, I’m going to give away the ending, so go read the book or watch the movie before reading on.
The novel by Dashiell Hammet has been brought to the screen at least three times, in various incarnations. The classic detective novel brings us Sam Spade and his interactions with a group of shady characters all bent on finding the Maltese Falcon. These people are all willing to lie, cheat, steal and kill to find this statue of a bird. Sam is intrigued, but he may have something else on his mind other than fabulous wealth. As the story progresses we begin to understand the lengths these characters will go for even a scrap of a clue to the whereabouts of the statue. Sam is used like a pawn, a wall and an information source on a number of occasions. With each twist he (and the reader) understands a bit more about the bird and the characters.
Eventually Hammet has to show his hand, and the characters obtain the statue. It's a tense moment in the book as all the surviving characters open the package and the bird is revealed. Just as promised the jewel encrusted bird is covered in a layer of black porcelain. A few scrapes later and it is revealed that the bird is nothing more than lead. The way each character reacts to the revelation that the Macguffin is nothing but a worthless lump is very telling and it propels the story to it's final confrontation.
What I thought was especially interesting is the fact that Sam Spade is never terribly invested in the Maltese Falcon. He is interested in the money it may bring in, but he is much more cautious than most of the other characters, never really believing in the tales up until it literally falls into his hands. Even then, he is guarded, is this bird worth all the trouble and how can such a group of scoundrels even be trusted? The story winds up with Spade in nearly the same place he started, but at the same time his life has changed in several ways. You could say that the lump of lead really did change him, even if it didn't bring him any money. But at the same time he is out a partner, and his mistress is free to pursue him. Still you are left with the feeling that Sam may not be too happy about the situation.
What do you think of Macguffins? Have they become a necessary evil or are they an outdated cliché? What is your favorite or most effective Macguffin? What do you think of "The Maltese Falcon" (the film or the book, they are surprisingly close to each other)?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Department of Redundancy Department – Self Editing for Fiction Writers
Ah, the two faces of the beloved first draft. For most writers its a love/hate relationship. It's love because it is your first crack at a story. You pour in all your ideas, weave your spells of characterization, detail, plot, theme, mood and swirl it into a climax that would blow away the reader. It's a passionate first kiss, one that reaches into your soul and touches you. Ahhhh, sweet bliss.
But most of us know the truth. Once all the kissing, groping and tumbling have been done, you move on from your first draft. You let it sit for a while, to mellow with age and to allow you a little perspective on your beautiful opus. You return (sometimes a month or two later - maybe only a couple weeks) and you see what you were so enamored of - and its' horrifying! This little misshapen goblin was the one you were swooning over? Why, it would be perfect to play an grotesque imp in some low budget Roger Corman film - not the beautiful epic you were hoping. The horror breaks you down, you cry, and then curl up in a sock drawer and sleep for days.
At least that's how I feel.
But then you come back to your little misshapen critter and start to work with it. You realize it's not so bad, just a little bit awkward. With some proper training and fine tuning you'll have something presentable, maybe even something that is as epic as you were hoping for. The trick is to use your editing skills to make this story work as a whole. And that is where a book liked "Self Editing for Publication" can come in so handy.
The book goes through and guides the writer down paths of looking at their work in a new light, pointing out common mistakes and issues that writers make and offering suggestions on making the most of your story. And all this advice coming from two professional editors - well it's very helpful. The issue that I'm very guilty of in all my first drafts is repeating the same basic point in a few different ways. It could be as simple as having two sentences say the same thing, with slight differences. Or it could be the fact that I'll take what I think is a clever and interesting element and slam the reader over the head with it. The end result is useless exposition that causes the reader to feel bogged down.
Here's a nice example:
Karen shifted in her seat again. The light from between the blinds was angling in, right into her eyes, causing her to blink. She couldn't see the television screen at all. The blazing light was blinding her. She slid to the other end of the couch. It didn't do any good, because now a wall of dust was filtering into the shaft of sunlight. Barry looked at her with a slight frown on his face, "Don't you like the movie?"
As you can see, there's lots of description going on here. It's nice and all, but most you probably got the point after first couple sentences. So does this new version read any better?
Karen shifted in her seat again. The light from between the blinds was angling right into her eyes. The blazing light completely blinded her view of the television. She slid to the other end of the couch. No good. Now a wall of dust was filtering into the shaft of sunlight and obscured the TV completely. Barry looked at her with a slight frown, "Don't you like the movie?"
See, it's a bit more honed and the same idea get's across with less words. Of course you could just say:
Karen couldn't see the television because of the light. Barry asked her, "Don't you like the movie?"
But now we just got into - show, don't tell. The previous two sentences just tell the reader what's going on, and my the middle paragraph shows the action and Barry's reaction to the reader. So, the middle one wins! Yay!
Not that it's perfect. I'm still working on this kind of thing all the time, but now I can recognize my issues, especially with repetition. I just have to get over all the red ink on my document. It hurts to cut, but with some skill you can take fragments of the cuts and craft something new. The important thing to keep in mind is your target audience. You don't want the reader bored to tears because you beat something to death with over- explanation. You make your point and finish.
That's what I'll do now with this blog. :-)
What are issues you face during your editing of a draft? Do you struggle with editing or do you look forward to it? As a reader, do you find long passages of exposition a real chore to read or do you get pulled in (and why does a passage of exposition work for you)? Do you think Karen should try sitting on top of Barry (evidentially he can see fine)?
But most of us know the truth. Once all the kissing, groping and tumbling have been done, you move on from your first draft. You let it sit for a while, to mellow with age and to allow you a little perspective on your beautiful opus. You return (sometimes a month or two later - maybe only a couple weeks) and you see what you were so enamored of - and its' horrifying! This little misshapen goblin was the one you were swooning over? Why, it would be perfect to play an grotesque imp in some low budget Roger Corman film - not the beautiful epic you were hoping. The horror breaks you down, you cry, and then curl up in a sock drawer and sleep for days.
At least that's how I feel.
But then you come back to your little misshapen critter and start to work with it. You realize it's not so bad, just a little bit awkward. With some proper training and fine tuning you'll have something presentable, maybe even something that is as epic as you were hoping for. The trick is to use your editing skills to make this story work as a whole. And that is where a book liked "Self Editing for Publication" can come in so handy.
The book goes through and guides the writer down paths of looking at their work in a new light, pointing out common mistakes and issues that writers make and offering suggestions on making the most of your story. And all this advice coming from two professional editors - well it's very helpful. The issue that I'm very guilty of in all my first drafts is repeating the same basic point in a few different ways. It could be as simple as having two sentences say the same thing, with slight differences. Or it could be the fact that I'll take what I think is a clever and interesting element and slam the reader over the head with it. The end result is useless exposition that causes the reader to feel bogged down.
Here's a nice example:
Karen shifted in her seat again. The light from between the blinds was angling in, right into her eyes, causing her to blink. She couldn't see the television screen at all. The blazing light was blinding her. She slid to the other end of the couch. It didn't do any good, because now a wall of dust was filtering into the shaft of sunlight. Barry looked at her with a slight frown on his face, "Don't you like the movie?"
As you can see, there's lots of description going on here. It's nice and all, but most you probably got the point after first couple sentences. So does this new version read any better?
Karen shifted in her seat again. The light from between the blinds was angling right into her eyes. The blazing light completely blinded her view of the television. She slid to the other end of the couch. No good. Now a wall of dust was filtering into the shaft of sunlight and obscured the TV completely. Barry looked at her with a slight frown, "Don't you like the movie?"
See, it's a bit more honed and the same idea get's across with less words. Of course you could just say:
Karen couldn't see the television because of the light. Barry asked her, "Don't you like the movie?"
But now we just got into - show, don't tell. The previous two sentences just tell the reader what's going on, and my the middle paragraph shows the action and Barry's reaction to the reader. So, the middle one wins! Yay!
Not that it's perfect. I'm still working on this kind of thing all the time, but now I can recognize my issues, especially with repetition. I just have to get over all the red ink on my document. It hurts to cut, but with some skill you can take fragments of the cuts and craft something new. The important thing to keep in mind is your target audience. You don't want the reader bored to tears because you beat something to death with over- explanation. You make your point and finish.
That's what I'll do now with this blog. :-)
What are issues you face during your editing of a draft? Do you struggle with editing or do you look forward to it? As a reader, do you find long passages of exposition a real chore to read or do you get pulled in (and why does a passage of exposition work for you)? Do you think Karen should try sitting on top of Barry (evidentially he can see fine)?
Sunday, January 25, 2009
A despicable hero - Lord Foul's Bane
It's hard to write something in the genre of high fantasy without it turning into another telling of "Lord of the Rings". Most authors attempt to shift the settings, and modify the characters slightly enough to give the tale a new texture. But in the end it's still the struggle of the little hero against a enormous and corrupting evil. It takes a significant sacrifice by the hero to turn the tide and save the day. We've all read these tales over and over again, and obviously we enjoy them. But still, it can get a little old, after the 35th re-iteration of elves, dwarves, and humans banding together on a quest. How do you really shake things up and make the story even more interesting?
Stephen R. Donaldson took his lead character and gave him the ultimate characteristic of a villain: selfishness. Let's take a look at Frodo, Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker. All three are motivated by their actions to help others. They do what they must because it will save the world (or universe), not because it puts money in their pocket or gives them fame. Frodo is just a good hobbit at heart. He does what he must, because he is the only one that can do it. Harry Potter does he must for the same reason, and even though it gains him great fame, he actually abhors being famous. Luke Skywalker is slightly different because in "A New Hope" and "Empire" we see that he may be motivated by revenge. It isn't until "Return of the Jedi" that Luke realizes that he must forget his needs and the needs of his friends - and save his father. By committing to that act, he saves the galaxy from Empire.
Back to Thomas Covenant, the main character in Donaldson's series "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant". Almost all the actions that Covenant makes in the book are governed by fear, selfishness, and delusion. These three characteristics are what usually govern villains in most stories. In fact these three elements are usually specifically mentioned or hinted at as great enemies in other fantasy stories - the Ring Wraiths and Dementors are fear personified; Yoda specifically mentions fear as one of the paths to the dark side. Covenant is governed by his fear even to the end of the novel, almost all his actions are dictated by his fear for his personal safety or sanity.
This is the key to Covenant and the book as a whole. The only way to make this work well is allow the reader to understand Covenant. Once you understand why he thinks and acts the way he does, his actions at least make sense. The first few chapters of the book show the reader a clear picture of Thomas Covenant. He's a man who had his path down his life perfectly laid out. He was a writer who had just published a highly successful first novel, his wife was pregnant with their first child and he lived in a small village where life was comfortable and pleasant. Then Covenant is stricken with leprosy and everything goes wrong. His wife leaves him, and takes their child with her. His writing career dries up. The people of the village abhor him. He finds that the only way to cope is to turn everything into self preservation. If he doesn't constantly keep this in mind, the leprosy will win and he end up dying a death more horrible than he ever imagined.
Covenant is stubborn, bitter, angry and bent on protecting himself. Then he is pulled into another world (this time, by being hit by a car instead of a magic wardrobe). Covenant finds himself in a world full of life. The people here treat him like the reincarnation of their greatest hero (because he is missing the same fingers as their legendary hero). His wedding band of white gold is now blessed with magic properties. They all expect great things from him.
On top of all this - and most horrifying to Covenant - is the simple fact that this land has cured his leprosy. In a short time, he regains feeling in his limbs. His sex drive, which had vanished, returns with horrifying results. Covenant ends up raping a young woman who wants to do nothing but help this new hero. At this moment, Covenant becomes one of the worst fantasy heroes ever put to the page. I doubt there are many readers who would say they admire him after that moment. However, I was compelled to read on. How can this fearful, angry, and wretched man even begin to survive his adventure here.
It isn't easy. Covenant convinces himself that the whole thing is a dream, but one too perilous to embrace. He feels that if he believes In this world then this delusion will doom him. When the dream is over, he will awaken to find that he is a leper, and his momentary respite will end up crushing his soul and killing him. To deny this path, he spends the rest of the book actively fighting the fate before him. He is dreaming. He isn't a hero. He is a leper. He keeps insisting on this enough times that the other characters in the book look on him with pity, and want to help him come to terms.
This conflict fuels the book. Covenant can not accept the fantasy world, but it keeps insisting on its truth. It forces him to see its beauty. It forces him to use his ring. It forces him to play the hero. Each time Covenant is faced with a choice it is torture to make a decision. The lure of the fantasy is so strong, but the fact of his leprosy weighs on him. The reader keeps waiting for something to snap. When it does things only become worse for Covenant.
At its core, this is a re-telling of Lord of the Rings. There is a quest and here are heroics. There are magical beings, horses galloping over plains, armies of dark creatures, and giants. But at the center of the tale is the very dark character of Thomas Covenant, who dubs himself the Unbeliever. It’s very fitting and intriguing all at the same time.
I found the book to be a good read, even if Covenant wasn't a likable character. I never hated him. I understood why he did what he did. I didn't agree with his decisions most of the time, but I understood him. What was interesting was the way Donaldson used the fantasy world to play off of everything that Covenant was fighting against. The story kept forcing Covenant's hand. Each time it pushed Covenant closer and closer to madness. The story works as a basic adventure with a unique main character. This isn't the kind of book I'd recommend to a first time fantasy reader, but one that would appeal to anyone who's read enough high fantasy to want to read something refreshing in a darker way. Beyond that Donaldson uses his fantasy world as the main antagonist to Covenant, his protagonist. For that reason the book is a fascinating read. The ending was a bit anti-climactic, but this is the first novel of a series and I'm very interested in seeing where Covenant ends up next.
What did you think of Lord Foul's Bane? Have you ever encountered a film or novel with a completely unlikable main character? How did it work for you?
Stephen R. Donaldson took his lead character and gave him the ultimate characteristic of a villain: selfishness. Let's take a look at Frodo, Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker. All three are motivated by their actions to help others. They do what they must because it will save the world (or universe), not because it puts money in their pocket or gives them fame. Frodo is just a good hobbit at heart. He does what he must, because he is the only one that can do it. Harry Potter does he must for the same reason, and even though it gains him great fame, he actually abhors being famous. Luke Skywalker is slightly different because in "A New Hope" and "Empire" we see that he may be motivated by revenge. It isn't until "Return of the Jedi" that Luke realizes that he must forget his needs and the needs of his friends - and save his father. By committing to that act, he saves the galaxy from Empire.
Back to Thomas Covenant, the main character in Donaldson's series "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant". Almost all the actions that Covenant makes in the book are governed by fear, selfishness, and delusion. These three characteristics are what usually govern villains in most stories. In fact these three elements are usually specifically mentioned or hinted at as great enemies in other fantasy stories - the Ring Wraiths and Dementors are fear personified; Yoda specifically mentions fear as one of the paths to the dark side. Covenant is governed by his fear even to the end of the novel, almost all his actions are dictated by his fear for his personal safety or sanity.
This is the key to Covenant and the book as a whole. The only way to make this work well is allow the reader to understand Covenant. Once you understand why he thinks and acts the way he does, his actions at least make sense. The first few chapters of the book show the reader a clear picture of Thomas Covenant. He's a man who had his path down his life perfectly laid out. He was a writer who had just published a highly successful first novel, his wife was pregnant with their first child and he lived in a small village where life was comfortable and pleasant. Then Covenant is stricken with leprosy and everything goes wrong. His wife leaves him, and takes their child with her. His writing career dries up. The people of the village abhor him. He finds that the only way to cope is to turn everything into self preservation. If he doesn't constantly keep this in mind, the leprosy will win and he end up dying a death more horrible than he ever imagined.
Covenant is stubborn, bitter, angry and bent on protecting himself. Then he is pulled into another world (this time, by being hit by a car instead of a magic wardrobe). Covenant finds himself in a world full of life. The people here treat him like the reincarnation of their greatest hero (because he is missing the same fingers as their legendary hero). His wedding band of white gold is now blessed with magic properties. They all expect great things from him.
On top of all this - and most horrifying to Covenant - is the simple fact that this land has cured his leprosy. In a short time, he regains feeling in his limbs. His sex drive, which had vanished, returns with horrifying results. Covenant ends up raping a young woman who wants to do nothing but help this new hero. At this moment, Covenant becomes one of the worst fantasy heroes ever put to the page. I doubt there are many readers who would say they admire him after that moment. However, I was compelled to read on. How can this fearful, angry, and wretched man even begin to survive his adventure here.
It isn't easy. Covenant convinces himself that the whole thing is a dream, but one too perilous to embrace. He feels that if he believes In this world then this delusion will doom him. When the dream is over, he will awaken to find that he is a leper, and his momentary respite will end up crushing his soul and killing him. To deny this path, he spends the rest of the book actively fighting the fate before him. He is dreaming. He isn't a hero. He is a leper. He keeps insisting on this enough times that the other characters in the book look on him with pity, and want to help him come to terms.
This conflict fuels the book. Covenant can not accept the fantasy world, but it keeps insisting on its truth. It forces him to see its beauty. It forces him to use his ring. It forces him to play the hero. Each time Covenant is faced with a choice it is torture to make a decision. The lure of the fantasy is so strong, but the fact of his leprosy weighs on him. The reader keeps waiting for something to snap. When it does things only become worse for Covenant.
At its core, this is a re-telling of Lord of the Rings. There is a quest and here are heroics. There are magical beings, horses galloping over plains, armies of dark creatures, and giants. But at the center of the tale is the very dark character of Thomas Covenant, who dubs himself the Unbeliever. It’s very fitting and intriguing all at the same time.
I found the book to be a good read, even if Covenant wasn't a likable character. I never hated him. I understood why he did what he did. I didn't agree with his decisions most of the time, but I understood him. What was interesting was the way Donaldson used the fantasy world to play off of everything that Covenant was fighting against. The story kept forcing Covenant's hand. Each time it pushed Covenant closer and closer to madness. The story works as a basic adventure with a unique main character. This isn't the kind of book I'd recommend to a first time fantasy reader, but one that would appeal to anyone who's read enough high fantasy to want to read something refreshing in a darker way. Beyond that Donaldson uses his fantasy world as the main antagonist to Covenant, his protagonist. For that reason the book is a fascinating read. The ending was a bit anti-climactic, but this is the first novel of a series and I'm very interested in seeing where Covenant ends up next.
What did you think of Lord Foul's Bane? Have you ever encountered a film or novel with a completely unlikable main character? How did it work for you?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
More Pulp Fiction - The Grindhouse
I was able to catch the complete version of "The Grindhouse" thanks to a free preview weekend. I had missed this in the theatres and had heard that the two films of this double feature had be released separately on DVD. So when the opportunity presented itself to see both films the way they were presented in the theater, I jumped at the chance. What I ended up seeing where two movies that gleefully dove into a world of over the top violence, exploitation, and just plain stupid grin movie making.
The first film, "Planet Terror" is your basic zombie film. You've got a group of survivors battling their way out of the zombie infested world using various guns, explosives and makeshift weapons. What makes it any different? I goes out of its way to make you feel like you are watching a beat up old 70's flick, with bad acting, bad dialogue, ultra-violence and completely ridiculous circumstances. The characters here aren't really well rounded, but all of them are big. Why have just a plain old go-go dancer when you can have one that loses her leg and gets it replaced with a rocket launching machine gun? Yeah I cant' think of a good answer to that either. Director Robert Rodriguez is obviously having fun pushing things as far as he wants and then pushing a little more. This is a bad movie, but one that knows it and quite frankly wants to be bad. You're supposed to enjoy it because it is so ridiculous and stupid.
I really enjoyed it, but I was in the right frame of mind. I could easily see this film coming across as too self conscious and having most of the fun drained out of it, because the director feels he is so damn clever to have thought this up. My argument would be that the pervading tone of the film was just one of pure entertainment - nothing deep, just a grimy, gory, and stupid good time.
The second film, "Death Proof" takes a slightly different path. It wears its exploitation roots on it's sleeve, but attempts to make a solid movie within the confines of a low budget look. It's directed for Quentin Tarantino, so you know what you're in for. The story revolves around two sets of the girls. The first group gets together at a local bar and run into a gent who goes by the name of Stuntman Mike (played perfectly by Kurt Russell looking every bit the like the burnt out stuntman). Mike seems to take a liking to the girls, but they ignore him as the old timer who is more fun to flirt with, but not go much further. Well Mike does want to go further, much further. When he get's behind the wheel of his heavily modified "death proof" car, he shows the girls how much he does like them.
The second set of girls seems to be getting set up the same way, but the only trick is that Stuntman Mike might have just met his match. These girls all work in the movie industry and two of them are professional stuntwomen. As he escalates his little game, the girls start giving back as good as they get - and now Mike's found the tables turned on him. Just how far are these girls going to go to show him what happens when you mess with a stuntwoman?
What's interesting about this movie is that it's about 90 minutes long, but feels like it drags in the beginning. Some of it is Tarantino's typical dialogue. If you like his style, then you'll love this part. If you think he gets bouts of verbal diarrhea, well the first half of the film really suffers from it. I fall in the middle. I think I see what he was doing with this section. He sets up Stuntman Mike and his preoccupation with the first half. This creates some serious suspense in the second half. Part of it might be the girl’s characters in the first half aren't as interesting as the girls in the second half. Either way, once the second half kicks in with it's car on car mayhem, you'll find yourself sitting closer and closer to the edge of your seat. The ending is fitting and segues into the typical great closing song over a Tarantino movie's credits.
In the end, I found both films to be a trashy good time. They had a similar feel, but were different enough to make it a nice evening of pulpy entertainment. If anything Rodriguez and Tarantino are very well versed in this type of film making and enjoy it as well. I also think that Rose McGowan has found her niche. She's really good in these movies (I'm not typically a fan of hers). If only we could keep Tarantino off the screen. He appears in both movies and his "acting" is so distracting that I kept wishing he'd wander off screen and get lost.
It's tough to make trashy movies well. Most good trashy movies weren't trying to be trashy and stupid and just ended up that way. But that’s the topic of another blog…
Did you see either film in the “Grindhouse” collection? Did you like one over the other? Did you see them together or apart? What do you think of “trashy” movies?
The first film, "Planet Terror" is your basic zombie film. You've got a group of survivors battling their way out of the zombie infested world using various guns, explosives and makeshift weapons. What makes it any different? I goes out of its way to make you feel like you are watching a beat up old 70's flick, with bad acting, bad dialogue, ultra-violence and completely ridiculous circumstances. The characters here aren't really well rounded, but all of them are big. Why have just a plain old go-go dancer when you can have one that loses her leg and gets it replaced with a rocket launching machine gun? Yeah I cant' think of a good answer to that either. Director Robert Rodriguez is obviously having fun pushing things as far as he wants and then pushing a little more. This is a bad movie, but one that knows it and quite frankly wants to be bad. You're supposed to enjoy it because it is so ridiculous and stupid.
I really enjoyed it, but I was in the right frame of mind. I could easily see this film coming across as too self conscious and having most of the fun drained out of it, because the director feels he is so damn clever to have thought this up. My argument would be that the pervading tone of the film was just one of pure entertainment - nothing deep, just a grimy, gory, and stupid good time.
The second film, "Death Proof" takes a slightly different path. It wears its exploitation roots on it's sleeve, but attempts to make a solid movie within the confines of a low budget look. It's directed for Quentin Tarantino, so you know what you're in for. The story revolves around two sets of the girls. The first group gets together at a local bar and run into a gent who goes by the name of Stuntman Mike (played perfectly by Kurt Russell looking every bit the like the burnt out stuntman). Mike seems to take a liking to the girls, but they ignore him as the old timer who is more fun to flirt with, but not go much further. Well Mike does want to go further, much further. When he get's behind the wheel of his heavily modified "death proof" car, he shows the girls how much he does like them.
The second set of girls seems to be getting set up the same way, but the only trick is that Stuntman Mike might have just met his match. These girls all work in the movie industry and two of them are professional stuntwomen. As he escalates his little game, the girls start giving back as good as they get - and now Mike's found the tables turned on him. Just how far are these girls going to go to show him what happens when you mess with a stuntwoman?
What's interesting about this movie is that it's about 90 minutes long, but feels like it drags in the beginning. Some of it is Tarantino's typical dialogue. If you like his style, then you'll love this part. If you think he gets bouts of verbal diarrhea, well the first half of the film really suffers from it. I fall in the middle. I think I see what he was doing with this section. He sets up Stuntman Mike and his preoccupation with the first half. This creates some serious suspense in the second half. Part of it might be the girl’s characters in the first half aren't as interesting as the girls in the second half. Either way, once the second half kicks in with it's car on car mayhem, you'll find yourself sitting closer and closer to the edge of your seat. The ending is fitting and segues into the typical great closing song over a Tarantino movie's credits.
In the end, I found both films to be a trashy good time. They had a similar feel, but were different enough to make it a nice evening of pulpy entertainment. If anything Rodriguez and Tarantino are very well versed in this type of film making and enjoy it as well. I also think that Rose McGowan has found her niche. She's really good in these movies (I'm not typically a fan of hers). If only we could keep Tarantino off the screen. He appears in both movies and his "acting" is so distracting that I kept wishing he'd wander off screen and get lost.
It's tough to make trashy movies well. Most good trashy movies weren't trying to be trashy and stupid and just ended up that way. But that’s the topic of another blog…
Did you see either film in the “Grindhouse” collection? Did you like one over the other? Did you see them together or apart? What do you think of “trashy” movies?
Monday, January 12, 2009
Poised on the Edge - From Russia with Love (Film)
Most fans of the James Bond films have thier favorite actor, favorite film and usually one or a couple they tend to really dispise. Most causal James Bond fans enjoy most of the movies, even if they get a bit dumb. What's interesting is that the film series has lasted nearly 50 years and shows no signs of stopping. With "Quantum of Solace" hitting theaters, we got our newest James Bond, Daniel Craig, saving the world, getting the girl and fighting ruthless villains again. I haven’t seen it yet, but if the sequel keeps the same tone as "Casino Royale" (the 2006 version, not the overly psychedelic 1967 version), then I'm going to enjoy it.
I decided to pop in the second James Bond film adventure, just to see where the series was going back in 1963. Here's a quick synopsis. James Bond (Sean Connery) finds himself on a mission to pick up a Russian cipher clerk, Tatiana (Bianci) and her top secret cipher machine. All he has to do is bring the machine, with or without the girl, from Istanbul to London. M and Bond are pretty sure it's a trap, but getting their hands on a Russian cipher machine is too good a prize to pass up (and the girl's a looker too). Bond arrives in Turkey and quickly finds himself caught in the middle of a feud between Russian and the British agents. After a series of narrow escapes he makes it onto the Orient Express with Tatiana and the cipher machine - unaware that they are being shadowed by a sinister agent from SPECTRE.
In the grand scheme of things "Goldfinger" is usually remembered as the first true Bond film. It had girls, the gadgets, the villains, the over the top adventure, and the sassy brassy style that seemed to encapsulate the 60's and the spy craze. In a way it's true, "Goldfinger" was the first really big Bond film. But "From Russia With Love" was the first complete Bond film. It has all the elements that "Goldfinger" had, but is missing one thing - the fantasy that took over the Bond series. "From Russia With Love" is the last gritty Bond film to reach theaters until 1969 with "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".
This edginess makes "From Russia With Love" feel more like spy thriller than a fun comic book ride. James Bond is actually in danger in this movie and the script carefully sets things up from the beginning making the audience feel that James Bond may actually get killed. The pre-credit sequence sets things up very nicely (the first time a pre-credit sequence is used in a Bond film). In it we watch as James Bond is pursued in a garden surrounding a large estate. The killer moves with deft skill behind Bond and succeeds in strangling him with a wire that slides out of his watch. It is revealed that "Bond" is actually a fake, but the killer is very real.
Eventually the killer is revealed to be Grant, an assassin for SPECTRE. He follows Bond all around Istanbul, watching, and waiting. During the course of the film, Bond finds himself in peril (as happens in these films) and even over matched. Grant will appear and save Bond's hide without revealing himself. The audience is even more intrigued. Why do this if he has been trained to kill?
When Grant finally confronts Bond in the Orient Express, the audience feels the tension. We've seen Grant kill Bond once (even if he was fake) and we've seen the control that Grant has had over each situation. Now he has Bond where he wants him and Bond is outmatched. This is the type of scene that is missing from "Goldfinger" and "You Only Live Twice", two of the more popular James Bond films featuring Connery. The danger is very real here, and then things explode with a visceral violence when Grant and Bond finally engage in hand to hand combat. This is still considered one of the greatest fights in the James Bond series. Of course Bond has to survive to appear in "Goldfinger" so we know how it will turn out, but this climactic battle works because of the careful build up of Grant and the way the story plays out.
Director Terrance Young helmed "Dr. No", "From Russia with Love" and "Thunderball" and each of these films are actually more like spy thrillers than the over the top adventures that people usually associate with James Bond. These are my favorite type of James Bond films, where the edge is real and the danger is high. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", "For Your Eyes Only", "The Living Daylights", "License to Kill", parts of "Goldeneye" are the other films from the first 20 Bond movies that have this feel. Of course the 2006 "Casino Royale" had this edge in spades, keeping Bond off guard for most of the movie. It's nice to have the thrilling back into the James Bond series, but it's always been there even as far back as 1963.
Do you prefer you Bond movies more thrilling or more fantasy? What do you think of "From Russia with Love"? What is the best example of building tension that you can come up with (books or films)?
I decided to pop in the second James Bond film adventure, just to see where the series was going back in 1963. Here's a quick synopsis. James Bond (Sean Connery) finds himself on a mission to pick up a Russian cipher clerk, Tatiana (Bianci) and her top secret cipher machine. All he has to do is bring the machine, with or without the girl, from Istanbul to London. M and Bond are pretty sure it's a trap, but getting their hands on a Russian cipher machine is too good a prize to pass up (and the girl's a looker too). Bond arrives in Turkey and quickly finds himself caught in the middle of a feud between Russian and the British agents. After a series of narrow escapes he makes it onto the Orient Express with Tatiana and the cipher machine - unaware that they are being shadowed by a sinister agent from SPECTRE.
In the grand scheme of things "Goldfinger" is usually remembered as the first true Bond film. It had girls, the gadgets, the villains, the over the top adventure, and the sassy brassy style that seemed to encapsulate the 60's and the spy craze. In a way it's true, "Goldfinger" was the first really big Bond film. But "From Russia With Love" was the first complete Bond film. It has all the elements that "Goldfinger" had, but is missing one thing - the fantasy that took over the Bond series. "From Russia With Love" is the last gritty Bond film to reach theaters until 1969 with "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".
This edginess makes "From Russia With Love" feel more like spy thriller than a fun comic book ride. James Bond is actually in danger in this movie and the script carefully sets things up from the beginning making the audience feel that James Bond may actually get killed. The pre-credit sequence sets things up very nicely (the first time a pre-credit sequence is used in a Bond film). In it we watch as James Bond is pursued in a garden surrounding a large estate. The killer moves with deft skill behind Bond and succeeds in strangling him with a wire that slides out of his watch. It is revealed that "Bond" is actually a fake, but the killer is very real.
Eventually the killer is revealed to be Grant, an assassin for SPECTRE. He follows Bond all around Istanbul, watching, and waiting. During the course of the film, Bond finds himself in peril (as happens in these films) and even over matched. Grant will appear and save Bond's hide without revealing himself. The audience is even more intrigued. Why do this if he has been trained to kill?
When Grant finally confronts Bond in the Orient Express, the audience feels the tension. We've seen Grant kill Bond once (even if he was fake) and we've seen the control that Grant has had over each situation. Now he has Bond where he wants him and Bond is outmatched. This is the type of scene that is missing from "Goldfinger" and "You Only Live Twice", two of the more popular James Bond films featuring Connery. The danger is very real here, and then things explode with a visceral violence when Grant and Bond finally engage in hand to hand combat. This is still considered one of the greatest fights in the James Bond series. Of course Bond has to survive to appear in "Goldfinger" so we know how it will turn out, but this climactic battle works because of the careful build up of Grant and the way the story plays out.
Director Terrance Young helmed "Dr. No", "From Russia with Love" and "Thunderball" and each of these films are actually more like spy thrillers than the over the top adventures that people usually associate with James Bond. These are my favorite type of James Bond films, where the edge is real and the danger is high. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", "For Your Eyes Only", "The Living Daylights", "License to Kill", parts of "Goldeneye" are the other films from the first 20 Bond movies that have this feel. Of course the 2006 "Casino Royale" had this edge in spades, keeping Bond off guard for most of the movie. It's nice to have the thrilling back into the James Bond series, but it's always been there even as far back as 1963.
Do you prefer you Bond movies more thrilling or more fantasy? What do you think of "From Russia with Love"? What is the best example of building tension that you can come up with (books or films)?
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Scattershot Narrative - The Right Stuff
One of my favorite movies from the early 80's is "The Right Stuff". In some ways it's a bit of a forgotten film. I rarely ever see it on lists of great films from the 80's and yet I still hear the main theme from the film in movie trailers. It's lasting legacy may be a single short scene. For those of you who've never seen the film, it covers the very beginnings of the Mercury Space program as part of the race to get a manned space craft into outer space before the Russians. The movie starts with a sequence of events involving test pilots attempting to break the sound barrier with faster and faster planes. Then it follows a few of those test pilots as they selected to attempt to survive the enormous amounts of tests required to prove that they are capable of being America's first astronauts.
The single shot that most people remember from the film has the camera at the end of a long hallway. Walking toward the camera are the seven Mercury astronauts in full space suits. The main theme swells as they walk toward us, slowly but with determination. These are men who are ready to risk their lives for their country and because they live to tempt fate by riding a rocket into the unknown. I've seen this same shot repeated countless times in other movies. Usually they add some slow motion to make things more drama. In fact the use of slow motion has become necessary for any long shots of a team walking down a hall to triumphant music, that I am always surprised that it doesn't happen in "The Right Stuff".
One of the reasons the film may not be mentioned very often is that its actual narrative is not clearly defined. The first third of the movie deals heavily with test pilots and breaking the sound barrier. The test pilot at the center of this portion is Chuck Yeager. We watch him become the first man to break the sound barrier and then see his reaction as other pilots appear and continue to go faster and faster. The movie switches gears when Gordon Cooper shows up and we follow him and his fellow astronauts for the rest of the film. Often times the movie will return to Yeager watching the astronauts on television or listening to their exploits on the radio.
One of the final sequences takes place at an enormous (and surreal) celebration of the space program moving to Houston. All the Mercury astronauts are there and they seem to know that for the moment the entire world revolves around them. The film jumps between this celebration to Yeager deciding to borrow a test plane to attempt to go higher into the atmosphere than anyone has ever gone before - without a space craft. Yeager's adventure in the jet goes from thrilling to terrifying, and all this is cut into the celebration with its cheerleaders, fan dancer, BBQ and shmoozing. It's a very odd moment, placing these two story-lines with and almost against each other.
The film then ends with Gordon Cooper being launched into space and for that moment "becoming the fastest man alive". The end titles roll. I'm always surprised that the story just seems to end there. It wasn't until recently that I discovered that the unique thing about all these men is that they attempted to journey at the fastest speeds possible and by themselves. After the Mercury program, astronauts never went into space by themselves. This connection makes the film tie together a bit better (and explains why Yeager is in the film).
As the movie stands you end up wanting to see more and actually become annoyed when one story line seems to push the other out of the way. You could have made a great movie about Chuck Yeager and you could have made a great movie about the Mercury astronauts. Instead we get a very good movie about both of them. It's this strange decision to tie the two together that never really works for me. I can see how Yeager's story influences the astronaut’s story. It's clear that these test pilots were the right men for the job, but the ending of the film seems like its trying hard to put Yeager’s connection with the astronauts back in.
So why do I enjoy the movie so much? It's got a great cast: Sam Shepherd, Ed Harris, Scott Glen, Fred Ward, Dennis Quaid, Barbara Hershey and a ton of excellent supporting players. The look of the movie captures all the early NASA footage I've seen as well as the mood of the early 60's and the intensity of the cold war rivalry. Bill Conti's score works pretty well in the film. It has a very early 80's feel to it at times and that can conflict with the 60's look of the film. For the most part, you are pulled into both story lines. The ending is the only thing that feels like a let down. It's sudden and doesn't feel like it wraps up either Yeager's story or the astronauts story.
What do you think of "The Right Stuff"? Have you seen or read an example where two different story-line actually work in a movie? Do you have a movie you enjoy that seems to get missed on "Top" lists?
The single shot that most people remember from the film has the camera at the end of a long hallway. Walking toward the camera are the seven Mercury astronauts in full space suits. The main theme swells as they walk toward us, slowly but with determination. These are men who are ready to risk their lives for their country and because they live to tempt fate by riding a rocket into the unknown. I've seen this same shot repeated countless times in other movies. Usually they add some slow motion to make things more drama. In fact the use of slow motion has become necessary for any long shots of a team walking down a hall to triumphant music, that I am always surprised that it doesn't happen in "The Right Stuff".
One of the reasons the film may not be mentioned very often is that its actual narrative is not clearly defined. The first third of the movie deals heavily with test pilots and breaking the sound barrier. The test pilot at the center of this portion is Chuck Yeager. We watch him become the first man to break the sound barrier and then see his reaction as other pilots appear and continue to go faster and faster. The movie switches gears when Gordon Cooper shows up and we follow him and his fellow astronauts for the rest of the film. Often times the movie will return to Yeager watching the astronauts on television or listening to their exploits on the radio.
One of the final sequences takes place at an enormous (and surreal) celebration of the space program moving to Houston. All the Mercury astronauts are there and they seem to know that for the moment the entire world revolves around them. The film jumps between this celebration to Yeager deciding to borrow a test plane to attempt to go higher into the atmosphere than anyone has ever gone before - without a space craft. Yeager's adventure in the jet goes from thrilling to terrifying, and all this is cut into the celebration with its cheerleaders, fan dancer, BBQ and shmoozing. It's a very odd moment, placing these two story-lines with and almost against each other.
The film then ends with Gordon Cooper being launched into space and for that moment "becoming the fastest man alive". The end titles roll. I'm always surprised that the story just seems to end there. It wasn't until recently that I discovered that the unique thing about all these men is that they attempted to journey at the fastest speeds possible and by themselves. After the Mercury program, astronauts never went into space by themselves. This connection makes the film tie together a bit better (and explains why Yeager is in the film).
As the movie stands you end up wanting to see more and actually become annoyed when one story line seems to push the other out of the way. You could have made a great movie about Chuck Yeager and you could have made a great movie about the Mercury astronauts. Instead we get a very good movie about both of them. It's this strange decision to tie the two together that never really works for me. I can see how Yeager's story influences the astronaut’s story. It's clear that these test pilots were the right men for the job, but the ending of the film seems like its trying hard to put Yeager’s connection with the astronauts back in.
So why do I enjoy the movie so much? It's got a great cast: Sam Shepherd, Ed Harris, Scott Glen, Fred Ward, Dennis Quaid, Barbara Hershey and a ton of excellent supporting players. The look of the movie captures all the early NASA footage I've seen as well as the mood of the early 60's and the intensity of the cold war rivalry. Bill Conti's score works pretty well in the film. It has a very early 80's feel to it at times and that can conflict with the 60's look of the film. For the most part, you are pulled into both story lines. The ending is the only thing that feels like a let down. It's sudden and doesn't feel like it wraps up either Yeager's story or the astronauts story.
What do you think of "The Right Stuff"? Have you seen or read an example where two different story-line actually work in a movie? Do you have a movie you enjoy that seems to get missed on "Top" lists?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)