Rarely do I ever feel the need to post thoughts on a new theatrically released film. Partly due to the fact that I don't get out to theaters as often as I would like and when I do, I like to take my time in thinking about what I have just seen. Usually the thoughts I come up with don't provide me with enough desire to write about those thoughts. It's not the movies fault, it's more or less me.
Since the news of the Star Wars franchise being sold to Disney and the production of Episode 7 being teased to expectant audiences, the hype surrounding the film has added to the pressure of needing to see this film. In the films short theatrical release there has been enough reactions to the film that I figure I might as well throw my hat into the ring. The wait for this film has been long in coming for myself and those of my generation. Since 1983 and the release of Episode 6, The Return of the Jedi, the curiosity as to what happened to Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, Chewbacca (for myself what about the Ewoks?) created numerous debates amongst friends. Anyone who had the action figures could create their own sequels and forever wonder what was to come. Did Luke go over to the Darkside? Did Leia and Han marry? Did Boba Fett escape the Sarlacc Pit and go on to seek revenge? We could speculate but never know. We all got older and were introduced to the galaxy before Episode 4 with the prequels installment. But now, in 2015, the answers were found, and for myself, were found wanting.
I don't write with the mind of criticism to express whether the movie is good or bad. The film was made in the hands of a highly proficient filmmaker in J.J. Abrams, with more resources available to him and his crew than we may ever realize. I'll reserve my thoughts on the production aspects till later but I do think there is a connection to the changes that time brings to production and to perception.
The expectation as to what happened to the iconic characters of Luke, Leia, Han, Chewbacca, C-3PO, and R2-D2 all seem to be put on the shelf by the filmmakers. What seems to be better shown is rather said through dialogue by the filmmakers. It is as if the void between 1983 and 2015 could never be filled and therefore glossed over. (Without giving away too much detail, or spoilers) The question of Luke Skywalker is answered within the first line of the introduction title roll. Our other heroes are introduced scattered shot, with back stories only hinted at but never fully realized. Meanwhile we are following the exploits of Rey and Finn, misfits brought together from their own separate orders, discovering the Force and exploits of the Jedi past. They seem to embody possibly what it would be like for a new viewer of the Star Wars franchise trying to piece together the world of these classical characters. The filmmaker drops hints to the past the film installments, even the prequels, giving winks and nods to those "in the know" while at the same time trying to freshen the galaxy that is so far, far away. Rey and Finn are the millennials of this generation fighting the dark side, young, never realizing the need for guidance, discovering on their own their failures and accepting the pressure that they can achieve anything they put their mind to.
Rey and Finn are the new torchbearers. Literally in the sense that they try to carry and use Luke's light saber, to both success and failure. But this passing of the torch seems rushed and messy. Too much seems to happen by accident and circumstance. The intricate design of episodes 4, 5, and 6 seems abandoned not only in the story but also through the filmmaking. I hate to sound like I am being an old curmudgeon but the style of the filmmaking doesn't quite fit. Style will always be an argument point with no clear answer. Abrams' style is influenced in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy films of the 70's and 80's with the added wizardry of CGI. What he is able to create is cinematic eye candy and the wonder that makes filmgoing so addictive. But does it fit in the design of the Star Wars Universe?
There are plenty of aspects of the filmmaking that I could look at and break down from The Force Awakens and how they relate to my overall feeling of the film. But for this short response I can only think about the differences in how the close-ups are used in The Force Awakens and how George Lucas uses the close-up in his Star Wars films. They seem to have different points of emphasis and are complemented by camera movement, or lack thereof. Lucas seems to prefer stillness in his frame, even in the most action intense sequences the camera is still, keeping the subject defined within the frame. Abrams' camera seems to be about the experience, to get you into feeling the vibrations and intensity of the actions taking place. The camera may shake, or glide in and around, making hard cuts rather than the smooth motions of Lucas's films. These differences leave me at odds and in an unfamiliar environment to what I know these characters to be in. We are even shown a flashback/vision sequence in The Force Awakens. Something that I don't recall in any of the other films but also further covering over what happened between episode 6 and 7. There is a rush to The Force Awakens that wants me to yell to the characters, "Stop And Catch Your Breath!" Is it possible that Lucas so defined how the galaxy of Star Wars was to be filmed that he in turn kept any filmmaker from ever getting truly back there?
Maybe that question goes back to style and I will forever be on one side of the ambiguous answer. For now I, as well as others, are left to guess what comes next. Will the unknown become known and the 30 year void be fulfilled? One thing that I do fear is that those characters that I followed and loved on their adventures against the dark side or now gone, their stories incomplete. But there is time and certainly the money. The Force Awakens will most likely eclipse the $1 billion mark in box office receipts. The producers and filmmakers can put the necessary effort into making episode 8 into the next great Star Wars film. And to that, we wait.
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Monday, July 20, 2015
The Low Project: Speed Of Life
There aren't enough words to describe the extreme importance and influence of David Bowie on my life. The countless words that have been written about his life, music, acting, and art are better left to those authors and not for me to add upon. (At least not at this time.)
What I will write upon, be it ever so briefly, is the experimental filmmaking project that centers around David Bowie's Low album. Low was released at a time in Bowie's career where he was leaving behind the excesses of America, not only sonically but narcotically. Venturing back to Europe with the influence of electronic music in mind, Bowie would collaborate with Brian Eno in making three albums that would challenge and alienate fans, record execs and radio DJ's. The album composed of instrumental soundscapes, and at times schizophrenic instrumentation accompanying cryptic lyrics, was not only ground breaking then, but even today seems as livelier than ever.
The first track of the album is an instrumental titled; Speed Of Life. A roughly 3 minute song that seems to be introducing the new direction in which Bowie would be taking for the rest of the album. The music is a blend of the conventional rock instrumentation and synthesized sounds.
The challenge of representing visually this piece of music is the matter of approach that one can take. The use of 16mm black film leader and scratching the emulsion off of the film is not only time consuming but creating an intentional image for each frame that is scratched. Each line or circle is representative of the sonic motif within the music. The intention of the imagery, in combination of with the music, is to create a synesthetic experience while also showing the impermanence of the images. The frames flicker and flash at varying rates to represent the passing of time, to show the speed of life. The song fades in and fades out with no clear beginning or end but the images arrive then cease. One final freeze frame, a kind of marker of time that has passed.
The use of 16mm film, and the analog process of non-camera filmmaking, is coupled with the digital process of filmmaking. The film footage is transferred using a projector and HD camera. The transfer creates its own flicker effect and digital scan lines. The mixture of mediums is in the spirit of the Low album and the creative process Eno and Bowie approached to making music. The construction of the images to the music was done using Final Cut Pro. The final seconds of Speed of Life combine imagery as a type of climax to a song that does not have a climax. The mixture of lines and shapes are a confluence of the experience that is in the brief passage of time.
Speed Of Life
What I will write upon, be it ever so briefly, is the experimental filmmaking project that centers around David Bowie's Low album. Low was released at a time in Bowie's career where he was leaving behind the excesses of America, not only sonically but narcotically. Venturing back to Europe with the influence of electronic music in mind, Bowie would collaborate with Brian Eno in making three albums that would challenge and alienate fans, record execs and radio DJ's. The album composed of instrumental soundscapes, and at times schizophrenic instrumentation accompanying cryptic lyrics, was not only ground breaking then, but even today seems as livelier than ever.
The first track of the album is an instrumental titled; Speed Of Life. A roughly 3 minute song that seems to be introducing the new direction in which Bowie would be taking for the rest of the album. The music is a blend of the conventional rock instrumentation and synthesized sounds.
The challenge of representing visually this piece of music is the matter of approach that one can take. The use of 16mm black film leader and scratching the emulsion off of the film is not only time consuming but creating an intentional image for each frame that is scratched. Each line or circle is representative of the sonic motif within the music. The intention of the imagery, in combination of with the music, is to create a synesthetic experience while also showing the impermanence of the images. The frames flicker and flash at varying rates to represent the passing of time, to show the speed of life. The song fades in and fades out with no clear beginning or end but the images arrive then cease. One final freeze frame, a kind of marker of time that has passed.
The use of 16mm film, and the analog process of non-camera filmmaking, is coupled with the digital process of filmmaking. The film footage is transferred using a projector and HD camera. The transfer creates its own flicker effect and digital scan lines. The mixture of mediums is in the spirit of the Low album and the creative process Eno and Bowie approached to making music. The construction of the images to the music was done using Final Cut Pro. The final seconds of Speed of Life combine imagery as a type of climax to a song that does not have a climax. The mixture of lines and shapes are a confluence of the experience that is in the brief passage of time.
Speed Of Life
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)