The Cinematic Artistry of Louis C.K.

    Louis CK is my favorite comedian right now. I think he's right up there with George Carlin and Richard Pryor, with the three of them switching places constantly for me. However, there is something about him that sets him distinctly apart from not only Carlin and Pryor, but from comedians and performers in general: His Auteur Film-Making.

 
    His show Louie, in terms of film-making technique, is the best thing on television right now, far surpassing anything else, (yes, even The Walking Dead) and it is definitely worlds ahead of anything playing in theatres. Even though he's said he wouldn't ever even call himself a " movie director", the truth is that he's the only one doing anything worthwhile with the art of film.

    In his show he displays a unique, experimental vision, and a loving appreciation for the art, using techniques of old directors to say new things about the world around us, our daily lives in modern American society. He also throws in some dirty humor, which is just great.

    His cinematic style is very much like Godard and The French New Wave...

 mixed with the surrealism of David Lynch...

 and Woody Allen.

 Those are the obvious influences, anyway. But even before his show, these three directors had an undeniable presence in his short films throughout the '90s, perhaps to a more obvious, exaggerated extent.

  It's really interesting to see how all three of these influences have tended to show up in his work, and how the sizes of their respective influences fluctuate in Louis CK's filmography as he grows as an artist.

    Godard and New Wave Influence:

  

    Above is a scene from Godard's, "Breathless." which is lauded as a pioneer in the New Wave movement and a quintessential example of the genre. Sorry, I couldn't find this scene with subtitles, (YouTube got rid of all "official" clips for this movie) but if you can look past the fact that you don't understand a word, and let the scene just flow into you, the similarities between this and Louis CK's current artistic state are uncanny. The way the camera follows the two actors, and how the shot is framed as if it was improvised and handheld (because it is). Then, there's the jazzy music to soundtrack not only the scene and it's events, but the urbanity surrounding it. And it all surrounds an unbroken string of dialogue, realistically structured and portrayed. (Atleast, I think it was realistically structured. I don't remember the actual words spoken.)

    It's very easy to see all of the aforementioned qualities in Louie. The show itself has been described by CK as, "... very vignette-y... very vérité." Characteristics that defined the French New Wave. The handheld camera and jazz music are as iconic to Louie as they are to the whole New Wave movement. To really see the similarities, check out this clip from Louie:

    It's amazing isn't it? The scenes are set up almost identically. That was on accident, I didn't plan for the example to be that good. Interesting too, how the New Wave movement was meant to reveal truths about society in the '60s, and Louis CK uses the techniques of that movement to reveal harsh truths about society today.

    It's very convenient as well that he takes up this style, because it serves MANY purposes that the show has benefited from. Initially, it was very convenient for monetary reasons. From the start, French New Wave was notable for how cheap it was. Only a camera or two was needed, natural lighting was used, they shot on location instead of on sets, and most films were improvised the whole way through, with no script ever being written. The nature of the style was very ideal for Louis CK, as FX initially gave him very little money. (Only $10,000 for the pilot, reportedly.) The only thing he's done differently for the most part is write out scripts (genius ones) but even then I understand that there's a decent amount of improvisation, probably to let the actors draw genuine, raw, spontaneous emotion.

    But also, for the amount of truthfulness and honesty that is inherent in CK's standup, it seems only natural that his show should be in a style of film that is historically related to those two qualities. The rawness of the style makes his poignant perspective and statements all the more compelling. Had this been shot on a studio set, with 5 or 6 cameras, constant cutaways, cheesy mood music, and contrived, pretentious, unnatural writing, the entire idea would have been lost in the flashy sensationalism. But because he uses this simplistic approach, and because it's so cheap, there's VERY little risk on FX's part, and they let him do what he wants. There's no layer of executive B.S. to dilute his vision, so it feels real, rich, and unfiltered, making it perfectly relatable to genuine, fleshy, flawed humans.

    Another thing sets Louie apart from other TV shows thanks to this style: The realistic behavior of the characters. French New Wave was about displaying truth, not only of life as an entity, but of human psychology. Likewise, almost everyone in Louie displays a very complex set of emotions, and they react to these feelings within them in a way that feels genuine. Being the observational comic that he is, Louis CK takes ideas, motives, and quirks from real life people and applies them to his characters. Everybody in the show is layered and three-dimensional, and it makes for very authentic programming. Even Louie himself is complex, and even an anti-hero, spending time with his daughters in one episode, smoking weed in another, giving money to a homeless man (then defending that choice) at one point, and sort of trying to rape his friend Pamela in one. But he almost never judges anyone in the show. I don't mean the character, I mean that in the show itself and how it's presented, nobody is inherently bad (or good, for that matter). But he does question the choices of people. It shows this very mature level of understanding that is very rare in not only television, but in almost any medium of art, at any level.

    I wonder if he did, in fact, develop this style out of  necessity or if it was always his vision to make it this way. I say this because his previous work was considerably different in it's approach.

    David Lynch and Surrealist Influence:

    Before Louis CK had his show Louie, he directed a series of short films in the 1990's. One of his best, and most well known, is a short called, "Ice Cream," that actually helped Louis CK land a job on Conan O' Brien's show. (I ask that you watch to atleast 4:25 to get a real feeling for the piece.)

 
    It is a very stylized, surrealist film in many ways. The black and white photography with the '50s/'60s-sounding stock music creates a universe apart from our own, while somewhat mimicking the style of many movies from Classic Hollywood. But the actors behave in very awkward, unnatural ways, clashing with the comfort of the nostalgic aesthetic, making the whole thing feel... funny. The characters show very little emotion or interest in circumstances where they should be very engaged. Other times they burst out in a fit of energy, at seemingly random, unexpected moments. And still other times... They just do flat-out strange, inexplicable things. This weird, erratic behavior makes for some freaking funny stuff. Now compare what you've seen from "Ice Cream" to this scene from David Lynch's surrealist horror classic, "Eraserhead":

    Many of the characteristics from "Ice Cream" and other films from CK's early work come from this movie. The strange, unpredictable behavior of the actors, black and white photography, and sound design (albeit in a different way) lend themselves here, not to comedy, but to famously disturbing, unsettling horror. With how similar these films are, it's easy to see that the line between horror and comedy, when using these techniques, is ridiculously fine - or even, paradoxically, blurred in some cases. It gives you this appreciation for how CK was able to take this conventions, - built specifically to make the viewer feel uneasy and creeped out - and turn them around for some hilarious, inventive comedy. It shows that he really does appreciate and understand Lynch's work, because he's able to bend Lynch's personal rules in such a way as to completely alter their purpose.

    Personally, I think that this surreal style for Louis CK is alot more interesting. It's more fun to look at. I bet it's more fun to make too. The black and white, stock music, and more planned out cinematography is just... it FEELS better, y'know. It makes for a more unique, inventive experience.

    Louis CK has actually publicly professed his love for David Lynch and Eraserhead, (Lynch actually appeared on the show in Season 3) and even manages to throw some of these surreal Lynchian elements into Louie from time to time. One scene that comes to mind is where Louie is in a subway, watching a young man play a beautifully emotional song on a violin. A little while into that scene, a dirty, old, heavy homeless man walks into the subway, strips almost nude, and proceeds to bathe himself, the cleansing of his grotesque, smelly body soundtracked by the beautiful violin. It's hilarious, and of course, it is much more funny to SEE than to read. Sadly, I couldn't find a clip of it, so hopefully next time you catch his show you might see it.

    Woody Allen Influence

    This influence is a little harder to pin down, because unlike Godard and Lynch, Allen never has taken the forefront of Louis CK's style, but instead has just been planted deep within there all along. It's like, if Louis CK's style is a sweater, Lynch and Godard contribute the cloth, but Allen is the stitching. There's this charismatic feeling to CK's work that no doubt is derived from a feeling from one of Allen's early films. I think that Allen's influence on CK is more on his writing, and is probably most prevalent in the underlying ideas of what's happening on camera. Check out this clip below, atleast for the first two minutes. Don't worry, it's in English this time.

    This chemistry between the two characters, whether you want to call it "romantic" or not, is heavily borrowed in Louie, and Louis CK uses some similar aesthetic techniques to achieve that effect, although to see some of these scenes in action, it's hard to say where the dividing line is between Allen-influence and Godard-influence.

(The lady in these episodes even looks like the lady from Manhattan. Coincidence?)

    I wish I could find clips so you could really see what I mean. His writing in these scenes, too, is very much like Woody Allen's. Lots of snappy, quirky back-and-forth between the characters, except unlike Woody Allen's characters, these characters don't have a trace of pretentiousness in them. It still feels very realistic. This warm, sentimental stuff is probably what Louie does best, as the mixture of styles just seems made for this sort of thing. It's hard to describe. The handheld, improv-y feeling is still there from Godard. But the shots are composed in a more romantic, Allen-y way, and the Jazz music would be present in either style.

    But besides that, Louie looks at New York in a very romantic, admiring light, which is also very present in Allen's work, ESPECIALLY during romantic parts. While superficially the scenes are about the PEOPLE in them, the handheld, near-focus look gives the viewer a dreamy view of New York.

    There's also a montage-y way that Allen likes to show off New York that I noticed Louis CK takes inspiration from as well.

    

    Watch just the first 25 seconds of the second video to see what I mean. Also watch the rest of it if you want to be entertained! (Featuring, a young Amy Poehler!)

    Final Thoughts

    There really is a bit more that I have to say in regards to how Louis CK's film style with regards to his influences, but sadly I couldn't find photo or video examples for alot of what I had in mind. Some of this stuff is hard to show when your only resources are YouTube and Google Image Search. Anyhow, I feel like I got the gist of it. In all, I think he's one of the only geniuses in the world of film today, and I really hope that there could one day be a Major Motion Picture directed by him. His style is very refreshing in the modern wasteland that film has become. His comedy is refreshing in an era of meta-humor written by guys in their 20s. His genuine voice is refreshing in these modern times of widespread artificiality.

    I have no doubt that as time goes on, he will be recognized as not only a very important comic, but a very important film director, one that was crucial to keeping the medium's integrity alive. But that can only happen if WE, the fans of good media, make it possible.

    So go! Watch his show! Buy the DVD! Buy his short films! Write your local Hollywood mogul a letter DEMANDING that Louis CK direct a picture, whether Louis CK wants to or not! We want to see Louis CK in a dress ON THE BIG SCREEN! If you have any thoughts on this post, or something you want to say about Louis CK's filmography that I didn't, hit the comment section! Thanks for reading my ramblings!

    *NOTE* IDK if I have any devoted readers yet, but on the off-chance that I DO, I'm sorry this post took SEVEN MONTHS to come out. I got caught up lots of school stuff, and my free time just disappeared. I'll try my hardest to write more often, and to keep improving as I write. To make up for it, I tried to be very careful about writing this one, and it actually took me much longer than any other post, with around four writing sessions. But it was lots of fun and made me remember how much I love this. So if you read this whole thing, I appreciate it like you wouldn't believe, and I hope that you keep reading my stuff. Thanks alot. - David

Why Don't Action Movies Blow My Freaking Mind?!

       I went to the movies today and saw Thor: The Dark World.

       I was originally going to write a review about it, but I didn't have enough to say. It was solid. Not great, but probably better than a lot of Superhero Movies. However, to reiterate, I'm not here to review Thor. I'm here to talk about a bigger picture (no pun intended). When I was sitting there in the dark Theatre, focusing only on this movie, I began to notice something about the action:

      Specifically, how it failed to absolutely blow my mind! Don't get me wrong, it's not bad, and it has some moments of REALLY COOL STUFF. But why does the really cool stuff become confined to just moments, glimpses of a dream that never manifested in our physical world? Honestly, for the most part, the action is pretty standard stuff. I'm not at the edge of my seat, holding my breath in anticipation for what'll happen next, whilst my heart busts out a snare drum solo. I'm sitting down, patiently waiting through something that almost feels like a chore to watch. Almost.

      I love action. But I only love it when it's done properly! There has to be a sense of genuine style, and an understanding of the conventions of film, to really pull off action. Isn't an action scene supposed to be an aesthetically-pleasing joyride for the senses that serves only to blow your mind? Is your mind genuinely blown by a big mess of swinging weapons, explosions, and occasional slow motion? If you think it is, let me explain to you why that's not true. In other words, let me tell you why my opinion = fact. Just kidding. But seriously, let me lay out a case that just might change (and blow) your mind. Here I go:

      Filmmakers create a cool IDEA, but try and let it survive on premise alone.

      I think we're in a Golden Age of Premise in film. Filmmakers are coming up with awesome ideas, specifically for fights. "Okay, so Thor's gonna show up in a beam of light, killing the guy who had the girl cornered! Then he's gonna hit this other dude in slow motion!" A notably awesome premise in this particular movie, a freaking battle across the universe through use of portals that transport you to different realms in the blink of an eye.

      How awesome is that idea?!  Now, this was handled pretty dang well. You can follow it. It could've been a complete DISASTER. But it wasn't. You might've said, "Woah. That was cool." However, notice that you didn't say, "WOAH DUDE HOLY $#!$%^# WHAT THE $#@%@ OH MY GOSH!" Imagine, if you will for a second, that same idea, handled with the sensibilities of someone like Genndy Tartakovsky, who, if you need reminding, came up with this:

      First of all, WOAH. Second, It's a sort of similar concept, in a pretty distant way. What I mean, is that it's an interesting, unique concept, just like hopping across planes in the universe. However, where the Thor concept was handled well so you could follow it, the Samurai Jack concept was handled so you could follow it, AND be disoriented in just the right way, so that it could surprise you, keep you on your toes, and above all, blow your mind! It seems to me like there was a lot more care into the look and feel of the Samurai Jack scene than to the Thor scene. It's way more aesthetically pleasing, and very memorable, with it's timing of both action, cutting, and even music.

      Thor looks just a little bland now doesn't it?

      You know another really cool concept? Wolverine in Japan. Wolverine fighting and going on a quest in the hardcore side of Japan, AND WOLVERINE VS A SAMURAI!! That oughta be SICK!

      Aaaand... It was kinda cool. I already reviewed this movie, but something I'm not sure I emphasized was the missed opportunity in the setting. There was even a scene with Wolverine against a bunch of NINJAS in the snow! Straight outta Lady Snowblood! Or the fight in Kill Bill where The Bride goes against Lucy Liu. Awesome. But apparently, this fight with WOLVERINE AND NINJAS was not exciting enough to warrant a clip on YouTube. I can't find it. Compare that again to Kill Bill and this scene where our hero fights a wave of enemies:

   
      You don't have to watch all of it. I know it's kinda long. But just A TINY BIT and you'll see what I mean. THIS is blow-your-mind awesome. Same setting as Wolverine, with very similar fight scenarios, yet you saw NOTHING like this. Imagine if The Wolverine had scenes LIKE THIS!

      It should've. The concept called for it. (Here we are, back at the base of my argument.) But like I said in bold type way back up there, filmmakers are just satisfied with a cool idea. Because they've seen stuff like Kill Bill, and Samurai Jack, and Bruce Lee, and Braveheart, they have a pretty nice grasp on cool IDEAS. However, they rarely flesh out those ideas entirely with their cinematography and overall direction of the scene. But sometimes, things click, and you have little glimpses of awesomeness, which Thor contains more of than usual. 

      Staying in the Superhero genre, take a look at what Sam Raimi managed to do in Spider-Man 2 (Around 0:20).

      That part where they fall, to this day, is one of the coolest things I've ever seen in a movie. THEY'RE JUST FALLING AND FIGHTING and Sam Raimi made it awesome! How often do Superheroes fall now? Often enough to where you probably have a million fuzzy examples in your head. Yet Sam Raimi made his stick. He knew it too, he used it more in Spider-Man 3.

      So, with all of the above in mind, I've compiled a list of suggestions for future filmmakers to keep in mind when they want awesome action scenes.

• Pace yourself. Slow down a bit, or even stop to build suspense and give someone a heart attack while nothing happens.
• Put more care in your sound/silence, including music. Coordinate it thoroughly with what happens on screen. Harmony between the audio and the visual not only helps one follow what happens, but is very pleasing to the senses, and helps to create very memorable moments. Sound can also be a great inspiration when editing, helping you to create awesome, unique sequences.
• FRAME UP BEAUTIFUL SHOTS. Thought out composition in your shots can create beautiful images. When beautiful imagery is applied to action sequences, plus the scene has everything above in mind, the scene is ushered onto another level of existence. Interpreting images is one of the most primal functions of the human mind. Images reach into our very souls. What I'm saying is that imagery is important. If you make a beautiful shot, it will STICK. For sure. It tops off the aesthetics cake with a delicious layer of your favorite flavor of icing. 

When you have something that feels cool, sounds cool, and looks cool, you just can't lose. Maybe now everyone will be able to capitalize on our Golden Age of Premise, before it passes by! See you guys next time!


NOTE: I've recruited a friend of mine, Christopher Maldonado, to help me produce more regular content on this blog. He will be making his own posts on film from time to time, just so that posts become more frequent than once a month. Be nice to him!

Bad Movies: Old vs. New

      Am I the only one who's noticed that movies right now, especially bad movies, are REALLY, REALLY BAD?

      They're poorly acted, poorly written, and poorly directed. That's probably the best way to sum it up. To analyze why in detail would be several blog posts on it's own. They offend nearly all five senses, depending on your choice of movie theater. These are among the blandest movies of all time, and that's counting the movies that are considered, "good," right now. In a world where Les Miserables (the 2012 version, I haven't seen the '80s one) wins awards and receives critical acclaim on a grand scale, THESE are the movies that are the most hated. (With the exception of The Hunger Games, which, honestly, is only liked because people loved the book, which itself was not too good, in my opinion. But this blog is about movies, not books.)

      They're nearly impossible to watch for anyone who has good taste or a sense of self-preservation. Now you may be thinking, "Well of course they're hard to watch. They're BAD MOVIES! Duh!"

      Well I'd have to disagree with you. Bad movies can be loads of fun to watch. Bad and/or campy movies can be some of the greatest experiences of your life. Below are some of my favorite movies. 

      These movies are really campy. Super duper campy. All of them. However, I'd watch any of these movies any given day. I love all of them. 

      Unlike today's under-acting cardboard actors, these actors OVER-acted. REALLY over-acted. But not just because they were bad actors. They were bad actors with a passion! They dreamed of being great! They loved the cinema! 

  

      Where modern film music bores you to death while simultaneously making you want to end your wretched life of non-stimulation, these movies, for the most part, had really nice music! A lot of care was put into it to make it memorable if it was original.

     
This track in particular is absolutely beautiful! What in the world is it doing in this movie?!

      

      This is so stupid! BUT SO AWESOOOOOME! Isn't it much more entertaining than all of the pale-faced douches of the modern cinema? With their scowling and cool jackets. The jackets! Therein lies the reason for the actually bad, "bad," movies of today. 

      Making movies back in the day was not nearly as easy as it is today.

      The internet did not exist. Digital technology did not exist. Really let that sink in. Imagine making a movie with no connections to begin with, and then imagine making it with ALL of the film equipment required. Keep in mind, back then, things were bulky, expensive, and hard to find. I can't begin to imagine what arduous obstacles an independent filmmaker back in the day had to go through. Budget's were in the thousands. Sometimes, they were in the 4-digit thousands. 

      That being said, if someone went through all of that to make something, you knew that person loved what they were doing, and loved movies with a burning passion. So even when they knew that what they were making wasn't exactly a masterpiece, they did their best and had lots of fun doing it. 

      And that's why these movies are so great, because even though they're bad, there was still a lot of care and love put into them. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case with modern bad movies. 

      Modern Bad Movies are Pretentious

      These movies are made seemingly for the sole purpose of capitalizing on trends and raking in money. That might even be forgivable, if they'd have fun with it. But they don't! In every trailer, they act like their piece of crap for brooding tweens is some kind of ground-changing epic masterpiece. I would embed trailers, but I don't think you even need to watch those to see what I mean. Just scroll back up and look at the posters! It's nauseating!

      The Jackets are to Blame

      The pretentiousness doesn't come from them trying to be artsy fartsy. It comes from the movies trying to be dark, deep, brooding, and above all else, cool. The guys all try to act like James Dean, if James Dean was a giant wimp with nothing to brood about and no personality. 

(The hood protects the character from emotion)

      The girls aren't much better. They have as much personality as the guys. (none) If a photographer's eye exists in the movie world, it certainly isn't located in these films. The music pieces are so bland and uninspired in these movies, that they really reflects the films they're used in.

      The reason I say that: when the only characteristic in your work is a superficial interpretation of cool, utilizing nonsensical darkness and brooding, the only thing that can come out is blandness. Maybe that's the main reason these movies so unwatchable. They're so freaking bland! But that shouldn't work, because, "bland," means that something isn't really great, but not really bad. Just, "not memorable," at the very worst.

      SOMEHOW, these movies found a way to be so bland, that it's absolutely repulsive. 

      Honestly, can you sincerely and wholeheartedly tell me that any of the good-bad movies I listed are bland? Now they're ALOT of things. But they are most certainly not BLAND. If asian girls kung-fu fighting inanimate objects with furious vigor is what you consider bland, then I really need to see what movies you're watching. The only way that can be bland-ified is if you turn the organic SFX into CG effects.

      All in all, I'm a little worried. What does this mean for cinema as an art form, if even our BAD movies are completely unenjoyable? I guess it's up to us, the incoming generation of filmmakers, to bring good ol'-fashioned campy badness BACK to the silver screen! 

NEXT TIME: I don't know. Something will inspire me to write eventually. Hopefully I'll be inspired more often.

Pulp Fiction Disproves the 5-Second Rule

      There's a common rule in American film classes that says every shot in a film should last 5 seconds. The reasoning is that if it's any longer it becomes boring and hard to follow. I disagree with this rule completely. Now naturally, my mind goes to artsy directors, like Truffaut, Kubrick, Polanski, Hitchcock and Coppola. I also think of how old movies used to dwell on how beautiful their actresses were, and how beautifully they could be photographed.

      I don't think women before, or since, have been photographed as amazingly. But this is beside the point.

      What I'm talking about is the 5-second rule, and how bullcrap it is. While it's obvious that the aforementioned directors did not adhere to this rule in any sense in their movies, I'd like to make an example of a much more accessible and popular movie.

      In using this movie, I hope to prove that controlled shots with purpose are not JUST for (admittedly) artsy fartsy films for snobby film buffs. A movie can be interesting, accessible, and popular without losing artistic integrity, and in fact, may gain from masterful, thought out camera work and editing.

      Perhaps the most obvious testament to this would be the scene with Marsellus Wallace's monologue to Butch.

            The still angle makes it feel like you're staring at Butch. The red lighting, mixed with Al Green's, "Let's Stay Together," gives it a very surreal, mesmerizing feel. It's very cozy, very pleasing to the senses, and it's like you're in some kind of Nirvana. Strangely, you're extremely relaxed, yet you can still pay attention to Marsellus Wallace's perfectly delivered speech. You listen just as intently as Butch. Can you guess how long the first shot goes on for?

TWO MINUTES AND THIRTEEN SECONDS

      That doesn't just break the 5-second rule. It breaks it, kicks it around, spits on it, talks about it's mama, then leaves it for the buzzards. Yet, somehow, this scene has become iconic among POPULAR culture. Not just film culture. Not just among film buffs, but among a public that wants nothing more than to be entertained. The long camera shot is what cements that mesmerizing feel here, and the scene would not be nearly as effective or memorable, had it cut away every couple of seconds like most filmmakers would have it do. The long shot gives it a very unique flavor. It also serves to make Marsellus seem very powerful and mysterious.

      Another set of notable long shots happens during the famous conversation about the significance of foot massages.

      At 1:32, Jules and Vincent step into an elevator and continue their conversation. This is where the part about foot massages begins. Anyone who's seen this movie, remembers most of this scene very vividly, elevator part included. The elevator shot lasts 36 seconds.

      Why doesn't it bore you, and make you gouge your eyeballs out in a fit of non-stimulation? Could it maybe have something to do with the incredible dialogue? Or perhaps the brilliantly subtle acting? Or maybe the unique (especially at that time) angle? It's like you're in the elevator too, listening to their conversation in person, and as any person of polite society does, you listen intently.

      The following shot starts in the middle of 2:08, and lasts until 4:45, meaning it lasted 2 minutes and 37 seconds before cutting to something else. Granted, it's a tracking shot, but the part that I think is most notable happens around 3:48, where the camera reaches it's final position. It lasts until the end of the shot. The camera stares at Vince and Jules as they talk from a distance, beautifully framed off-center, and with a ray of light coming from the window. The slight movement means that the camera is never at rest, and mixed with the distance, it reminds us that the action is still focused back where the camera is.

      The entire composition serves to make their conversation seem even more intense, while the stare-y feel that seems to be prevalent in this movie allows us to focus on the conversion with impeccable listening ability. Alot of other directors have tried to have unique looks, but can't make it work quite like Tarantino. Other directors put style over substance, yet oddly, Tarantino's style IS the substance. Perhaps I'll write about that some time.

      The above scene is a considerably less obvious example of breaking the 5-second rule. It's also harder to explain. I'll try my best.

      A crowd-pleasing modern director might think, "Slower, steadier, wider shots are calming. Quick, close, shakier shots create tensity." A director on the more artistic side might think, "Slower, wider shots build more tension, especially when contrasted against more comfortable, quick shots." This movie just does what comes naturally, and ends up using both schools of thought in some kind of perfect harmony. 

      The shot is wider, before Jules shoots Flock of Seagulls on the couch. Jules stands dominantly over Brett. There is definitely tension, and seeing all of Brett's body language conveys that. The shot peaks in effectiveness once Jules shoots Flock of Seagulls.

      Now the excitement has picked up. The shots are close, lasting for a few seconds, and the camera moves. It's focused on Jules, and points up at him from down below, because he is focused and menacing. It cuts to Brett, and moves to side, at the same level as Brett, to show how disoriented he is. While the shots are quick, they never last a perfect 5 seconds. At least not intentionally. They cut in a very natural way that perfectly complements what the actors are doing. Sometimes they last a bit longer, like around the time Jules shoots Brett's arm.

      At this point, the shots are wider, increasing the tension yet again, and downing the excitement. However, you don't feel comfortable, because the shots are still a bit speedy, but not as much. They focus on a menacing Jules for while, then quickly cut to a whimpering Brett for a shorter amount of time, then back to Jules, and so on. You know that the action isn't over. 

      

      The shots don't adhere to the 5 second rule. They aren't overly long either. The length of the shots is considerably varied. Like I said before, the shots just do what feels natural, and as a result, every shot is memorable, and every shot is used effectively and efficiently.

      Truthfully, I think every director should feel out scenes rather than come up with equations. Cinema is an art form, and like any art other art form, it should revolve around what comes naturally, what works, and what's pleasing to the senses. It shouldn't revolve around dogma. Directors should be willing, and encouraged, to take liberties, as well as risks, with film. How can the art form evolve if people religiously adhere to stupid rules like the 5-second rule? The short answer: It won't.

NEXT TIME: I TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER THING 

GRAIN OF SALT ARTICLE: "What Makes a Movie Great?" Pt. 1 - CINEMATOGRAPHY

      I think my love of truly great movies started with The Godfather.

      When I was a preteen, somewhere between 10 and 13, I saw this movie in it's entirety for the first time. AMC did this thing called Mob Week where they played all of the classic Mob movies nonstop. I'm not sure if they still do that. I always preferred it to Shark Week. 

      

      I always had heard lots of great things about this movie, and I still do. It's been cemented as a huge part of American culture. I was completely mesmerized by it. I knew that it was something special. It was the first movie I'd ever seen that I was fully immersed in and actually surprised by. It truly hit me. It was so unique and I understood why it had lasted so long. I thought it was the greatest movie of all time. (I don't know if I'd say THAT anymore, but it's definitely up there) 

      After that I began to really wonder what EXACTLY made that movie so special. Why had IT lasted so long, become so famous, and managed to stand the test of time in terms of quality? Why was it that I really hadn't seen a modern movie so great? More specifically, why did it surprise me? No movies I'd seen before were able to catch me off guard so many times, if at all. Why did the disturbing things actually disturbed me? I'd seen my share of gory slasher movies, and I'd never felt disturbed at all.

     

      My initial conclusion: The Camera Angles

      The first thing that struck me about this movie was the look and feel of it, naturally. It LOOKED completely different from anything I'd seen. I noticed that unlike movies I had become accustomed to, it did NOT subscribe to the Spielberg school of thought. There was none of the usual quick-cutting. No hardcore close-ups. The music didn't shove the intended emotion down my throat. It was the first movie that allowed me to take it all in on my own. I thought the reason for that was (only) the controlled, long-held shots at a distance. That was the extent of my understanding of the word, "subtle," and that was how I dictated if a movie was good.

      I realized that THAT was how it managed to surprise me and disturb me and drag me in. It let me see everything, in all of it's untainted natural glory. Where most movies would cut away to reveal that something crazy is about to happen, this movie said, "Nope," and just let it happen, as if you were a bystander. That's how it got you. The visuals simulated the effect of really being there.

      I went through a period where I only thought Mob movies were great, but that idea fell through after I had begun to watch the Rocky movies and Forrest Gump. I sort of fell away from movies for a while, but my idea that visuals were what made a movie great had stayed with me. I'd stayed in that mindset until I saw another movie. A movie that blew my mind all over again and made me really think about movies.

      This movie was the first work of art to make me go, "What does it mean?" unironically. A Clockwork Orange immediately climbed to the top of my list and truly opened the gate for me to start becoming a bit of a film buff. 

      As you can see from the still above, the visuals in this movie are incredibly surreal and very... I'm not sure I can describe what I'm trying to say in words. But this movie made me realize that there's much more to great cinematography than camera angles. 

      The above scene is perhaps one of many great examples for what I'm about to explain. It was just the first one to come to mind. The visuals in this scene are striking, to say the least. But it's every other detail piled in, each complementing one another, that give this scene it's very specific, abstract feel and purpose. The visuals would not be as striking if they were played in normal speed. It would happen to quickly. It's the slow movement that, upon first viewing, gives you a sense of comfort, because it is complemented by Alex's (Malcolm McDowell's) pleasant voice, perfectly delivering the short monologue, all orchestrated to La Gazza Ladra. It's very pleasing to the senses, and the organization with which they walk and how the camera picks that up is stylistic enough to feel like a transition shot at first.

      However, everything comes crashing down around you (in a good way) once Alex finishes his monologue. The scene continues. Immediately, you're thrown for a loop. It suddenly becomes uncomfortable, and before you realize it, Alex preps for the hit, and it connects.

      "But wait!" You may say, "It's still in slow motion and the music is still playing." And it doesn't stop. It's like you're as surprised as Alex's droogs are. Alex has duped us along with them. KUBRICK (the director) has duped us. The music and visuals, which once comforted us, have turned on us, disturbing and shocking us.This is especially true of the music. Classical music is usually pleasant, and soothing, and a joy to listen to. But here, it's twisted, and heavily contrasted against dark, disturbing, violent visuals, to WONDERFUL effect. It not only captures the confusion, but also gives us a twisted insight into Alex's mind.

      THIS IS WHAT CINEMATOGRAPHY IS ALL ABOUT

      Film is a very special audi-visual medium. To me, film is at it's greatest when it does things that only film can do. A Clockwork Orange is great book, but there are so many things done JUST IN THAT SCENE that you could not have written down in any way shape or form. Music alone cannot capture the perfect abstract feeling above, and neither can visuals alone. Cinematography is what gives movies the potential to be so much more than Three-Act Plays with a camera in front of them. In my opinion, it's the most important thing in a movie.

      Anybody else who realizes this might side with me when I say that 2001: A Space Odyssey just might be the greatest movie of all-time. (It's my favorite movie)

      Even if you don't agree, there's no question that 2001 is perhaps the most important movie of all time, as it was the first movie to really assert this idea. It relies ALL on Cinematography. The story alone is not incredibly mind-blowing. But it's the way it is told. It is told in a way that only film can tell a story. Something I truly believe is that, "It's not the story, it's the storyteller." Don't agree? Imagine the Bible, same story, same everything, except Stephanie Meyer wrote it. Does that sound like a masterpiece that has influenced literally BILLIONS of people and lasted for centuries? (Arguably thousands according to some historians)

      We live in an age of what I call, "Objectivists." Even if that term already exists and is used for something else, the way I mean it goes along the lines of, "If it's not progressing something, it's pointless." With that in mind, many people absolutely hate 2001. To them, if it's on screen, it should be progressing the story. But 2001 throws that notion in the garbage, and as a result, you get some of the greatest things to ever happen in the world of art.

      If I already lost you because you're an Objectivist, I ask you to consider the following. Think about the very music that this scene employed. It's a beautiful piece of classical music that has lasted centuries and will definitely continue to share it's beauty with future generations. What does it mean? Where's it going? WHO CARES?! It's beautiful for beauty's sake!

      And that's what this scene is. That's what much of this movie is. Beautiful for beauty's sake. And that's what gives it much of it's effect. If Spielberg had directed this, he would've just shown the very end of the docking. But Kubrick knew what art was about. It's about beauty. There have been many painted versions of The Last Supper, so why do you only know the one that popped into your head? Why do we remember Beethoven and Mozart, but not any of the countless other musicians from their times?

    Because the art is beautiful for beauty's sake. The beauty IS the emotion. It IS the purpose. The sheer beauty and emotion of it all is enough to reaffirm your faith in God! And that's what Cinematography's job is. To make a film beautiful and be all it can be, in special ways that only film can do it. It's because of what film can do, that I honestly DON'T believe that the book is always better. You're gonna tell me The Godfather up there is better as a book? HECK NO! You didn't even read it.

     Sadly, however, movies have reverted, and Cinematography has taken a backseat yet again after hitting a high-point in the '70s. (And as you may have noticed, movies are REALLY REALLY crappy right now.) Every movie coming out looks, in all honesty, pretty ugly. Always with the ugly Digital camera and overuse of CGI. Unappealing. No real character exists in the look of movies anymore. They've become Three-Act Plays again. Except for when someone tries to be edgy and modern and cool, then they have Dutch Angles, Close Ups, and they shake alot. (See: Les Miserables, The Hunger Games,  FREAKING EVERYTHING ELSE) I blame Saving Private Ryan (not that it's bad) and Transformers. (not that it's good)
 
      However, there are certainly still directors out there that recognize the importance of good Cinematography.

      (Note: Snyder has somewhat disappointed me with Man of Steel, but I wanna blame Christopher Nolan for that. We'll see in the future, I suppose.)

      Right now, there is no one single place to look for some great Cinematography. Not Japan. Not Europe. Not even our glorious United States. The good stuff's spread out in tidbits around the globe. (Yes, here included) All I can hope is that I've made a strong enough case here for it that maybe, just maybe, one more person realizes how important it is.

NEXT TIME: THE NEXT MOST THING I CAN THINK OF

      Until then, head to your local movie theatre for more examples of Puke-Inducing cinematography!

Wolverine Review (Sort Of) and a Current Movie Trend That I'm Sick Of

   So I saw The Wolverine yesterday, and I was honestly very surprised. It is by no means a bad film. In fact it kind of switched up the current norm a bit. Well. For the most part. I have three major gripes with it. Rather than write a formal review, I will focus on these three things that in my opinion, held the movie back.

1) Jean Grey and the Viper woman were complete stereotypes with hardly any real depth.

   

   I felt that their characters weren't well developed for this particular movie. I know it's a sequel, but if you're like me, you might not have watched many of the previous movies. It's my personal opinion that a movie shouldn't hold anything from you just because you didn't watch the other movies or you didn't read the book. (Don't get me started on book adaptations. That's another post.) 

   

   As far as Jean Grey... It's one thing to like, maybe have a gag or a subtle nod to a previous movie for the longtime fans. Maybe a previous character has a cameo. Maybe something in the background nods to the events of a previous work. But she plays a major role in the story. I think we need to know WHO she is. Granted, she doesn't get much screen time. But when she does, it's nothing new. She serves to represent Logan's guilt for having killed her in a previous picture. He goes through these guilt trips in his sleep where he dreams he's in bed with her, talking. 

    This is a premise that has been done many times before. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the way she's portrayed, (a snappy, condescending, semi-antagonist) is nothing new. It's interesting, but only the surface, as it's an interesting premise to begin with, but nothing interesting is done with it. She just eggs on his guilt and shoves it in his face, as seen in various war movies and the like. (Sorry I couldn't find a good still of her in the movie.)

   The Viper woman has no excuse however. She's a generic movie villain b-word. No complexity. She's essentially the mad scientist overlooking the city from his fortress saying, "I will get them now!" I couldn't even make out what her driving motivation was for being evil. It would seem that she was evil for the sake of being evil. In fact, they even acknowledge her lack of depth once or twice in the movie! Stuff along the lines of, "She serves herself," and, "I know the Viper woman is evil." Yeah. I know that too. 

2) Hugh Jackman Has One Facial Expressions Throughout The Whole Movie.

   Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Hugh Jackman is a bad actor. He's quite good. Worlds better than your usual Matt Damons and Channing Tatums. It took THIS movie for me to realize that. He's capable of complex emotions. For the first quarter of this movie I was comparing him to Kirk Douglas, the manliest actor of all time.

   Was.

   I, disappointedly, relinquished those notions about a quarter into the movie. While he might be like Kirk in that he's very manly with his acting, with all of a man's complex emotions (guilt, fear, regret) He fails to let it bubble the way Kirk does.He simmers with them. Kirk Douglas would let his emotions simmer, then bubble, then absolutely boil. He would do this very subtle movements and facial expressions. Little twitches, convulsions, micro-expressions. Even when he was acting happy, you could still tell he had those feelings brewing inside. They'd build until they exploded right out of him in a fury of anger and rawness. Then he'd regret his explosion and go right back to brooding. Brilliant.

   Hugh only seems to be able to let it simmer, then explode only somewhat satisfyingly. But BOY DOES HE SIMMER. Even while in bed with Jean Grey (who simmers in her own right) he's got that face. My friend Christopher calls it the, "You're gonna die mother effer," face. WHILE IN BED WITH JEAN.

3) SO MUCH ORANGE AND BLUE LIKE WHAT THE FREAKING CRAP.

   I wish I could find some stills of the landscape shots. It's VERY prevalent there. Like. My gosh. Go see the movie, and count the number of times you seem blue and orange being the two dominant colours on screen.

   Now this, to me, seems to be Hollywood sticking it's smelly foot into the movie. Blue and orange are natural complements, so they should look great together. But sadly, there's not real composition to the colour in this movie. The shots (for the most part. There ARE some dang cool shots) aren't built around the mandatory one-tone-of-blue and one-tone-of-orange palette.

   I say mandatory because it seems like every Hollywood picture coming out is full of orange blue. Sometimes it's orange and grey. 

   Not only does it look pretty bad most of the time, it effectively damages any shred of uniqueness that a film can have. It's not even controlled well! You need variety and subtle colours to make a picture look nice and pop out. You have to be creative with framing shots and composing colours if you want to really make something pop and look nice. Not take the easy way out and make them perfect complements for the whole freaking movie!! 

   It's pretty prevalent in games too.

   I'm not sure entirely, but I think this trend started with the Transformers movies. I could be wrong.

(Photo's taken from here. You can read more about this disease on this post from Indie Filmmaker, Todd Miro's blog. http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html)