Please click here to read what I'm about to complain about.
I am absolutely fucking exhausted with these inspirational .pdfs. Really. The entire piece is about how all of our potential faults and shortcomings are simply areas of potential and self-discovery and self-betterment. It reads like an after school special or something, and if you are the sort of person that reaches out to inspirational blog posts on the internet to find self-betterment, then I suppose you would find some kind of strength in what Rendall is saying. To me, however, it all seems fairly trite and obvious--but then again, it is finals week, and I am feeling inherently negative. Rendall would probably twist that to tell me that I'm a realist and how wonderful that is. I'm inhabiting this entry, how delightful. Anyway, I’m going to critique three of his however-many points and attempt to apply them to my creative process even though it pains me to do so.
Entry three is one that caught my eye, simply because it has a pretty chart. It lists a series of "weaknesses" and the strengths that are associated with said weakness, thus negating the idea that there is anything inherently wrong with any of us. Well, I don't think that's true, because everyone is flawed--especially those people who think that they aren't. I think, in general terms, however, there is some truth to the list. I find myself to be incredibly unorganized, an yet I manage to pull the scraps together and form a creative output. My friend, who is a programmer for a living, is quite the opposite. Inflexible and stubborn, he always gets the job done and in a timely manner, but it is simply a matter of inputting data and getting things done.
Point four takes the stance that one should not try and fix their weaknesses, but rather understand that they have limitations. I think that this is an important thing to understand, especially to college students and especially to media students, when we seem to think that we can take on the world. The truth is that we all have limitations and driving too hard to overcome these will lead to issues elsewhere in life. Media is a group-oriented career. It is important to find someone who can compliment you. One of my weaknesses is my procrastination, but when I'm working on a project with a friend who has seemingly boundless and unrestrained enthusiasm, I'm more likely to get work done. It isn't a matter of me "fixing" myself, it's a matter of finding my place and finding people who can compliment me and draw product out of me.
Point eight makes the stance that attempting to be "normal" is the incorrect way of doing things. It is better to be bizarre or unique or, above all, exceptional. Media kids are very often slightly outside the box, in terms of thinking and in terms of behaving. It would be strange if we weren't, spending 12 hours shooting on a Saturday instead of going out to a rager. As a kid growing up, I was one of those creepy Tim Burton/Stephen King types. Reclusive and angsty--a prototype emo, perhaps. I've since learned how to be a more sociable person and how to extend to work in environments that are not necessarily my own. Deep down I'm still that strange and unusual kid, but it is something that now helps me rather than distracts me in my creative process.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Video Gaaaaames
Our entire gaming presentation was a little last-minute (go figure), and so there were definitely things that could have been improved upon. My group's gaming idea, the "Escape the Room" puzzle game with a twist, could have been better communicated and explained to the class, no doubt.
One thing we really should have stressed more was the mental challenge the game presents. The entire reason behind choosing this format of game was to stray away from the typical FPS style video games that are on the market today. By placing an emphasis on logic puzzles and not giving the player an alternate means to find a way out of the room (by way of guns or anything like that), the game actually becomes far more difficult than if the player were under attack by a million enemies. There are no enemies in this game. It is simply the player against themselves as they are left to their own devices to solve the puzzle. I think that stressing that concept, and comparing it to things on the market today, would have led to a more effective presentation.
Another concept that should have been expounded upon was the actual mechanics of the game. Saying "point and click" is easy enough, but it doesn't really explain the immersive nature of the mechanics. This game, in many ways, is similar to the adventure games of the late 80s and early 90s, where every single item you find could potentially help you later on down the road. This knowledge that some arbitrary item could save your life makes finding things and hunting for objects that much more exciting. The escape the room games are never as easy as finding a key and opening a door. The player has to be far more resourceful than that.
I believe the most difficult thing to explain were the objectives. This is simply because we hadn't fleshed them out enough. The overall puzzle of escaping the room is the main objective, obviously, but it's the completion of a number of other, smaller objectives that will ultimately lead the player to be able to do that. Since our group did not come up with each of these individual objectives and were not able to properly express this intent, it became muddled within the presentation and no doubt could have come across much better.
One thing we really should have stressed more was the mental challenge the game presents. The entire reason behind choosing this format of game was to stray away from the typical FPS style video games that are on the market today. By placing an emphasis on logic puzzles and not giving the player an alternate means to find a way out of the room (by way of guns or anything like that), the game actually becomes far more difficult than if the player were under attack by a million enemies. There are no enemies in this game. It is simply the player against themselves as they are left to their own devices to solve the puzzle. I think that stressing that concept, and comparing it to things on the market today, would have led to a more effective presentation.
Another concept that should have been expounded upon was the actual mechanics of the game. Saying "point and click" is easy enough, but it doesn't really explain the immersive nature of the mechanics. This game, in many ways, is similar to the adventure games of the late 80s and early 90s, where every single item you find could potentially help you later on down the road. This knowledge that some arbitrary item could save your life makes finding things and hunting for objects that much more exciting. The escape the room games are never as easy as finding a key and opening a door. The player has to be far more resourceful than that.
I believe the most difficult thing to explain were the objectives. This is simply because we hadn't fleshed them out enough. The overall puzzle of escaping the room is the main objective, obviously, but it's the completion of a number of other, smaller objectives that will ultimately lead the player to be able to do that. Since our group did not come up with each of these individual objectives and were not able to properly express this intent, it became muddled within the presentation and no doubt could have come across much better.
Superhero Critiques
Glen vs. Igor
The hero, Glen, and the villain, Igor, are contrasted through a number of visual means. Igor is more outwardly aggressive with his stance and the flames in his hands that make up his sinister superpower, whereas Glen appears more passive and peaceful, in a more relaxed stance in his wheelchair. The affinity between them--both human, both fairly realistic in their portrayal--puts them both in the same universe. Glen makes use of symbolism by being restricted to a wheelchair. This creates the notion that willpower is stronger than brute force and that he is more likely a reasonable and intelligent character, whereas Igor appears less intelligent and more dependent on his superpowers. Igor is composed of complimentary colors, red and green, which are opposite one another on the color wheel. This opposition not only makes him "pop", but gives some insight as to the duality of his nature. Glen is primarily in warm, analogous colors, making him feel more safe to the audience and more virtuous. Both characters are heavily saturated and bright regardless of their color scheme, again placing them in the same universe, and denoting a more light-hearded 60s comic book atmosphere.
Escobar vs The Krooked Cop
A very obvious contrast can be seen in the shape of these two characters. Escobar, the hero, is very round and rotund and appears to be very friendly. The Krooked Cop is comprised of bulkier square shapes and sharp edges, denoting his dangerousness. Since this is going along with the Charlie Chaplin tramp archetype, there's some vary obvious symbolism at work. The Krooked Cop is a symbol of authority, and, beyond that, authority and power out of control and abused. Escobar is the underdog, and very obviously the hero as he represents the "common man" and manages to pull the rug out from under the Cop's feet, so to speak. The most striking thing about the color, for me, is the absence of it. What little color that is present in each character pops due to the white space around it. For Escobar, it's his red bowtie, which denotes that he attempts to look gentlemanly and presentable. For the Cop, it's the red in his eyes, which is the very image of evil.
Clown Guy vs. Alien Guy (sorry, I don't have the names listed for them)
There is no more obvious symbol of happiness and cheerfulness than a clown, and so its pretty obvious that the clown character stands as the hero in this equation. The alien is a symbol for an "outsider", something not natural to this earth coming to threaten the inhabitants and promote fear. The contrast between these characters is very obvious visually. The dopey grin on the face of the clown and the drawn, depressed look on the alien's face couldn't be more different. The colors also provide a very obvious contrast. The clown, predictably enough, is comprised of largely saturated colors in various bright hues, making him seem more bright and approachable and, ultimately, good. The alien, however, is muddled with very dark colors. Nothing is very bright, and in fact the only color that really stands out on him is the red that makes up his costume, which is a power of color but also of danger.
The hero, Glen, and the villain, Igor, are contrasted through a number of visual means. Igor is more outwardly aggressive with his stance and the flames in his hands that make up his sinister superpower, whereas Glen appears more passive and peaceful, in a more relaxed stance in his wheelchair. The affinity between them--both human, both fairly realistic in their portrayal--puts them both in the same universe. Glen makes use of symbolism by being restricted to a wheelchair. This creates the notion that willpower is stronger than brute force and that he is more likely a reasonable and intelligent character, whereas Igor appears less intelligent and more dependent on his superpowers. Igor is composed of complimentary colors, red and green, which are opposite one another on the color wheel. This opposition not only makes him "pop", but gives some insight as to the duality of his nature. Glen is primarily in warm, analogous colors, making him feel more safe to the audience and more virtuous. Both characters are heavily saturated and bright regardless of their color scheme, again placing them in the same universe, and denoting a more light-hearded 60s comic book atmosphere.
Escobar vs The Krooked Cop
A very obvious contrast can be seen in the shape of these two characters. Escobar, the hero, is very round and rotund and appears to be very friendly. The Krooked Cop is comprised of bulkier square shapes and sharp edges, denoting his dangerousness. Since this is going along with the Charlie Chaplin tramp archetype, there's some vary obvious symbolism at work. The Krooked Cop is a symbol of authority, and, beyond that, authority and power out of control and abused. Escobar is the underdog, and very obviously the hero as he represents the "common man" and manages to pull the rug out from under the Cop's feet, so to speak. The most striking thing about the color, for me, is the absence of it. What little color that is present in each character pops due to the white space around it. For Escobar, it's his red bowtie, which denotes that he attempts to look gentlemanly and presentable. For the Cop, it's the red in his eyes, which is the very image of evil.
Clown Guy vs. Alien Guy (sorry, I don't have the names listed for them)
There is no more obvious symbol of happiness and cheerfulness than a clown, and so its pretty obvious that the clown character stands as the hero in this equation. The alien is a symbol for an "outsider", something not natural to this earth coming to threaten the inhabitants and promote fear. The contrast between these characters is very obvious visually. The dopey grin on the face of the clown and the drawn, depressed look on the alien's face couldn't be more different. The colors also provide a very obvious contrast. The clown, predictably enough, is comprised of largely saturated colors in various bright hues, making him seem more bright and approachable and, ultimately, good. The alien, however, is muddled with very dark colors. Nothing is very bright, and in fact the only color that really stands out on him is the red that makes up his costume, which is a power of color but also of danger.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Sunday, May 8, 2011
more talking - 6a
Check the article HERE.
All video used in this blog stolen from the Walt Disney doc "How Walt Disney Films are Made"
All video used in this blog stolen from the Walt Disney doc "How Walt Disney Films are Made"
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Salvador Dali's Eye - 5a
 |
| "The Eye" by Salvador Dali, original framing |
 |
| Re-framing of "the Eye" |
The reason I was most drawn to the original image is due to the fact that I've been a fan of Salvador Dali since I was in the first grade. His bizarre, other-worldly paintings have always appealed to my fascination with the bizarre and the surreal, and he is by far my favorite artists. This image, The Eye, is one of his more inherently spooky pieces of work, in my opinion. For the re-framing, I chose to focus on the most prominent object in the painting, which is the titular eye. The difference between the two images is vast, and it becomes abundantly clear why Dali chose to set the object the way he did in the original painting.
If you take a look at Dali's other works, it isn't uncommon for his paintings to be absolutely bursting with activity, which makes The Eye somewhat peculiar in its sense of desolation. There is no question as to the subject of the painting, however. Dali uses the lines running along the bottom of the image to lead the viewer directly towards the floating mass in the background of the image. Since the lines also start to draw closer to one another as they disappear into the horizon, the lines are also a clever way of creating depth within the image.
Also, in utilizing the idea of rule of thirds, the audience’s eyes would theoretically already be drawn directly to the floating eye based on its positioning alone. Even if the eye were placed elsewhere, and without the lines, however, it would be difficult for the object to go unnoticed. Dali’s use of space ensures this. We are presented with a barren setting, with only a few mountains peppering the background. This complete absence of visual components elsewhere makes the floating eye, strange enough in its own right, completely striking as the most prominent object within the frame.
Dali no doubt chose to use this complete poverty of other objects in the frame to create a much more striking contrast between the “normal” surroundings and the “abnormal” object occupying these surroundings.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
hey there, little red riding hood
I’m a big fan of psychobilly music, which is kind of the bastard son of rockabilly and punk. One of the major tenants of psychobilly is paying homage to one’s roots, and often that manifests itself in cover songs. One of my absolute favorite songs by a band called The Meteors is actually a cover of Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs’ song Little Red Riding Hood. The lyrical content of the two songs is the same. At no point do The Meteors alter the actual lyrics. The song is a slightly more sinister, sexual take on the Little Red Riding hood story. It’s sung from the Big Bad Wolf’s perspective as he tries to convince Red that he can be trusted and that she should stray from the path and walk with him through the woods. Both songs utilize the lyrics in the same way--playing up the innuendo and suggestiveness of it all. It is my opinion, however, that The Meteors version is much more effective in relating this suggestive, sexual message with its vastly different musical quality.
As the name might portend, Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs are a slightly more gimmicky rock and roll act than The Meteors. The overall intensity is lessened greatly by the almost comical approach the band has to the song. The intensity is broken in parts by the wolf-like noises the lead singer makes, and the breaks in the song where he chooses to speak instead of sing. The sound is slightly dated, mostly due to the tambourine present that gives the entire song a sort of 60s vibe. The speed is fairly similar to the cover The Meteors did, as is the overall timbre and organization. As with the intensity, however, the rhythm varies to a large degree, with Sam the Sham creating a slightly more upbeat sound. This is due largely to the instrumentation and lack of intensity.
The Meteors, on the other hand, create a much darker, more intense version of Little Red Riding Hood. The song is driven by heavy, electric guitar that drives the entire song. The vocals of the lead singer, P. Paul French, varies greatly from Sam the Sham. He hits the higher pitch that Sam the Sham does, but for the most part, his voice stays at a low, guttural growl, making him sound more like the Big Bad Wolf in the song. The instrumentation adds to the dark intensity of the song. The electric guitar, double bass and drums are simple but compliment each other well, without the tambourine or anything else to distract from the song. The overall rhythm is far less upbeat and is instead dark and seductive, with the lead singer’s vocals sounding evil enough to believe that he might be the Big Bad Wolf he’s singing about.
Just because The Meteors are one of my favorite bands doesn’t automatically make them win out in this scenario, but, I do happen to enjoy their version of Little Red Riding Hood a lot more. The original song is a fun, almost campy kind of novelty song, but what P. Paul French’s vocals do for characterizing the Big Bad Wolf is helped so much by the driving guitar and heavy rhythm brought on by the drums and bass. What results is a much darker, more interesting song than the original and one of my all-time favorite songs.
As the name might portend, Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs are a slightly more gimmicky rock and roll act than The Meteors. The overall intensity is lessened greatly by the almost comical approach the band has to the song. The intensity is broken in parts by the wolf-like noises the lead singer makes, and the breaks in the song where he chooses to speak instead of sing. The sound is slightly dated, mostly due to the tambourine present that gives the entire song a sort of 60s vibe. The speed is fairly similar to the cover The Meteors did, as is the overall timbre and organization. As with the intensity, however, the rhythm varies to a large degree, with Sam the Sham creating a slightly more upbeat sound. This is due largely to the instrumentation and lack of intensity.
The Meteors, on the other hand, create a much darker, more intense version of Little Red Riding Hood. The song is driven by heavy, electric guitar that drives the entire song. The vocals of the lead singer, P. Paul French, varies greatly from Sam the Sham. He hits the higher pitch that Sam the Sham does, but for the most part, his voice stays at a low, guttural growl, making him sound more like the Big Bad Wolf in the song. The instrumentation adds to the dark intensity of the song. The electric guitar, double bass and drums are simple but compliment each other well, without the tambourine or anything else to distract from the song. The overall rhythm is far less upbeat and is instead dark and seductive, with the lead singer’s vocals sounding evil enough to believe that he might be the Big Bad Wolf he’s singing about.
Just because The Meteors are one of my favorite bands doesn’t automatically make them win out in this scenario, but, I do happen to enjoy their version of Little Red Riding Hood a lot more. The original song is a fun, almost campy kind of novelty song, but what P. Paul French’s vocals do for characterizing the Big Bad Wolf is helped so much by the driving guitar and heavy rhythm brought on by the drums and bass. What results is a much darker, more interesting song than the original and one of my all-time favorite songs.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
an apathetic soundscape
the two I critiqued are Shannon McAdoo's and Haley Posey's.
Monday, April 11, 2011
ways to get ideas
Mitch Ditkoff's article, "14 Ways to Get Ideas" presents, as the title would portend, a number of ways in which a person looking to create (no matter what the product) can find inspiration and get that extra push. Fourteen separate approaches are presented to the reader, each with an explanation, ways to go about enacting the plan, and some prompts to get started. Some suggestions seem more helpful than most and here I'll outline three of the plans presented in the article and examine their validity as a practical means of finding inspiration.
7. Listen To Your Subconscious
In the article, Ditkoff encourages a focus on the subconscious mind as opposed to the conscious. That is, the thoughts that occur to us without us realizing it--almost like automatic reactions, or the sort of thoughts that might occur in a sleep-like state. I find this particularly interesting as a fan of surrealism, an entire art movement born out of the subconscious mind. I believe that limiting your thought processes to simply those we work through when completely aware is silly. Daydreaming, automatic writing, and other exercises to unlock the subconscious can be incredibly helpful when it comes to generating ideas, even if it means that you'll have to unscramble and decode your subconscious mind to make anything coherent out of it.
8. Take a Break
This piece of advice is a little iffy to me. On one hand, I do understand that mental exhaustion can lead one to think or work in circles, which really does nothing to further creative endeavors. However, everyone's lives are hectic and multi-faceted, and as soon as you step away from a piece of work and put it to rest for a while, you run the risk of losing it altogether. Admittedly, you might return to a project weeks, months, maybe years later with a new perspective which may help bring some more light to the situation, but it's still risky to avoid immersion in favor of taking a break, in my opinion.
14. Suspend Logic
This is one of my favorites, which shouldn't be surprising since it's in a similar vein as listening to your subconscious. One of the major issues that comes with being a student and feeling relatively underpowered in actualizing our creative visions is that we are so painfully aware of the lack of resources we have--whether that's money, equipment, or any other manner of things. Rather than drowning in these kinds of limitations, I think it's better to let your mind go nuts. This doesn't just have to be in terms of limitations of actualization, either. You shouldn't be afraid of thinking outside the box--far, far outside. Dream as big as you'd like, regardless of whether or not you have the means to make any of it happen. After you have everything worked out as being ideal, that's when you can let yourself start to worry about how to pull it all together.
In a separate bullet point, Ditkoff recommends that the reader look for "happy accidents" in order to gain creative ideas. The question he poses actually fits fairly well into a current situation I find myself in, which is: What “failed experiment” or unexpected outcome might be interesting for you to reconsider? Who else might you invite to participate in this effort?
Very often, I find myself partaking in creative endeavors that are not my own. They are ideas hatched by someone else that I elect to help with, lending my expertise (which, apparently, falls under art direction more often than not) and generally helping to see the product to the end. While on one such project (which will remain anonymous, since I'm not a total jerk), both myself and a friend (also nameless) found ourselves so incredibly stifled by the people around us that all we could do was discuss how much better our set would be run. While enduring the unprofessional way in which the director and producer carried themselves, creating needlessly long shoots and no room for input outside their own, both my friend and myself found ourselves noting every single mistake. Having endured these hardships ourselves, commiserating all the while, we vowed not to run our productions in such a fashion, and, more than that, began to plan a project of our own wherein we could exercise our own creative freedom that had been otherwise stifled during this project. I, personally, feel it's important not to be discouraged entirely by the negative experiences one inevitably encounters while undertaking creative endeavors. Chances are, you're going to fail a hell of a lot more than you'll succeed.
And with that happy thought, I guess I've reached the end of this wall of text.
7. Listen To Your Subconscious
In the article, Ditkoff encourages a focus on the subconscious mind as opposed to the conscious. That is, the thoughts that occur to us without us realizing it--almost like automatic reactions, or the sort of thoughts that might occur in a sleep-like state. I find this particularly interesting as a fan of surrealism, an entire art movement born out of the subconscious mind. I believe that limiting your thought processes to simply those we work through when completely aware is silly. Daydreaming, automatic writing, and other exercises to unlock the subconscious can be incredibly helpful when it comes to generating ideas, even if it means that you'll have to unscramble and decode your subconscious mind to make anything coherent out of it.
8. Take a Break
This piece of advice is a little iffy to me. On one hand, I do understand that mental exhaustion can lead one to think or work in circles, which really does nothing to further creative endeavors. However, everyone's lives are hectic and multi-faceted, and as soon as you step away from a piece of work and put it to rest for a while, you run the risk of losing it altogether. Admittedly, you might return to a project weeks, months, maybe years later with a new perspective which may help bring some more light to the situation, but it's still risky to avoid immersion in favor of taking a break, in my opinion.
14. Suspend Logic
This is one of my favorites, which shouldn't be surprising since it's in a similar vein as listening to your subconscious. One of the major issues that comes with being a student and feeling relatively underpowered in actualizing our creative visions is that we are so painfully aware of the lack of resources we have--whether that's money, equipment, or any other manner of things. Rather than drowning in these kinds of limitations, I think it's better to let your mind go nuts. This doesn't just have to be in terms of limitations of actualization, either. You shouldn't be afraid of thinking outside the box--far, far outside. Dream as big as you'd like, regardless of whether or not you have the means to make any of it happen. After you have everything worked out as being ideal, that's when you can let yourself start to worry about how to pull it all together.
In a separate bullet point, Ditkoff recommends that the reader look for "happy accidents" in order to gain creative ideas. The question he poses actually fits fairly well into a current situation I find myself in, which is: What “failed experiment” or unexpected outcome might be interesting for you to reconsider? Who else might you invite to participate in this effort?
Very often, I find myself partaking in creative endeavors that are not my own. They are ideas hatched by someone else that I elect to help with, lending my expertise (which, apparently, falls under art direction more often than not) and generally helping to see the product to the end. While on one such project (which will remain anonymous, since I'm not a total jerk), both myself and a friend (also nameless) found ourselves so incredibly stifled by the people around us that all we could do was discuss how much better our set would be run. While enduring the unprofessional way in which the director and producer carried themselves, creating needlessly long shoots and no room for input outside their own, both my friend and myself found ourselves noting every single mistake. Having endured these hardships ourselves, commiserating all the while, we vowed not to run our productions in such a fashion, and, more than that, began to plan a project of our own wherein we could exercise our own creative freedom that had been otherwise stifled during this project. I, personally, feel it's important not to be discouraged entirely by the negative experiences one inevitably encounters while undertaking creative endeavors. Chances are, you're going to fail a hell of a lot more than you'll succeed.
And with that happy thought, I guess I've reached the end of this wall of text.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
questionable role models
JOHN WATERS
John Waters earned my respect and admiration when I first saw Pink Flamingos in high school. I was fairly jaded and, particularly as a horror fan, was under the impression that I had seen all there was to be seen. John Waters, the "Prince of Puke," based his entire career on shocking audiences and giving them something they'd never, ever seen before. Not only was he successful in doing so, he managed to launch a mainstream career off it. By setting up a reality of his own creation in which the audience's perceptions of what is normal and what isn't are turned on their sides, Waters manages to make (almost) endearing characters out of complete freaks and degenerates with the help of really hilarious and subversive writing.
 |
| This is your protagonist. |
His storytelling is much more active than it is didactic, which is part of what makes it so shocking. The audience isn't given the privilege of being told it's okay to hate these people or that it's okay to love them, nor does Waters care to explain why such bizarre behavior is seemingly commonplace--like, say, Edith Massey spending most of the film in that skin-tight get-up wailing at the top of her lungs in Female Trouble. The audience is simply left alone with this veritable freak show and has to decide whether to laugh, feel repulsed, or a bit of both. The worst thing for a filmmaker is for someone to walk away from their film without inspiring any strong feelings and to have your work be forgotten. I admire John Waters most for his assurance that no matter what, you will never be able to forget what you saw in his films.
QUENTIN TARANTINO
 |
| aka "Mr. Shit" |
Quentin Tarantino's movies, for me, are all about subtext. Looking at Kill Bill, Vol. 1 the text of the film is simply that a woman scorned seeks revenge from those who once tried to kill her. It's fairly standard. Looking at the subtext, though, the film becomes such a rich experience and, really, all of Tarantino's films are partly storytelling and partly his love letter to the films that inspired him. As an aspiring filmmaker, I identify with him because of his obvious identity as a film fan before being a filmmaker. If I'm sitting in a theatre watching Inglourious Basterds and I hear a music cue from A Fistful of Dollars, I'm going to smile and instantly understand the tone that Tarantino is pulling for by knowing that piece of score in its original context. It's like some strange, exclusive club where you're rewarded for being a giant nerd, which I'm all for. In a creative environment, it's important to recognize and embrace your influences and build from them to create. No one does that better (or more blatantly) than Tarantino.
The text of this scene is fairly simple. It's a big crazy fight sequence to act as the centerpiece of the film. Looking at it more closely, however, this entire scene is Tarantino paying homage (or ripping off, depending on who you ask) his inspirations in film. The Bride's trademark jumpsuit is the same worn by Bruce Lee in his last film, Game of Death. Axe to the head? Just like Navajo Joe. Yakuza split down the middle with a sword? Looks like Ichi the Killer. Shadow sword-play from Samurai Fiction, plucking out someone's eye looks an awful lot like The Five Fingers of death--this entire piece is constructed from countless sources, from Kurosawa to Leone. Uma Thurman is a blonde-haired warrior with no name--she might as well be "Blondie" in The Good the Bad and the Ugly. From the cinematography to the score to costuming and set pieces, Tarantino creates a kind of film mash-up of some of the greatest films, then puts his own particular spin on it to make it appeal to a modern audience. It's a celebration of cult and camp and filmmaking in general and a testament to his ability to make the old new and fresh.
 | |
| No, but seriously, I kind of love Tarantino. |
JOHN CARPENTER
 |
| Oh, sweet JESUS what is that? |
I am, at heart, a horror fangirl. If I could spend the rest of my life dumping fake blood on people and making schlocky movies, I'd die a happy girl. John Carpenter is one of my main inspirations as a horror director, primarily because, better than anyone else, Carpenter knows how to ratchet tension right to the breaking point before finally giving audiences a terrifying release. In his remake of The Thing (one of the few movies to really surpass and really make the original almost forgettable), Carpenter presents us with a research team alone in their arctic base in the midst of an outbreak of some kind of alien force looking to assimilate each and every one of them by turning them into nightmarish aliens so horrible that not even Kurt Russell can save them. It's a bleak, quiet film with a minimalistic soundtrack that creates a feeling of tense claustrophobia which is then given release through a series of terrifying, cathartic scenes of WTF.
In one of the aforementioned scenes of WTF, Kurt Russell, playing R.J. MacReady, has learned that this alien reacts violently to fire. In order to determine who among them is still themselves and who has been taken over by "the thing," he proceeds to systematically test a blood sample from each by applying heat to it. It starts slow, with MacReady explaining and setting up the expectation for the audience: something terrible is coming out of this. He tests sample after sample and nothing happens, building tension with quiet deliberation until finally, he hits Palmer's sample, which sets off a chaotic scene of shock and horror so strongly contrasted against the earlier quiet of the film. The release of knowing who is really "the thing" and who is not is instantly overtaken by more tension as the rest of the crew are tied down and totally helpless against the monster, as both MacReady and Windows' flamethrowers fail them. The second release finally comes with the explosion of the dynamite that ultimately kills the monster. Carpenter was the master with this kind of thing, no pun intended. Halloween is the most obvious example of his prowess in creating tension in horror, but The Thing holds a special place in my heart for having such mind-blowing practical make-up effects and, of course, Kurt Russell.
Friday, April 1, 2011
a regular Tom Savini
 | ||
| photo credit Rachel Hohenfeld On the set of A Human Condition, spring quarter of 2010 One of my favorite photos of me, despite how terrible and faded my hair was at that point. Obviously, nothing delights me more than playing with gore. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)