Horror in an HD World

The profiteers of the motion picture industry decided to reboot A Nightmare on Elm Street. Despite the fact that narrative canon really is obsolete at this point, I've decided I will go see it. I like Jackie Earle Haley and I think he'll be good in the role of the iconic killer. Though something has me a little concerned, something that no writer could have predicted—especially a horror writer. How will high definition affect the film and other horror films?

It may be a stupid question that has no relevance at all. HD might not have any effect on the horror genre. But for some reason, I feel like it's counter-intuitive to shoot a horror film in high definition.

The reason the great horror films of our time are so terrifying is because they don't show a lot. It's not the details in the monster that make them scary, it's the opposite—it's what you don't see. But with high definition and 4K resolution cameras, you will see everything.

The one word that I can think of that every horror film needs is grit. There must be a degree of grittiness in order for a horror film to be effective. Dim lighting, shadows, gritty film stock—all of these are essential. But the technologies that everyone is clamoring for completely contradict the need for grit.

Fundamentally, HD seems like the wrong choice for horror. A perfect example of this is The Blair Witch Project. I would attribute more than half of the success of that film to the fact that it was shot on shitty DV cams and 16mm. Even the more recent Paranormal Activity realized that grit is necessary. Most of the film was shot in "night vision" to lessen the effects of a crystal-clear picture.

Lady Gaga: Artist

I didn't know what to think when I first saw Lady Gaga. It was back in the summer of 2009. I think I was late to the Lady Gaga-party. I was in a bar that played music videos on the TVs and the video for "Poker Face" was on. It was a fucking circus. It was ridiculous. At first I thought she was just a crazy person looking for attention. I didn't think she had any real vocal talent—just the ability to strike interest in the public and sell records. I'll be honest, I haven't really listened to her music all that much. From what I've heard it could be described as above average pop. 

I don't want to talk about her music. I want to talk about her identity. What does she mean to the image industry or the celebrity industry? I was looking at photos of her from the Grammys that premiered a few days ago. It's gotten a lot of press for how odd it was. But I don't think anyone has really spent time to look at it from an artistic perspective. And I think there is a lot to say about her dress. 

First of all, it's not just her dress—it's everything from her make-up, her obvious wig, the star she carried around, and her performance. Let's start with her make-up: really heavy, over-done, clownish. She looks like someone who's never really worn make up. Her wig, as I mention, is an obvious fake. You can see the seam line go down her face. The wig itself is contoured to look like a typical blond bombshell from the 80s—big, platinum, over-the-top—reminds me of Morgan Fairchild. Her face looks like Prostitute Barbie and the thin stocking-like material that covers her arms, hands, legs, and feet make her look like she is wrapped in plastic. 

Her dress has little ringlets wrapped around, like a celestial gas-giant with orbiting bits of debris. The star is like a ninja weapon with pointy ends. I'm sure sitting next to her was a pain in the ass. 

I mentioned a performance—by this I mean her overall countenance for posing for the photos. Her eyes are vacant, mouth usually ajar, as she genuflects on the red carpet. 

All these attributes were preconceived prior to the event because Lady Gaga was making a statement. She was reflecting the vapidity and self-indulgence of a typical Hollywood event. She made her head look spurious—like a Barbie but creepier and without a shred of innocence. Her body itself reflects the massive ego of Hollywood socialites and players to the point where galatic debris has begun to revolve around it. In fact, the ego of the Hollywood socialite is so massive that it in fact is the center of the universe with the star revolving around it, not the other way around. 

In the end, what we have is an fake, hollow, painted shell of a human that is so self-centered that the properties of astrophysics no longer apply. 

I applaud Lady Gaga for her bravery. To reflect the narcissism and emptiness of Hollywood is one thing but to do it and then attend an event that honors them, well, that takes huge balls. Unfortunately I don' t think anyone really knew what she was trying to get at. She remains simply "an eccentric". I think she's brilliant. 


Lady Gaga's examination of depravity in Hollywood is very interesting. I plan on exploring her music and fashion in later entries. There are so many interesting things about her. Even her name is genius to her artistic sensibilities. Gaga which means crazy is an obvious nod to the realm in which she lives. She is the crazy lady. Everyone knows her as this but really, she's just a mirror. The crazy ladies and gentlemen surround her. She understands this dynamic. It's become a part of her psyche. In some ways, her "character" is similar to that of the Comedian from Watchmen. The Comedian was called such because he saw the "true nature" of humanity—it's just a joke. Lady Gaga sees the human nature through a different lens—she thinks we're all bat-shit crazy. 

2000 - 2009

CONS

• September 11th Terrorist Attack, and countless others
• Hurricane Katrina
• The War in Afghanistan
• The War in Iraq II
• October 2008 Financial Crisis
• Patriot Act
• Secret CIA prisons found in Germany
• Abu Ghraib
• Torture/Waterboarding
• Global Warming consensus reached, US refuses Kyoto
• Crash winning Best Picture
• MySpace

PROS

• First Black US President
• Facebook
• iPhone
• iPod

GOOD RIDDANCE. 

In Defense of Dane Cook

I turned on the TV today and a movie called Employee of the Month appeared. I watched it for about 13 seconds, turned the TV off, went to the bathroom, sat on the toilet and pondered this question, "Why does everyone hate Dane Cook?"

I didn't come out for 45 minutes.

I think the main reason people hate Dane Cook is that he steals jokes. But this isn't really a reason because every comic in history has stolen jokes. One might say, "Well Dane Cook steals more than others". But that isn't a justification. The guy who steals $1,000 is just as culpable as the guy who steals $1,000,000. Moral relativism doesn't exist in comedy, nor anything else.

The next reason is that he is annoying. But is that really enough to hate someone? I mean, let's face it—a lot of people have a deep-seeded hatred for the guy. I know plenty of annoying people—you do what you should've learned when you were a child—ignore them. Done.

The last possible reason someone could hate Dane Cook is because he is not good at his job—making people laugh. I don't find him funny at all. But I can't hate someone for not being good at their job when their job is to make me laugh. I mean it's comedy, who gives a shit. It's not like he's a legislator, or a judge, or a cop, or a financial analyst. Let's be honest—nothing bad can come from Dane Cook being a shitty comic. You're not going to be wrongfully accused of a crime and you're not going to have your car repo-ed. Sure he makes a crapload of money but if you hate him for that then you're clearly just jealous.

The Oldness of New

Time seems to have an interesting effect on people, or rather, the effects that time brings to a culture are interesting. I saw Avatar in theaters last week and it was astounding—both technically and narratively. It was one of the most satisfying movie-going experiences I've had in recent years and it makes me want to revise my Top Movies of 2009 entry.

The reviews of Avatar have been positive—but they haven't been as positive as I've anticipated. In fact, I was one of thirty people in the theater at a 5:40pm showing. I was expecting a full house. The consensus at the end was simply that it was "a good movie". Most of the audience cheered at the end. And while that is important, and I am satisfied with that response, it got me thinking—if it used the SFX of the day, what if Avatar came out in 1977?

Recall for a moment—Star Wars was an epic, mind-blowing, paradigm-shifting film of the 1970s (one of many). It was noted for it's technical achievements, as well as providing an immersive universe that people are still going ape shit over. It introduced unforgettable characters, worlds, stories, and (coincidentally) merchandise. I believe that Star Wars will be impossible to erase from human history. When aliens are visiting our planet thousands of years from now, and digging through the rubble, they'll have a pretty good idea of what Star Wars was really about. It's penetrated our culture as much as Stonehenge, the Pyramids of Egypt, and Snuggies. The thorn in my brain is the idea that Star Wars and Avatar aren't that much different. Yet both produced incredibly different responses—one colossal and timeless, the other not so much. And the answer, I think, lies in timing.

First, let me show you how both films compare. This is a (most probably) incomplete list of the qualities that both Star Wars and Avatar have in common. Please note though, that all of these similarities have entirely different contexts within each narrative:

• Huge-budgeted epic science fiction
• Ground-breaking technical achievements
• Directed by cinematic trailblazer
• Borrowed iconography (notably from the Western genre) supplanted into sci-fi
• Reluctant hero who rises to lead a rebellion against the fascist opposition
• Hero learns the ways of the Mystical (the Force and biological connectivity respectively)
• Mechanized war-fighting units against forest critters with bows, arrows, slings, and stone weapons (Return of the Jedi specifically and Avatar respectively)

Star Wars and Avatar are incredibly similar. Yet both received very different responses. A small part of the reason unfortunately is the World Wide Web. Forum trolls love to bash anything. If something comes out that has the potential to be successful, these trolls feel obligated to trash it. This trolling can eventually become the dominant zeitgeist and can ruin a great thing.

But I think the main issue that Avatar faces is simply the day and age. The modern movie-goer simply is harder to please. The 70s was the New Golden Era for cinema. Today, we're much too cynical. We've been saturated with remakes, reboots, re-incarnations, and sequels that we just don't give a shit anymore. We don't see anything new. In fact, this entry might be counter-productive. While I am defending Avatar and showing how similar it is to the incredibly successful and mind-blowing Star Wars, that might make one think that I'm saying it's a rip-off. But I'm not and Avatar certainly isn't. This is postmodernism at it's worst. It has failed Avatar mostly because no one really knows what postmodernism is. When Star Wars came out, no one complained that opening sequence mirrored Buck Rogers. But when the trailer for Avatar premiered, no one could stop talking about how the Na'vi looked like the Thundercats. Again, internet memes had a huge role in this.

Apparently, James Cameron has no imagination. 

Instead of seeing postmodernism as a benefit to the artistic palette, most people see it as lazy writing, directing, or storytelling. The audiences and critics require material that is 100% authentic and original. Nothing can be borrowed because we can now splice images together in Photoshop and show everyone how similar they are, even though they mean completely different things.

And because of this saturation, Avatar will only be deemed "good" rather than "on par with groundbreaking epics like Star Wars". The truth is, Avatar is this generation's Star Wars but no one will ever see it that way. And it's not simply because anything old is good or better; it's because anything new simply feels done already. Has Hollywood or anyone else run out of ideas? Absolutely not. But I definitely think the word "idea" has changed. Perhaps for the better, perhaps not.

Top Six Movies of 2009 (That I Saw)

The best movies always come out toward the end of the year (i.e. Awards Season) and it sucks because I never have any time to go see them. So at the end of February, I can't add any kind of lament or exuberance to the winners of the Academy Awards. So this is in no way the best films of the year, rather just the best ones that I saw. There may be spoilers, so if you haven't seen these films, maybe catch 'em first and come back.

The Hurt Locker

A great example of a highly calculated and executed thriller/action film is The Hurt Locker, from sorely under-utilized (although hopefully not anymore) Katherine Bigelow. But it also provides an interesting glimpse into the life of a modern day war-junkie. War is a polarizing thing. You either love it or hate it and for Jeremy Renner's character in this film—he absolutely can not function without it.

There is a moment that is a unique mixture of grotesque and hilarious. Just after Sergeant First Class William James (Renner) proves his insane war addiction, he runs down a hill, away from two other characters. Out of earshot, the two other characters decide whether or not to kill James before he gets them killed. They decide not to. This moment clearly defines the modern stage of war and sets it apart from other more "wholesome" war films.

Where the Wild Things Are

I hated children's movies when I was a child. Classic animated films and movies just never interested me and at the time I didn't know why. After watching Where the Wild Things Are, I can tell you why I stayed away from those movies.

Children's films are inherently condescending—from the subject matter, to the direction, editing, and writing. And it's understandable. Adults are condescending to children and adults make films. Anytime I'm around children and adults, I observe the way they speak to one another. Children are unequivocally honest and forthright. Adults speak to children like they are idiots. Innocence is mistaken for novelty or worse, for ignorance.

But Where the Wild Things Are refuses to submit to the children's film paradigm of condescension. So much so that children may not like the film. Unfortunately, they've been indoctrinated to accept the behavior of adults as "normal". And that really sucks.

This film captures what it means to be a child better than any children's film or book that I've ever come across. It has depth, emotion, and sincerity.

District 9

I saw an interview with Neil Blomkamp, the director of District 9, that made me believe that he will be the next visionary director along the lines of James Cameron. He was discussing the creative direction of the special effects of the film. He said that he wanted to make the SFX unintrusive to the film and to maintain the documentary-like cinéma vérité style. This of course is the complete opposite of what every director has done in the past. SFX is expensive and time consuming—what on Earth would make someone want to put it on the backburner? SFX are centerpieces but more often then not, they are also simply eye-candy. If any other director had seen the opening footage of the mothership going in and out of frame, the SFX coordinator would have been fired. But Blomkamp wanted that. Here's a guy with a SFX background working on a movie with incredible effects, and making it subjugated to the narrative. That is cinematic progress.

Besides the SFX direction, the story is superb. I read one review (can't remember from who though) that likened it to a tradition Hitchcockian thriller—the man-on-the-run-trying-to-clear-his-name pursued by two nefarious agencies. It's smart storytelling with fabulous effects.

Inglourious Basterds

This is classic Tarantino—he takes his pulp fiction sensibilities to the war genre with zero regard for history. Mad props to Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, and Christoph Waltz (who I had never heard of before this film) for their top-notch performances. After watching this film, I realized Tarantino is quite talented for creating really likable villains. Waltz's character is called the "Jew Hunter" and could be easily despised yet I found myself falling for his charm and charisma (which certainly had a lot to do with the actor's performance).

This movie is great for a lot of reasons—for one it re-affirms the idea that Nazis were the scum of the Earth and that their horrifically cinematic mutilation will not draw pity from anyone of any ethic or cultural background. And two, of the two hundred machine gun rounds fired into Hitler, at least half of them went into his face. Oh Tarantino, you would.

Star Trek

Despite the awesomeness of this movie, JJ Abrams accomplished a near-impossible task—he took quite possibly the nerdiest franchise in history and made it cool (the only other example that comes to mind is the newest TV incarnation of Battlestar Galatica, although many would maintain that it's coolness is a direct result of the casting of Edward James Almos).

But let's be honest, this movie is cool, and that may it's only flaw. Many have said that it's "a Star Trek movie for people who don't like Star Trek". Well, that might disqualify it from being a Star Trek movie in the first place, because the things that make a Star Trek movie are curiously absent. There's no rumination on space or a philosophical twist that was always so prominent in previous Star Trek installments.

Regardless of my nit-picking—this film is kick-ass. Stellar action, direction and acting from Chris Pine as Kirk. But the one who steals the show is Zachary Quinto in his portrayal of Spock.

I Love You, Man

I might get a lot of flack for this but I'll say it anyway. I Love You, Man was my favorite comedy of 2009. Yes, I liked it more than The Hangover. And I liked it for a very simple reason. Both films were hysterical in their own right but I Love You, Man felt like a smaller movie. Even though I liked Star Trek, I always tend to enjoy films that are smaller in scale. I like movies that exist in a neighborhood. The characters, emotions, and conflicts seem more honest and real.

I Love You, Man is a movie about a man looking for friendship. I think it's hilarious because of the truth behind the comedy. Despite the recent explosion of "bromance" comedy, I Love You, Man remains sincere and hilarious without submitting to the newly exploited cliche.

Skinny Guys Fight Till They're Burger

Adrien Brody and Topher Grace have been cast as the leads in the upcoming Predators film. The online film community has not taken to this idea. But they need to remember one thing: This movie will be released in 2010. Not 1988. Let me explain.

The action movie paradigm has changed a great deal in the last 20+ years. Adrien Brody has no need to fill the shoes of any actor or character. Especially Arnold Schwarzenegger. If Arnold Schwarzenegger was 35 years-old now in 2009, he would have a much tougher time getting acting gigs than he did in 1982. The super-pumped-up aesthetic of the 80s is over, thankfully. The modern male lead in an action film doesn't have to be, in and of itself, a spectacle. I've gone over much of this in a previous entry. If you'll like to read it, click here.

An actor's physique is definitely important. Woody Allen could never play Rambo. There has to be a degree of verisimilitude with an action lead. But that door swings both ways. Before Predator was shot, Schwarzenegger was actually too big. He was asked by the director to slim down to the body type of a typical Special Forces soldier. In fact, if you ever have the pleasure of meeting a typical Navy SEAL, you'll see that they look more like Topher Grace than Arnold Schwarzenegger. The military's training program doesn't focus on bodybuilding. There is a fair amount of running and obstacle negotiation. No way in hell a guy with Arnold's body could traverse a thick, mountainous jungle. He's just not built for it. Too much bulk. Special Forces operators are supposed to be small and lean.

As if actors weren't already pummeled with enough self-doubt and deprecation, the 80s added more with a crippling sense of male inferiority. Schwarzenegger and Stallone really changed the game–the body was now a separate entity from the actor. It had to be ripped to an unnatural extent. Whether this trend was a reflection of society or a creation from cinema and popular culture, I have no idea. But I do know that the paradigm has changed significantly.

And so, no, I don't have a problem with Adrien Brody taking on the lead in the new Predators film. And yes, I am a huge fan of the original Predator film and Arnold Schwarzenegger. I think Brody is a terrific actor and as such, his skills can absolutely support him in his role. I like to think that acting is enough for an actor–they don't need to be burdened with a huge set of biceps.