Fly-by Movie Thoughts

[permetaform]

Have just watched Blade Runner as a supplement for Virtual Realities in Media class.

o.o dude, is it me or is The 5th Element (1997) like a cracktastic, comedic remake of Blade Runner (1982)? (with all the bad parts fixed. And a lot more orange.)

[edit] To explain the 'bad parts' comment...

Initial Qualifiers:
1) I watched the 1st half of the cinematic release, 2nd half of the director's cut. (I downloaded both the Criterion and the Director's cut; the Criterion rip spazzed out on me half-way through, so I switched over to the Director's cut for the ending)
2) I have read so much sci-fi that at no point was I surprised at *all* over the storyline
3) I am a vidder.
4) The 5th Element was a pivotal movie for me, none of the movies I've seen before that movie was memorable, and barely any movie I've seen after did I find the *need* to own. I was in a state of shock for a day or two after I first saw it, I was in love with Bruce Willis for 5 years after that and Leeloo was probably the first female protagonist I ever looked up to. It's the first movie I paid for myself. It's been my favorite movie for forever, and as of now ranks only under PotC for the amount of love I have for it.

Now:
What I really liked about Blade Runner was it's sense of visual style, pictoral composition, the color of it; the visual treatment of the concept of cyberpunk was lovely and some of the scenes in it were breathtaking.

However, (regarding #2) none of the story came as a surprise to me, at times I was playing 'predict the scene', and I've experienced before the sense of alienation? urban-pseudo-apocalyptic angst? cyberpunk disassociation? whatever that mood was, it didn't hit me very hard, because I've experienced it elsewhere in far more concentrated form (via 1st and 2nd person POV) and perhaps have sorta been jaded to it.

Regarding #3, some of the editing was really jarring to me because at times it really REALLY wasn't beat-whored, and it really threw me off. At points, I had to turn the sound really low just to get past it, though granted part of it was because of the music itself such as during the romantic scene.

(Speaking of which, what was up with the shoving her against the window? Totally twigged me out.)

And er...Harrison's Ford's voice was really badly acted during the voice-overs. I get that he was going for "flat"; but he's just really not a voice actor, and it came off sounding (to me) like Tom Welling on a really bad day.

And I appreciate the movie in that it was a fore-runner to many sci-fi movies, but I really only *loved* the visual aspect of it, and as for the rest, it really can't match my adoration of The 5th Element.

Comments

[klia.livejournal.com]

Yeah. But it disturbes me still, and I still find it a technical flaw.

Technical flaw? Wow, I'm just... *boggles*

Admittedly, most of us who were old enough to see and appreciate BR when it first came out have had to adapt our aesthetic sensibilities over the years (mostly to parse faster editing techniques), but to find something like that disturbing... wow, that must make it really difficult for you to watch anything made pre-MTV. And even now, there are plenty of places the cutting isn't quite right (sockkpuppet once mentioned the CSI credits, but the CSI:HY credits are *far* worse).

I've read some of your comments about cutting to the beat, and quite honestly, a lot of what you said puzzled me, so I really want to sit down with you sometime and have you show me examples of what you mean! :)

[permetaform]

Technical flaw? Wow, I'm just... *boggles*

::nods:: imagine as if the lighting (the main lighting or even their facial lighting) was subtly irratic so that it looks like there's this subtle strobe light that flashes on them (without any discernable pattern). That's what having the sound out of sync is like for me.

wow, that must make it really difficult for you to watch anything made pre-MTV.

It's not difficult rather than it is jarring, and actually there's many movies pre-MTV that are sync-ed properly, Citizen Kane by Orwell (and the rest of his work), Michelangelo Antonioni's work, and even though Rene Clair out-of-sync'ed stuff on purpose, it was consistent. I think part of the reason why Blade Runner's editing threw me was because it's so inconsistent and un-premeditated, at times it perfect and at times it's godawful and there's practically no warning as to the shifts.

I've read some of your comments about cutting to the beat, and quite honestly, a lot of what you said puzzled me, so I really want to sit down with you sometime and have you show me examples of what you mean! :)

::ponders:: er, I'm a little confused by which comment you're talking about because I talk about beat alot and there's different ways to approach the topic...and it's also a muti-layered concept because there's vocal beats (like iambic pentameter) vs. musical beats (like drum beats, or the melody beats), and then there's rhythm and pacing too.

actually, have you read this post by commodorified?
http://www.livejournal.com/users/commodorified/36551.html

she goes into great detail about beat-work, with download-able examples, though careful, it's a bit long...

and er. ::wry grin:: sorry for talking so much, both me and lierdumoa tend to go on loooooong ass rambles about beat and I try to watch when my descriptions become too opaque though it doesn't always work, feel free to ask for clarifications (or ask me to stop rambling ;D) at any time.

[klia.livejournal.com]

and it's also a muti-layered concept because there's vocal beats (like iambic pentameter) vs. musical beats (like drum beats, or the melody beats), and then there's rhythm and pacing too.

Exactly. I can't remember now where I saw the discussion, but it was about the various ways for vidders to cut, and you were arguing against cutting to lyrics because they weren't beats. And that's what confused me, because lyrics most definitely have their own rhythm.

Thanks for the link.

[permetaform]

heh, that conversation's either a really old one (I've since refined my position) or I wasn't clear enough that I was against, specifically, cutting the most dramatic/important motion to the lyric when the lyrical beat isn't the strongest and/or most interesting beat. ie. the music's intensity doesn't support the clip's intensity.

A good example would be sockpuppett's Here. Initially it threw both me and lierdumoa completely off (I totally thought she was clipping off-beat until I started paying more attention to what the song was doing) because it didn't cut to the utter sexiness of the loud base-beat. An example I used when I was trying to explain this disjunct to her was as if Angel was naked and hard and tied to her bed and she went off and had an intellectual conversation with Wes instead.

ie. Not that intellectual conversation is *bad* necessarily, just that...man, what a *waste*.

[klia.livejournal.com]

(I totally thought she was clipping off-beat until I started paying more attention to what the song was doing) because it didn't cut to the utter sexiness of the loud base-beat.

And yet, many times, cutting to the strongest beats is really unsatisfying. I tend not to like vids that as a rule cut to the strongest beats, because they ignore a lot of the subtleties and actually make the vid *less* interesting for me. I prefer subtlety and complexity over predictability.

ie. Not that intellectual conversation is *bad* necessarily, just that...man, what a *waste*.

Well, that's the kind of thing that's definitely in the eye of the beholder.

[permetaform]

And yet, many times, cutting to the strongest beats is really unsatisfying. I tend not to like vids that as a rule cut to the strongest beats, because they ignore a lot of the subtleties and actually make the vid *less* interesting for me. I prefer subtlety and complexity over predictability.

ahhhh, here's where we're getting mixed up. See, when I talk about cutting to the beat, I mean I'm timing something to *every* beat, in some way, shape, or form. The best and clearest example of this of my vids would be The Fragile. Everything in there is timed.

When I talk about timing things to the base beat however, I'm talking about matching intense meaning to intense sound, where the harmony and melody and base beat all crescendo to one point and explode...a good example of which is where the earth explodes in flummery's Haunted, which occurs at a point where lyrical beat and base beat and melody and harmony and all the instruments rise (at different rates) into that one perfect point, where the intensity of sound matches intensity of meaning and intensity of movement.

There is no reason why cutting to the strongest beats prevents one from timing things to other beats, there is no reason why predictibility cannot cause the greatest surprises, and no reason why it should prevent subtlety and complexity. If anything, predictibility increases subtlety and complexity because it acts as a negative space for the chaos to occur. ie. without darkness, light cannot be percieved.

aheh, sorry, that got long...but like, this statement that "vids that as a rule cut to the strongest beats, because they ignore a lot of the subtleties" kinda stings for me and totally raises my hackles 'cause I ALWAYS do that. I always *always* cut to the beat, and with that line you threw down the proverbial gauntlet, and I don't mean to completely ramble all over the topic, but that was a slap in the face pretty much.

Not that a slap in the face isn't necessary some of the time. ::wry grin::

[klia.livejournal.com]

but like, this statement that "vids that as a rule cut to the strongest beats, because they ignore a lot of the subtleties" kinda stings for me and totally raises my hackles 'cause I ALWAYS do that. I always *always* cut to the beat, and with that line you threw down the proverbial gauntlet, and I don't mean to completely ramble all over the topic, but that was a slap in the face pretty much.

Geez, sorry, it never occurred to me you'd take it that way, because that sure wasn't my intention! I was talking specifically about cutting to the same strong beat just about every time (ONE/CUT, two, three, four; ONE/CUT, two, three, four), which is repetitive and predictable. I've only seen one of your vids, Lucky You (I just can't watch vids on my computer monitor in squintyvision ::goes cross-eyed::), and no way did you cut in the way I was trying to describe. No way. Your cutting was varied and interesting. I could give you some examples of what I was talking about, but not in public. ;)

[permetaform]

heh, still tho, I support that version of beatwork as a good platform to grow from. =) everyone's gotta start somewhere, and that was mine.

[klia.livejournal.com]

And the key phrase here is "a good platform to grow from." That's the important thing, to learn and grow and evolve, and not keep doing the same sorts of things over and over because they're familiar.

Btw, you would die of boredom if you saw my first vid.

[permetaform]

That's the important thing, to learn and grow and evolve, and not keep doing the same sorts of things over and over because they're familiar.

ahhhh, true true, but then it's a matter of *degree*, not of the essential philosophy

[klia.livejournal.com]

but then it's a matter of *degree*, not of the essential philosophy

If we're talking vidding, do you mean one's essential style?

[permetaform]

yup, ie. vidding to the beat rather than vidding to the lyric (even if it's off-lyrical beat and/or the lyric cannot be heard)

[klia.livejournal.com]

I like to mix it up, myself.