When I heard a lot of people rating this as one of the, if not the best movie ever seen; I was wondering what was so special about it. But watching this movie was the most-shockingly real film experience I have had this year; and maybe all-time. More on that later. First off, I have always been a fan of Stanley Kubrik's craft. But I have always had a feeling that his movies had an unwatchable quality about them. Of course, it was intense viewing. But the best movies in the world are those which pass quickly like a bullet while subtly pervading your thought process for a long time. The Matrix movies did that (the first more than any other). Jurassic Park, for all its simple-minded conception, did that. Jaws did that. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind did that. Most of Woody Allen's film, do that. However, Kubrik's films are not known for this quality. Clockwork Orange was twisted as twisted can be. 2001: A Space Odessey is almost a prophetic film. Eyes Wide Shut is a meditation in perversion. However, all these movies take themselves too seriously for the viewer to have an unobstrusive sight of what is going on in the story. I like the fact that Kubrik can work on such a vast canvas while other "big name" directors are stuck with the same frigging theme for decades (*cough* James Cameroon *cough*). However, none of his movies made an effort to "connect" with the audience; except perhaps The Shining.
This was my opinion, until I saw Dr Strangelove. Please do not get put off by the most boring five minutes in all film history (exaggerating) just after an impressive start. The movie takes a little time to heat up. What follows is perhaps the darkest of black comedies as well as a realistic and possible tragedy of the infinite human capacity to screw things up. The disclaimer on the top of the film is from the US Air Force assuring that the events depicted in the movie cannot happen in real life (due to the precautions they have taken). If you can feel a nervous undertone to that voice, don't be surprised. For this is definitely the most dangerously "real" film not for no reason. Many things depicted here are, and I quote from another excellent Anti-War film, The Men Who Stare at Goats, More of this is true than what you might imagine. The polemic that the movie tries to set up is simple; there is, on the one hand, enough fire power to destory completely the entire planet and on the other hand, the access to this power in the hands of few men, who could be just as fragile or unstable as every other human being in the world. The threat of Purity of Essence has played itself over and over, so many times, that it is uncomfortable to think that nobody has ever done to change the equation of power balance.
The plot is way too simple. At the height of Cold War, an American general whose mental stability is questionable has launched unilaterally an attack on 34 strategic points of Russia. What follows is chaos as the President and other people in the war room literally bite their nails trying to crack the foolproof plan in activation. The idea of power and the corrupting influence of power is foregrounded in this movie; however the darker/deeper fact that even without this corruption, there EXISTS an infrastructure which is ready to attack and destroy completely another nation of the world. This brings us to the next big concept of the movie.
The Doomsday Device
The idea of the Doomsday Device is that it is a failsafe that would automatically kick in when a certain number of parameters are just right. Nobody can deactivate it. Nobody can control it. It's very existence is supposed to deter everyone from even thinking about war. This is the most ironic thing about the movie; that the best peace-keeping force in existence in the world, is a force that can destroy the world. Would it not be simpler to negotiate peace as an everyday process? As a mode of life? No. It would not work because it is too unrealistic to expect people to just mind their own business. And therein lies the most likeable experience of being told, how the human species is simply incapable of just letting things be.
The last thing I would like to bring to your attention is the name of the film. It is titled Dr Strangelove, after a German scientist who has changed his name after moving to America post WWII. Not the obvious choice, one would say. The scientist is unsuccessful in his attempts to repress his natural sense of loyalty towards his Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler. One can only wonder why that is... For the name of his lord has changed but the roles they play and the needs of their position have not changed. Beware, Kubrik seems to warn us, that you may be turned into this unfortunate creature called Strangelove...
Showing posts with label Apricots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apricots. Show all posts
04 October 2009
Art; just what the hell is it?
The debate continues...
Is the primary thing about art, its form or content?
Is it the style or the substance?
Is it the message or the medium?
Today, I happened to see a TV debate that degenerated into a complete bi-polar rejection of the other, when they were discussing the importance of Story against Technology. Though I tried to tolerate the debate to a certain point given the fascination Tamil people have over things from the shiny disco balls genre, the line was when one of the "eminent"directors in Tamil shoved his foot in his mouth saying, that if you want to know a good story, people should just better read a book. It was an epiphanic moment, for I was suddenly struck by the cascading numerous worthless trash-films which utilised technology and failed miserably for having sacrificed the story at the begining. I am not willing to name-names, but if you look at the box-office ratings of movies made at a huge budget (be it Tamil or Hindi), they have fared only reasonably well (read, just enough to make the producer from killing himself - satellite-rights being their gods).
However, it is hilarious to see these people argue, who consider only the gimmickry/graphics as the advancement of technology. I am not anti-technology but I do not like the idea of seeing tech as a 300 foot monster eating through the golden gate bridge. Some of the best graphics has been employed in hard-hitting dramas like, No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood. Just as the best technology has a non-intrusiveness going for it, it also has an air of inevitability to it. If double exposure and cut shots were used to show dual-roles in films in the seventies, computerized-green-matting was not a method specific to one school of film-making. Today, six different Kamal Hassans can interact within the same frame. Things ranging from multi-track audio recording, online-editing, compact cranes, steadycams, remote/underwater cameras and impossible digital lenses are the real breakthroughs. When the 70 mm format was introduced, it was seen as a novelty and people predicted its failure in months. And today, more cinematographers are inching towards the digital revolution with film becoming obsolete.
Technology is therefore very important to the art of cinema - so much so that it can be called the backbone of a film. A story, on the other hand, is it's spirit - it's soul. No, I am not going to proceed and build a case of logical defense for the story - for it would be simply written off as the writer'z bias. Even thinking of explaining why a story is important to a movie seems ridiculous to me. Well, that decision also kind of destroys the raison d'etre of this blogticle. Maybe I should discuss a few films which have failed despite (or due to) technology and vice versa? I am not good at that. But rather, I have decided that I will talk of films which succeed with appropriate support given by one to the other. For Sita and Saketham are not two opposing forces.
The Godfather. I really get this movie. The fact that it is also a critical hit makes me feel very happy. It is the closest I am gonna get to being a movie/critic savvy guy. When the police captain gets shot (and so many more guys through the course of the film), you feel the impact that a real gunshot would have on the room and on flesh. That is good application of technology to highlight a really good story.
The Blairwitch Project. Here is a movie where the technology is half the story. Though many of my smarter friends would point out that using VHS in the age crawling towards Digital isn't an advancement. But this movie shows the usage of appropriate format for an appropriate story. The movie is built on fear, which doesn't work better than, as we find out, a torchlight and a jerky camera.
Amelie. French movies have a thing of realism going for them. Even when Jean Reno moves from the medieval times to the future in The Visitors (and it's sequel - hilarious riots, don't miss), the stick on to the very realistic style of narration. However, the magic of everyday life is captured in the fabulous destiny of Amelie Poulain. Nobody would argue that the same technology would have been equally enjoyable in a movie like, say... hmmm... err... Since I am thinking about good movies, the bad ones slide off my mind.
Rocky Balboa. In the late sixties, Cassius Clay was out of work for refusing to take part in the Vietnam War. Rocky Marciano was retired for a good ten years. One thing remained common between them. Both were undefeated. SO, to determine who was truly the greatest, they shot for seventeen days with each boxer showing his best moves against the other. A computer was devised to generate a fight based on over a hundred variables. The match ended in Rocky Marciano winning. Cassius Clay had just one line to say. The computer must have been made in New Jersey (where Rocky was from). This feud did not last longer, because Rocky died in an aircrash few weeks before the release of this movie. There ends reality. Rocky Balboa (irreverantly called Rocky VI) starts at this point. Another computer simulation with another Rocky against the world champion Dixon. But when Dixon disgraces Rocky on television, he steps back into the ring. Though this movie might seem to have been included in the list just to show off my knowledge about The Superfight, it also shows how credibility could be lent to a movie where a sixty year old (in real life and also in the movie - almost) can step up toe to toe with a twenty five year old and still leave with his head high. If you missed the amazing use of camera, editing technologies, that.z how good it was used.
Of course there are other movies. In so many other languages. Let me name some of them, Black Cat, White Cat (German), The Good, The Bad and The Weird (Korean), Hey Ram (Tamil), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (English), and the list is enormous. The best movies that we remember are listed not because of that one amazing shot or gimmickry it had - yes, there was a time and we call it the fifties where people swooned over the chariots of Ben Hur and the Red Sea parting in the Ten Commandments. But today, people have grown over that. That is why the greatest movies list features simple stories like Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane. Psycho, probably one of the lasting thrillers of our times is famous not because of the number of cuts in the shower scene or the usage of chocolate sauce to give the right consistency for blood - but for its rivetting drama. So, I rest my case that technology is extremely important, to show a good story better.
UPDATE/RESPONSE
````````````````````
A dear friend of mine, Ram Prakash mentioned about this page to me on a mail. His views, untouched as follows,
"B.t.w, interesting that your latest post talks about story vs technology in movies....... What is the techonological brilliance of the stampede scene in Lion King if the viewer is not on the edge of his seat waiting to see if Simba survives the whole screenful of moving pixels..... Technology = Money these days..... True brilliance of technology - we saw some months back - watch "kaagaz ke phool" and the scene where the hero walks into a movie studio - the lighting and camera work spoke so loudly that the scene was very aptly shot without any dialogues....... "
Spot on Ram! Technology is not buying bigger or flashier stuff, but using them appropriately. Thank you for your feedback.
Is the primary thing about art, its form or content?
Is it the style or the substance?
Is it the message or the medium?
Today, I happened to see a TV debate that degenerated into a complete bi-polar rejection of the other, when they were discussing the importance of Story against Technology. Though I tried to tolerate the debate to a certain point given the fascination Tamil people have over things from the shiny disco balls genre, the line was when one of the "eminent"directors in Tamil shoved his foot in his mouth saying, that if you want to know a good story, people should just better read a book. It was an epiphanic moment, for I was suddenly struck by the cascading numerous worthless trash-films which utilised technology and failed miserably for having sacrificed the story at the begining. I am not willing to name-names, but if you look at the box-office ratings of movies made at a huge budget (be it Tamil or Hindi), they have fared only reasonably well (read, just enough to make the producer from killing himself - satellite-rights being their gods).
However, it is hilarious to see these people argue, who consider only the gimmickry/graphics as the advancement of technology. I am not anti-technology but I do not like the idea of seeing tech as a 300 foot monster eating through the golden gate bridge. Some of the best graphics has been employed in hard-hitting dramas like, No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood. Just as the best technology has a non-intrusiveness going for it, it also has an air of inevitability to it. If double exposure and cut shots were used to show dual-roles in films in the seventies, computerized-green-matting was not a method specific to one school of film-making. Today, six different Kamal Hassans can interact within the same frame. Things ranging from multi-track audio recording, online-editing, compact cranes, steadycams, remote/underwater cameras and impossible digital lenses are the real breakthroughs. When the 70 mm format was introduced, it was seen as a novelty and people predicted its failure in months. And today, more cinematographers are inching towards the digital revolution with film becoming obsolete.
Technology is therefore very important to the art of cinema - so much so that it can be called the backbone of a film. A story, on the other hand, is it's spirit - it's soul. No, I am not going to proceed and build a case of logical defense for the story - for it would be simply written off as the writer'z bias. Even thinking of explaining why a story is important to a movie seems ridiculous to me. Well, that decision also kind of destroys the raison d'etre of this blogticle. Maybe I should discuss a few films which have failed despite (or due to) technology and vice versa? I am not good at that. But rather, I have decided that I will talk of films which succeed with appropriate support given by one to the other. For Sita and Saketham are not two opposing forces.
The Godfather. I really get this movie. The fact that it is also a critical hit makes me feel very happy. It is the closest I am gonna get to being a movie/critic savvy guy. When the police captain gets shot (and so many more guys through the course of the film), you feel the impact that a real gunshot would have on the room and on flesh. That is good application of technology to highlight a really good story.
The Blairwitch Project. Here is a movie where the technology is half the story. Though many of my smarter friends would point out that using VHS in the age crawling towards Digital isn't an advancement. But this movie shows the usage of appropriate format for an appropriate story. The movie is built on fear, which doesn't work better than, as we find out, a torchlight and a jerky camera.
Amelie. French movies have a thing of realism going for them. Even when Jean Reno moves from the medieval times to the future in The Visitors (and it's sequel - hilarious riots, don't miss), the stick on to the very realistic style of narration. However, the magic of everyday life is captured in the fabulous destiny of Amelie Poulain. Nobody would argue that the same technology would have been equally enjoyable in a movie like, say... hmmm... err... Since I am thinking about good movies, the bad ones slide off my mind.
Rocky Balboa. In the late sixties, Cassius Clay was out of work for refusing to take part in the Vietnam War. Rocky Marciano was retired for a good ten years. One thing remained common between them. Both were undefeated. SO, to determine who was truly the greatest, they shot for seventeen days with each boxer showing his best moves against the other. A computer was devised to generate a fight based on over a hundred variables. The match ended in Rocky Marciano winning. Cassius Clay had just one line to say. The computer must have been made in New Jersey (where Rocky was from). This feud did not last longer, because Rocky died in an aircrash few weeks before the release of this movie. There ends reality. Rocky Balboa (irreverantly called Rocky VI) starts at this point. Another computer simulation with another Rocky against the world champion Dixon. But when Dixon disgraces Rocky on television, he steps back into the ring. Though this movie might seem to have been included in the list just to show off my knowledge about The Superfight, it also shows how credibility could be lent to a movie where a sixty year old (in real life and also in the movie - almost) can step up toe to toe with a twenty five year old and still leave with his head high. If you missed the amazing use of camera, editing technologies, that.z how good it was used.
Of course there are other movies. In so many other languages. Let me name some of them, Black Cat, White Cat (German), The Good, The Bad and The Weird (Korean), Hey Ram (Tamil), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (English), and the list is enormous. The best movies that we remember are listed not because of that one amazing shot or gimmickry it had - yes, there was a time and we call it the fifties where people swooned over the chariots of Ben Hur and the Red Sea parting in the Ten Commandments. But today, people have grown over that. That is why the greatest movies list features simple stories like Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane. Psycho, probably one of the lasting thrillers of our times is famous not because of the number of cuts in the shower scene or the usage of chocolate sauce to give the right consistency for blood - but for its rivetting drama. So, I rest my case that technology is extremely important, to show a good story better.
UPDATE/RESPONSE
````````````````````
A dear friend of mine, Ram Prakash mentioned about this page to me on a mail. His views, untouched as follows,
"B.t.w, interesting that your latest post talks about story vs technology in movies....... What is the techonological brilliance of the stampede scene in Lion King if the viewer is not on the edge of his seat waiting to see if Simba survives the whole screenful of moving pixels..... Technology = Money these days..... True brilliance of technology - we saw some months back - watch "kaagaz ke phool" and the scene where the hero walks into a movie studio - the lighting and camera work spoke so loudly that the scene was very aptly shot without any dialogues....... "
Spot on Ram! Technology is not buying bigger or flashier stuff, but using them appropriately. Thank you for your feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)