topics
GreenCine Movie Talk
	Independent Talk about the world of independent film.	42

Stanley Kubrick - overrated?
	Topic by: kamapuaa Posted: November 23, 2003 - 2:00 PM PST Last Reply: October 14, 2004 - 2:13 PM PDT

page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7      prev | next

author	topic: Stanley Kubrick - overrated?
Eoliano	post #41  on June 2, 2004 - 2:33 PM PDT   > Oh. Okay then. Good idea. Btw, I noticed this morning that DWH included the same link in the eminently readable and informative GCDaily. So I ain't the only one around here directing people to The New York Times.
Ayato	post #42  on July 22, 2004 - 7:31 PM PDT   I thought 2001 was somewhat overrated, but I really love some of Kubricks other stuff, especially A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket...I still have not seen Dr Strangelove or Barry Lyndon yet. How does the clockwork orange book compare to the movie?
KPman1	post #43  on August 31, 2004 - 3:18 PM PDT   Spartacus is overrated and Eyes Wide Shut is boring, but there is no way you can compare the work of another filmmaker to the rest of Kubrick's work and not still be impressed.
kamapuaa	post #44  on September 11, 2004 - 2:03 AM PDT   > Spartacus is overrated and Eyes Wide Shut is boring, but there is no way you can compare the work of another filmmaker to the rest of Kubrick's work and not still be impressed. Really, I think Kubrick was a below-average director, with a very good (if not masterful) ability at camerawork, a virtuoso ability at publicity and creating a personal mystique, and not much else. Really there just isn't much to his movies, aside from their marketing campaigns, and of course marketing campaigns don't age well. "Dr. Strangelove" was released at a time when there weren't as many anti-war movies. "2001" was a psychedelic movie about space released in the build-up to Apollo 11. "Eyes Wide Shut" would have group sex! "Lolita" was based off a controversial book about pedophilia. "Clockwork Orange" was extremely violent for the time. The problem is, none of them are particularly good as movies. Characters are flat, themes are shallow, they're boring, they're boring (it bears repeating), they're wildly pretentious, and so forth. To compare to a superior director: George Lucas. Both had a few pretty-well recieved movies before hitting it big. "2001" and "Star Wars" equally suck, but both captured a zeitgeist, were spectacularly succesful at the time, and gave them a legendary status. Both withdrew from public life, and their future movies have a borrowed fame from the mystique surrounding the director and his past successes. If "Attack of the Clones" or "Eyes Wide Shut" had been released anonymously, of course nobody would have cared a whit about them. George Lucas is superior, because he was a major influence on cinema, while Kubrick wasn't.
hamano	post #45  on September 11, 2004 - 9:03 AM PDT   Well, I don't know if I would go THAT far kamapuaa.... Kubrick WAS a visual stylist that most certainly influenced the work of many younger directors and cinematographers. So as a sort of professor Kubrick is not overrated.... You can make a good case that Lucas himself was directly influenced by Kubrick (THX 1138). Even watching Star Wars, the extent to which space travel is shown to be an everyday, mundane thing, and just the way "large" spacecraft are moved around in front of the camera, shows how Lucas was a "student" of Kubrick philosophically and visually. So insofar as a director being a technician/craftsman/artist Kubrick is quite above average. If you weigh the role of a director as a writer and a collaborator of actors, I think Kubrick IS a bit lacking. That's where you seem to see all the faults with Kubrick, and I agree with you on that. He uses actors like talking props, and he lucks out when he has good conscientious actors and loses when he has bad actors (especially if they're hammy bad actors). He relies on stunning visual flair to carry the film's narrative along. Usually I find it very hard to get emotionally engaged to any of the characters in a Kubrick film. He's been called a misogynist, but he's really more a misanthrope... But I think your statement, "George Lucas is superior, because he was a major influence on cinema, while Kubrick wasn't," is flat out wrong. Lucas is clearly just as bad or worse at directing actors, and for all the special effects talent/technology he has at his disposal his visual language is mundane. Lucas is basically recycling imagery he saw in movies as a kid and later as a film school student (Westerns, WW2 flying Ace dogfights, Kurosawa). If he has anything going for him, I think he has (or had) an ability to sense the need for a kind of film nostalgia in movie audiences, and he makes films that resonate with that need. Sort of a Jungian - Joseph Campbellish vision of universal (and mythical) human values that can translate into the mass medium of movies. Compared to Kubrick that makes him more of a humanist, more universally appealing to audiences (and cuddly, like Ewoks?) and that's his main (only?) strength. At least as a creator of images (and film IS a visual artform, among other things) Kubrick WAS a major and original influence on cinema, along with people like Fellini and Antonioni and Riefenstahl and Eisenstein. George Lucas on the other hand... I can't make a case that he was a major influence on cinema as an art at all... Certainly he was and continues to be a MAJOR influence on the industry (movie boxoffice blockbusters, Industrial Light and Magic, digital film-making & distribution) and maybe he used to know how to write a pretty good story, but a major influence on the art of cinema? Hardly.
woozy	post #46  on September 11, 2004 - 9:29 AM PDT   Thanks, hamano. I nearly choked when I read George Lucas (possibly one of the least empathic film director of all times) described as a superior director or less influential in cinema. I'm no fan of Kubrick. I think he's overrated but only slightly. I dislike him for precisely the same reason most people like him, that he distills scenes and conveyences down into single shots and vignettes. This leaves me cold especially as characters get boiled down. I thought 2001 was fantastic though. (But he could have made it more comprehensible or "dumbed it down a bit" without lowering the quality.)
hamano	post #47  on September 11, 2004 - 9:57 AM PDT   > On September 11, 2004 - 9:29 AM PDT woozy wrote: > --------------------------------- > Thanks, hamano. I nearly choked From now on, you can call me Heimlich, woozy!
woozy	post #48  on September 11, 2004 - 10:27 AM PDT   > From now on, you can call me Heimlich, woozy! > --------------------------------- Okay, heimlich-woozy.
kamapuaa	post #49  on September 13, 2004 - 2:12 AM PDT   Interesting, I suppose the slow shots of the Star Destroyers opening "Star Wars" was cribbed from the vocabulary of 2001? Although I recall Lucas specifically criticizing the slowness of earlier sci-fi as being too happy to wallow in long scenes showing off the special effects budget (I recently read that the long taxi sequence in "Solaris" was left in to justify the trip to Tokyo, although I didn't mind it). Lucas offered his rapid-cut approach as contrast to these slower films. And the casual space travel can be seen just as strongly in serialized 30's sci-fi. I didn't mean to claim Lucas has made a large direct influence on the "art" of cinema - although movies with that much popularity obviously had a huge influence on the industry as a whole. "Amelie" used CGI in almost every shot, according to the director, if only to increase contrast and so forth. I'd be interested to hear an explanation of Kubrick being artistically influential on the scale of Eisenstein or Fellini. I wouldn't at all call him even visually influential, even if you love his visuals. Seems to me, the state of the art in visual technique has been following newly available technologies, whereas Kubrick often championed antique or obscure equipment. I think of how technique has changed as cinema progressed, and I think of a move towards hand-held cameras, towards zooming in on the subjects rather than having them occupy a set, towards moving the camera rapidly or even wildly, towards tracking shots, toward rapid cutting, toward location shooting, towards CGI. Which I don't associate with Kubrick.
hamano	post #50  on September 13, 2004 - 7:28 AM PDT   > On September 13, 2004 - 2:12 AM PDT kamapuaa wrote: > --------------------------------- > Interesting, I suppose the slow shots of the Star Destroyers opening "Star Wars" was cribbed from the vocabulary of 2001? I'd say 2001 was one of the clear visual influences on the way spaceships are depicted in Star Wars. The one you cite above is obvious. Look at the way Lucas added side panels to the service pod from 2001 to get a TIE fighter. > Lucas offered his rapid-cut approach as contrast to these slower films. Also because the fast motion masks the artificiality of the plastic models that are being dragged around on wires in front of motion-control cameras. And also because he wanted the speed and excitement of airplane dogfight films. > And the casual space travel can be seen just as strongly in serialized 30's sci-fi. As mundane everyday transportation for people and goods? Show me. I'd say that 2001 (1968) and the original Star Trek series were MAJOR influences on stuff that came later. What did we have before that? The "saucers" from Lost in Space and The Day the Earth Stood Still... The custom vehicles in The Thunderbirds... Show me earlier examples where a civilization in a movie/show was designed with a wide range of vehicles for different uses and purposes, a wide range of sizes and shapes, entire fleets where each type of vehicle had a specific use and place, SYSTEMS of commerce and transportation founded on space travel. Books and comics yes, but on film? OK maybe the Jetsons.... > I didn't mean to claim Lucas has made a large direct influence on the "art" of cinema You claimed Lucas is the superior director... Clearly he is NOT. > I'd be interested to hear an explanation of Kubrick being artistically influential on the scale of Eisenstein or Fellini. I wouldn't at all call him even visually influential, even if you love his visuals. Seems to me, the state of the art in visual technique has been following newly available technologies, whereas Kubrick often championed antique or obscure equipment. Kubrick was an image fetishist and loved the technology of shooting on film. His fetishism extended to the cameras and equipment used to get the images on film. Kubrick was also an early champion of the Steadicam rig. He loved anything that helped him record images the way he wanted. > I think of how technique has changed as cinema progressed, and I think of a move towards hand-held cameras, towards zooming in on the subjects rather than having them occupy a set, towards moving the camera rapidly or even wildly, towards tracking shots, toward rapid cutting, toward location shooting, towards CGI. Which I don't associate with Kubrick. Because you're almost a generation removed from him already... but who do you think started a lot of these trends? With the exception of CGI, Kubrick has played with all of these... Who do you think was lovingly hand holding the camera to shoot the rape scene in Clockwork Orange? Kubrick was a visual stylist to the extent that even though his cinematographers have won Oscars and other prizes, most people credit HIM with the images he created. > I'd be interested to hear an explanation of Kubrick being artistically influential on the scale of Eisenstein or Fellini. Browse these books at Amazon... see how most of them are serious biographies and critical books? Of course the influence of Kubrick is a subjective, aesthetic topic of discussion, but I think he is clearly recognized as an influential visual artist (despite his faults). Personally, I'm not a big fan... his limitations outweigh his virtues. This looks like a balanced discussion by people who know what they're talking about. Comparing Kubrick and Lucas is like comparing apples and oranges. It's not that hard to come up with superior directors, but if we're going to make fruitful comparisons, we should take up someone else as the opponent... Maybe Terence Malik?
hamano	post #51  on September 13, 2004 - 1:33 PM PDT   Some interesting stuff to read.
Eoliano	post #52  on September 13, 2004 - 1:35 PM PDT   > You claimed Lucas is the superior director... Clearly he is NOT. You can say that again! > You claimed Lucas is the superior director... Clearly he is NOT.
hamano	post #53  on September 13, 2004 - 1:35 PM PDT   More interesting reading.
scotch	post #54  on September 13, 2004 - 3:26 PM PDT   > On September 13, 2004 - 2:12 AM PDT kamapuaa wrote: > --------------------------------- Seems to me, the state of the art in visual technique has been following newly available technologies, whereas Kubrick often championed antique or obscure equipment. > --------------------------------- Well count me in as a big fan of Kubrick, but for now I will focus on some of these points. Though already touched on above, Kubrick was very interested in the latest in film technology. He was one of the first to use a stedicam (and he used the hell out of it), he helped invent a lens fast enough to shoot in candlelight for Barry Lyndon. The work in 2001 was pioneering, and Star Wars would have been years later if not for the work on that film. He shut down his pre-production of AI after seeing Jurassic Park, and started to re-develop the visual sense of the film after know hat was possible. CGI was used in EWS, but not much was needed. >I think of how technique has changed as cinema progressed, and I think of a move towards hand-held cameras, towards zooming in on the subjects rather than having them occupy a set, towards moving the camera rapidly or even wildly, towards tracking shots, toward rapid cutting, toward location shooting, towards CGI. Which I don't associate with Kubrick. > This is rather simplistic. Hand held camera movement goes in and out of style. To relate this to progress is a bit strange. It was big in the 60's, and is coming back. Same with location shooting. Both of these, to some degree, are styles of necessity (cheap) that can offer an interesting aesthetic, and even a political statement in the hands of a good filmmaker. They are then mimicked by the mainstream until they go out of style again. I have no clue what you are talking about with respect to Kubrick not doing tracking shots or zooms though. Kubrick was highly influenced by Max Ophuls and his tracking shots. The Killing, Strangelove, Paths of Glory, Eyes Wide Shut, Lolita, 2001 are full of beautiful elaborate tracking shots. And as far as zooms go, he overused the hell out of zooms in Barry Lyndon... I apologize for not having time to respond to the more substantive critiques you and others have made about the quality of his work, but Im afraid it will have to wait. For now I will simply say I find his films overflowing with intelligence and insight into the human condition. The way he presents his ideas my not appeal to everyone, but I feel he is a great talent.
woozy	post #55  on September 13, 2004 - 5:30 PM PDT   >For now I will simply say I find his films overflowing with intelligence and insight into the human condition. The way he presents his ideas my not appeal to everyone, but I feel he is a great talent. > I'm not going to argue. I think he may be overrated in that his fans and followers have elevated him almost to cult status and comments such as appeared in my local weekly news mag which paraphrased from memory "The entire body of modern cinema owes its existance to Kubrick" do not seem extreme. My disapointment came when I watch "Lolita" and I was a little surprised to find I didn't like it. I think I didn't like it because it was too coldly self-aware and existed in a universe of messages and behaviors for its own purpose which because of the story made me uncomfortable. Then I realized his other movies all had the same abstract exagerated self-awareness and each picture existed in its own world (espescially A Clockwork Orange, which I forgave because of its unique vision [although, I'd have prefered if at least one person didn't treat or respond to Alex with loving attention] and the Shining, which seemed a poor movie because the story which was only a cheesy horror didn't fit the treatment). But he's clearly talented and influential. Lucas may be remembered as a revolutionary producer but as a director he's mechanical at best.
ALittlefield	post #56  on September 13, 2004 - 8:27 PM PDT   My main problem with Kubrick is the feeling of coldness that hangs over most of his films, with their long tracking shots, posed actors and heavy silences. This coldness results in characters that we feel no closeness to. Sometimes, I think this works: DR STRANGELOVE, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and 2001 benefit, I think, from this approach, but some of his other films, like: THE SHINING and FULL METAL JACKET do not.
kamapuaa	post #57  on September 14, 2004 - 12:42 AM PDT   > Show me earlier examples where a civilization in a movie/show was designed with a wide range of vehicles for different uses and purposes, a wide range of sizes and Were there that many in 2001, was it that casual? Seemed to me, every time one docked at a port, 100 violins got going. As far as casual spaceflight go, Buck Rogers borrows the spaceship to fly off to Mars, with the same casualness that a teenager borrows the Cadillac to go to the prom. > You claimed Lucas is the superior director... Clearly he is NOT. If it was really that clear, I wouldn't have stated the opposite. If Star Wars is more fun than anything Kubrick, and ILM has a larger influence than anything Kubrick, and Kubrick's movies are worth watching only for conversational purposes, who's to say? I'd love to see an interview with (say) Quentin Tarantino that he says "damn I got this great idea from watching 'Full Metal Jacket'" or (more plausibly) Christopher Doyle say "damn I got this great idea from 'Eyes Wide Shut.'" I haven't, and I suspect there aren't any, or at least very few. > Kubrick was an image fetishist and loved the technology of shooting on film. His fetishism extended to the cameras and equipment used to get the images on film. Kubrick was also an early champion of the Steadicam rig. He loved anything that helped him record images the way he wanted. My understanding of Steadicam is that the technology was invented in the mid-70's, but the big bosses thought it would be disconcerting for the audience. Sylvester Stallon used it heavily in his "Rocky," almost as a test of the technology for the studio, and it worked enormously well. Afterwards, steadicam almost immediately became a common film technology. > Because you're almost a generation removed from him already... but who do you think started a lot of these trends? I'm also to young to understand the attraction of Sha-Na-Na at Woodstock. But I think the modern visual vocabulary is a refinement of French New Wave, with the big refinements being ILM-type effects and increasinly sophisticated editing techniques and kinetic filming techniques, pushed by what's technologically possible and action movies. Modern cinema look a whole lot more like "Breathless" than "2001." > With the exception of CGI, Well "Eyes Wide Shut" had CGI people cover up the naughty bits. I saw the movie in Japan and wonder how much less naughty the American release is. > Kubrick has played with all of these... Who do you think was lovingly hand holding the camera to shoot the rape scene in Clockwork Orange? I didn't mean to say that Kubrick never used these techniques, but to say that Kubrick didn't invent these techniques, nor did his films popularize them. He did use some of the techniques to good effect, though - the Jack-Nicholson-cam in "The Shining" comes to mind. "Lovingly Holding the camera"??? Jesus that sounds obscene. Even "Dirty Harry" used a hand-held camera to cover a crime scene. > Browse these books at Amazon Cool, I'll borrow one from the library sometime soon. > SCOTCH!!! > I have no clue what you are talking about with respect to Kubrick not doing tracking shots or zooms though. I can understand the confusion, as I never said such a thing. Please respond to what I say, it's much easier to understand. So there you have it. Godard and Sylvester Stallone, they're behind it all. Too bad they never teamed up! Maybe using Tupac technology, and "Sky Captain and the World of Tommorow" technology, it will happen some day.
hamano	post #58  on September 14, 2004 - 7:00 AM PDT   > On September 14, 2004 - 12:42 AM PDT kamapuaa wrote: > --------------------------------- > Were there that many in 2001, was it that casual? Seemed to me, every time one docked at a port, 100 violins got going. I'm saying that there's an extensive SYSTEM in place, shuttles to get into orbit, a space station circling Earth, a different shuttle to get to the Moon, a mothership for the trip to Jupiter, service Pods to do outside work, etc. And a bone. Except for the bone, this is pretty much the same system NASA is still working on. And I would say that the use of a Strauss waltz for the shuttle docking sequence (as opposed to something formal or theatrical, like a piece from a ballet pas de deux or something) implies "casual" or "vulgar (common place)"... Maybe you should broaden your musical horizons a bit more... > As far as casual spaceflight go, Buck Rogers borrows the spaceship to fly off to Mars, with the same casualness that a teenager borrows the Cadillac to go to the prom. OK, and I already said The Jetsons... I'm talking about spaceships, not toys on wires with sparklers shoved up the rear! ^_^ > If it was really that clear, I wouldn't have stated the opposite. If Star Wars is more fun than anything Kubrick American Pie was more fun than anything Kubrick! Maybe even Josie and the Pussycats! I don't think you can say "more fun"="better director" > and ILM has a larger influence than anything Kubrick Only because it's an industry DINOSAUR, like Microsoft or composer John Williams. But like Microsoft and its software, ILM's track record on CREATING an original innovative cinema is highly debatable. More on this below... > and Kubrick's movies are worth watching only for conversational purposes Well, that's important if you're serious about thinking about film history... > I'd love to see an interview with (say) Quentin Tarantino that he says "damn I got this great idea from watching 'Full Metal Jacket'" or (more plausibly) Christopher Doyle say "damn I got this great idea from 'Eyes Wide Shut.'" I haven't, and I suspect there aren't any, or at least very few. That's exactly why I'm saying we should forget George Lucas here, and compare apples to apples! Tarantino (and Tony Scott) loved Terence Malik's Badlands so much they practically stole it to make True Romance. But if you think Tarantino was never influenced by Kubrick, rent and watch The Killing and Reservoir Dogs together! > Sylvester Stallon used it heavily in his "Rocky," almost as a test of the technology for the studio, and it worked enormously well. Afterwards, steadicam almost immediately became a common film technology. Steadicam enabled cameramen to do things that were never possible before. But to use it really well you gotta be built like a linebacker (that's the weight of the camera and magazine PLUS a counterweight to balance it in addition to the arm and rig) but have the grace of a ballet dancer. Most films use it to save money because you don't have to take the time to lay dolly tracks and such to do camera movement. But usually, that means that the Steadicam is being ABused... From a film-maker's perspective it's a cheap but inferior alternative to setting up a good tracking shot, etc. But that's what makes it attractive to the STUDIO! It saves time, and therefore money. They say to the director, "You gotta compromise because we can pay for a day of steadicam shooting but not for a week of dolly shooting to get the same thing." Remember that Rocky was done on the cheap! When they were starting out Sam Raimi and the Coen Brothers had even less money, and to do camera movement they tied a camera to the middle of a 2x4. They rolled the film and action, then two people held the ends of the 2x4 and walked or ran.... > But I think the modern visual vocabulary is a refinement of French New Wave, with the big refinements being ILM-type effects and increasinly sophisticated editing techniques and kinetic filming techniques, pushed by what's technologically possible and action movies. Modern cinema look a whole lot more like "Breathless" than "2001." I think you're talking more about the film-making "style" that's popular today. Style goes in cycles, though. But the giants of cinematic imagery stand no matter what the current popular "style" is. > "Lovingly Holding the camera"??? Jesus that sounds obscene. That's partly my point... I think Kubrick was a bit creepy.... There are production stills showing him shooting Clockwork. Creepy. > So there you have it. Godard and Sylvester Stallone Godard and Stallone are your Two Greatest Directors? OK, now I see why you're comparing Lucas and Kubrick and saying Lucas is better...
hamano	post #59  on September 14, 2004 - 7:18 AM PDT   > and ILM has a larger influence than anything Kubrick But did they? I think they're the Microsoft of the special effects industry. Being the 600 pound gorilla IS important in an economic and historical context, but in an artistic sense did ILM have a bigger influence than anything Kubrick? From http://www.dailydigest.net/oscarplayoffs022202.html ---------------------------- 2/22/02: Guest columnist: Vladimir C. Sever on "The Case of ILM" Havo dad, ILM or, The Strange Case of the Premier Visual Effects Facility Being Denied the Effects Oscar... After the Effects Oscar Became Reputable As a teen geek I used to pride myself on knowing exactly who would win the Visual Effects Oscar each year. Sure, the higher up you went in the Oscar categories the more intangible would the votersf criteria become, but in the VFX department justice reigned. And justice more often than not meant meting the award out to Industrial Light and Magic, the one company which defined the field with Star Wars, and even more so with The Empire Strikes Back, done after it relocated to Marin and started sprouting deep roots and unimaginable branches - one of which, mind you, was Pixar, in its earliest inception. The level of quality ILM routinely achieved was in a league of its own: look at any other show from 1980 and compare it to Empire and youfll see what I mean. And that state of being way ahead of the competition remained their attribute forever since - or only up until Jurassic Park and Forrest Gump, if you listen to AMPAS. Those two films introduced the possibilities of CG in such a spectacular / invisible way that everyone knew, overnight, that the age of the optical effect had become a thing of the past. Those were watershed achievements: ILM continued ploughing the effects field, of course, but something was amiss. Namely, after getting the Oscar for Gump in March 1995, ILM was to be denied it from then on. Wefre talking about a company here that had been winning for every single year between 1980 and 1994, except on two occasions - Aliens, which won for 1986, and Total Recall, which won for 1990, were done by others. (I say for just to acknowledge the fact that the actual Oscar is given the following year. Truly anal, I know. Just watch me.) And most of the time their wins were more than justified - I actually felt bad about only one, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which beat 2010 and Ghostbusters for 1984, even though both of them were superior works. It was a taste of the reversal of fortune ILM would suffer a decade later. A New Boss in Town Those two films were the initial projects of Boss Film Corporation, the LA-based firm built on the foundations of Douglas Trumbullfs Entertainment Effects Group, which previously did, por ejemplo, Blade Runner, and was therefore among the very, very few serious competitors ILM had. The boss of Boss became Richard Edlund, hitherto ILMfs top supervisor, and an Oscar winner for the first three Star Wars films, plus Raiders of the Lost Ark. With his leaving Lucasf nest, everyone felt that the most serious threat to ILM had arrived: Edlundfs expertise, combined with that of the former EEG staffers, and such technological advantages as the Compsy system and filming in 65mm would, surely, challenge ILMfs VistaVision and go-motion? Ghostbusters and 2010 were certainly some of the most spectacular shows ever seen up until that time. Yes, but they didnft garner the Academy Award: and that would prove fatal to Boss. Despite the good work done on, say, Poltergeist II and Die Hard, Edlund would start losing bids to ILM more and more often - both Ghostbusters II and Die Hard 2 would end up being done up in Marin, and despite notching up several more nominations, Boss would never win an Oscar. More alarmingly, the company started work on several projects which it would prove unable to complete - Predator and The Hunt for Red October among them - and had to finally close its doors in late 1997, after Air Force One, having never really developed into a truly digital facility, despite the efforts of one J. Rygiel. In this, Edlund would follow the trajectory of another ILM veteran, John Dykstra, and his Apogee: but whereas Dykstra went freelance and continued doing supervisory work, Edlund did only one film since - Bedazzled, of all things. Donft laugh, because the man actually didnft sink that low. In fact, he rose higher than ever: and his rise dovetails most interestingly with ILMfs sudden exclusion from the podium of the Oscar winners. Sprouting a New Branch In 1995, just a few months after the Gump win, AMPAS established a new branch: the Visual Effects Branch was designed to raise the craft to the same level of academic recognition as the more traditional ones, like cinematography or set designing. From its inception, the Branch was presided over by Edlund. Getting Branch status didnft, however, raise the maximum number of nominees, or really make any visible chance to those of us outside the industry. Well, now they have the bakeoffs, where the initial longlist of eight films is whittled down to the three nominees. So in theory the process is a bit more visible, although I would laugh long and mirthlessly in the face of anyone who thought that Cats & Dogs had a shot at the nod. And the ILM gets nominated as often as it used to, even though 1995 was the first year since 86 when it didnft get a single nodc No, on face value, the Visual Effests Branch seems to be doing its job just right. Itfs the voters who have, inexplicably and from the very same 1995 onwards, started to foil the predictions of this longtime Cinefex subscriber. And Bearing Strange Fruit Right off the bat, we had Babe winning, inexplicably, over Apollo 13 - for some mammalian muzzle replacement shots which had been done before and have since become the scourge of the Earth in shows such as Dr. Dolittle, not to mention the utter nadir in the directing career of George Miller. For 1996, we had Independence Day winning for quantity over the groundbreaking ILMfs work in Twister and Dragonheart - whatever you might think of the films, they did open the door on simulating chaotic phenomena and creating breathing and talking characters in the virtual realm. We had The Matrix winning over The Phantom Menace for 1999, mainly due to a well-timed DVD which told Academy voters that gimmick shots were somehow integral to storytelling, as opposed to believable locales and characters as nuanced as Watto. And, finally and most horrendously, we had Gladiator win last year for a few industry-standard 2D and 3D digital mattes and crowd replacement shots, over Hollow Man and its mindbogglingly detailed ganglia of an anatomically correct digital human - a Grail of sorts in effects - and Perfect Stormfs hilariously detailed hurricane oceans. (The remaining two wins were okay by me - Titanic for 1997, when the competition was the strongest ever, and What Dreams May Come for 1998, pitted only against the abominable Mighty Joe Young.) And so, coming into the Oscars for 2001, we have at least one clear-cut winner, right here in this branch, since only one show among the three is not done by ILM. In other words, opposed to ILMfs magnificently photoreal work in A.I. and Pearl Harbor, we have WETAfs magnificent if-not-always-photoreal work in The Fellowship of the Ring. (Look, Mommy! Therefs Saruman walking out of the Alan Lee painting of Isengard! Ainft it the same one as in our big fat book you bash Daddy over the head with? - Hush, child.) Not to be critical in any fundamental way, though: there are acres upon acres of truly excellent work in there, especially with regard to miniaturising Hobbits and creating (how many ways can I rephrase that already?) convincing digital characters. And there are ways in which digital enhances Andrew Lesniefs cinematography that far outweigh anything done by Roger Deakins in last yearfs nominee O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Still, as Deakins has a black-and-white film up for an Oscar this year, look for him to win there - AMPAS wouldnft be what it is if it didnft think BW infinitely more artistic than colour. But thatfs another discussion, ne?) Yet the largest single contributing factor to The Fellowshipfs win might be the four people nominated. Apart from Richard Taylor, the near-divine co-creator of effects, makeups and costumes in the film (and nominated for all three this year, which may be some sort of a record), the overall supervisor, Jim Rygiel, the animation supervisor, Randall William Cook, and the modelshop supervisor, Mark Stetson, are all veterans of one single defunct companyc Boss Film Corporation. And Ifm really not implying anything here, just laying out layers upon layers of statistics off the top of my headc who will unravel this mad mystery for me?
woozy	post #60  on September 14, 2004 - 7:27 AM PDT   > And I would say that the use of a Strauss waltz for the shuttle docking sequence (as opposed to something formal or theatrical, like a piece from a ballet pas de deux or something) implies "casual" or "vulgar (common place)"... Maybe you should broaden your musical horizons a bit more... Gonna have to disagree with you a bit here. Casual would be a complete gloss over. A Strauss waltz implies grace and majesty (rather than awe and wonder). It was an original and brilliant choice but I can't say it's casual. > > American Pie was more fun than anything Kubrick! Maybe even Josie and the Pussycats! I don't think you can say "more fun"="better director" > Typical liberal egg-head whining. Why do you intellectual-elite hate fun so much? America is fun. Hating fun is anti-american. > That's partly my point... I think Kubrick was a bit creepy.... There are production stills showing him shooting Clockwork. Creepy. > So you aren't really pro-Kubrick as much as anti-Lucas. That's sad. Roll, Lucas, Roll. Bet you're worried now! Simper Film Swars '03

page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7      prev | next