Disclaimer: The Spiderman/Batman character examples that are to follow have nothing to do with the original comic book characters ... well, they might, but I wouldn't know because I haven't read them. So the point is, if you're a Spiderman/Batman of comic book origin lover, please don't argue with me, I admit I am uneducated in ways other than the big blockbuster movies. No offence is intended.
The age-old Spiderman VS. Batman argument comes up a lot in our house. This blog post isn't necessarily an argument - that is to say, I'm not trying to diss Batman. The argument here is Realism VS. Relatability, and my superheroes are the vehicle.
Before we get into this, my computer tells me that relatability is not a word. The online merriam-webster dictionary tells me otherwise (but who knows how reliable that is). I can't think of any alternative word that means what I'm assuming we all know relatability means, so I'm going to roll with it anyway. I'm a writer! I can make things up! And I say if it wasn't a word, it is now!
On with the show. So what is the difference between realism and relatability? Why does it matter?
As a writer and a reader, I enjoy both of these things in a novel. I like finding ways to relate to the characters, the situations, the emotions in a story. I also appreciate the effort an author puts in to make their story world and the way their characters act and react realistic. However, in most stories there is a point where, for the sake of the epic tale you are weaving, an element of your realism must be left behind. This is where Suspension of Disbelief, aided by relatability, comes to the rescue.
Suspension of disbelief basically means, 'I'll accept your skewed reality because I'm enjoying the story'. It's that moment in the story where - what the? - Harry Potter is a wizard. Mole does spring cleaning. Christian wins Satine's heart with a love medley of pop songs while the moon sings and fireworks appear out of nowhere. John McClane miraculously survives, again. This is the moment where the writer must let go of the story's safety harness. It's time to freefall, and the reader/watcher is the parachute. Are they going to stick with the story?
In the examples I've used, I would safely assume that the answer is yes. But why is that? Why do we love this stuff? Why aren't we yelling at the book/TV screen in confusion? This stuff can't happen! It's preposterous! Magic doesn't exist. Animals don't talk. The moon doesn't sing! And if this were real, he would have died back there. So why do we stick with the story?
Simply, it's because we enjoy imagining things that couldn't really happen. But to be more specific, we enjoy it because despite the lack of realism, there is still an element of relatability that is realistic to us. Harry Potter thought he was an Average Joe like the rest of us. Mole's OCD reminds you of someone you know. The love Christian has for Satine is real to us. And John McClane ... well, we'd be disappointed if he died when he should have ... so we're rooting for him against the odds!
What does this have to do with Spiderman and Batman, you ask? Well, these two heroes are what sparked the idea for this post. My brother Justin tells me that the great thing about Batman is that because he doesn't have proper super powers, it's his awesome technology that makes him a superhero. It's cool and realistic and whatnot because it could potentially happen. I agree with him on this, but my problem with Batman is that as a 19-year-old Australian girl who is disappointed about missing out on $100+ pay because she's home sick instead of working her 6-hour shift at a local cafe, I find Gotham city billionaire Bruce Wayne a leetle difficult to relate to. (Although right now, I probably sound a touch like Batman ... where are those lozenges?)
Spiderman, on the other hand? Photography-loving, nerdy teenager who, after getting his powers, spends his evenings scribbling away with textas designing a superhero costume? This works a little better for me.
The big point here is, who do you want your story to relate to? There's obviously a difference between the relatability of Spiderman and Batman (which includes the emotional states of the characters, their interactions with other characters, and the inner journey they take throughout their stories, but I won't go into all that detail). This isn't to say that I don't like Batman. I like the Batman films and there is much to love and appreciate. But as a big believer in the ability and need to emotionally invest in a character, I don't really have any emotional attachment to Batman (like, if he dies at the end of his upcoming film ... well, nice knowing you Batman.)
How much have you considered realism and relatability in your story? Have you found a balance? Are you reaching out to your target audience?
In my own novel I have a lot of different things to consider. I'm already relying heavily on the reader's suspension of disbelief because by the fourth paragraph of the first page, one of the characters is revealed to be a shapeshifter. A big portion of realism has already flown out the window at this stage. And now it's up to me to keep my reader hooked. Sure, the fact that something totally out of the norm has just happened is enough to keep any reader going for several more pages, but in order to get them to Chapter Two, I need some relatable material. My shapeshifter is about 60 years old, rather gruff, lives in a rundown terrace house and probably hasn't showered for a week. He's not really relatable to my YA audience (roughly aged 15), so I bring in a younger character who, despite her air of confidence, is secretly a little scared of this guy. Now we have relatability. And we also have intrigue. What's she doing at this guy's house? What will happen there?
My hopes are that these elements combined will lead to my reader turning the page and continuing to unravel the story. If I'm a good enough writer, I just might be right.
If there are any writers out there reading this (a big squishy hug hello if you've come via NaNoWriMo), I hope this post is of some use to you. Happy writing!
June 30, 2012
June 18, 2012
An Introduction to French Cinema: It's Hard to Get Aquainted
So, I'm yet to start this series because I'm yet to find a decent guide to help me along. My plan of attack is to watch some things in a historically chronological order, whilst also watching some contemporary stuff at the same time.
Problem is, I've not idea where to begin. There's an awesome-looking book on Book Depository called Studying French Cinema, but it's still three weeks away from release. So I'll have to wait on that one. I've looked at a couple of others such as French Cinema by Charles Drazin, but one review I read said that he sort of gives up on giving films made after 1959 (ie, after Luc Godard's Breathless) the attention they deserve. So that sort of doesn't work for me, because I'd like a book that thoroughly covers both old and new history. Especially new, because the broad Film History book I have right now has a decent amount of French film beginnings ... but it's pretty hefty reading and I'm only up to 1912 or something, so mentions of accessible French titles has so far been scarce.
I went into Newtown today in hopes that some of the bookshops that import from overseas would have something I could purchase, but in four shops I only found one second-hand book, and it was about comparing French films with their American remakes and studying the influence that the French film industry has on America. So that was no good.
It frustrates me how difficult it is to get books about the history of other countries here. Like, as if I want to read about Australian history (film or otherwise)! Who does that? It's no wonder bookshops here are failing and people are buying more things online. I can't find anything I want in an actual shop. Trying to find research material for Eloquence was (and still is) a bit of a nightmare; when looking for specific British history one can find only broad world history books or general overviews of the history of Britain, which isn't helpful because that means I'm buying a book for $30 and only getting like $5 of relevant reading material. So again, most of my books on the 19th-century have arrived in the mailbox from the UK. Obviously, when I go there I will be taking an empty suitcase and buying books.
As for film sections themselves, most of the space is taken up by Hollywood (obviously) with a few dodgy-looking titles about Australian film or about one specific person like Martin Scorcese (who is awesome, but in this case irrelevant).
So, this series will continue with content that is ACTUALLY ABOUT A MOVIE ... later on. Once I work out what the heck I'm doing. Meanwhile, I'm going to watch Public Enemies and pretend I'm cultured because Marion Cotillard is in the movie. Hehe.
P.S When I was in Newtown today there was a big crew of 30+ people shooting some kind of short film or a show. I stood around like a lost idiot and watched them for a bit, but they were all busy and I couldn't really ask them what was going on. I imagined they were from Sydney Film School, even though I knew they couldn't be because the crew was too big and very professional. Moral of this story: I'm excited for film school to start. One more month!
Problem is, I've not idea where to begin. There's an awesome-looking book on Book Depository called Studying French Cinema, but it's still three weeks away from release. So I'll have to wait on that one. I've looked at a couple of others such as French Cinema by Charles Drazin, but one review I read said that he sort of gives up on giving films made after 1959 (ie, after Luc Godard's Breathless) the attention they deserve. So that sort of doesn't work for me, because I'd like a book that thoroughly covers both old and new history. Especially new, because the broad Film History book I have right now has a decent amount of French film beginnings ... but it's pretty hefty reading and I'm only up to 1912 or something, so mentions of accessible French titles has so far been scarce.
I went into Newtown today in hopes that some of the bookshops that import from overseas would have something I could purchase, but in four shops I only found one second-hand book, and it was about comparing French films with their American remakes and studying the influence that the French film industry has on America. So that was no good.
It frustrates me how difficult it is to get books about the history of other countries here. Like, as if I want to read about Australian history (film or otherwise)! Who does that? It's no wonder bookshops here are failing and people are buying more things online. I can't find anything I want in an actual shop. Trying to find research material for Eloquence was (and still is) a bit of a nightmare; when looking for specific British history one can find only broad world history books or general overviews of the history of Britain, which isn't helpful because that means I'm buying a book for $30 and only getting like $5 of relevant reading material. So again, most of my books on the 19th-century have arrived in the mailbox from the UK. Obviously, when I go there I will be taking an empty suitcase and buying books.
As for film sections themselves, most of the space is taken up by Hollywood (obviously) with a few dodgy-looking titles about Australian film or about one specific person like Martin Scorcese (who is awesome, but in this case irrelevant).
So, this series will continue with content that is ACTUALLY ABOUT A MOVIE ... later on. Once I work out what the heck I'm doing. Meanwhile, I'm going to watch Public Enemies and pretend I'm cultured because Marion Cotillard is in the movie. Hehe.
P.S When I was in Newtown today there was a big crew of 30+ people shooting some kind of short film or a show. I stood around like a lost idiot and watched them for a bit, but they were all busy and I couldn't really ask them what was going on. I imagined they were from Sydney Film School, even though I knew they couldn't be because the crew was too big and very professional. Moral of this story: I'm excited for film school to start. One more month!
May 31, 2012
French Cinema
I know, I know. I need to start blogging regularly again! I've been dying to but I've been kinda lacking on the content front. So now, I have a topic. Thus I am blogging now to remind myself of said topic so that I remember to research it and write about it.
French Cinema.
Currently, my experience of French Cinema extends only as far as French actresses in Hollywood films (Marion Cotillard, Mélanie Laurent), Le Voyage dans la lune (A Trip to the Moon) by George Méliès, À bout de souffle (Breathless) by Jean Luc-Godard, and The Artist, by Michel Hazanavicius.
All of this experiences have been rather incredible, actually. So I have come to the conclusion that the French know what they're doing when it comes to film (well, I ought to know that, seeing as France is home to only the most prestigious film festival on the planet). Therefore, I have decided to begin a blog series which shall be entitled An Introduction To French Cinema. So while I learn about all this amazing stuff, you can learn too!
One reason I'm choosing France over any other place in the world to begin my foreign film exploration is because France is probably the most important to the film industry. The film industry was basically born in France and the cinematograph was invented there, so quite obviously there's a lot of history to explore. I bought this book called Film History: An Introduction, and it's quite amazing and I plan to read it cover-to-cover, no matter how long that takes. It's got loads in there about French cinema among other industries, of course.
Anyways! By publishing this post I have now committed to this project ... I'm not really sure exactly what I'm doing, so I guess it'll be a nice little adventure. Wish me luck :)
French Cinema.
Currently, my experience of French Cinema extends only as far as French actresses in Hollywood films (Marion Cotillard, Mélanie Laurent), Le Voyage dans la lune (A Trip to the Moon) by George Méliès, À bout de souffle (Breathless) by Jean Luc-Godard, and The Artist, by Michel Hazanavicius.
All of this experiences have been rather incredible, actually. So I have come to the conclusion that the French know what they're doing when it comes to film (well, I ought to know that, seeing as France is home to only the most prestigious film festival on the planet). Therefore, I have decided to begin a blog series which shall be entitled An Introduction To French Cinema. So while I learn about all this amazing stuff, you can learn too!
One reason I'm choosing France over any other place in the world to begin my foreign film exploration is because France is probably the most important to the film industry. The film industry was basically born in France and the cinematograph was invented there, so quite obviously there's a lot of history to explore. I bought this book called Film History: An Introduction, and it's quite amazing and I plan to read it cover-to-cover, no matter how long that takes. It's got loads in there about French cinema among other industries, of course.
Anyways! By publishing this post I have now committed to this project ... I'm not really sure exactly what I'm doing, so I guess it'll be a nice little adventure. Wish me luck :)
May 15, 2012
Just gonna unload right here.
My brain is in a kind of sensory overload right now. I have to be at work tomorrow morning so I should totally be asleep but my brain was all YOU MUST WRITE and seeing as I haven't blogged it about a million years, here I am to unload all my current thoughts. Prepare for the word-vomit.
Firstly, I'm still overloaded from the interview I just had with one of the teaching guys at Sydney Film School. Pretty much got accepted. Celebrations will be had as soon as my 'letter of offer' arrives in the mail. Should be by next week. I'm pretty thrilled. Also really not keen to do the rest of the portfolio IFSS wants me to do, because my harddrive has crashed and so it means extra work to try and pull together photos. Haven't entirely ditched this possibility yet so will probably try a little for this next week.
Film school looks like it's going to be REALLY intense. I mean, the the teacher interviewing me today even kinda warned me it was intense. So I'm a little freaked out about that. Granted, everyone said that TAFE was going to be crazy intense and it really wasn't until the very last month. This, however, is probably a different story. Preparing myself for crazy-intenseness.
I have to say I'm a little worried that I won't be able to keep my cafe job if film school gets crazy. Every time I think about that my brain goes 'but you have to save money for your trip!' and then I try not to think about that. It will happen. It must. Also praying that something opens up at the dvd shop, because how cool would it be to study and film school and work in the dvd shop at the same time? I basically live there anyway....
Moving on to unrelated topics, I'm in the mood to right one of those average present-day kind of stories but have ZERO inspiration. Absolutely no scenes or key ideas are coming to mind. I can't even form a decent character or even decided on a name. It's killing me. I touched up a few scenes of the super power novel last week, but haven't done any writing since. Annoying. Got a crazy work week but hopefully some inspiration will come to me on my day off.
Been watching loads of movies lately, as per usual. Need to get back into some proper film reviews/ACTUAL BLOGGING, but for now will just list the stuff I've been watching lately to catch myself up:
Zodiac. David Fincher's true-story-about-a-serial-killer was quite brilliant. My love of Fincher has officially increased as expected. Also my love of Jake Gyllenhaal. Totally adorable.
The Godfather. YES I FINALLY SAW IT. Was a very good film. Keen for part two.
Rendition Road. Crappy film with a totally weak ending as I expected (was in the mood for something that required little thought), though half-decent acting from Ruffalo, Connelly and Phoenix. Also slightly depressing what with the 'bereavement themes' and all.
There Will Be Blood. Reallllyyyyyy strange, strange film. Beautiful cinematography though, so well worth it.
PIRATES! Caught one of the very last sessions in the cinema with Justin. Quite hilarious and very cute. Also a heavy user of this trope, unfortunately.... The amount of times we turned to each other and whispered "how is this G-rated?!"
Anyways, gotta go to bed. Would love to keep writing but my eyelid are drooping. Sleep beckons. Will lastly mention that I bought Film History: An Introduction by Bordwell and Thompson, it's big and fat and wonderful I can't wait to start reading it. Tata for now lovelies, glad to be back.
Firstly, I'm still overloaded from the interview I just had with one of the teaching guys at Sydney Film School. Pretty much got accepted. Celebrations will be had as soon as my 'letter of offer' arrives in the mail. Should be by next week. I'm pretty thrilled. Also really not keen to do the rest of the portfolio IFSS wants me to do, because my harddrive has crashed and so it means extra work to try and pull together photos. Haven't entirely ditched this possibility yet so will probably try a little for this next week.
Film school looks like it's going to be REALLY intense. I mean, the the teacher interviewing me today even kinda warned me it was intense. So I'm a little freaked out about that. Granted, everyone said that TAFE was going to be crazy intense and it really wasn't until the very last month. This, however, is probably a different story. Preparing myself for crazy-intenseness.
I have to say I'm a little worried that I won't be able to keep my cafe job if film school gets crazy. Every time I think about that my brain goes 'but you have to save money for your trip!' and then I try not to think about that. It will happen. It must. Also praying that something opens up at the dvd shop, because how cool would it be to study and film school and work in the dvd shop at the same time? I basically live there anyway....
Moving on to unrelated topics, I'm in the mood to right one of those average present-day kind of stories but have ZERO inspiration. Absolutely no scenes or key ideas are coming to mind. I can't even form a decent character or even decided on a name. It's killing me. I touched up a few scenes of the super power novel last week, but haven't done any writing since. Annoying. Got a crazy work week but hopefully some inspiration will come to me on my day off.
Been watching loads of movies lately, as per usual. Need to get back into some proper film reviews/ACTUAL BLOGGING, but for now will just list the stuff I've been watching lately to catch myself up:
Zodiac. David Fincher's true-story-about-a-serial-killer was quite brilliant. My love of Fincher has officially increased as expected. Also my love of Jake Gyllenhaal. Totally adorable.
The Godfather. YES I FINALLY SAW IT. Was a very good film. Keen for part two.
Rendition Road. Crappy film with a totally weak ending as I expected (was in the mood for something that required little thought), though half-decent acting from Ruffalo, Connelly and Phoenix. Also slightly depressing what with the 'bereavement themes' and all.
There Will Be Blood. Reallllyyyyyy strange, strange film. Beautiful cinematography though, so well worth it.
PIRATES! Caught one of the very last sessions in the cinema with Justin. Quite hilarious and very cute. Also a heavy user of this trope, unfortunately.... The amount of times we turned to each other and whispered "how is this G-rated?!"
Anyways, gotta go to bed. Would love to keep writing but my eyelid are drooping. Sleep beckons. Will lastly mention that I bought Film History: An Introduction by Bordwell and Thompson, it's big and fat and wonderful I can't wait to start reading it. Tata for now lovelies, glad to be back.
March 29, 2012
Screencap Saturday #3
Howdy!
Saw a film last night called The Beaver. It's been on my to-watch list for a while now for various reasons (Jodie Foster directed it, the DoP also did The Young Victoria, it stars Yelchin and Lawrence, etc).
The film stars Mel Gibson as the "very depressed individual" Walter Black, who develops an alternate personality through a beaver puppet that he finds in a dumpster. Walter uses this "Beaver" personality as his sole means of communication, until what seemed at first to be a kind of therapy spirals into a mania. Jodie Foster stars as his wife Meredith, torn between leaving him and helping him, and Anton Yelchin as his teenage son Porter, who is determined to be nothing like his father. The subplot involves Porter and his relationship with cheerleader Norah, who hires him to write her valedictorian speech.
The movie is fairly predictable but I enjoyed it quite a lot. It's very tasteful visually - there's some excellent use of block-color that I particularly appreciated, and the camera work is nice and clean. I don't think Jodie Foster has directed much before this film (2011), but I'd be interested to see what she does with directing in the future. Anyway, this is, of course, a screencap post, so here's 32 of my favorite frames from the film.
Saw a film last night called The Beaver. It's been on my to-watch list for a while now for various reasons (Jodie Foster directed it, the DoP also did The Young Victoria, it stars Yelchin and Lawrence, etc).
The film stars Mel Gibson as the "very depressed individual" Walter Black, who develops an alternate personality through a beaver puppet that he finds in a dumpster. Walter uses this "Beaver" personality as his sole means of communication, until what seemed at first to be a kind of therapy spirals into a mania. Jodie Foster stars as his wife Meredith, torn between leaving him and helping him, and Anton Yelchin as his teenage son Porter, who is determined to be nothing like his father. The subplot involves Porter and his relationship with cheerleader Norah, who hires him to write her valedictorian speech.
The movie is fairly predictable but I enjoyed it quite a lot. It's very tasteful visually - there's some excellent use of block-color that I particularly appreciated, and the camera work is nice and clean. I don't think Jodie Foster has directed much before this film (2011), but I'd be interested to see what she does with directing in the future. Anyway, this is, of course, a screencap post, so here's 32 of my favorite frames from the film.
March 22, 2012
"It's a television show!"
Disclaimer: Spoiler alert. But if you've read the book, there's not too much to worry about, I guess.
Howdy, folks. Previously I blogged about the incredible trailer that was The Hunger Games. For those of you who remember that blog post, it was me gushing about how brilliant the trailer was, even though I didn't much care for the book. Admittedly, my opinion on The Hunger Games series has altered somewhat. On reading the first book a second time I found more to appreciate about it. I still don't love everything about it, but it's become one of my more favorable YA novels of recent years.
So, the movie. The amazing EMPIRE gave me free tickets to a preview screening of the film after I entered their little 25-words-or-less competition. Yay me! Thanks EMPIRE. You're awesome.
Justin and I rocked up at Event Cinemas last night and stood in line excitedly with a rather mixed-bag of other ticket-winners. Unlike the crowd for the sneak peak of The Amazing Spiderman that I was also in, this sprawling line outside the theatre was filled with your average two-best-friends and girls-who-give-free-tickets-to-boyfriends, I was surprised to also find myself standing between old-people-who-probably-don't-know-what-they're-about-to-watch-like-how-did-you-even-find-empire's-website, and woman-who-brought-her-completely-ignorant-work-colleague-along. Interesting.
Anyway! Sorry, I like to ramble. Let's get on with the show.
As also stated in my previous THG-related blog post, I couldn't help but wonder if perhaps the movie could be better than the book. In some visual ways, yes, I'll say it was. The film enabled us to see things only briefly mentioned and left to our imaginations in the books, so that was a plus. What director Gary Ross left out, visually, was a major disappointment.
I'll start with the beginning shots. Thankfully, this is where I was most disappointed with the movie, so this review (sort of) (somewhat) goes up from here. We're first introduced to District 12. I would describe what we saw here, but heck, I don't even know how to describe what I saw. Gary Ross, you really wasted this part of the movie.
Being a cinematography lover (DoP is my dream job, don'tcha know), I was admittedly shocked at Ross' choice of camera technique for conveying District 12. He chose to show us parts of this impoverished town in close-up shaky-hand-held shots. Like, ridiculously shaky. Like OMG-we-forgot-the-tripod-but-I-had-so-much-coffee-this-morning-who-even-cares! kind of shaky. Stop moving the camera around, guys, I can't see a thing. So yeah, I don't really I know what I was looking at. I think District 12 is a place full of boring poor people who play in the dirt? It's a good thing I read the book, then. To quote Stephanie Zacharek for Movieline, who I totally agree with: "You wonder, particularly in the District 12 scenes, why [Ross] didn't just screw the camera into the damned tripod: the stillness would have been classical and elegant and better suited to the emotional tone and texture of this part of the story". You said it, Stephanie. I don't know what he was thinking.
The camera also rushes through The Reaping, when all the kids file in to get their names drawn out of a glass bowl, two of them to be taken away to compete in The Games. By this point I understood some of his reasoning behind the shaky camera - the moments when Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss is trying to keep her composure while looking for her panicky little sister made perfect sense - but as for the rest of the movement in these early scenes, I was at a loss for why the camera was trying to force a urgency into my mindset. I was expecting an eerie stillness, like the stony faces of the children waiting, a subtle sign of their rebellion. So yes, I was disappointed that the camera was telling me what to perceive. In my personal opinion, I like the camera's framework to be invisible wherever possible, and I didn't consider these scenes to be an exception.
So, moving on. After Katniss takes her sister's place in an emotional farewell (yes, I cried a bit, okay?), we are swept with her and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) into another world, one full of color and weird people and stuff. I liked the portrayal of The Capitol, probably because I found that part the hardest to picture when reading the book, but I still felt there was something missing. If you've seen any of the promotional posters for the film, particularly the ones of Elizabeth Banks' Effie Trinket advertising makeup products or something, those alone gave more insight into The Capitol's materialistic mindset, and I felt that any real "heart" of any people in the movie, save Katniss and Peeta, was missing.
That being said, when all the tributes are presented on their chariots to thrill the obsessed audience ... well, that was pretty epic. Good soundtrack. CGI was a touch lame, but whatever.
I enjoyed some of the scenes in the arena better on screen than I did on page, like the tracker-jackers and the wall of fire. Action scenes like that don't always sounds as good on paper, so I was glad to get a visual (so having said that, I'll politely ignore the lack of variety in the actual scenery. I swear Katniss passed that same tree and mossy rock twenty times).
All righty, that's about all I have to say on the visuals. Let's get down to the nitty gritty - the acting.
Personal favorite is Stanley Tucci's Caesar Flickerman, the host of The Hunger Games' television show, and the commentator overseeing the action in the arena. I'm a huge fan of Stanley, and was thrilled to see his name on the cast list when the film was first announced. He really was perfect in this role and I was glad to see he got plenty of screen time. Sadly, for other greats like Woody Harrelson (playing Peeta and Katniss' mentor Haymitch), the script diminished his role to a lot of sitting and standing in the background.
Lenny Kravitz as Cinna also seemed pretty good, but again he didn't have much to do on screen. Hopefully we'll see a little more of him in the second film...
Something the filmmakers did do well was the casting of the other tributes, particularly the Careers of districts 1 and 2. Although a lot of their screen time was nothing more than looking tough and sneering behind Katniss' back, they did it well. Definitely all cast for the smug looks they could pull off, but that is of course, exactly what we wanted from them. One of the better (brief) action scenes is the girl-fight between Katniss and Clove, the girl from District 2, which ends with the massive hulking dude from District 11 smashing Clove's head into the cornucopia and knocking her dead. Sweet. Also freaky. But good action nonetheless.
Josh Hutcherson delivers as Peeta, especially during his early scenes before the Games. I loved how much drive there was behind his character. Favorite Peeta moment was probably him waving to the Capitol citizens as the train arrives in the city, and Haymitch says "See, he knows what he's doing."
As for the impossibly young tribute Rue (Amandla Stenberg)... she was far too out of place in the arena. Now, I know that sounds weird when I say it, because she's only twelve and is supposed to be out of place, but the problem lies in the visual representation of her character. She's too clean, too casual, looks too much like she's supposed to be on the Disney Channel or some adventure movie for eight-year-olds. There was no wide-eyed vulnerability, no desperation, no sense of a girl forced to grow up too fast, just a girl.
It's Jennifer Lawrence that manages to carry Rue's character into the emotionally-invested zone. Katniss' reaction to Rue's death is perfect. She looks at her in the same way she does her young sister Prim (Willow Shields). The set up of this scene is perfect because you're purposefully reminded of Prim, and when Katniss whispers "I'm sorry" with as much emotion as you can squeeze into two words, I was tearing up. Then she garnishes Rue's body with flowers, and the scene is intercut with shots of District 11 swelling into an angry mob. If you're not crying by the time Katniss is crying, well ... either you're a hard-hearted blockhead or I'm a marshmallow. I know, I know, give me a good actor crying on screen and I'm an emotional wreck!
The point is, I knew this movie was going to be good as soon as I heard Jennifer Lawrence was playing Katniss (if you haven't seen her in Winter's Bone, what are you waiting for??), and she carries this film to make it a winner. She's just so watchable. She takes in everything around her and makes herself part of the set, part of the story. The bit where she wins me over (theoretically, that is - she'd won me over before she even started shooting) is her interview with Caesar Flickerman.
In the scene Katniss is wearing a dress with a hem that bursts into flame when she spins around, designed by her stylist Cinna. After she shows it off for the audience, she finally relaxes and we get her first ever genuine smile of the movie. What's great about Lawrence is that she's a totally different person when she's smiling. She has the ability to mask her emotions (something any great actor should be able to do), so when Katniss finally puts her shields down and lets the Capitol audience in, the real audience watching the movie is also drawn in to the character. Caesar Flickerman ends the interview by asking Katniss what she said to her sister after she volunteered to take her place. 'I told her I would try to win for her', says Katniss, and just as it's intended to be, that's the moment where we see the real Katniss Everdeen. If it weren't for Jennifer Lawrence's strong performance, this film would probably have nothing going for it but Stanley Tucci wearing a blue wig and laughing for some unexplainable reason.
Howdy, folks. Previously I blogged about the incredible trailer that was The Hunger Games. For those of you who remember that blog post, it was me gushing about how brilliant the trailer was, even though I didn't much care for the book. Admittedly, my opinion on The Hunger Games series has altered somewhat. On reading the first book a second time I found more to appreciate about it. I still don't love everything about it, but it's become one of my more favorable YA novels of recent years.
So, the movie. The amazing EMPIRE gave me free tickets to a preview screening of the film after I entered their little 25-words-or-less competition. Yay me! Thanks EMPIRE. You're awesome.
Justin and I rocked up at Event Cinemas last night and stood in line excitedly with a rather mixed-bag of other ticket-winners. Unlike the crowd for the sneak peak of The Amazing Spiderman that I was also in, this sprawling line outside the theatre was filled with your average two-best-friends and girls-who-give-free-tickets-to-boyfriends, I was surprised to also find myself standing between old-people-who-probably-don't-know-what-they're-about-to-watch-like-how-did-you-even-find-empire's-website, and woman-who-brought-her-completely-ignorant-work-colleague-along. Interesting.Anyway! Sorry, I like to ramble. Let's get on with the show.
As also stated in my previous THG-related blog post, I couldn't help but wonder if perhaps the movie could be better than the book. In some visual ways, yes, I'll say it was. The film enabled us to see things only briefly mentioned and left to our imaginations in the books, so that was a plus. What director Gary Ross left out, visually, was a major disappointment.
I'll start with the beginning shots. Thankfully, this is where I was most disappointed with the movie, so this review (sort of) (somewhat) goes up from here. We're first introduced to District 12. I would describe what we saw here, but heck, I don't even know how to describe what I saw. Gary Ross, you really wasted this part of the movie.
Being a cinematography lover (DoP is my dream job, don'tcha know), I was admittedly shocked at Ross' choice of camera technique for conveying District 12. He chose to show us parts of this impoverished town in close-up shaky-hand-held shots. Like, ridiculously shaky. Like OMG-we-forgot-the-tripod-but-I-had-so-much-coffee-this-morning-who-even-cares! kind of shaky. Stop moving the camera around, guys, I can't see a thing. So yeah, I don't really I know what I was looking at. I think District 12 is a place full of boring poor people who play in the dirt? It's a good thing I read the book, then. To quote Stephanie Zacharek for Movieline, who I totally agree with: "You wonder, particularly in the District 12 scenes, why [Ross] didn't just screw the camera into the damned tripod: the stillness would have been classical and elegant and better suited to the emotional tone and texture of this part of the story". You said it, Stephanie. I don't know what he was thinking.
So, moving on. After Katniss takes her sister's place in an emotional farewell (yes, I cried a bit, okay?), we are swept with her and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) into another world, one full of color and weird people and stuff. I liked the portrayal of The Capitol, probably because I found that part the hardest to picture when reading the book, but I still felt there was something missing. If you've seen any of the promotional posters for the film, particularly the ones of Elizabeth Banks' Effie Trinket advertising makeup products or something, those alone gave more insight into The Capitol's materialistic mindset, and I felt that any real "heart" of any people in the movie, save Katniss and Peeta, was missing.
That being said, when all the tributes are presented on their chariots to thrill the obsessed audience ... well, that was pretty epic. Good soundtrack. CGI was a touch lame, but whatever.
I enjoyed some of the scenes in the arena better on screen than I did on page, like the tracker-jackers and the wall of fire. Action scenes like that don't always sounds as good on paper, so I was glad to get a visual (so having said that, I'll politely ignore the lack of variety in the actual scenery. I swear Katniss passed that same tree and mossy rock twenty times).
All righty, that's about all I have to say on the visuals. Let's get down to the nitty gritty - the acting.
Personal favorite is Stanley Tucci's Caesar Flickerman, the host of The Hunger Games' television show, and the commentator overseeing the action in the arena. I'm a huge fan of Stanley, and was thrilled to see his name on the cast list when the film was first announced. He really was perfect in this role and I was glad to see he got plenty of screen time. Sadly, for other greats like Woody Harrelson (playing Peeta and Katniss' mentor Haymitch), the script diminished his role to a lot of sitting and standing in the background.Lenny Kravitz as Cinna also seemed pretty good, but again he didn't have much to do on screen. Hopefully we'll see a little more of him in the second film...
Something the filmmakers did do well was the casting of the other tributes, particularly the Careers of districts 1 and 2. Although a lot of their screen time was nothing more than looking tough and sneering behind Katniss' back, they did it well. Definitely all cast for the smug looks they could pull off, but that is of course, exactly what we wanted from them. One of the better (brief) action scenes is the girl-fight between Katniss and Clove, the girl from District 2, which ends with the massive hulking dude from District 11 smashing Clove's head into the cornucopia and knocking her dead. Sweet. Also freaky. But good action nonetheless.
Josh Hutcherson delivers as Peeta, especially during his early scenes before the Games. I loved how much drive there was behind his character. Favorite Peeta moment was probably him waving to the Capitol citizens as the train arrives in the city, and Haymitch says "See, he knows what he's doing."
As for the impossibly young tribute Rue (Amandla Stenberg)... she was far too out of place in the arena. Now, I know that sounds weird when I say it, because she's only twelve and is supposed to be out of place, but the problem lies in the visual representation of her character. She's too clean, too casual, looks too much like she's supposed to be on the Disney Channel or some adventure movie for eight-year-olds. There was no wide-eyed vulnerability, no desperation, no sense of a girl forced to grow up too fast, just a girl.
It's Jennifer Lawrence that manages to carry Rue's character into the emotionally-invested zone. Katniss' reaction to Rue's death is perfect. She looks at her in the same way she does her young sister Prim (Willow Shields). The set up of this scene is perfect because you're purposefully reminded of Prim, and when Katniss whispers "I'm sorry" with as much emotion as you can squeeze into two words, I was tearing up. Then she garnishes Rue's body with flowers, and the scene is intercut with shots of District 11 swelling into an angry mob. If you're not crying by the time Katniss is crying, well ... either you're a hard-hearted blockhead or I'm a marshmallow. I know, I know, give me a good actor crying on screen and I'm an emotional wreck!
March 3, 2012
Ten Movies in Ten Words
Two posts in two days, this is a record I haven't reached in a while! I have for you a list of my current Top Ten Must-See Films. Subject to change as I see more movies, of course.
This is a very subjective list, and is not influenced by what other people consider the "best" films of all time. It's more like, if someone were to ask me "what is film?" or "what are movies all about?" this is list I would give them. Right now, anyway. Ask me again in a few months' time when I've seen more movies and it'll probably be different. It was a HUGE struggle just to get it down to ten. I had another 5 or 6 that were vying for spots but missed out.
I've called this post "Ten Movies in Ten Words" because ten words is short and sweet and cuts to the point (so screw sentence structure!). And this way you don't have to read big long opinionated paragraphs that will skew your own opinion. We don't want to start any arguments, here.
If you're reading and you have your own blog (or even just a facebook) I encourage you to do your own "Ten Movies in Ten Words" post, because I'd love to compare.
So without further ado, the list. In order by year.
1. A Trip to the Moon (George Méliès, 1902)
110 years old. 14 minutes. Still brilliant, creative, and funny.
2. Bringing Up Baby (Howard Hawks, 1938)
Ahead of its time, fast-paced, ridiculous. I laughed constantly.
3. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)
Let's just say I watched it thrice in one week.
4. Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960)
Creepy, clever, thrilling. One of Hitchcock's finest. Perkins is unforgettable.
5. The Princess Bride (Rob Reiner, 1987)
A loveable cult classic. Inconceivably quotable. Fantasy at its finest.
6. Toy Story (John Lasseter, 1995)
You haven't seen this? You uncultured swine! It's freaking genius.
7. Moulin Rouge! (Baz Luhrmann, 2001)
It's about love! An artistic masterpiece! You'll want to sing!
8. Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)
THE TAVERN SCENE IS SO, SO GOOD. BRILLIANTLY EXECUTED. ARGH.
9. The Social Network (David Fincher, 2010)
Edge-of-your-seat dialogue. Incredible script, score, and acting.
The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011)
Beautiful cinematic artwork.
Pretentious? Yes, but Lubezki's cinematography is breathtaking.
Pretentious? Yes, but Lubezki's cinematography is breathtaking.
And there you have it. Ten Films in Ten Words. Your turn!
March 2, 2012
Why Veronica Mars Is Worth My Time
Howdy. Once again, it's been a while. I know, I know. I fail at blogging. I really do. But here I am, with something you may or may not find interesting: An analysis of that teenage TV show from years gone by, Veronica Mars.
Kristy put me on to this earlier in the week, and usually I'm terrible at looking up things that people tell me to investigate. It usually takes me forever to get around to it, because I'm lazy and don't know what's good for me (Sorry, Keira and Sherlock, and anyone who told me to watch Doctor Who once Matt Smith joined. Also anyone who has told me to read Jasper Fforde. I'm still getting to that one. The Eyre Affair is sitting on my shelf.).
For those unfamiliar with Veronica Mars, it's basically a teenage drama show with a film-noir-ish overlay. The title character is a seventeen-year-old girl living in a prestigious zip-code with her Private Investigator father. Veronica has her father's talent and spends her time conducting her own detective work, all the while dealing with the trouble that has been following her since her best friend was mysteriously murdered a year ago.
Anyway! When other people refer me to things I'm hopeless, but when I get my own mind set on something I have to do it NOW. It's a curse, really. One time I unpacked my entire suitcase hours before out flight to Hawaii because I'd buried my book at the bottom and I needed to read it RIGHT AWAY. So I was looking up random things on the internet and on iTunes, and somehow came across Veronica Mars. I was still annoyed at the video store for not having the Orson Welles movies that I wanted to watch, and was desperate for something to chill over while my brother was out at bible study.
Well. Wouldn't you know it, I could purchase the pilot on iTunes for $2.99.
Unfortunately my account only held $2.74.
It's little things like that that get me. I'm so close to getting what I want and the tiniest thing (like 25 cents) gets in my way. IT DRIVES ME CRAZY. I searched Youtube for the episode, even dangerously googled "watch veronica mars free online" and prayed my computer wouldn't get spammed when I clicked a link, all to no avail. I wasn't having that. So I marched into my parents' room and begged my dad to let him use his credit card.
For what? he says.
For a TV show I know nothing about but I HAVE TO SEE NOW.
It took a bit of convincing. But once he figured it was only three dollars I got my way.
I waited the agonising twenty minutes for it to download and then settled down in bed with my headphones on to fulfil my random urge to watch this random show, thinking "THIS BETTER BE GOOD" (but I knew it would be, because Kristy recommended it. I forgot to mention that was the second selling point when I was asking dad for his credit card).
So, there's the backstory. That was probably totally unnecessary reading material, so sorry if you bothered through that. Right now I'm just really enjoying my fingers racing across the computer keys because I haven't typed so much in several days and I'm going a bit stir-crazy. So I'm actually making this blog post as long as possible on purpose. Feel free to skim, I only have like eleven readers anyway!
Actually no, if you haven't skimmed by now you've missed your chance, because we're finally getting to THE POINT. I'm here to talk about why Veronica Mars actually is a good show and why I didn't waste $2.99 (and later $10.00 downloading the rest of the season) purchasing it.
If you've known me for a while, or at least been reading past posts on this blog, you'd know I have a fascination with characters and more importantly what makes a good character. I like analysing story lines and characters and trying to work out why an audience likes them. What makes the story work? There's a lot that needs to be included (and a lot that needs to be left out) for a character to be really likeable.
The creators of Veronica Mars are (thus far) surprisingly good at this. I've only watched the first five episodes of this show but I'm rather amazed at how much character development we already have. I've bored you enough with short paragraphs and single lines, so I'm going to change pace now and work with bullet points (brace yourselves).
Kristy put me on to this earlier in the week, and usually I'm terrible at looking up things that people tell me to investigate. It usually takes me forever to get around to it, because I'm lazy and don't know what's good for me (Sorry, Keira and Sherlock, and anyone who told me to watch Doctor Who once Matt Smith joined. Also anyone who has told me to read Jasper Fforde. I'm still getting to that one. The Eyre Affair is sitting on my shelf.).
For those unfamiliar with Veronica Mars, it's basically a teenage drama show with a film-noir-ish overlay. The title character is a seventeen-year-old girl living in a prestigious zip-code with her Private Investigator father. Veronica has her father's talent and spends her time conducting her own detective work, all the while dealing with the trouble that has been following her since her best friend was mysteriously murdered a year ago.
Anyway! When other people refer me to things I'm hopeless, but when I get my own mind set on something I have to do it NOW. It's a curse, really. One time I unpacked my entire suitcase hours before out flight to Hawaii because I'd buried my book at the bottom and I needed to read it RIGHT AWAY. So I was looking up random things on the internet and on iTunes, and somehow came across Veronica Mars. I was still annoyed at the video store for not having the Orson Welles movies that I wanted to watch, and was desperate for something to chill over while my brother was out at bible study.
Well. Wouldn't you know it, I could purchase the pilot on iTunes for $2.99.
Unfortunately my account only held $2.74.
It's little things like that that get me. I'm so close to getting what I want and the tiniest thing (like 25 cents) gets in my way. IT DRIVES ME CRAZY. I searched Youtube for the episode, even dangerously googled "watch veronica mars free online" and prayed my computer wouldn't get spammed when I clicked a link, all to no avail. I wasn't having that. So I marched into my parents' room and begged my dad to let him use his credit card.
For what? he says.
For a TV show I know nothing about but I HAVE TO SEE NOW.
It took a bit of convincing. But once he figured it was only three dollars I got my way.
I waited the agonising twenty minutes for it to download and then settled down in bed with my headphones on to fulfil my random urge to watch this random show, thinking "THIS BETTER BE GOOD" (but I knew it would be, because Kristy recommended it. I forgot to mention that was the second selling point when I was asking dad for his credit card).
So, there's the backstory. That was probably totally unnecessary reading material, so sorry if you bothered through that. Right now I'm just really enjoying my fingers racing across the computer keys because I haven't typed so much in several days and I'm going a bit stir-crazy. So I'm actually making this blog post as long as possible on purpose. Feel free to skim, I only have like eleven readers anyway!
Actually no, if you haven't skimmed by now you've missed your chance, because we're finally getting to THE POINT. I'm here to talk about why Veronica Mars actually is a good show and why I didn't waste $2.99 (and later $10.00 downloading the rest of the season) purchasing it.
If you've known me for a while, or at least been reading past posts on this blog, you'd know I have a fascination with characters and more importantly what makes a good character. I like analysing story lines and characters and trying to work out why an audience likes them. What makes the story work? There's a lot that needs to be included (and a lot that needs to be left out) for a character to be really likeable.
The creators of Veronica Mars are (thus far) surprisingly good at this. I've only watched the first five episodes of this show but I'm rather amazed at how much character development we already have. I've bored you enough with short paragraphs and single lines, so I'm going to change pace now and work with bullet points (brace yourselves).
Why Veronica Mars Is A Good (but not perfect) Character,
And Why Her Show Allows Her To Be That:
- The show gives plenty of backstory - The pilot episode is, in fact, almost entirely backstory. This kind of annoyed me to begin with, but once the rest of the show went on I was grateful that the writers had spent so much time setting up the story, because it gave it, shall we say, meat to it. By episode two I was interested in the title character's "past life" and the connections it had to the life she was living now. It gave the story depth very quickly.
- The majority of recurring characters are introduced within the first two episodes - This may not seem like a big deal, but I've seen other TV shows where they take FOREVER to set up the recurring cast. It can be a little confusing. I was glad to get all the introductions out of the way so I could focus on the main character and what she was up to rather then trying to catch up on who was who.
- We are given ample opportunity to emotionally invest in the main character - The third episode is what really hooked me, because aside from the flashback moments, this episode is the first time we see present-day Veronica showing a true sign of weakness, which is, of course, a necessary step in creating a well-rounded character. It's perfect timing too because we know enough about the character now that when she is weak, we actually care.
- Veronica hasn't always been the underdog - The problem with most underdog characters is that they've never been on top, so they spend most of their time wimping out, wishing they were better and annoying the hell out of you. I'm exaggerating and stereotyping a little here, but I'm sure you can think of at least one character that fits that description (not going to taint this blog post by naming any names...). Veronica used to be one of the popular kids, so she isn't constantly wishing she was one of them. Neither does she give them the cold shoulder and say 'we don't need them' and huff off with her band of misfits. So, that's major bonus point for defeating both those cliches.
- Veronica is smart but an idiot - I'm not kidding here, I rejoice any time a character has a some real honest-to-goodness flaws. ESPECIALLY one I've already emotionally invested in. In the five episodes I've watched, Veronica is portrayed a very smart, intuitive girl who can be friendly and selfless when she wants to be, but also intentionally rude, bossy, intrusive and selfish. No human is perfect and therefore no character should be. What I hate more than a character who has no flaws is a character who passes off their "mistakes" for flaws. Therefore I love it when Veronica is aware that something is wrong, but does it anyway.
That's only a few points as to why I like this show and think it's worth my time. I could go on, and even include what I don't like, but I have other things to do (like watching episode 6) and I really ought to stop typing now. So I will leave you with that. I didn't intend for this to be a plug - I am in no way telling you GO WATCH THIS SHOW NOW, just writing about what I appreciate about character and story, and how this show is an example of that.
So thanks, Kristy, for knowing what's good for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)