Thursday, May 14, 2009

Star Trek XI: FIRE EVERYTHING!!

Master film-makers like Ingmar Bergman, Terrence Malick, Stanley Kubrick, Andrei Tarkovsky, Jane Campion, Robert Bresson and Alfred Hitchock understand something essential about film as an art form; you trust your audience. You recognize their dignity and intelligence with dramatic revelation, and not ending with tidy conclusions. You let them walk away with something to consider. Master filmmakers avoiding spelling out every detail with the assumption that you're an inattentive child needing to be sold something.

I just returned from seeing the much anticipated (by me) Star Trek movie. I felt very excited after seeing the first trailer which was the long, slow pan of the Enterprise being constructed backed with a conservative use of the old theme song mixed with a voiceover of JFK about space exploration. I once read and article about the editors who make hollywood trailers and one of them said "If the film has a blockbuster opening weekend and then dies, we really know we've done our job." Boy, did I get suckered in. Do I ever have a bad taste in my mouth.

And it's my fault because I was fair-warned by the later trailers. and by interviews with J. J. Abrams repeating the phrase; "This is not your father's Star Trek, we've got to sell it to a new generation." My understanding of the old Star Trek was that it took on relevant philosophic and moral issues. This new Star Trek is all about selling itself. Pardon, not selling, ramming it down your gullet, and explaining everything, because, you know, the stupid little kids have no capacity for attention or reflective contemplation. I can do without that kind of contempt.

I once theorized that the reason I always felt uncomfortable watching video, as opposed to watching film, was because of the frame rate. Video has this buzzy, hyper-real presence about it. Film, normally shot and projected at 24 fps, requires the brain to fill in the information via persistence of vision. Video, with a frame rate of 30 fps, has to make up for it's poorer quality of resolution by throwing more frames at you.

Star Trek didn't seem to care if I watched it. It wanted to throw images at me and challenge me to keep up, like an automatic tennis ball launcher gone haywire in a situation comedy. The story, which was OK, but not really substantive or even very exciting, could have been more powerfully told in a longer form. Maybe two, or three films.

All winter and spring I heard Abrams talking about how important the chemistry of the characters were, but I didn't get that it cared about the characters at all. They barely had time for one breath, let alone time to sit and think, or speak little more than quippy, hackneyed catch-phrases like "Do it! do it! do it!. I felt like the film was a giant puppy in a tiny room ceaselessly begging for my attention.

Another tired device that I thought was pervasive was the bad-ass, navy seal, one-upmanship aspect. This is a major virus, too often passing for drama and excitement, that I'm still waiting for hollywood to find a cure for. Do we really need to hear some frat-boy screaming "go! go! go! go! go!" or "lock and load!" or "Let's do this!" in every trailer? God, please let it die, or at least keep it out of Star Trek. The audio for every punch and body hit was artificially sweetened to make a thud in your chest cavity. I think they had a guy in the sound department hitting the lowest subsonic key on the synthesizer and another guy cracking a two by four for every instance of impact.

The production design went right along with the direction, the furious editing, and the over-percussive soundtrack (even the glitzy, chrome phasers turned percussive, like they were shooting hyper-bullets.) The bridge was barely visible for all the white light glaring into my eye, and was so glossy I was amazed that the actors weren't slipping and falling. At moments, it was like watching Lord of the Dance in a Vegas hair salon. (OK, I lifted the Vegas hair salon from another reviewer, but it's so apt!)

Did I like any of it? A little. The special effect were great. The shot of the Enterprise rising out of a mist at the end was way cool, made the little hairs on the back of my neck rise up ( I love when that happens.) I also love the far-away shots of the ships in relation to one another, with shifting focus and shaky camera, this optical technique gave those shots some raw weight. I thought Chekov was great.

A phrase just kept rolling over in my mind toward the end of the film and during the drive home. I had heard an interview with an author who had written a book on the nature of beauty. He said; "Glamour is beauty without soul." This film, in my perception, was a very pretty, fast, percussive, glamorous film, that didn't even get near what I've experienced as Star Trek. I know Star Trek. Star Trek had soul.


Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Notes on Recent Films

I recognize film as a form of poetry. These time capsules of juxtaposed mood, music, words, images, and movement add up to much more than the sum of their parts. I learned about film by repeatedly watching the work of filmmakers like Ingmar Bergman, Robert Bresson, David Lynch, Jaques Tati, Alfred Hitchcock, and Andrei Tarkovsky, and by reading the criticism of Jonathan Rosenbaum. I'm surprised at their ability to edify and inspire me. Films that move me on a poetic level are few compared to the number of movies that are produced. I know a film hits that spot when it bears more than one or two viewings.

I've been watching "A.I." by Spielberg, over and over again for a few years now. Weirdly, his other efforts fade quickly for me; "War of the Worlds" , "Schindler's List" , and Indiana Jones, all fall flat by comparison. "Minority Report" doesn't speak as deeply to me as "A.I.", but has a spark that he aforementioned do not. I would dare to say that "A.I." has mostly to do with the question; "What is love?"  

Most films I've seen clearly and powerfully demonstrate what love isn't.  I saw "There Will Be Blood" by P.T. Anderson three times at the theater and rented it once. It's theme of emotional stiltedness and spiritual isolation connected with (and some times paled in comparison to) "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" (Lumet), which I rented a few days ago. Both films had strong things to say about the relationship between fathers and sons and how emotional alienation can bring about tragedy.  You really know what love isn't when you hear someone say to you "I drink YOUR milkshake!"

If "There Will Be Blood" was a shot of whiskey, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" would be two more shots from the same bottle.  Despite the similarities, I experienced both films as having a very different style and character.

I was shocked at how "I Am Legend" (Francis Lawrence) was so transparent in it's unloving evangelical message that a few "special heroes" are our saviors, and only a select few are believers living in isolation, but most are infected with evil and hide in the shadows. It smacked of dehumanization. My gut told me it was even dangerous that the "vampires" had no will or ability to save themselves from the shadows of compulsion. They lacked "Will" - get it? It made the phrase "saved by the blood" a sour message for me. I prefer Abel Ferrara's "Addiction" instead, or "28 Days Later" (Boyle) , from which I gleaned a clearer message of "we're responsible due to our addiction to anger."

I was really impressed by "King Corn" by Aaron Wolf. It's affected my eating habits.

Monday, June 9, 2008

The Existence of G-d

My strongest argument for the existence of G-d is that I have within me a certain knowledge of G-d's presence. This is not a feeling or a craving, it is a certainty grounded within me and I see it also outside myself in others and in nature. I'm unsure, however, if this is translatable to you except through my artwork. Even still, I don't know if I've transmitted those particular signals clearly or strongly enough. And what of the condition of your antenna? You may not be tuned into that frequency.

So my next best argument is an image of perfection that I believe we all harbor. And If you don't harbor one, you might sense the absence of it. I believe we all hold within us a need and a desire for perfection, nirvana, heaven, etc. I see it expressed clearly from others in art, architecture, music, and also in forms which I judge to be more twisted and desperate. I see it as persistent, pushing it's own way through no matter what.

And I recognize the divide that lies between where I'm at and the image of perfection I hold. The division triggers pain in me. I can't let it go.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Violence 1

It is my contention that all forms of violence are culturally learned and unnecessary.