I was also overstating things for emphasis, but I take your point.
I still think visual representation requires either significant resemblance or a strong cultural precedent to convey ideas successfully. And that’s something that doesn’t restrict words in quite the same way.
Ought the visual language of film be something you have to learn, like a real language?
There’s a sort of parallel in music with “programmatic” music (which is where you have the music overtly as symbolizing and representing, like a tuba theme “representing” an elephant), but actually “programmatic” music is often the most boring kind of music to a refined musical ear. “Real” music says things that cannot be said (or rather could be said, but only in an extraordinarily prolix way, like explaining a joke) in language, it’s not a sign of something else, it is a direct expression of shades of emotional subtlety, ranging over an analogue sweep of fleeting emotions that could all be given digital “names”, but it would be pointless to do so.
Doesn’t the visual medium have its own parallel? Isn’t it “saying” something that there’s no other way of saying, so actually when it’s “relevant” or signifying something in the real world, it’s at its most boring?
I can’t help but think that if you have to know the history of film to enjoy a film, something’s gone a bit wrong somewhere. Knowing the history of film, and how a film-maker may reference other works, should add a layer or two of richness to one’s enjoyment, but that kind of internal reference to the medium and its history ought not to be the terminus of visual meaning.
I sometimes think that the emphasis laid on history and the dialogic nature of the movie medium is an artifact of it being a relatively young medium, excited by its toys, like a jazz soloist “quoting” Three Blind Mice in the middle of a solo. Yeah, it’s cute, but it’s not the meat of it.
Which is the shortest explanation of why Family Guy sucks & Futurama rocks I’ve ever heard.
I can’t help but think that if you have to know the history of film to enjoy a film, something’s gone a bit wrong somewhere. Knowing the history of film, and how a film-maker may reference other works, should add a layer or two of richness to one’s enjoyment, but that kind of internal reference to the medium and its history ought not to be the terminus of visual meaning.
I’m not sure if this is directed at me, because I’m certainly not arguing you need to know the history of film to understand (most of) its metaphorical language, and certainly that it isn’t the “terminus of visual meaning” in all but a handful of cases (Hugo?) . You don’t need to have seen Citizen Kane to appreciate what a low angle shot of a person is trying to convey. Like I say, most of this stuff is so deeply ingrained we don’t even think about it as having originated somewhere in the history of film, we just intuitively understand it. At the artsier end of the spectrum, the metaphor can become more idiosyncratic, but that still doesn’t mean you need a degree in film history to get it.
Having said that, I’m not sure I agree with the point anyway - did something go wrong with Ulysses because you really need to know your Homer to get much out of it?
I saw Gravity today. What a great movie! Totally unexpected. I honestly expected a movie about Sandra Bullock drifting through space as she came to terms with the inevitability of her death. I have no idea where I got that impression. Instead, Gravity was a near-earth Orbit space adventure film! I really regret not seeing it in the theater. This movie would have been amazing on IMAX. (But it was also in 3D, and I hate 3D, so maybe just a normal theater, not IMAX).
The most unexpected grain for me throughout the film was the audio and the way it was handled. The way the music was so jarring, so emotionally engaging while being so unorthodox for a movie like this. Seeing the devastation and destruction in some scenes with no accompanying sound effects, just hearing the characters’ breathe and talk over the comm: brilliant.
The only thing that marred the movie for me a little bit, is that I just recently saw “All is Lost” last month, and that felt like a very similar movie, but done much better with regards to attention to detail, more consistent physics, etc. But Gravity still holds its own against “All is Lost” in my mind because of the excellent soundtrack.
Actually, the 3D made Gravity even better, especially in IMAX. And I hate 3D.
Slightly off topic discussion here, apologies in advance.
I just grew tired of being disappointed in 3D over and over and over again. The final straw was after I walked out of the IMAX showing of Star Trek Into Darkness. I decided then that I was going to vote with my dollar and never see a 3D movie again.
Unfortunately what that has meant in practical terms is that a movie like Gravity comes out with positive buzz, I think it would be a good one to see on IMAX, find out it’s in 3D, and then put it out of my mind. And then I end up seeing it a year later on HBO, in this case. I’m going through a similar situation now with Guardians of the Galaxy. Big Summer movie with positive buzz, I think it would be a great one for IMAX, I find out it’s in 3D, and lose all enthusiasm for seeing it in the theater. I should just go to a normal non-3D theater, but when I can’t see the big spectacle movies on IMAX, it’s hard to motivate myself to take time off and actually arrange a viewing.
Guardians of the Galaxy is not a movie that will make you change your mind about 3d. Gravity might have been. From my perspective, the movies that really are enhanced by 3d are ones with a sense of scale achieved through depth of field. Guardians definitely has some big set pieces, but it doesn’t really linger on its massive scale shots in the way that would make the 3d really shine.
Also, you seem to be kind of fixated on IMAX as the gold standard for movies. I’ve avoided IMAX 3D for a while, because my experience with it was unpleasant from both a technical and a movie quality standpoint (Avatar). It seems to me that the RealD process used on standard-size screens looks a lot better, so if I want to see a movie in 3d I go for the regular screen.
I hate 3D. I hate it because it usually adds nothing substantive to the movie for the extra charge, and sometimes even detracts from the movie as 3D gimmickry is shoehorned into scenes. I also don’t like it because I already wear glasses, so the 3D lenses are really uncomfortable.
Avoiding 3D showings is almost impossible. The standard shows are often in the crummiest, smallest screens in the movie complex, so watching the movie in those auditoriums is a non-starter. The result? We go to far less movies than we used to. Good job Hollywood!
I’m not fixated on IMAX necessarily for the screen space. Those theaters do tend to have the best speakers though. Plus Telefrog is right, if you want to avoid both IMAX and the regular 3D screens, the other theaters they put the movie in the same cineplex is usually not a good theater. It varies a lot though, so sometimes you get lucky and even the regular non-IMAX, non-3D showing has a good sound system and a great screen.
But for non-3D movies, I love, love, love the IMAX difference, especially if the movie has actually been shot with IMAX cameras. The Dark Knight and its sequel were both sublime in their action sequences on IMAX. But yeah, when you add 3D to the mix, then IMAX isn’t that hot.
I have a lazy eye and recently learned that I can only see the 3D effect in movies if both of my eyes are focusing simultaneously. Jesus. No wonder I don’t like it. Even if I did all the exercises to get my eyes to work in concert it sounds like it would still be a pretty dodgy experience.
Sound was the bigger deal for the group I was planning to see this with, so we really wanted to try to see it in one of the theaters showing it in Atmos. Choosing Atmos over IMAX was the right choice, I think, given how the sound design works–and how important it is–in this movie.
For me, seeing it in 3D was a big deal. I went with the recommendation of someone I trust, someone who knows I hate 3D, and it really paid off. What a freaking experience. But this did not change my opinion of 3D per se. There are movies people say you have to see in a movie theater. This is one of those movies. But so is Under the Skin, and for some very different reasons. However, I would rather see every movie in a movie theater, if I had infinite time and money to throw around. But with 3D, I would rather not see ANY movie in 3D. I pretty much loathe the technology where it is now because of how it dulls the experience rather than enhances it for me, and how isolating it is because I’m putting sunglasses on over my real glasses. Which feels like some sort of reality show cooking challenge or something.
This movie reversed that sensation, but it didn’t make it carry over to the next movie. I will still always choose a non-3D viewing over a 3D showing. And when someone asked me if she should see Guardians of the Galaxy in 3D, without hesitation I told her not to. The trade-off, especially with regard to brightness and color, just is not worth it.
With Gravity there is no trade-off. So 3D works here, but it does not establish a precedent that I carry forth for other movies. I’ll need another recommendation to put on those glasses again.
-xtien
The colors alone are reason enough to see Guardians in 2D.
The 3D in Gravity really helps you feel the movement of rotating objects, and it sets the earth, massive & stationary, way off in the distance. It’s very isolating. Wish I could’ve heard the Atmos version.
I’ve never heard of Atmos. I just looked it up. Got taken to Dolby’s website, and a cinema finder. It turns out there’s only two theaters in the Kansas City area that have Dolby Atmos listed on Dolby’s website. And one of them is the theater I normally go to! Ha! Nice. So if I had seen Gravity in the theater, I might have gotten to listen to Atmos sound for the first time. A double shame then.
Also, today, I got off work early and checked the movie times when I got off work. There was an IMAX 3D showing around 4pm, there was a 3D showing around that time, but there was no normal theater showing for Guardians of the Galaxy around that time. Only one at 1pm, and then a couple of showings later at night. Grrrrrr. It’s just hard to avoid 3D these days, without avoiding theaters altogether, which is what I end up doing, just like Telefrog said.
I didn’t feel the 3D added anything to Guardians. It didn’t bother me, and at no point did anything pop towards the camera in an obvious “HEY THIS IS 3D” way, so for that Guardians gets a pass. I don’t feel I would’ve missed anything by seeing it in 2D. (Except, of course the only 2D showings were in the smaller auditoriums and at inconvenient times.) In fact, I’m looking forward to picking up Guardians on Blu-ray so I can enjoy it without extra glasses on my face.
Gravity was the same for me. It was one of the rare 3D movies that didn’t bother me, but I’m good with it in 2D.
I feel your pain. I have to plan around 3D for showings all the time. It just so happens I live in an area with a ton of choices, so I can usually work it out. But knowing you have to see a showing at a certain time because you need to get your show prep done and the only show available is a 3D show is such a pain in the ass.
First world problems, to be sure, but honestly, is the payoff worth it? Is this current 3D money-grab really paying off?
I cannot imagine it is, when you consider the money that has to go in to processing 3D, even with the jacking up of ticket prices.
Fuck 3D. Except for Gravity.
And Resident Evil: Afterlife of course. I think we’d all agree on that.
-xtien
I find that a good 3D implementation does wonders for a movie’s sense of immersion. It makes me feel like the events being depicted are physically right there in front of me. Obviously, 3D gimmicks like randomly jutting things out at the audience do little to enhance to the experience, but I feel like those were largely an artifact of people feeling like they really needed to make the 3D obtrusive to sell the format, and since that isn’t actually the case, I haven’t seen a movie that did that to any great degree in at least a couple of years. Similarly, after-the-fact processing to add 3D to a movie that wasn’t shot that way tends not to make for a very good experience. I really suspect that a lot of people have had bad experiences with one or both of these things and have subsequently not given 3D a chance in movies where it really does add to the experience, like Up, or presumably Gravity (I alas did not get a chance to experience Gravity in the theater, and I wish I had). And I don’t find the color profile noticeably dampened nor the experience of wearing the 3D glasses over my own particularly problematic, although if I did, and went to enough movies… it’s possible to get prescription 3D lenses.
Fuck the surcharge, though.
Actually, Up was the first movie I thought of when you mentioned gimmicky throw-stuff-at-the-3D-screen. That damn cane gets thrust right into the camera at one point.
The 3D added absolutely nothing to the rest of the movie, and it dimmed all the brilliant colors.
I don’t remember much about the 3D in Up, except that I was really annoyed by the colors throughout the movie with those damn glasses on.
Yeah, it the muted colors really bugged me. Although to be fair, I also remember being grateful for the glasses hiding the floods of tears.