That to me is the secret sauce of Toy Story 3.

Short story, I loved it.

First up is the standard Pixar short I so eagerly look forward to. This one is an instant classic called Day & Night. I remember most of Pixar’s shorts, they are extremely creative and packed to the brim with details and creative touches. Night and day is probably the best yet. I think 3D is kind of essential in this short, 3D adds than distracts. It almost feels like a Early monochrome Mickey Mouse cartoon acting as a window to a glitzy glamorous future. And the future looks bright. Looking at this short, I believe 3D has a future. 3D seems like a forced technology not organic like moving from photographs to motion pictures, silent films to talkies, B&W to color etc… So regardless of the marketing push, I believe 3D will be niche but with creativity it can be a very very good niche and an enjoyable one. My point is, go to the cinema early and do not miss Day & Night.

What about TS3. It is kind of surprising that I have not watched TS and TS2. I do not know the characters well. That keeps the film fresh for me, I suppose for the fans of the prequels, familiarity will add a nice dimension and may be catch some of the references. Either way, I think the movie stands good on its own steam.

Pixar is a complex organization, they have a movie making philosophy tutored by the Japanese (specifically, Hayao Miyazaki of Studio Ghibli). There is a sense of Zen, a simplicity that envelopes complex ideas. At the same time, being owned by Disney and being part of the American Film industry, they need numerous cultural gags as fillers in the story. The studios seem to still believe the gags sell tickets. True, it can bring laughter in the cinema but a year down, I would not remember Buzz doing Salsa. WTF was that.

Anyway, Pixar does an amazing job of handling these two extreme points of view and comes up champs every time. The movie is amazing, the only problem for me is the loss in details due to the stupid 3D glasses (supposedly ‘precision optical equipment’ pinches my bloody ears and nose). The dark scenes looked downright dull with the glasses. It is a real pity but if you want 3D that seems to be the compromise but I don’t like it.

There were a few inspired moments, the Tortilla Man was a hoot, the cameo by (not sure I should say this, hmmm, well highlight here if you want the spoiler) totoro with his blinks and the big wide smile was my personal favorite moment in the story. And the cymbal monkey, I always thought that guy would be up to no good… Hmm seems like Pixar animators thought so too . There were sappy moments (cue in salsa Buzz) and a typical Hollywood rescue thrown into the mix.

With all this happening, I realized, there was one thing unique about the recent Pixar films that sets them apart. It is the pacing and the long cuts. Short, fast paced cuts is primarily a Hollywood invention to get the heart pumping in high action films. They work very well for certain genre’s but the technique is abused to make fillers when the imagery is bland. It is effective and has become a blunt instrument to bean the audience with when the film maker does not have much to work with. Pixar breaks this mold. Even in fast paced rescue sequences, the camera stay and moves slowly with the characters. The artwork is brilliant and one needs time to savor them. Pixar seems t o understand this and gives us time to enjoy the imagery. Or may be this is one of the things that rubs off of Miyazaki’s philosophy. Either way, I love that.

I think in 3D this is probably more important as it easily gets tedious when the movements become fast. The trailer for Despicable Me irritated me in 30 secs but I did not even notice (except the dark scenes) the 3D glasses during the 90 mins of TS3. But the glasses are still an hindrance, I would love to go an watch the movie in 2D, sit back, relax and enjoy the show. I think I will do that, the movie definitely deserves repeated watching. Even Dice recommends it.

Update: This is spanish Buzz. This is a filler in the movie. Pretty senseless sequence and felt like watching an Indian movie where people start a song and dance sequence out of nowhere. They use this for marketing the movie!! Disney should stop making a mockery of Pixar.

Seems like I have been going on and on about movies the past weeks, I guess thats how I roll. I tend to switch gears once every few weeks and keep my brain fresh and free from monotony.

I have been not writing much about biking simply because I have not been riding much. My commute has been rudely disrupted due to some security policy at work. Someone thought that Locker rooms and showers need ‘Security’. WTF is someone going to steal? A dirty Jock? Gym Sock? Smelly boots? Oh well. Another reason why I think some policy makers are retarded. Anyhow, I am working on my backup plan and should be regularly on the saddle soon.

Ah, rant aside, let me get back to the movie. I kind of Like silent films. I also enjoy movies that cross the line in terms of social acceptance. Controversial movies, I dig. May be just to see how it fits into the historical context. It is usually interesting that after a decade or so, the controversies look so tame that one questions what the big deal was all about.

Battleship Potemkin is a Russian Propaganda film and a marketing vehicle to promote the revolution in the 1920′s. It is a stylized reproduction of the real mutiny on the Battleship Potemkin in 1905. Though cinema was at its infancy, it seems like some people had a very clear idea of its appeal and its ability to convey messages and used it to good effect (Fritz Lang’s classic, The testament of Dr. Mabuse comes to mind). As is goes with propaganda films, the presentation is essentially one sided. The anti-aristo’s and anti-religious campaign is pretty much the central theme. Characters are merely caricatures to the point of looking comical. At some point, we see Vakulinchuk (incidentally, a real life revolutionary) sitting on a turret with legs straddled and another cadet cleaning out the cannon’s barrel which seems like an enormous setup to say that the workers are being F#cked about.

All the propaganda and innuendo’s aside, the movie is pretty brilliant. What I like about early movies (before use of mobile cameras) is the fact that most shots are still (only editing creates action). The director and cinematographer is forced to think very carefully about composition. It is almost like a still image with some motion (which is also carefully controlled). On board the Potemkin, the overpowering imagery is of the cannons, in an attempt to show that violent protest is the only resort to overthrow the czar and his cossacks.

The only time the camera moves about is during the pivotal “Odessa steps” sequence. The entire sequence is brilliant, the violence is pretty much over the top even by today’s standards. There were numerous shots showing closeups of insignia, clothing, emblems etc… the significance of them elude me. I wish I had better understanding of the politics of the time. Another innovation it seems to me is the hand-coloring of the flag that the revolutionaries raise on Potemkin. Red flag being the only color in the movie and is striking. Makes me look at Schindler’s List and go, hmmm so that’s where Spielberg got it from. Coloring film is a old technique but used very effectively for the flag sequence…

The film is filled with almost still shots of iconic imagery. The raising cannons, people sitting on the turrets, the flag raising sequence, close up shot of the various characters etc… I mean, I look at it as a photo montage set to mild motion and a powerful sound track. The sound track (supposedly remastered for the DVD)  pretty much gets the movie going.

An impressive movie that is worth watching if you are interested in either Russian or Cinema history and it is just lasts over an hour.

And Incidentally, I cracked the puzzle that has been haunting me a while. There were numerous cities in Russia where there are places / streets / stations that are called 1905. I figured it to be reference to a year but never know what that meant. Now I know, it is the year that technically a mass upraising started and hence the official start of the Russian revolution and it all started with the Potemkin.

The Fellini Film Retrospective in Apr-May, 2010 in Singapore has been a great time to catch up on great movies. I picked out a bunch I have been trying to watch for a long while and some I wanted to watch on the ‘big’ screen. I had scheduled La Dolce Vita as the last in the series.

I have heard a lot of things about the film, the term paparazzi for instance and the episodic nature of the film, the religious symbolism etc… What I was not prepared for was the sheer complexity in comprehending the film as a whole. One can read the thesis and explanations of the themes at the wiki.

The movie moves from one episode to another each providing a very sparse link, if any at all, to the previous document. I guess that is the way city life moves about. The quest seems to be about finding a sense of purpose and the search for the meaning of life which never comes. I suppose the commentary is that the life in a city is so full of distractions that a search for meaning will be pointless anyway. The most composed character in the film has the most tragic end too.

Apart from the obvious philosophical interpretations of the film, the more I think about it, the more patterns and stylistic touches I can see. Symmetry, seems to be a key element in the stylization. For instance, the beginning and end of the movie are totally symmetrical and radically opposite. The movie begins with a lot of hope, Jesus files over the city, seemingly blessing the town, it is dawn and a very cheerful Marcello is hitting on a bunch of girls and asking for their telephone number. The conversation is drowned by the noise of the helicopters. The film ends almost tragically with a dead fish that is washed ashore and Marcello feeling desolate and asking what it is staring at. The decadent Rome is left behind and the youthful and angelic country girl is trying to speak to Marcello now. The symmetry comes into play here and the conversation never gets across and this time it is Marcello who brushes the girl away to get back to his party.

The stylization is pretty overwhelming. The movie seems to be constantly waking up, there are many morning and every morning seems to bring bad news and tragedy. The nights seem to be a time to forget the day and revel in wine and women but the dawn invariably returns and brings with it more bad news.

Even the episode with his father starts with his dad looking for a good time with the french tart and lots of champagne and ends with him rudely awoken by an ailment (presumably a mild heart attack) and a realization that the days of revelry are far behind and he needs to get back to the village to get back to ‘life’.

I still cant seem to get over these details and try to figure out the movie. May be that is the idea, there is no point to be figured out. I dont know. But I am sure I will have to get a DVD and watch the show a few more times. In some sense this is the most complex movie I have watched till now. But what was on screen was captivating yet fleeting. I recall laughing through so many sequences but I cannot recall precisely why. The movie may have a lot of sense or may be just a bunch of vignettes put together to stylistic effect. I cannot say precisely what. But I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and and signing up for repeated watching.