pedscapades | nat » review

Keeping it slow

nat — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:02:37 +0000

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.

Me, My Music and Apple marketing

nat — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 03:57:38 +0000

You might recall, I mentioned once about Apple putting up one of my favorite Hip-Hop artist on their iPod Nano marketing materials. Well, he has gone on to singing the World Cup Football Anthem and seeking worldwide fame.

Well, they are at is again. This time, a more popular singer that I recently discovered, and ‘boom’, she is gracing the marketing materials once again.

Charlotte Gainsbourg’s recent album is on my play list for the last 3-4 weeks and I cannot stop listening to her. Here is a link to her album on amazon if you intend to get one.

There seems to be an eerie connection between my musical tastes and Apple marketing’s tastes. Or may be I am just deluding myself to buy the next product that comes out from them

Battleship Potemkin

nat — Mon, 17 May 2010 06:04:32 +0000

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.

No related posts.

Running buddies – 1

nat — Thu, 13 May 2010 06:26:29 +0000

Usually I run alone, but of late I have added in some buddies to keep me company and help me keep the running rhythm. Well I am just trying to be cute, I started to listen to music while running and find is strangely appealing. After a few runs, I am starting to get the feel that some music works better than others. There is a need to find ones natural rhythm and find music that suits it.

My first best was to load up the iPod* with a bunch of tracks that I thought are good for running. Some Pop, some Rock, some Jazz, some Dance and some I have not heard in a long while.

Michael Jackson: This was a surprise. The songs are either too fast or too slow for me. I guess they are designed for MJ to dance or as ballads. I cannot keep up either way. However, I realized there is a lovely funk riff in Scream, which incidentally will go into my running playlist.

Thelonious Monk: A definite No. I guess most jazz is going to be difficult to run to. There is a strict emphasis on rhythm but Monk’s music is very fragmented. It is great to listen to but running to fragmented rhythm is not something I want to do. Needs lot of experimenting to find the right songs, but I guess it is all part of training.

Mahavishnu Orchestra: This is a surprise, I thought it too fast, but I can actually run at half the pace . I will experiment a bit to find the right songs…

Weather Report: Same as Mahavishnu Orchestra. Too fast but just nice at half pace. And the music is crazy wonderful.

Placebo: I never thought I would listen to placebo for more than a few minutes. But they seem to compose music at the right pace for me. Many many songs work well for the run.

U2: Ugh. I love the band, but their pacing is so inconsistent song after song, I find it very distracting to run with.

Simon & Garfunkel: Good pacing, especially when I want to take it slow, but the motivation drains. I will have to intersperse placebo with S&G and get some interval runs (though it seems yucky to play them one after another).

Wir Sind Helden: Another shocker. I got their albums from a friend and they found their way into my playlist by chance. But it is another band that plays just for me to run. Good pacing. It also helps that I don’t understand German

There is a lot more music I can think that will be good to run to. Soul, funk are areas I have not experimented yet. REM seems like a running kind of band. Have not tapped into electronic music yet. Not that I have particular interest, I may end up discovering new music through this process too. I am kind of liking the idea of music motivating the running and run motivating new discovery. It can only be good I think.

* Note: iPod is synonymous with “a music player”.

La Dolce Vita or why I am still thinking about the film

nat — Sun, 09 May 2010 05:22:22 +0000

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.

The weekend

nat — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:54:26 +0000

It is magical when you get to watch 8 1/2 and Guilietta degli spiriti (Juliet of the Spirits) back to back on a weekend. In a theater.

I thought of writing some inane article on these movies, but even I cannot pretend to be a buff enough to do something that presumptuous. It has been a wonderful experience for me though it was about 7 hours in hard seats and I had to brave neck, back and arse sprain doing it.

Only thing I can say is that the movies are two sides of the same coin and it definitely makes a lot of sense to watch them together, if not in one sitting, at least within a short interval.

If you did not catch them this weekend, consider it a lost opportunity and don’t miss doing it if it ever happens again.

I think it is appropriate I can link to some thoughtful comments from Roger Ebert.

Il Bidone

Mammoth

nat — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:09:55 +0000

What the hell is that? Apart from the fact that it is an extinct mammal, it is also a new movie by the Swedish director Lukas Moodysson. Myself, #9 and another colleague of mine who watched the movie had an elaborate debate on the title of the movie. Let me say that we had some wild stabs but eventually settled on the idea that the name is absurd just for the sake of being absurd. I can buy that.

First up, let me say that I like the movie because it deals with an interesting topic that people don’t talk often about. It deals with gap created within families and the perils of people falling through them. The story has flaws, it is strongly opinionated and stereotypes all the characters. But that is alright because at the least, it provokes debate. There are a couple of other movies in similar vein that I enjoyed, simply because it allows for introspection and not because they are great films. One is Dirty Pretty Things that deals with the large cities and the immigrant population that keep them running and the other is Kinky Boots where issue of sexual discrimination non-acceptance is the central thesis.

That brings me to Mammoth. There is a consistent tone in the story line regarding mothers and children. The common thread is a strongly stereotyped working mothers. There are 5 women who are working away from their children so that they can give the kids a better life. Actually, one of them is not working, but expecting her daughter to work and support the family and another is never shown but we learn that she took out her rage on her son. The big irony being that the children are not really enjoying the life that the mothers are working for.

The commentary though stereotyped and biased, has some merit since it is indeed true that in the increasingly globalized and expensive world, raising kids is a difficult prospect and one has to make sacrifice of the family so that the family can have a better life. The focus is unfairly on the women but one can easily see that this sexist attitude needs to be relaxed and the theory should be seen in context.

The men in the movie are simply fillers added in to move the story along. One is a whale song listener, other is a bum leeching on his sisters earnings, another is a rich and extremely shallow negotiator. Ultimately, the only strong male character is a weak man. He is actually successful and rich but is portrayed as someone who is incapable of making decisions and st some point is seen talking rubbish about backpacker lifestyle and living in his imaginary world of giving it all up, sailing around the world, starting a charity and stuff like that. The sad part is that though the thoughts are noble, he is just wavering through them. We also see that the successful doctor is emotionally very dependent on this bumbling fool which just drives my overt sexism theory deeper.

For all its demerits, I still enjoyed the movie, it had its lighter moments when the Thai girls were discussing, ahem, people of the world. I guess the movie ultimately is not great but well worth watching. Not a bad bet for this film festival.

No related posts.

Il Bidone

nat — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:22:20 +0000

Ah, it so happens that the National Museum along with the Italian Cultural Institute is showcasing the movies of Federico Fellini.

If you have never watched (or heard) of Fellini, let me tell you this, you are missing out on what are some of the best movies ever made. Well snobbery aside, some of my all time favorite movies are films made by Fellini. I have but watched just a handful of them and when I heard of the screening from #9, I had decided to fill up on Fellini.

Well, the trouble is that most of the shows that are being screened are one screen only and I have to space myself to avoid overdose. Some of the movies I wanted to watch were back to back and if you know Fellini, you might know that watching back to back is a sure recipe for insanity, especially his later films. Anyhow, I guess I ended up scheduling myself for some movies I have never watched and some I was sure I had to watch in a cinema. What follows is not a review or a critique. There are tons of articles and opinions online (Fellini is one of the most celebrated film makers) and very insightful critiques too. So go and look for them.

First up was Il Bidone. The guy who introduced the movie clearly said that the movie was boo’d at Venice and what we were watching was the uncut-boo’d version. Turns out the Boo-d 50′s movie is actually nicer than most movies being made for 100′s of millions now.

The movie is simple by any standards. The story line is linear and predictable. The characters are literally one dimensional and left hanging without any sense of resolution. But those are easily overlooked. What stands out is the sense of humor woven into the film. Even in very serious sequences of the film there is something funny going on in the background. Like the feller who introduced the film said, this gives a feel for some of Fellini’s trademark style that he developed in his future movies. Personally, I thought the movie was good, I think I got my money’s worth and had a glimpse of Fellini’s earlier film.

But I did miss some of the things I love about his movies. The absurd characters, clowns, circuses etc… The ensemble usually works like trees in a forest waving in the wind. Il Bidone did not have any of that. The closest was probably the New year Party sequence where you can see a bunch of extras carrying on with the dancing, even the fellers standing still, are constantly moving to the rhythm. The typical Fellini moment was the lone Giulietta Masina standing in the middle feeling totally out of place.

I suppose Il Bidone stands like that out of place among my other Favorite Fellini’s. But so do his other movies stand alone when compared to the over the top abstract movies he made towards the later pert of his career. Ah well, who am I to criticize. The movie was good in its own merit and that’s what matters. One thing is clear though, if I had to choose a place to party, I will choose 50′s Elitist Rome as my venue. Ahem.

Update: I missed documenting the best part of the evening. As you can imagine, there will be a few film buff’s around in a Film festival and there will be some pretend-snobs. As it is with me I take great joy in observing these people. There was this guy why was trying to impress his ‘date’ and was pointing to the large poster of ‘La Dolce Vita’ and was telling the lady, that is ‘La Strada’. Then he went on explaining to her about one of the movies (I could not catch the conversation). It was pretty darn funny because the lady went, “yea we should watch it”. I want to be at the screening of La Strada to catch the couple in action again. Heh.

Where the Wild Things are

nat — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:54:46 +0000

Not these, but these.

I have never read the Maurice Sendak’s Book, but I came to know about it through the Terrible Yellow Eyes art project. I was enamored when I saw the movie poster for the first time. Then came a lot of reading on Sendak’s work, spending countless hours looking through the artists interpretation of the various Wild Things etc…

I guess it is no surprise that I have been eagerly looking forward to see this movie. Unfortunately, the Singapore Audience is conditioned to watch soppy Hollywood shtick and the movie did not last in theaters long. I was off on a vacation and before I knew it, the show was taken off the screen. Well, I managed to watch it on the Airline (terrible experience) and then got myself a DVD and watched it a couple more times.

A friend of mine asked me how I found the movie to be, and I told him it is like ‘400 Blows‘. Well the truth is that the movie is very very different from 400 Blows. But funnily, that is the first movie that came to my mind when I watched WTWTA. What is similar about both shows is the way I felt about them. Let me not digress, this is about the ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ and I will stick to it.

The movie is based on a children’s book, so by extension, there is actually no story and therein lies its strength. The film is simply an exploration of the emotional states of a kid and the conflict it creates in ones mind. The Wild things are fairly single dimensional but with deep rooted personalities. Ira is constantly jealous, Carol is constantly angry etc… But all of them have a singular alternate emotion, they enjoy having fun. When having fun, they all merge into one character (epitomized by sleeping in a pile up, I presume) and so does Max. Emotions like jealousy are simplistic but one reacts to it in complex ways and it is not obvious what is an appropriate reaction, especially for an immature mind. A couple of sequences stand out for me…

One is when Max first encounters the Wild Things. At this time, Carol is throwing a tantrum and when Max joins him in the rampage, Carol says, “See, He gets it!”.

Another is when Ira suspects Max for playing favorites… Max and Ira mock each other and when Ira cannot take it any more, she says, “You can’t do that to me!”.

When things get out of hand, a dirt clod fight is the ultimate expression of the conflict of emotions. The result is that some ego is bruised and some of the dominant emotional states take over. The more I think about it, the more sense and clarity I see.

(Parenting rant) I imagine this conflict in a kids head and when parents fail to reconcile the emotional imbalance, it ends up with unruly, misbehaved kids who usually get on my nerves. It is tough, but I guess that is the responsibility of parenting and I am pissed off when parents don’t deal with it (rant ends).

Like I mentioned earlier, the genius of this work is in identifying this conflict. Everyone has gone through these phases, that is childhood. Some people go through it even in adult life and some people don’t realize even in old age (this is really a pity). I had a great childhood I suppose, I don’t remember much of it but what I do remember is very positive. But that does not mean that the conflict in my mind was absent. Though the family was great, I guess I missed something and constantly entertained wild ideas. The result being that I put a lot of people in constant trouble throughout my childhood . I suppose that’s why when I look at the film and some of the wild things, I can relate to them. I was a bit of Carol and a bit of KW and therein was a conflict and that makes the film work for me.

It is a dark movie and it should be, the imaginary world is a crazy place. At least mine is. I think I will be watching the film a few times more and whenever time permits. So consider it highly recommended.

Oh, also don’t miss checking out the amazing artwork at the Terrible yellow Eyes site. There are still some original art up for sale at the Gallery Nucleus if it is your kind of thing.

Film festival gamble

nat — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:35:58 +0000

Some of you might know I am a avid film watcher. I enjoy good movies. Movies are a great art form, almost the most complex art form. It is so difficult to get it right since there are so many variables that affect the experience of watching a movie. It is no wonder good movies are hard to come by. Given that a lot of cost is involved in making a movie, there is a strong urge to make it profitable at the expense of one or more mediocre (or at the least, formulaic) mechanisms to make it easy for the audience to consume. A bunch of predictable gags, plot twists, mundane music etc…

Film festivals are an opportunity for people to showcase experimental works or try different ideas and experiment with the audience. Sometimes they work and other times they fall flat on the face. And that is the risk of watching shows in festivals. I have had pretty bad experiences before and have suffered very substandard (pseudo art) and have been generally disappointed. So much so that I avoid watching unknown shows – Couple that with the fact that local festival movies are priced much higher (10 bucks a pop compared to a 7.50 for a regularly distributed show).

But I decided to watch a couple of shown in the recent Animation Nation. I needed to watch at least 2 to increase my chances of catching a good show. Well the outcome was neutral but I am happy that one of the shows was really spectacular and the other was bordering on down right crap (though it had some really awesome sequence that made it reasonable to sit through). So what were the shows:

Musashi: This was the first one I watched. The synopsis mentioned Great music, and ‘inventive’ animation. I should say that the music was great in bits, especially the traditional japanese bits. The rest was rubbish. The animation was superb during the Samurai sequences and utter crap in the rest of the movie. The bits that were great were handled by the same guy who did the O-ren Ishii sequence in Kill Bill, Vol 1. The style shows through. But apart from the 20 minutes of those sequence, dispersed in bits and pieces throughout the movie, the rest was absolutely annoying. If I can extract out those 20 minutes, I could watch that without any audio and just enjoy the beautiful animation. Overall, not recommended to spend time on the show though.

Mary and Max: This, on the other hand, was a brilliant show. Stop motion animation with a lot of attention to detail almost in the cadre of Aadvark Animation shows (recall Wallace and Gromit). The movie is great, a very gentle movie dealing with lonely people becoming pen pals. The voice acting was great especially Max (I found out it was Philip Seymour Hoffman), the music was brilliant, sets were nice and the story incredible. I guess makes me start looking for the next film festival Watch it if you get the chance.

I guess the gamble paid off this time though I should look to increase my chances by careful scrutiny next time.