by on

I was thinking of watching the movie Ryan’s Daughter, since it’s St. Patrick’s Day and the movie is set in Ireland. And I usually like David Lean films. But I was reading some reviews of it, and it seems like a lot of people feel it has beautiful cinematography and a gorgeous location, but the story itself is weak. I don’t know if I’ll see it or not, but it did set me thinking about something, especially with this post still on my mind.

To me, for a movie or video game to be art, it has to do more than just look good; it has to have a good story and good characters. I’ve always taken this for granted in my posts on the subject, but I’ve lately realized that some people may not feel the same way. I mean, some people will argue that games like Rage or BioShock are art based on their settings alone. And I can’t argue that both Rage‘s wasteland and BioShock‘s art deco undersea city are beautiful creations.

It’s just that, those game aren’t just about looking at the pretty setting. They also have stories and characters, and I found both lacking in these games. Especially Rage. BioShock definitely had some interesting ideas, but ultimately it just felt forced and too self-consciously weird to me. (That said, I’d still qualify BioShock as art for at least trying, just not great art. Rage is right out.) If you make a game whose art lies solely in its visuals, make a game about going around and looking at all the pretty stuff. Kind of like Pilotwings 64.

Talking of David Lean, consider his movie Lawrence of Arabia. Does it have awesome visuals? Yes, it certainly does. However, without Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson’s script, and the powerful performances by all the actors, it wouldn’t be a great movie. Cool to watch for the “match/sunrise” scene and the scene where Omar Sharif rides up out of the desert, but not a great movie. I’m not passing judgement until I see it, but some reviews make it sound like that’s exactly what happened with Ryan’s Daughter.

Now, of course, Lawrence would also be a lesser film if it had the same script and acting, but shot in black-and-white on one of those laughable “desert” sets that you sometimes see in old Westerns. But still, I think that people sometimes overstress the superficial qualities. Obviously, just having better visuals doesn’t make a film better. Captain Corelli’s Mandolin is not superior to Casablanca, even though the former is in color and the latter in black-and-white.

by on

I don’t have HBO, so I won’t be seeing the movie Game Change anytime soon. it sounds mildly interesting to me from what I have read, if only because of this one line:

“‘Now it takes a movie star charisma to get elected president. Obama and Palin, that’s what they are, stars,’ one strategist concludes at the film’s end.”

Well, I don’t dispute that. In the age of television and especially of the internet, charisma itself is a “game changer” Visual media loves a charismatic individual.

Perhaps that’s why they couldn’t resist making a movie about something that happened only three-and-a-half years ago, and was not exactly undocumented. Personally, if I wanted to relive The Sarah Palin Experience 2008, I’d just go watch some of the many news shows about her. It’s not like her debate performance or her acceptance speech are lost forever. The Couric and Gibson interviews are readily accessible.

I know, supposedly this movie gives us the “behind the scenes” look at Palin and the McCain campaign, but I frankly have my doubts as to whether it is accurate. The only evidence it has for its accuracy is that Palin says it is inaccurate. That counts for something, but on the other hand its truth is vouched for by McCain’s Chief Strategist Steve Schmidt. Forgive me if I don’t trust the words of a political strategist.

No one except the actual participants knows what really went on, and, being all currently living people in the field of politics, are likely to tell the story that is most flattering to their own interests. The only way to really do it right would have been to make some sort of Rashomon-like film. And even that wouldn’t get you any closer to the truth.

This doesn’t mean that it’s utterly impossible to know what happened on the campaign trail, but it’s going to be years before a really clear picture emerges. That’s often the way with history. Right now, there are too many currently politically active people portrayed in the movie to really have much confidence in it.

So, why did they make this movie? Why didn’t they make a movie of an election we don’t have footage of, like, for instance, the 1824 election? That would be a good one; full of drama and intrigue. And it had Andrew Jackson, who is quite a fascinating personality. That would be very interesting to watch.

by on

I went to see The Phantom Menace in 3D yesterday. I didn’t have high hopes for it, as I was mostly unimpressed with the 3D effects in Avatar, and that film was originally filmed in 3D. Still, I thought I should at least take advantage of the chance to see it on the big screen again for the first time since 1999.

Overall, I thought the 3D effects were okay, but not revolutionary. They didn’t look bad, but they didn’t change the whole viewing experience for me. The best use of them I can remember was a scene at the very beginning of the movie showing the Trade Federation blockade. I really felt the sense of depth looking at the all the different ships in orbit.

After that, though… it was just The Phantom Menace. Since I enjoy the film, it was fun to watch, but no more so than it would have been in2D. If you’re one of the many people who hate it (you’re wrong, but you have a right to your opinion) I doubt this would change your mind.

(Incidentally, one thing that struck me on this viewing was how misplaced the complaints of the film being “dull” are. If anything, I felt it moved a little too fast.)

The 3D thing is just a marketing ploy. It’s an excuse to induce people to watch the same movie again. I have to wonder how long this fad will last. I mean, once they figure out that Star Wars nerds such as myself would watch the thing anyway in 2D, why should they bother making the effort?

Lastly, I have to ask: why do the 3D glasses they give you have a dark tint? That screws up the color of the movie, and frankly, when balanced against the minimal effects of the 3D, makes it arguably a less visually-appealing picture.

by on

Yesterday I happened to see the movie Fitzwilly starring Dick Van Dyke and Barbara Feldon. For what was basically a simple romantic caper, it was surprisingly well-done. I’m about to spoil some elements of the plot, although it’s not one of those movies that you can’t enjoy if you know the plot.

Dick Van Dyke’s character is a butler who works for an old lady who thinks she is a very wealthy heiress, but in fact, unknown to her, her riches come solely from the fact that the butler and the rest of the staff are stealing and running cons to support her lifestyle. But, of course, the butler is only doing it because she was so kind to him, and he wants to repay her. Also, at one point in the movie, Barbara Feldon says something like “most of the places you robbed were big companies”, indicating that this mitigates the severity of the offense.

Well, it’s the old story, isn’t it? Robbing from the rich to give to the poor–or in this case, the would-be poor, except they are rich from the proceeds of all the robbery. I noticed that the reviewers at IMDb got into something of a debate over the morality of the movie, specifically whether the butler’s actions were good or not. Obviously, you don’t want to read too much into a wacky romantic comedy movie, but even so there are some interesting socioeconomic ideas to kick around in this movie.

What really impressed me, though, was the chemistry between Van Dyke and Feldon. They worked very well together, and it occurred to me that if the exact same film had been made with a different couple that lacked such chemistry, it would have fallen apart. It’s not really something that a writer or a director can account for, or that can be fixed in post-production. It’s sort of like charisma, I guess, in that it’s a “wild card” that can dramatically change the complexion of the whole piece.