Posts Tagged: Batman


26
Jan 12

The Cave Troll

This is officially the high point of Peter Jackson’s involvement with the Lord of the Rings. It is perhaps the only major deviation from the book that succeeds. Nowhere in the book does it mention a cave troll, but by adding it to the fight in Moria, it creates a great deal of tension. And the scene is beautifully choreographed, one of the best battle scenes I can remember in any movie. The action is fast but we can see that it all makes sense. The Troll’s chaotic movements take the forefront yet you can see the battle raging in the background as well. I can tell you what every character does in the battle.

Compare that with too many action scenes made today, where it’s all rapid-fire editing so that the audience has no clear idea of what is happening. Even the Dark Knight falls into this trap when Batman enters the building in the third act to rescue the hostages. It is very clear that not only do we have no idea what exactly is happening, but neither does Christopher Nolan. Any director wanting to make an action movie should look at this scene as a lesson of what to do right.

As an added bonus, Peter Jackson shows a close-up of Gimli crying, and resists the urge to use slow motion.

Of course, there are four other slow motion close-ups of people crying, but we can’t have everything.

Minutes Watched: 2:20.14

Number of Montages: 5

Number of slow motion close-ups of people crying: 9

Start at the beginning


14
Jun 11

The Modern-Day Renaissance Man

Our last post posited on the best way to win the Nobel Prize. In the process, the question was raised as to who best constitutes a modern-day Renaissance Man, and I’m not talking about someone who can joust and roast pigs at the Renaissance Fair.

As a modern-day Sherlock Holmes, I started my query with Wikipedia. It turns out that their idea of a Renaissance Man is Danny DeVito. Or maybe Penny Marshall. I’m not exactly clear.

One thing I did learn was the definition of a Polymath: a person whose expertise spans a significant number of different subject areas. The common term Renaissance Man is used to describe a person who is well educated or who excels in a wide variety of subjects or fields.

So let’s take a hypothetical look at what a modern polymath might look like:

  • Able to speak knowledgeably on all topics, including but not limited to molecular biology, linguistics, kite-flying, the American Civil War, physics, engineering, Klingon language, culture and history, medicine, reality TV, and mathematics.
  • Expert at small engine repair.
  • Able to play 3 musical instruments, one of which must be the oboe.
  • Must answer every question correctly during a game of Trivial Pursuit.
  • Able to tie all common sailor knots.
  • Able to remove an appendix, from a living patient.
  • Equally lethal with a gun, knife, or lantern shield.
  • Can lasso a steer in less than 15 seconds.
  • Knows all the lyrics to American Pie.

Based on the previous list, we can probably all agree that besides James Franco, the best example of a modern-day Renaissance Man is MacGyver*.

Or, you can use Yahoo! Answers. According to the masses, the modern-day Renaissance Man is Bill Gates, because he was really good at one thing, and made lots of money at it. Makes sense to me, Internet. Thanks!

*Followed closely by 2. Batman 3. The Professor from Gilligan’s Island and 4. Mike Tyson.

Please Note: This blog would like to point out the hyphen in the title. That is what some people refer to as grammatically correct.


24
Dec 10

True Facts About Diamonds

Diamonds are by far the most powerful force for truth and beauty in the known universe. So on Christmas Eve, what better way to celebrate the birth of Jesus than by learning some true facts about diamonds.

The word diamond comes from ancient Greek, adámas, meaning stubborn or immovable, as in Achilles was adamant that Agamemnon was a bastard. I don’t know what this has to do with diamonds, but language is stupid sometimes. I mean look at the word Xiphoid. Or Gonad.

Diamonds are formed in one of two ways. Most natural diamonds are formed at high-pressure high-temperature conditions existing at depths of 140 to 190 kilometers (87 to 120 mi) in the Earth mantle. Carbon-containing minerals provide the carbon source, and the growth occurs over periods from 1 billion to 3.3 billion years (25% to 75% of the age of the Earth). Diamonds are brought close to the Earth surface through deep volcanic eruptions by a magma, which cools into igneous rocks known as kimberlites and lamproites.

Diamonds can also be formed by Superman’s bare hands.*

People often wonder why diamonds are used in wedding rings. They surmise it’s because they are unbreakable, just like their love for each other. This is obviously not true, because diamonds are not unbreakable, nor is their love. No, it’s because diamonds are white, which represents purity. And women are pure**. That is why Jesus was born to his baby mama, Mary. Only a pure, uncontaminated vessel could have given birth to the one true God.

Anyway, wearing a wedding ring signifies that you are the property of your husband. This is yet another reason why diamonds kick ass.

Despite its use in the titles of most of the films of the series, the “Pink Panther” is not the Clouseau character, but a large and valuable fictitious pink diamond of the same name which is the “MacGuffin” of the first film in the series. The phrase reappears in the title of the fourth film, The Return of the Pink Panther, in which the theft of the diamond is again the center of the plot; that film also marked the return of Sellers to the role after a gap of ten years, which may have contributed to some confusion between the character and the diamond. The phrase has been used for all the subsequent films in the series, even when the jewel does not figure into the plot. Pretty awesome you guys!

Fiona Apple has this to say about diamonds:

I don’t understand about
Diamonds and why men buy them
What’s so impressive about a diamond
Except the mining

Fiona Apple is not a pure vessel and never could have given birth to baby Jesus.

Please Note: This blog post can cut through glass

*Superman is still lame and Batman totally kicked his ass in The Dark Knight Returns.

**As long as they are still virgins


25
Sep 10

Examples Of Bad Scriptwriting With Christopher Nolan

I think it’s fair to say that the most talked about film of the summer has been Inception. Currently it sports a very healthy 87% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Undoubtedly, people walk out of the theater and feel an irresistible urge to break down what it was all about. Part of the response stems from the ambiguous ending. But I suspect the even more salient factor is its cluttered narrative that leaves the audience in suspense, not by design, but by default.

My favorite commentary on the movie so far comes from David Edelstein. He writes, “For the record, I wanted to surrender to this dream; I didn’t want to be out in the cold, alone. But I truly have no idea what so many people are raving about. It’s as if someone went into their heads while they were sleeping and planted the idea that Inception is a visionary masterpiece and—hold on … Whoa! I think I get it. The movie is a metaphor for the power of delusional hype—a metaphor for itself.

In the first of a series on bad screenwriting, let’s examine various mistakes Nolan made in writing Inception, and how they might have been avoided:

#1 Unclear Action

Let me begin by pointing out that unclear action might just as easily be the fault of the director. With out having a script in hand, it’s hard to know where to lay the blame when the action becomes muddled on screen. But in this case, since Nolan is both writer and director, we can ignore the distinction.

Do you remember the fight scenes in the original Tim Burton Batman? There was a certain balletic quality to watching Michael Keaton dip and swerve as he climbed his way up the bell tower to his final rendezvous with the Joker. The fights may not have been realistic, but they were fun to watch, and the audience knew exactly what was going on.

Compare that climactic scene to a scene in The Dark Knight. Christian Bale employs some vaguely defined echolocation technology that allows him to use cell phones to discern the difference between the Joker’s henchman and the hostages. As Batman goes on the offensive, the audience never has a clear picture of the action, what with all the darkness and quick cutaways. It’s just random gunfire and shots of Batman taking out the bad guys.

Herein lies a filmmaker’s dilemma: it is very difficult to stage a realistic fight scene where one individual takes on multiple foes. You could have something like a Bruce Lee movie, where all the bad guys stand around in a circle, with only one or two attacking at a time, always in a steady succession, allowing Lee to take care of them in order. Or you could go the campy route, as with the Adam West Batman. Both offer a certain appeal in their own way, but both are very clearly fantasy. And neither of those situations involve automatic weapons. That’s why so many of today’s filmmaker’s rely on rapid fire editing that prevents the audience from ever having a clear overview of the action.

There’s no easy solution. It’s not easy staging a scene like the bank robbery in Heat, where DeNiro and the gang escape from a platoon of police officers, and make it look realistic. It takes a ton of planning, foresight, and imagination. So it’s no wonder that even in 160 million dollar productions such as Inception, you end up with scenes as in arctic dream layer. Everyone is dressed in heavy white coats, making it nearly impossible to identify the characters. The cuts come so quickly, you really have no idea what’s going on. It’s all pomp and circumstance, noise and gunfire. How can their be any tension if you don’t even know who is who? It truly is the MTV style of film making.

Lesson: Unless you are trying to capture the chaos of battle by filming trench warfare at night, make sure you plan any action sequences very carefully. Even the Normandy Invasion in Saving Private Ryan was easier to follow than some of the scenes in Inception.

#2 Unclear Narrative

Quick, someone explain to me how shared dreaming functions? What are the rules that govern multiple layers of dreams? What happens to you if you die in a dream within a dream? How does a kick work? And once you’ve clarified all that, please explain to me how it ties into the last hour of Inception, because I’ve seen the movie twice, and I’m still confused.

The irony is that Inception, two hours and forty minutes in length, spends at least a good hour and a half setting up how inception works. Yet for all of that, as the movie builds to its climax, its hard to say exactly what is happening. Here are some more questions I still have: Why is it necessary for Fischer to go into the final dream layer? How does limbo work? What was the original plan for inception (prior to learning the Fischer was prepared to defend himself from intruders)?

Normally when you have an unclear narrative, you can bet that there’s a whole slew of plot holes being covered up. I expect you can already find plenty of websites and blogs dedicated to pointing them out for Inception. I’ll leave it to Google to handle most of them, but I can’t help but mention one that strikes me as among the most unforgivable.

The timing of the different dream layers is made very clear. They will be in the first layer for a matter of hours, in the second layer for a matter of months, and in the third layer for a matter of years (I forget the exact figures). So they expected to be in the third layer for years and years. Yet for this third layer of dreaming, they concocted the simplest architecture, a guarded fortress in a frozen wasteland. They were planning to spend decades there? What were they going to do with all that time?

In truth, they should have planned the most elaborate possible setting for this layer. And think of all the possibilities. Nolan could have created a great drama by centering the movie around this third layer of dreaming. The characters could have fashioned new lives for themselves, especially Ariadne, who did not have much experience with dreaming yet. Most of the interactions with Mal and Cobb could have taken place at this level. As the years went by, the characters could have lost track of their objective, creating endless opportunities for heightened tension and conflict. Plus, all of this action could have been parallel to the events on the second level, which needed to cover several months, and the first layer, which would elapse over a matter of hours. The characters on each level would need to coordinate their efforts to match the other levels. All kinds of tension would be possible.

Instead, in the last half hour of the film, the events in layer 2 and 3 seem to happen in almost the same time frame. Not only are the opportunities for an elaborate narrative lost, but the movie as is can’t even follow its own rules.

What we get instead is Superman’s Fortress of Solitude guarded by a host of faceless projections. I just can’t realistically believe that this is what these expert dreamweavers would have come up with for the deepest and most enduring dream layer. It would be worse than limbo.

Lesson: If you can’t keep track of your plot, rather than try to fool the audience by covering it up with confusion, start over. Especially if you spent ten years on writing the script!

#3 Lack Of Motivation For Characters

It’s Screenwriting 101. Characters need to have motivation for their actions. Otherwise, they are just pawns being pushed here and there. Now, losing a few pawns will not cost you the game, but a good player will make sure every one of her pieces count, even the least important. So let’s look at the characters in Inception and figure out how they fit in.

Cobb His motivation is very clear, to return to the United States to be with his family. Complicating matters even further, he must also come to grips with the guilt he feels for his wife’s death.

Saito His early motivation is subtle, but if you listen to the dialogue carefully, you know that in the first dream sequences he is testing Cobb to see if he’s good enough to carry out an inception. It is later revealed his main motivation is to convince Fischer to break up his father’s company.

Fischer His motivation is to come to terms with his relationship with his father.

Miles His motivation is less easy to discern, but we can approximate it as concern for Cobb’s and his grandchildren’s well being. (One theory is that he instructed Ariadne to help bring Cobb back to reality.)

After that, the motivations start to break down.

Ariadne Her motivation is presented simply as she really gets a kick out of dream architecture. Then, apparently, she grows attached to Cobb and/or scared of Cobb, and wants to help him for altruistic purposes, or because she’s trying to save herself and the others.

Josef We are told that he is taking part in the plan because of Cobb’s extra share, as that is the only way the dangers would be worth pursuing. Except he already knew about the dangers involved with three layers of dreaming. When he is first introduced, it is specifically made clear that his job will be to provide the sedative to make three layers of dream possible. So apparently he had agreed to take part even before he was offered a double share.

Eames We can infer that he is taking part because he needs the money.

Arthur Despite being one of the main characters, no credible motivation is given for his character. Is he acting out of concern for Cobb? Is he greedy? Does he just love what he does? Is he in love with Ariadne? There’s nothing. Arthur is a completely blank slate.

Mal Because she is only seen as a projection of Cobb’s psyche, her motivations are necessarily suspect (which is fine). It seems that the projection of Mal wants Cobb to stay with him in limbo.

That’s it. I think I’ve right and properly summed up every bit of character motivation in the whole movie. I would think that if you want to have a serious psychological thriller, you would need to have characters with some measure of depth. Yet that’s not the case.

My take on the movie is the reason it seems so ambiguous isn’t because it was so well constructed as to allow multiple interpretations. Rather, it was so poorly constructed as to never be clear what it’s about. The majority of the movie is empty action or exposition. Only a small percentage of the dialogue is devoted to character. Most of it takes place between Cobb and Mal, or Cobb and Ariadne. The subplot with Fischer and the relationship with his father is completely straightforward, unoriginal, and I think very transparently in the movie only so there is a reason for inception in the first place.

Lesson: If you want to write a decent script, create strong characters.

Here’s what is especially galling about Inception. Nolan has proven himself a very creative, original screenwriter. Compare Inception to both Memento and The Prestige. These earlier Nolan movies both revolved around a mystery. Memento has the main character searching for his wife’s murderer. The Prestige (screenplay by Nolan, but based upon the novel by Christopher Priest) has two dueling magicians trying to figure out how the other managed their ultimate illusion. Both stories fit together like a puzzle. In both, the ending sends the audience back multiple times to assemble all the pieces.

Both movies have interesting, complex characters that evolve over the course of the narrative. Both create confusion for the audience, but make everything clear upon the ending. Subsequent viewings do not create a steady stream of plot holes for the viewer, but reveal tiny clues and hints that were missed the first time. Compared to these previous Nolan efforts, Inception is a cluttered piece of junk.

Perhaps the line I find most representative of the movie as a whole comes right after the crew enters the first dream layer with Fischer. His subconscious has started to fight against them, and they are in danger of being killed and trapped in limbo. They decide they have no choice but to keep charging forward. It’s the same with this movie. It charges forward like an out of control locomotive. It manages to keep building suspense, not through the conflicts of the characters or the intricacies of the plot, but simply through the momentum created by the question of what is dream and what is reality.

I went into my second viewing armed with a clue. I was to watch out for Cobb’s wedding ring. He is always wearing it inside a dream. He’s not wearing it “in the real world.” It is exactly the kind of detail that helped add nuance and depth to Memento and The Prestige. Unfortunately, for Inception, the wedding ring merely points out what should have already been clear anyway. After the first time I saw Inception, I walked out of the theater suspecting it would be one of those movies that doesn’t hold up upon later viewings.

My second viewing proved that surmise was correct.

Please note: this blog is entirely a dream within a dream.


16
Jan 10

POTW: Blue

I submitted this week’s photo to the Weekend Photography Challenge. The theme this week is Blue.

This photo was taken back in 2008 while I was on a run to Hong Kong to see The Dark Knight .

I was planning to take some photos today, and see what blue I could find. But not only is today a bit hazy, and the normally crystal blue skies are missing some of their normal luster, I cracked my tooth and am now stuck waiting to see the dentist tomorrow morning. Luckily, this is China, and I can get an appointment on Sunday.

Speaking of blue, I’m going to see Avatar this weekend, if I’m not stuck all day tomorrow in dental surgery.

Wouldn’t this make a great scene for the Marmaduke movie, which by the way is only 139 days away?

Creative Commons License
This work by @thebeautythatstillremains is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 China Mainland License.


19
Dec 09

Security Chief Trent Anderson

dan_brown_lost_symbolFirst there was Sherlock Holmes. Then Doc Savage. There was Batman. The Professor. MacGuyver. Pop culture’s list of great problem-solving geniuses is a short and illustrious one.

Introducing the fraternity’s newest member: Security Chief Trent Anderson

A severed hand has been found in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol. Dried blood can be seen at the base. It has small, symbolic tattoos at the end of each finger. Let’s watch our great detective at work:

Anderson crouched down to examine the hand. It looked as if it had belonged to a man of about sixty.

Brilliant!

Security Chief Trent Anderson is officially my favorite Dan Brown character of all time.

Pages read: 66
Pages To Go: 443

8
Nov 08

Pussy Galore


I will forgive the earlier Bond movies their sexism. The first movies were before my time and from a different era. The Pierce Brosnan entries into the franchise verged on the cartoon, and are hard to take seriously. The utter ridiculousness of Denise Richards in The World Is Not Enough has the same comedic pedigree as the best Saved By The Bell episodes.

But the latest Bond incarnation, played by Daniel Craig, models itself after the new Batman and Jason Bourne franchises. They are grittier, more realistic action movies, that value story and character as much as glitz and gadgetry. And in some ways, the new version succeeds in that vein. It has done away with Q. Fight scenes look like they were directed by Paul Greengrass. This is a more human Bond, and the movies focus on his psyche and motivations, and how the mental and physical hardships take their toll.

So it is inexcusable the way they treat the female characters in this movie. We are in the 21st century, not the 1960′s anymore. I have nothing against populating a genre film like this with beautiful actresses. But at least make an attempt to give them some kind of actual character. I have no idea what the main female protagonist’s name was, because her role in the film was nothing more than to give Bond a beautiful sidekick to share in the action. Was she a good actor? I have no idea, because the only acting she had to do was deliver one liners, be frightened of a raging fire, and get angry when the would be dictator attempts to rape her.

Her function in the plot is to want revenge against the would be dictator, while Bond is after the would be oil magnate that is helping the would be dictator to carry out a coup. Nothing we have not seen in countless other Bond films. Why does she want revenge? If you guessed it was because the would be dictator murdered her father in cold blood while she was a child (by burning down their house of course, thus her fear of fire) then you have seen any one of the thousands of other movies that have recycled the exact same plot device.

So her character development is thin, bordering on non-existent. No different then any other Bond movie. At least the wonderful Judi Dench is there, stealing the movie every time she turns up on screen. Of course the weight of her performance, and the nuanced way it builds on her previous appearances in the franchise and adds tremendous depth to a role that really has only a marginal function in the story only draws more attention to the lack of any development in any of the other female characters. But none of this would be unexpected in a movie of this sort.

The real atrocity here, the unpardonable sin committed by this movie, is the climactic showdown between the female protagonist and the would be dictator. It is a brutal scene of sexualized Hollywood violence that happens way too often in movies. The violence is as demoralizing as it is unnecessary. This cardboard cut out of a human being that has done little more in the movie than to provide eye candy for the past hour and a half now must go through the ritualized attempted rape that continually thrusts itself into mainstream Hollywood movies that are generally marketed to young adults around the world. What does that say about the society we live in?

After a few days to reflect on the movie, I realized it was quite poor. Is this really the best they can do?


Optimized by SEO Ultimate