|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 31, 2021 0:27:00 GMT
"Talent borrows, genius steals". And Star Wars isn't just a conglomeration of film, serial, novel and comic sources, but also that of religion, philosophy, mythology, psychology and history from around the world throughout time. Indeed. It's a syncretic work of art. People just don't understand what a gloriously rich fusion Star Wars. Because they don't understand its Maker. They have only a vague idea of what Lucas was going for. They seek only so far and then stop amassing further knowledge and understanding, and they mistake that limited knowledge and understanding for the truth. Oooh! Now, that's good! Funny, but Lucas only wanted Padme to have around three costumes originally in Episode I (yet another in-movie triptych), but something changed his mind. Yep -- and it does. Korngold is certainly in there. Bits of music used for the Empire in the original film are also highly reminiscent of Holst's famous composition for the planet Mars. As I recently wrote about in another thread, Star Wars is very indebted to Mars. Mars was a real hoist to the imagination in the 19th and early 20th Centuries (and still is). One person drunk on Mars was obviously Edgar Rice Burroughs. Funnily enough, his famous "John Carter Of Mars" adventure series was a big influence on Carl Sagan and on George Lucas. Pure bunkum from a space travel/scientific point-of-view, but extremely compelling from a romantic point-of-view. In many ways, Lucas constructed Star Wars to produce the same effect. Weirdly, in the last few years, Disney has gotten its mitts on John Carter and on Star Wars. There was even credible conjecture that it killed its John Carter franchise once it gained ownership of Star Wars (because it saw Star Wars as far more lucrative and wanted to dispose of rivals that could create confusion and result in reduced revenue). Star Wars and Mars: Star Mars. And, of course, we are presently probing the red planet for signs of ancient life -- such a discovery would, of course, revolutionise our still-limited understanding of life in the universe. Incidentally, Lucas seems to think we'll find evidence of life on Mars: It's also worth pointing out that some people think we did find evidence in 1976 (the year that principal photography began on Star Wars) with the Viking landers. It's simply that the tests performed by the landers' scientific instruments were too primitive and the results too inconclusive to say with any real certainty. phys.org/news/2016-10-year-old-viking-life-mars.html (Oct 21 2016) earthsky.org/space/viking-lander-life-on-mars-gilbert-levin/ (Oct 22 2019) Ha! What a quote! Exactly. There's really no such thing. I think there are many reasons Lucas is accused of theft. First and foremost, he's been monstrously successful -- which always provokes envy and suspicion and misunderstanding. Second, people look at how much of a commercial behemoth Star Wars became and can't help but doubt the sincerity of the artistic aspect of the enterprise. Third, and I think this one is kinda subtle but interesting: Lucas isn't much of a stylist next to say, Ridley Scott or David Lynch. And yet he is. He just prefers documentary realism. This has caused some people to assume he just lazily copies and pastes the stolen ideas on the screen using only the most minimal and basic of techniques (a really horrible parody of the creative process and Lucas' sophisticated mindset). Fourth, the "it's for kids" angle. The idea that Star Wars is clearly aimed at a young audience just plain rubs some people the wrong way. The corollary of that is that Lucas has also been accused of "dumbing down" science-fiction and cinema more generally. Can't the man ever get a break and his work examined on its own merits? Well, we can continue to live in hope. And even a vacuum isn't really a vacuum, but more a hot soup of roiling particles (on the subatomic scale). I don't know enough about "Dune" to comment, but I'm sure Herbert had his influences. The thing about Star Wars is that it was very consciously made so people could detect a multitude of other sources/things/motifs/nodes within it. Like a tribute to the gene-splicing process of storytelling itself. Star Wars is, while tremendously old-fashioned, also cutting edge and a postmodern pastiche. I read on TV tropes that Dune fans hate Star Wars accusing Lucas of Plagiarism Just another example of people who like to piggyback on the appeal and success of Star Wars. You can hardly find an handful of things Star Wars has in common with Dune. And those commonalities don't even have Dune as an inspiration. True, it has a lot more commonalities than blatant steals, but use of the word "spice" is likely derived from Herbert's tale. Jabba's appearance is also similar to Leto II, God Emperor of Dune. Both of these connections are covered on the Star Wars Origins page I supplied earlier. The page also suggests the "subtle lesson" Lucas learned from Herbert was "how to use science fiction to create myth". It's interesting that "Dune" was first published in 1965. That same year also marked the release of a lesser-known book prosaically titled "The Films of Akira Kurosawa" by Donald Richie. It was allegedly this book that Lucas relied on and copied entire passages from for Richie's summary of "The Hidden Fortress". Those 1960s sure changed everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 31, 2021 2:52:33 GMT
To attempt some measure of defense, the original novel was forever destined to be a ponderous, even jaded, screen adaptation. By Herbert's design, the story of Paul as a messiah eventually proves to be a cautionary tale and therefore in tandem with its commentary on cyclical societal failings and the stygian depths of existential consciousness, a briskly paced pulp-space adventure would not -- nor ever -- a Dune movie make. That Team Villeneuve has waded into the enterprise with such monastic cinema is in and of itself, in theory, not my issue. Lynch's 1984 Dune is squarely not the stuff of Star Wars, but it never felt prosaic to me either. Obviously the film's structure is so truncated that it collapses almost entirely, and yet therein if one can accept what remains in compensation as a work of grand stage theater intermittent with surrealist narrative montages, there's a stunning thing to behold. While the characters in Villeneuve's version are more fleshed-out and perhaps in some cases even more authentic to the page, they lack the oft bizarre personality that Lynch's version achieved; the dialogue, too, from '84 Dune remains memorable, quotable, particularly in its eccentric delivery whereas the dialogue in this latest film indeed mumbles about in the usual stew of one-note faux-dramatic realism. Right. "Dune" calls out for a serious and thoughtful screen translation. Lynch, to echo Armond White's wording, went pretty "oddball" with the material, clearly desiring to make some sort of surreal prog-rock grotesque of a movie. It works as its own thing; and moreover: is perhaps more faithful to the idiosyncratic nature of the work than subsequent versions. Other adaptations all seem to make it more grounded, less sensual... less promiscuous, if you like. Lynch's version is attractively schizophrenic and gauche. Just as the book stands alone, so does Lynch's adaptation of it. It's good when sci-fi gets a bit fungoid. Other versions all normalise what should always feel a bit uncanny. And this highlights something paradoxical about the artistic/mimetic process: Sometimes, the best way of being faithful to something is to embrace the spirit of the work, or to wrestle mightily with, or against, the creative tendrils that emerge from it -- rather than being The Guy That Finally Makes Dune Big And Epic, Oh, My! And, oh, yeah. The dialogue. It's a thing of bizarre beauty in the Lynch version. It's also obvious that Lucas took from it in the PT: "The slow blade penetrates the shield."
"A well-conceived plan. However, there's great risk. The weapons on your fighters may not penetrate the shield."And visually: Battle Droids slowly penetrating the Gungan shield:  Even the idea -- quoting from the same scene in "Dune" -- of "joining each other in death", well...    Omni magazine. Now there's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time. You get props for mentioning that. Is there any beautiful piece of retro objet d'art that Ingram doesn't know about? You're like the Naberrie Fields equivalent of The Chaser. But yeah, it's that stripped-down, present-day-ness quality that gives the game away. Also, first with "Blade Runner", now with "Dune", this Villeneuve fella is playing in other people's sci-fi sandboxes (pun intended). Why don't ya get ya bloody own? I'll happily admit his film at least has its share of captivating beauty shots: It feels like CG has finally realised its true potential. I'm sure George Lucas is smiling. In fact, watching that, I must also admit there's something about the imagery that feels more like Lucas' sequel trilogy than what Disney made -- are you digging that vibe, too? I can almost taste the midi-chlorians. In a way, maybe this latest slice of epic si-fi is compensation for the relative dullness and cowardly retrenchment of the last part of the "Skywalker Saga". Then again, it sort of exudes the same issue: A lot of the imagery, as imposing as it is, somehow seems very contained and managed. The palettes. The compositions. The art direction. The fight scenes. Even the annoying digital lens flares. That medieval quality was brilliantly done -- and not a hint of pallidness about it (as would be omnipresent if that motif were embraced today). Yes! Exactly! Star Wars was busy Star Wars-ing. Dune was busy Dune-ing. And Blade Runner was Blade Runner-ing. There's more visual imagination in those films, with real auteurs all embracing their personal telos, than there has been in forty years of sci-fi/fantasy cinema since. Or perhaps I'm not looking hard enough. The world and its goofy set of toys just seemed to be an open book back then. These days, street photographers on YouTube find more compelling things to lens and photograph. Who is creating dreamspaces to truly rival Lucas, Lynch, and Scott at their best? I was re-watching that scene in the 1984 film last night. Prochnow is wonderfully cast. Has that solid, evergreen 1980s "hero father" quality about him. Textbook example. I suppose he's a lot like Qui-Gon. I can't judge Isaac's performance without seeing the complete film. He does have that "Gillette Modern Man" air -- softer, or as you said, melancholic. But the 1984 film just nailed the casting. Even beyond the visuals, the dialogue, and the trippy dream/narration sequences, casting is that movie's ace in the hole. And yes, not only is that dialogue haunting as-is, but Prochnow enunciates it perfectly. In that dialogue, one can also detect the flame of inspiration for JAR JAR and THE FORCE AWAKENS. LMAO. Spicy. See what I did there? The Lynch movie has such a way with eyes and extreme close-ups. Her space-sand-coloured lips are practically the essence of spice or Arrakis. Again: Phenomenal casting and outstanding visual design all around. But as much as the narration, the visual design, and that tremendous face, it's the music doing so much to pull you into the movie from the start. The opening track is still fantastic:
Exacty. This is largely what I've been getting at: That delirious otherworldly quality the Lynch version has, despite being structurally flawed and questionable as a workable adaptation overall.
It's crap, right? It's homogeneously bland. There's no variety or eccentricity to the presentation. Fucking about with curves and contrast does not compelling cinematography make. There's a part of me that's quite a Luddite and has started to hate digital cinema. Lucas used it very well (for one thing: he embraced colour). But that's not the case with many filmmakers today. Film, dare I say it, is simply nicer.
Yeah, Zack Snyder is a good example of someone who can operate with bleak palettes but still make them look interesting. His hyperrealism, as you note, is attenuated by graphic art instincts (he began in the world of commercials). The Krypton stuff at the start of "Man Of Steel" is still quite astonishing. In fact, it's more Dune-esque than this new "Dune"! And yes, Snyder is decent at the Malickian stuff, too. There were some odd choices in his aforementioned debut Superman film, but they worked.
LOL, 1984. But the Orwell reference aside: 1982 ("Blade Runner"), 1983 ("Return Of The Jedi"), 1984 ("Dune"). Also 1984: "Supergirl", "The Search For Spock", "The Terminator", "Electric Dreams", "The Last Starfighter". All a bit kitschy, all quite interesting. I suppose nothing beats the wacky romance of 1980s silver screen sci-fi/fantasy. But if there was such creativity and wonderful charm to filmmaking back then, where has it all gone four decades later? Are we just too spoiled with modern technology? Has it all been done? This must be the age of stylistic Puritanism or something.
On the other hand, Spielberg's "West Side Story" looks fantastic:
I think I'll have to go watch that instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 31, 2021 3:01:49 GMT
Ingram Funny enough David Lynch was offered the Job to Direct ROTJ Yeah, Cryo mentioned the same thing. I've know about that for a long time. It's kind of an OT lore, the idea that David Lynch might've helmed Episode VI. I'm glad he didn't. They're two separate artists, he and Lucas, and moreover Lynch was and still is too much of his own auteur whereas those OT sequels required consummate journeymen directors. Still, it makes you wonder... the Lynchian version of Ewoks.
My brain does not recognize that file. You gotta at least check this out: |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Oct 31, 2021 10:21:56 GMT
Yes, the upcoming West Side Story has been center on my radar for some time now. If anyone can match Robert Wise (in part by not copying him), it's Spielberg. The guy's been itching to do a musical -- officially, proper -- his entire career. Yeah, Cryo mentioned the same thing. I've know about that for a long time. It's kind of an OT lore, the idea that David Lynch might've helmed Episode VI. I'm glad he didn't. They're two separate artists, he and Lucas, and moreover Lynch was and still is too much of his own auteur whereas those OT sequels required consummate journeymen directors. Still, it makes you wonder... the Lynchian version of Ewoks.
My brain does not recognize that file. You gotta at least check this out: Thank your for breaking me with that. How am I to claw my way out of this grave...
Auralnauts, help me: The clandestine dreams of a Clockwork Man.
"I see you!"
Whew. There. Better now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Oct 31, 2021 13:28:05 GMT
A few months ago a favorite youtuber of mine put together this video on the psychological archetypes in Herbert's Dune. Even going into the symbolism of the desert as well as its historical and mythological contexts.
And as an aside, while speaking about casting, I think we were spoiled by having Francesca Annis as Lady Jessica. Anyone else seems to pale in comparison.
And yes, of all the things I love about Lynch's Dune, the soundtrack is pitch perfect. It embodies the epic, space-opera weirdness of the story. It captures both the grandeur and the melancholy. And like in many mid-80s scores, they brought out the electric guitar!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Oct 31, 2021 21:48:14 GMT
Yeah, let's be honest: It's Attack of the Clones - Dark Mode.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Nov 1, 2021 0:11:00 GMT
A review just in from blogger-critic Roderick Heath. Some specifics aside, it pretty much expands (greatly and more insightfully) on my own quick 'n' dirty take. I still think the film warrants at least one healthy viewing. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 1, 2021 2:40:11 GMT
A review just in from blogger-critic Roderick Heath. Some specifics aside, it pretty much expands (greatly and more insightfully) on my own quick 'n' dirty take. I still think the film warrants at least one healthy viewing. And I still think that guy is you under a different name. C'mon, Ingram! Spill the beans!  Anyway, gonna dive in and read the whole thing (naturally -- the guy is good), but just alighted on this paragraph. I love his exegesis of Lean, as well as Lynch here, vis-à-vis Villeneuve: That's one thing that's very noticeable in all the 2021 footage and also blights the 1984 version: Arrakis is just a staging ground, instead of being a dramatic landscape, full of character and nuance, in its own right. Tatooine has a real presence in Star Wars. And the Arabian desert has a tremendous presence in "Lawrence". Just throw up some pictures of Mars captured by the panoply of landers and rovers we've sent to our desiccated cousin. Deserts, whether hot or cold, can be awesomely strange and elusive in their picturesque barrenness. They're not just boring undulations of sand. It's disquietingly hilarious that with all the CG at his disposal, Monsieur Villeneuve can only serve up a trifling vision of an imagined wilderness. If you can't even outdo the Chinese water-torture banality of Jakku, it's time to go away and cry in your croissant. EDIT: That was a cogent slaying, indeed. Some highlights: Let me start with a banger: ROFL. It's funny because it's basically true. Anyway, let's continue: Right. Villeneueve keeps silliness and arresting digression to a minimum. And yet his filmmaking is the sort that needs a lot of both. Indeed. Is it any wonder that Christopher Nolan openly praises Villeneuve? They're like brothers from a different mother. Speaking of mothers/mothering/(s)mothering: Mister Heath completely nails it for me here. Like in all part of his review, to be honest. I won't reproduce his entire paragraph here, but I've been thinking the same thing: Villeneuve supplies a never-ending deluge of drawn-out, self-consciously weighty aesthetics, hiding a not-particularly-complex core. It's almost the polar opposite of what you find in Star Wars. Actually, wait, no. I do have to reproduce more of his paragraph, for these observations at the bottom of it: Gah! Exactly. It's like a third-grader's attempt at profundity. It's one of those pathetically lame trailer lines that suggests everything and means nothing. To phrase Heath's objection in a more straightforward way: Whatever the potential metaphorical connotations of the line relevant to this telling, who doesn't think a sunset is beautiful? No, I'm sorry, but screenwriting can be much more stirring than this Instagram-ready pseudo-poetic claptrap. Fuck awwwwf.I don't know if he's being a bit unfair to Villeneuve's techniques and obsessions, but that's the same sense I get from the trailers and clips I've seen. Villeneuve isn't really playing with the material, let alone jazz-riffing upon it: he's putting it to the screen like some loyal, overly-literal scribe. And gutting much of the magic and poetry and sheer uncanniness of the telling in the process. Yep. And there's this aggressive fanboy industry that's developed online where you're called a contrarian -- or worse -- for going against the grain and not fawning at the altar of these alleged auteurs and saviours of blockbuster cinema. I really don't like it. As Orwell put it: Orthodoxy is unconsciousness. Fuck herd-like thinking. I just wanna straight up pair this with a later sentence: Yeah, I don't like the stark, brutalist imagery. FFS, it's The Battle of Crait -- arguably the worst battle in Star Wars -- all over again. If Lucas and Lynch stress a certain amorality in places, Villeneuve's take is positively ugly-looking. Give me hypnotic surrealism and exquisite dream symbolism over these silly, anodyne takes on militarism and the human desire for control and domination. Art needs to ache and cause the soul to dance, not just comport itself with neatness or a concern for looking imposing or pristine. This is the best take on the awful stranglehold on good film music the Age of Zimmer has brought to us than anything I've ever read. We live in an incredibly boring film era. Overnight, especially since Nolan took control, everything gradually turned to shit. I don't need to hear any more music about two mattresses making love in an echo chamber blasted through loudspeaker for two hours solid anymore, while something supposedly very deep (at the risk of mixed metaphors) plays out on-screen. Thanks. Duuuuuuude. Seriously, I love this guy. He's a writing thug and a film snob, but he's so goddamn stylish and articulate about it. He owns it beautifully. I wanna be Roderick Heath when I grow up. Even the title -- "Dune: Part One" -- is pretentious as hell. If I can't be Roderick Heath, can we at least go back to the 1980s where movies had an enjoyable edge and stuff blew up real good? |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Nov 1, 2021 10:29:46 GMT
Dune has been sucked dry of all its exotic strangeness and dynamism, all its semi-surreal, florid liveliness, with a kind of dry, pseud efficiency in its place. “My planet Arrakis is so beautiful when the sun is low,” Chani (Zendaya), Kynes’ daughter and a Fremen warrior, is heard in voiceover at the very outset. This immediately evinces an attempt by the filmmakers to combine exposition and low-key genre poetry, a method that continues throughout. But the unconvincing clumsiness of the line, the lack of actual, proper expressive language and specificity apparent in it, also neatly demonstrate how this method fails. And people complain about Anakin’s sand line. At least it was loaded with context and scene progression. I haven't seen Dune (2021) but yes, this line feels like one of those modern lines that was written just to spice up a trailer. By the way, I've started reading Dune, for my second time. I think I will start a thread with a running commentary. I know it's a big book, but if anyone wants to join me, let's do it. |
|
|
|
Post by natalie on Nov 1, 2021 15:25:36 GMT
Dune has been sucked dry of all its exotic strangeness and dynamism, all its semi-surreal, florid liveliness, with a kind of dry, pseud efficiency in its place. “My planet Arrakis is so beautiful when the sun is low,” Chani (Zendaya), Kynes’ daughter and a Fremen warrior, is heard in voiceover at the very outset. This immediately evinces an attempt by the filmmakers to combine exposition and low-key genre poetry, a method that continues throughout. But the unconvincing clumsiness of the line, the lack of actual, proper expressive language and specificity apparent in it, also neatly demonstrate how this method fails. And people complain about Anakin’s sand line. At least it was loaded with context and scene progression. I haven't seen Dune (2021) but yes, this line feels like one of those modern lines that was written just to spice up a trailer. By the way, I've started reading Dune, for my second time. I think I will start a thread with a running commentary. I know it's a big book, but if anyone wants to join me, let's do it. I'd join you but I need to watch the movie first. Otherwise I know I'll grumble about some unnecessary changes. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 1, 2021 17:14:58 GMT
Dune has been sucked dry of all its exotic strangeness and dynamism, all its semi-surreal, florid liveliness, with a kind of dry, pseud efficiency in its place. “My planet Arrakis is so beautiful when the sun is low,” Chani (Zendaya), Kynes’ daughter and a Fremen warrior, is heard in voiceover at the very outset. This immediately evinces an attempt by the filmmakers to combine exposition and low-key genre poetry, a method that continues throughout. But the unconvincing clumsiness of the line, the lack of actual, proper expressive language and specificity apparent in it, also neatly demonstrate how this method fails. And people complain about Anakin’s sand line. At least it was loaded with context and scene progression. I haven't seen Dune (2021) but yes, this line feels like one of those modern lines that was written just to spice up a trailer. Ha. Now you've got me thinking: Imagine a "modern" AOTC trailer starting off with Anakin's infamous line to Padme, only to then do that aggressive "snapshot" montage set to percussion thing, where a multitude of frames with sand in them are shown, followed by Anakin wriggling in bed. "I don't like sand". Sand shot. Loud percussion. "It's coarse." Sand shot. Loud percussion. "And rough." Sand shot. Loud Percussion. "And irritating." Shot of Yoda looking annoyed. Loud percussion. "And it gets everywhere." Anakin having his nightmare, looking like he regrets not showering and fully scrubbing that evening. Sounds good. I guess Dune fever is back. I was having to attend weekly interviews in an employment office recently, and the security guard there (not an especially burly or intimidating chap) had a copy of Dune on his desk at the front of the office, where he signs people in. In fact, he loaned me a book (on Alexander von Humboldt) which I still have to return to him. Another book he recommended to me is "The Wasp Factory" by Iain Banks. Quite a well-read guy. He's apparently always giving books to people who show the mildest interest. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 1, 2021 17:24:33 GMT
A review just in from blogger-critic Roderick Heath. Some specifics aside, it pretty much expands (greatly and more insightfully) on my own quick 'n' dirty take. I'm probably beating a dead space horse at this point, but I came across Richard Brody's review earlier. It's quite similar in its take to Heath's and about as eloquent (if, annoyingly, much shorter): www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/review-a-dune-sanded-to-dullnessI often find myself agreeing with Brody. Here is his first paragraph. He basically says what we've been saying and slams the lack of otherworldly exoticism: |
|
|
|
Post by natalie on Nov 1, 2021 18:16:33 GMT
I take it Roderick is no fan of Villeneuve. This "drabness" of modern blockbusters is a pet peeve of mine. Even LOTR seemed more washed out that it should've been (especially the fields of Rohan which were supposed to be lush green in the books).
"Drab" is one thing you can't say of any Star Wars movies (even ROTS which is full of literal and metaphorical darkness).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 1, 2021 18:59:55 GMT
I take it Roderick is no fan of Villeneuve. He isn't much of a fan. He flat-out says in one portion I quoted: He indirectly compares him to David Fincher and Christopher Nolan in that same passage -- two other lauded filmmakers of reputedly brilliant, game-changing movies I have similar problems with. Oh, yes. I've always disliked that aspect of the LOTR movies (and many others). TTT and ROTK are especially bad offenders when it comes to using monochrome-ish palettes and showing a lot of objectionable digital grading. Additionally, a lot of the visual design in Jackson's films was based off of paintings and illustrations by John Howe and Alan Lee. Personally, however, I find Ted Nasmith to be the Doug Chiang/Ralph McQuarrie of Tolkien's universe. Indeed -- and that is a significant part of their appeal. Of course, you can kind of say it about some of the Disney films, but that's a whole other topic. Lucas clearly sees the world in a dazzling whorl of colours, and it's hardly accidental that the Lucasfilm logo, around the time of the prequels, used to twinkle and cycle through a broad array of hues: functioning much like a colour wheel to prepare you for the explosion of colour mosaics ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Nov 1, 2021 20:29:42 GMT
Drab can be effective if selective ...yo.
Giedi Prime in Villeneuve's version could've made a statement had it stood in greater contrast between the other two worlds depicted rather than a note or two more severe. Instead, the whole movie feels curtailed even when playing to the magic hours of Arrakis or the Avalonian sea-mists of Caland and moreover covered photographically in dish soap. That's what I'm calling it from now own, the 'Dish Soap' look. If you notice, it's kind of everywhere.
But craft is a high score for me, a hard thing to topple with fretful criticisms that ultimately go no further than to express my preferences. This Dune does well with production craft. I maintain that the larger criticism lies not with Villeneuve per se but with the max-acculturated multi-media age that has quelled so much of aesthetics/imagination into a strictly marketable composite, where movies look like commercials and commercials look like console games and console games look like movies and everything looks like streaming shows...to be shown in commercials.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 1, 2021 20:57:46 GMT
Drab can be effective if selective ...yo. -- nice.  Yeah, absolutely. Drabness is a part of life. Arguably, to many people's despair, an awfully big part. However, cinema is the medium where imagination reigns supreme. Drabness should really be sublimated into a wider aesthetic scheme. I mean, you could say that Lucas' first feature, the very cool and very somnambulant THX, is a "drab" movie; but, for anyone that's actually sat and watched it, they would intrinsically know how pale and limiting the word, when applied to that movie, actually is. Even one of my childhood favourites (which I know you also like), Steve Barron's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, seems to be doing everything possible to make drab look cool. After all, what could be drabber than a sewer? You know, they went and looked at actual sewers before designing their own. Problem: They quickly discovered that modern-day sewers are small, ugly concrete tubes; so they went in a much more baroque direction -- and look at the end result.
Caladan. Caladan Dish Soap. I'd buy that for a dollar! Yep: Another big contrast with Lucas, who always worked hard to contrast his various planetary environments, so that a viewer would know exactly where they were at any given moment. Moreover: That's how you make them compelling and memorable. Each planet should be its own dreamscape. It should really stir the soul when the story shifts from Caladan to Arrakis. But I suspect it does not.
I can admire strong craftmanship. But a strong auteur should always push past the trends of the day and bring something unique to the screen. Trying to just be a bigger and better version of what's already been done is pretty unedifying, in my opinion. I'm reminded of the great quote from Andre Breton: "Beauty will be convulsive or will not be at all."
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Nov 1, 2021 22:26:35 GMT
 Hey, look! It's Dune's conceptually truthful title referent mimetically existing entirely within the diegetic boundaries of a single frame from Attack of the Clones! Wow! |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Nov 1, 2021 23:33:23 GMT
Hey, look! It's Dune's conceptually truthful title referent mimetically existing entirely within the diegetic boundaries of a single frame from Attack of the Clones! Wow! Padme's gonna be laying in the sand here in just a minute. Moaning. That means: sex. Dune, sand, Paul, Padme, Anakin, Arrakis, Chani, Force, Spice, sex, sand, feudalism, republic, sand, smooth, soft, Clones, Harkonnen, Solo, Idaho, Padme... sex. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 1, 2021 23:36:26 GMT
Hey, look! It's Dune's conceptually truthful title referent mimetically existing entirely within the diegetic boundaries of a single frame from Attack of the Clones! Wow! Padme's gonna be laying in the sand here in just a minute. Moaning. That means: sex. It's funny, but my mind went to the same image/outcome: Padme in the sand. And yeah, uh, moaning, I suppose. She's Anakin's Chani. Ani's Chani. Anyway, good word list there. What a wonderful lexicon you've discovered. |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Nov 2, 2021 8:19:22 GMT
I don't know, like THX 1138, I'd say ANH and especially ESB in particular are leaning towards drab, at least as far as variety in the color pallette. In Empire you only get the occasional orange and a few muted colors in the wardrobes on Bespin. The thing is though, no, it doesn't feel drab. At least not like a Nolan movie.
Also any "drabness" in a SW movie is used to convey an important, overarching part of the story. It's not thrown over everything arbitrarily.
Anyway, I really just want to ask; why is drab so popular? Do people really like it, or is it just the status quo now? If the latter, why?
It seems after the success of The Matrix and the fan fallout of the Prequels (note, even most PT detractors have some appreciation for Episode III. "Best since Empire!"), Nolan's Batman trilogy solidified the dark, edgy, gritty, drab look and Hollywood has not looked back.
Are people not that rosey and optimistic about this new century?
Are people so afraid of their movies being too "kiddy" they jump to the other extreme?
|
|
