Turning The Bad into the Good?

Film grain. A common problem when it comes to filming something. And something we cannot avoid.

It can happen at almost any time, particularly if you happen to be filming under certain light sources.

But does grain have its advantages despite the flack it gets?

For one thing, grain can create a very dated look when it comes to filmmaking. Not ideal for those who want a clean and modern image, but it could be applicable for those who want to create something a little on the "vintage" side.

I am currently undertaking a project where I am promoting a society at the university that I am part of. The dilemma I am facing is that a lot of the available footage appears grainy and old. However, I am at the moment making the cleaner clips appear "dirty" for the sake of consistency. Simultaneously, I am trying to create a look that suits the video game style that I am doing.

Although I am hoping that audiences will be able to take some meaning from it, it is something I'm risking in doing for the sake of saving time.

Why Am I Doing This?

Allow me to digress, here. I thought I'd put some things forward so that one can understand what I'm doing and why.

First, why use Blogger?

Simply because I find it easy to use for what I intend to do. It worked out well in the past for a previous project I had to do, so why not use it again? I will probably consider using a different format in the future for other work, but when it will happen has yet to be determined.

I am also managing the main website for an organisation known as CyberClip, so I'm having to balance out my time with that as well as writing my own content.

Second, why once a week?

When it came to creating this blog site, I intended it to be a weekend-only site to put my thoughts up in relation to debating about the film industry. Also, formulating what I what takes considerable time plan and take into account how I would go about it.

That is about to change, however; as of now, I'm going to be posting twice a week so that more content can be produced within a seven-day span and allow you, the reader(s), more freedom with some more variety in what is published.

That means I will be posting every Wednesday as well as Saturdays and Sundays.

Third, why not use your name as the site name?

For one thing, as much as I wouldn't using my own name to advertise this site, I don't fully see the need to use one's own name to advertise yourself, let alone your own site. I have nothing against it; I feel that through the style and content of a site such as this, one can pretty much learn about who you are and understand who you are.

Fourth, why are you questioning things related to the film industry?

I, for a while, had been thinking about the recent goings on in the film industry and other parties that would assist in selling the cinematic material. I have been holding on to those thoughts for so long that I have decided to put them all out online as I think they would open up some interesting debates and discussions. Does it matter whether or not we agree on the same terms? Of course not.

Finally, what else should we know about you?

My interests tend to lie mostly in science-fiction, although I'm quite varied with other genres. As you may have noticed, I am incredibly picky about how events from past years are represented, and there are other fictions outside films that I think would make interesting cinematic adaptations.

My dislike towards the horror genre due to the portrayal of certain scares and violence means that almost anything related to it would have slim chances of me talking about it (and I am rather squeamish). I do not mind hybrids, however, so you'll probably see me making posts relating to that.

I hope this clears up some things, here.

Where is remastering going these days?

Here is something that bothers me to bits when it comes to watching films. The way I tend to lay it out is this:

• You are presented with a copy of a film. This copy may be on an older viewing format such as the VHS.
• You are then presented with an updated copy. You notice that there is something different about the image, sound, and effects.

Where am I going with this? The way in which films are remastered, of course.

I understand the need for an improved viewing experience which may include clearer sound quality and tidying up the colour. I am fine with these types of practices. What I do not understand is the way in which some restoration companies do the remastering.

Let's take a look at an extract from On Her Majesty's Secret Service (Peter Hunt, 1969). This comparison video takes a look at the colour palette for the Special and Ultimate Editions of the film. It's amazing how different the image looks within these two versions. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fkDGlngvw4

What did you think of that? I personally dislike the way it looks in the Ultimate Edition. For one thing, the scene was shot during the day (the setting being a late summer's day). The light is still bright and sunny in the scenes after the pre-titles and it's still sunny. The fact that in the Ultimate Edition it appears much "colder" and darker makes the change pretty superfluous since it is still pretty sunny after the said scene. So why go through the pains in altering the image to such a big extent where it is not consistent with the other images?

This is another comparison extract, this time from "The Terminator" (James Cameron, 1984). It focuses on the sound this time round. You needn't watch the entire thing, though; the first few minutes are more than enough to understand it.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xykcul_the-terminator-1984-original-mono-audio-track-vs-remixed-audio-track_shortfilms

How strange was it to listen to updated sound effects overlaid on to such an old film? For me, it takes away the original feel of the film. It doesn't feel like I'm looking at something from 1984. The original sounds were perfect, so why update it with a more modern sound palette?

Last but not least is a comparison between the original and updated versions of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (George Lucas, 1977). This time, it's centred around the visual effects. Again, you only need to watch the first few minutes of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8faBFPENMbg

Good? Bad? Or in-between? I personally see CGI additions in almost any old film as an anachronism for it once again takes away the original look and feel of the film. Again, it doesn't feel like I am watching something from 1977. 

Giving a film a dodgy colour palette is something that can bother me, but even worse is "updating" the films' own sound effects and visual effects. I think it can confuse viewers as to what is the "original" print of the presented story, which is a shame because one will have barely any insight to what it might have originally looked like when screened at the cinema. And if you are going to update something with objects which have little relation to what is going on in the film's story, then you may as well call it a day and consider how it might affect the viewer. 

No-one has to be force-fed anything they disagree with. So why do filmmakers and restoration companies feel the need to do all this? Is it for the money? Their own self-satisfaction? I wish I knew the answer.

Historicals: Truth Or Downright Lies?

What is one of the subjects that you get taught at schools? History, of course.

Do you ever wonder about the way you are, were, or have been taught that subject?

Admittedly, history is something that one will NEVER be able to fully "accurately" remember or re-tell to others. Our minds can only do so much to store a memory, a fact, and an event to an extent where only certain moments are kept while the rest quietly deteriorate.

And of course, there is the phrase "History is written by the victors". But who on this world is the "victor"? And how does the victor tell their stories?

Is the victor honest?

Is the victor somebody who decides to twist the truth and turn it into something else in order to create an alternate image?

And is the victor actually a filmmaker?

The cinema screen is no doubt a rather entertaining way of re-enacting historical events, whether if it harkens back to past centuries or recent years. But I cannot help but become incredibly nit-picky about the things that would crop up in some films which "re-tell" events from the past. Like I said, you cannot be truly "accurate", but there are limits as to how you would talk about the past. Even if it happens to insert elements of fiction or, as I mentioned, twist the "truth".

Want to know what else was fake? Some of the truth, of course.

"Argo" (Ben Affleck, 2012) is one example that happens to stick in my mind for all the said reasons that make me incredibly skeptical about story telling. Even though I was impressed by how the Canadian Caper which happened during the Israeli Embassy Siege, I was furious when I discovered that elements of the film had turned the facts upside-down into a bin which has the word "fiction" slapped on to it like a banana skin on a tree. I'll start with one aspect of it which I hate.

Everything that happened at the airport was very dramatic.

Apparently not according to the witnesses of the events at the airport. Particularly when the passenger plane was taking off with the diplomat team safely on board which tends to be a moment that has remained in my mind very strongly. According to Mark Lijeck, one of the diplomats involved in the event, the airport grounds were pretty quiet with little to no glances towards the group given by the few present revolutionaries. According to the film, however, there were revolutionaries chasing the plane to the point of attempting to board it and stop the diplomats from leaving the airport.

And it happens to contradict what the individual present in the event had experienced, let alone told us. So why would such an element of drama be thrown into something like "Argo"? To make it interesting?

But let's not stop here: this is an example of something which I would like to call "propaganda":

The USA were, pretty much, the main heroes for allowing the diplomats asylum.

And that New Zealand and the UK turned them away. Apparently. It seems that we were not very kind in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Actually, the UK and New Zealand DID grant the diplomats asylum, however the UK had deemed their embassy location to be unsafe so a relocation was conducted while New Zealand were taking huge risks to ensure the safety of the diplomats.

"History is written by the victors." Mr. Churchill did have a point back then, and it's still relevant today.

Not being able to tell something properly accurate may be one thing, but twisting the truth in order to create an alternate (and sensitive) image of peoples can be a very negative thing to do. This is an example of making it appear that one country, person etc is responsible for saving the day and therefore taking all the credit for doing so. In that sense, they simultaneously throw the participation of others out the window.

This is why I see it is a form of propaganda. By telling a story from an upturned perspective, the image of the supposed saviour is glorified thus making the other peoples look like loonies. And of course, "Argo" makes the USA appear as the heroes of life once again by messing about with the said country examples.

There is another film example which takes a real-life event, but it uses the event as a model for the fictional story it tells. Even so, the fictional aspects were deliberately intended for fictional plot devices rather than historical tellings.

"Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer."

There is one reason why I don't mind films such as "Pumping Iron" (Robert Fiore and George Butler, 1977) using such a method, even if it does contain risks. In this example, it is a docufiction (or docudrama if you want), and a lot of the dialogue and such was intentionally thrown in there to the point where, during the making of the film, some of the lines and "facts" were ad libbed. Particularly the perverse comparison that Arnold Schwarzenegger makes when talking about the effects of the gym work.

But is it acceptable to create fictional accounts of real-life events? Might it depend on the approach that is taken when incorporating such truth? How sensitive is what you are doing? These are answers that you would, unfortunately, have to find out yourself. As much as I'd like to give a defined perspective on that, such things are never going to be properly set for good. And as for dramatising real-life events within a historical tale, it again depends on the approach taken and how you view it. Perhaps Russia and Korea might be the heroes who save the world one day despite France's weather reporters being responsible for alerting the world to a flood of liars.

Big Names or Unknowns? A Postmodern Question

Here's something I've been recently thinking about.

Actually, that is an understatement. I have been thinking about this for a while.

A lot of movies these days seem to involve names who are big (or in exaggerated terms, "huge") names and well-known across the country and worldwide. There are various examples that I could spend a good day writing down, including people such as Colin Firth, Harrison Ford and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

However, there have also been examples of people who used to be "unknowns" who were turned into bigger names. George Lazenby is one person that comes to the top of my head, even if most of the work he did after 1969 was rather low-profile.

Admittedly, this kind of logic may not be plausible to consider and therefore this concept may be much more or less broader and looser than it actually is. But the question I am really asking myself is this: do we continue to use big name people? Or do we turn "unknown" people into big names?

Let's focus a bit of context on myself for now. I am currently finding some individuals for several upcoming projects that I have on my hands. My superiors, at the moment, highly recommend searching through acting sites (or search sites that can "borrow" actors) for the projects that I'm about to undertake for more professional purposes.

I, however, have other ideas. I am more interested in finding less-established individuals and turning them into big names. Even if they are not firmly established as an actor within industry standards, I believe it is possible to turn them into bigger people (although what I say may be plenty of postmodern thoughts, hence the title).

Let's face it; there are plenty of big names out there which are dominating the current film market that this decade has. But, as much as I like these kinds of people since it allows me to relate to their work easily enough through different means, I feel that there is an over reliance on those whose statuses are high. This decade is a mainstream decade, and the 21st Century has become a very mainstream century. By relying less on the known and bringing the unknown from the dark and into the light, there could be more variety in the cast lists in terms of the people that are brought in.

You could say that I disagree with using more "professional" methods. But sometimes, there are moments where the law cannot always be maintained, let alone lasting forever. And we now live in a world where some laws eventually have to be broken. The laws of casting is one of them. So what I ask is this: why restrict yourself when you can choose almost anyone and create a worldwide shell for your friend and/or colleague?

Perfect Dark: Film or No Film?

Movies based off video games can sometimes be a risky move as there are even chances of flops and success generated from these text transformations. Not only would it depend on how much a game's content can be condensed within a two hour time-space, but it is also the matter of how well the filmmaker in charge of the project transfers the virtual reality to the big screen.

Super Mario Bros (Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel, 1993) is probably notorious example of a cinematic failure in bringing some of Nintendo's own iconic characters to the screen, mainly down to the film's script which contained more than enough pitfalls than Swiss Cheese and the Great Canyon combined (not to mention some contradictions within the portrayal of Mario and Luigi's character development). I know I am being incredibly biased about this, but in all honesty I do not know many successful film titles based on video games. 

There is at least one video game I think could work as a feature film. If not, then at least a trilogy of feature films. Some people of my generation would recognise this, but others may not have this ring a bell of familiarity. Therefore, I will go through a brief rundown of the plot so that you can get the gist of it.

Perfect Dark, a game made by Rareware for the Nintendo 64 in 2000, is essentially James Bond placed into the future. Specifically, a "Blade Runner" esque setting in the year 2023. The basic plot line has the protagonist, Joanna Dark, sent to investigate the headquarters of a rival weapons company who is suspected of conducting... well, "suspicious" activities. There, she recovers a defecting scientist who holds information about the company's plans, and Dark has to unravel other aspects the rival company's plot while simultaneously discovering other secrets before their ultimate plan is put into motion. 

Recently, this decade has seen several successful spy-fiction films which have proved their feat very well within this contemporary century. This include "Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy" (Tomas Alfredson, 2011), based on John Le Carre's spy novel and boasting and incredibly strong cast, and "Skyfall" (Sam Mendes, 2012) which was a hugely critical success relieving Eon Productions and MGM from the past financial trouble. Science-fiction works such as Gravity (Alfonso Cuaron, 2013) and "Guardians Of The Galaxy" (James Gunn, 2014) have also met with positive critical acclaim. So does this mean that both spy-fiction and science fiction are still holding out well in the current day? And if so, how might a game such as Perfect Dark perform on the cinema screen in this current century if the two genres were to be combined? 

Joanna Dark, the game's protagonist

Considering how the two genres are performing, and the fact that we are now living in a very modern world, I personally think that a film adaptation of such a game might be successful as well as interesting. Technology has been evolving over time, and we currently sport many ways of communicating to others, even if it does involve one ending another's life through technological means. Political events are (and have always been) ongoing, even as far as the recent terror and revolt attacks in France, Ukraine, and the Middle East for example. With all these elements combined considering the world is currently experiencing, and since that the game is very tech-based in terms of mise-en-scene and involves several political and terror elements, I can imagine a film based on the game would be well-suited in this current decade. 

The game's storyline consists of twenty-one missions, four of them being bonus stages for extra story development, and completion time for levels on older consoles tend to span around at least ten minutes at the most. That would make at least two-hundred-and-ten minutes if you multiply twenty-one levels by ten. But if there is plenty of action within these twenty-one events, then that would mean that by spreading them across two two-hour films, you would only get fifty-five minutes of story and character development each. But then again, it depends on how the action in each of these twenty-one stages is depicted, whether some will be evenly paced with stealth and suspense or quickly paced with intense battles. The most I would expect from this would be at least three ninety-minute films if one would want plenty of story development. That way, the storyline would not be stretched out too much and a fair balance between action and development can be conducted. If it were to be three two-hour films, then one is really asking the cow to milk out the cash. The Hobbit trilogy (Peter Jackson, 2012-2014) probably fulfils my doubts about this; sure, they may be entertaining to watch, but there are limits as to how far a story can be spread over a select quantity of films to the point where one would question the move and would wonder if it should have been one less film in terms of story telling. Each to their own, I guess.

Bladerunner? Or something else...?

My faith in Perfect Dark being adapted into a film is, overall, down to brining it to life within the worldwide ordeals and technological evolutions that are going on, providing that one would take the genre into account and the type of story it tells. If directed, produced and paced well, then I think we could be given a set of entertaining and interesting on-screen fictions to satisfy our escapism.