qdesjardin: (Default)
I don't like it. Movies today, and around the last decade or so are shot on digital -- usually with RED or Arriflex cameras, and are processed digitally (on computers, where they're free to tinker with the lighting levels, colour hues). It's much faster, more convenient, compared with having to splice and chemically process real film.


This is what footage would look like from a digital camera; it's very grey-ish, because all of that is residual light information as captured by the sensors, so you're left with the responsibility of having to tweak the image, so it looks appropriate to the eyes -- something like this:



Now, in most movies, and maybe it's not something you'll pick up on if you're a casual viewer, is look how the colours tend to be muted, with maybe some underlying shadow hues (cyan or yellow-ish). It's like an cinematic Instagram filter that's slapped on to artificially establish a mood. Maybe you enjoy how 'crisp' the image looks, thanks to the high resolution, but at the same time, it's disconnected from everyday reality that you see, feel and breathe.







The 'flatness' quality of these digital images, it also contributes to skepticism over if something in a shot is done in-camera, or artificially generated by CGI, because it doesn't look organic. Even if say, a director has proudly announced that an action scene was done for real, that Tom Cruise has actually hung himself by a plane for Rogue Nation, you don't really feel it and a part of you still thinks it was green screen.

Let me show you something from an earlier time. This is the Wedding Singer. Look how vibrant and naturalistic the scenes feel:





Even though it's an Adam Sandler comedy, you'll realise those images feel more true-to-life, because there's a quality to it that just breathes -- as opposed to the sterile feel of the 2010s. Here is Single White Female:






It might bring to mind the whole "vinyl vs. FLAC/MP3" debate, but I don't think it's that. You can look at say, "Only God Forgives" which is done digitally, but has such an immersive look of neon and shadow. Rather, the crappy colour grading is a testament to the limited originality and passion you'll find in a lot of modern movies. The people who think primarily in current trends, about what has apparently worked (so many remakes/planned cinematic universes), without caring about the essential spirit or any hope for the undiscovered country.
qdesjardin: (Default)

The Magic of Fiction Creations

When you go out to see a movie, or read someone's story, or listen to music - you're always priming yourself for what the other meng would pour out for you. You might have the doodads like having earbuds in your ears while reading those words, or the popcorn and audience chatter while the film projects onto the screen.

But what really makes it magical, at least for me, it is the individuality of the artist that's been imprinted in the experience. When you've finished reading something, when you've finished a film - it's not really the plot, or the characters that stick with you (however quirky you might make them). It's the visceral emotion of the experience itself - that's what makes it possible that you can always find something new or interesting when you go back to it after a while.

And the integrity of that emotion, it comes from the author, the director. The honesty in which he is able to express a certain something inside him, into being. That's what gives the work its liveliness and magic to be experienced. It's not really the so-called "respect" the author gives his imaginary audience -- I've read works that have impeccable grammar, spelling, mechanics - but that are ultimately forgettable by the end regardless, because it isn't magical. It doesn't touch. There's a quote from Kurt Vonnegut - your stuff is going to get pneumonia if you try and appeal to the audience, to have the audience pressure you into compromise.

And if you're able to infuse your work with magic, your individuality, then no matter what - I'm sure you can be proud of having made it, even if in the worst case, most everyone else seems to hate it. That is your work, your writing, and that magic in it is going to touch at least someone else's imagination. Because it's true to life as you've experienced it - that life which everyone else experiences also.

I remember there's Karen O punking Lady Gaga - they're both eclectic musicians, and so they might seem similar at first glance. But the real difference as Karen O puts it: "Lady Gaga's so referential. There's a core authenticity missing there. She just takes other things she likes without making it her own." (Reminds me of Quentin Tarantino's numerous hip "homages" to other movies.)