"Chaos Cinema"

[Guest Mirezzi]

http://blogs.indiewi...he_chaos_cinema

 

The essay linked above more or less puts the combined WATMMer criticisms of Hollywood (myself very much included) into a provocative and articulate 1000 words.

 

Mostly, he focuses - with ample evidence - on really badly choreographed, filmed, and edited contemporary action movies.

 

My thoughts are still forming on the topic, but I figured I'd put it out there for WATMM digestion first.

 

For the most part, the comments are equally interesting.

[Friendly Foil]

The constant use of shaky cam in many of today's movies pisses me off. It hurts my eyes and head, and is one of the reasons I've stopped going to the cinema.

 

I watched Stalker a while back (that Russian movie with the three dudes walking around the forest for three hours), and while I did find it a bit 'meh', the long shots and steady camera work was really pleasant to look at. I know you can't compare some artsy Russian movie from way back, with something like Transformers, but I just don't get the appeal of this whole shaky cam thing. Sure it may help the feeling of being right there in the action, but then again, a lot of older action movies accomplished that just fine without it.

 

It reminds me of music like Skrillex and all that 'brostep' stuff that's popping up everywhere. In many cases, the people who enjoy that music also very much enjoy action movies like Transformers. It may be a crappy generalization on my part, but from what I've seen, that often seems to be the case. Sure it's well produced, but it's still just a bunch of loud shit flying all over the place without much thought or meaning behind it. Its only purpose seems to be to make the viewer/listener go "whoa bro, this shit is crazy! Epic, brah!", and then be forgotten about ten minutes later. What's the point?!

 

Maybe I'm just a boring asshole, but I really don't get it.

 

edit: That probably came out a bit more pretentious than I wanted it to. I'm not saying that I'm completely unable to enjoy these kinds of movies or music from time to time. I just don't get the people who watch/listen to this stuff exclusively.

[SR4]

http://blogs.indiewi...he_chaos_cinema

 

The essay linked above more or less puts the combined WATMMer criticisms of Hollywood (myself very much included) into a provocative and articulate 1000 words.

 

Mostly, he focuses - with ample evidence - on really badly choreographed, filmed, and edited contemporary action movies.

 

My thoughts are still forming on the topic, but I figured I'd put it out there for WATMM digestion first.

 

For the most part, the comments are equally interesting.

 

checkin it out now. thx for the link!

[SR4]

i will admit that even though I like Nolan's stuff, he is absolute shit when it comes to action scenes. The only one I remember even being tolerable was the one on one fight with Batman/Bane.

 

So far this video essay is pretty damn solid....my god that fight in the Bourne Ultimatum gave me nausea.

[patternoverlap]

I blame Tony Scott

[eugene]

hmmm, no. i don't really think that there's some "chaostism" disease that affects every hollywood action director, i mean he should have deconstructed that whole generalized "hollywood" to different directors, see how time and trends affect them. michael bay is a hack, it common knowledge, while someone like paul greengrass (who probably shakes his cameraman on purpose himself) or michael mann are able to conceive some amazing and contemporary action scenes.

 

haven't read the comments, maybe someone had the same idea..

[SR4]

hmmm, no. i don't really think that there's some "chaostism" disease that affects every hollywood action director, i mean he should have deconstructed that whole generalized "hollywood" to different directors, see how time and trends affect them. michael bay is a hack, it common knowledge, while someone like paul greengrass (who probably shakes his cameraman on purpose himself) or michael mann are able to conceive some amazing and contemporary action scenes.

 

haven't read the comments, maybe someone had the same idea..

 

he gives ample credit to the fact that in rare cases, this chaotic action can be beneficial in enhancing a film's narrative.

[SR4]

i like this comment, even though I ultimately disagree with its conclusions:

 

A point often omitted in these discussions is that shaky camera shots and wanton close-ups are not just used to achieve a desired aesthetic, they are used as what the military calls a 'force multiplier.' In action scenes; close ups and shaky camera work can be used to hide the fact that an apparently climactic, explosion of action is nothing more than two people running around in a 20 foot circle while a grip shoots off $2 fireworks. Years ago before all this started I was watching 'Starwars: A New Hope' at a friends house. To make the point that laser disc was the dogs bollocks, he played the opening scene on VHS and then Laserdisc. The main difference being letterbox vs. 'reformatted to fit your tv.' In his own words "On laser disc it looks like a real shootout... on VHS it looks like two grown men getting a little too serious about playing laser tag." Old movies with the sides chopped off are cheapened by the removal of a substantial portion of each scene. New movies now purposely hide what high resolution blue ray players and billion dpi tv screen screens can now expose. The cheapness and phoney-bologna nature of what an action movie set really looks like. To remain hidden, directors now must result to cheap trickery. If you don't get to look at anything for more than a millisecond you'll never notice just how ridiculous the whole scene really is. Ever since Saving Private Ryan directors have been using obscenely close close-ups and cameras with shaker devices attached to convince audiences that something is really happening, like a magician with his smoke, mirrors and scantily clad assistants. If the director makes his cameraman zoom in close enough and shake the camera hard enough, their audience will never realize that they are only watching two grown men get a little to serious about running around in a small circle while a grip shoots off $2 fireworks.

[chenGOD]

are there substantially more cuts in a modern film than in raiders of the Lost Ark action sequence? It didn't seem that way to me in the clip of Raiders that he showed.

I just thought most movies sucked now because a) running out of original ways to tell the same stories, b) i'm old.

[eugene]

hmmm, no. i don't really think that there's some "chaostism" disease that affects every hollywood action director, i mean he should have deconstructed that whole generalized "hollywood" to different directors, see how time and trends affect them. michael bay is a hack, it common knowledge, while someone like paul greengrass (who probably shakes his cameraman on purpose himself) or michael mann are able to conceive some amazing and contemporary action scenes.

 

haven't read the comments, maybe someone had the same idea..

 

he gives ample credit to the fact that in rare cases, this chaotic action can be beneficial in enhancing a film's narrative.

i don't think those "rare cases" are rare or random but are a function of director's vision and his and his crew's skill. . to summarize what he's saying: "it's a double edged sword™ but i like those older leaner shots better"

[SR4]

are there substantially more cuts in a modern film than in raiders of the Lost Ark action sequence? It didn't seem that way to me in the clip of Raiders that he showed.

I just thought most movies sucked now because a) running out of original ways to tell the same stories, b) i'm old.

 

like the critic said, its abbout being able to discern spatial/locational qualities of the actions taking place. the new "chaotic" nature of blazing-quick camera cuts not just covering one event or chain of actions, but multiple actions all big and brash, demanding attention from the viewer create this confused state where you just sit there in awe of how much shit is happening on screen. Only on successive views do you realize its a one-trick pony and the action scene looked incredibly sloppy and disorienting.

[Guest Mirezzi]

Yeah, read the entire essay FFS.

[chenGOD]

are there substantially more cuts in a modern film than in raiders of the Lost Ark action sequence? It didn't seem that way to me in the clip of Raiders that he showed.

I just thought most movies sucked now because a) running out of original ways to tell the same stories, b) i'm old.

 

like the critic said, its abbout being able to discern spatial/locational qualities of the actions taking place. the new "chaotic" nature of blazing-quick camera cuts not just covering one event or chain of actions, but multiple actions all big and brash, demanding attention from the viewer create this confused state where you just sit there in awe of how much shit is happening on screen. Only on successive views do you realize its a one-trick pony and the action scene looked incredibly sloppy and disorienting.

I didn't have any real problems discerning where actions were taking place in Transformers/Inception. I'm not saying they were great films (although I found Inception enjoyable enough, and thought the zero-g fight was nicely done) but they weren't difficult for me to interpret or understand.

 

Yeah, read the entire essay FFS.

pffft read, I listened to him while I was watching the clips he was talking about. reading's for suckers!

[Guest Mirezzi]

lol. Fuck me, I hadn't even realized there were those two Vimeo links until just now.

 

I now regret that as I listened to his nasal Cable Guy voice, he lost about 30% credibility!

[chenGOD]

Plus I don't like the way he pronounces Scorsese.

[TRiP]

Just watched the first video, looking forward to watching the second.

 

Reminds me of an article I read where someone decided to take the new reboot of Conan the Barbarian and compare it to the original 1982 version in terms of how long each shot lasted before it cut to another. I can't remember the exact figures, but it was something as scary as the original being 6.3seconds per cut in comparison to the new with 1.3

 

It is a horrible shame the state of modern day mainstream filmmaking - a fellow filmmaker friend and I were snobbily lol'ing recently at this video: https://vimeo.com/31522113

 

Everything about it is wrong...but thats just what's deemed 'hip' these days in terms of indie film making. Incomplete focus pulls, drifting soft focus, unnecessary dutch angles, random editing, poorly composed shots...etc etc.

 

sure its only an ad, which have a completely different rule book - but thats the sort of stuff thats driftting around these days.

 

the real problem is that theres just too much stuff and things and information out there these days which is diminishing people attention spans, these 'hollywood' films are worried that the audience has the attention span of a goldfish so it feels the need to shake you for every single frame of the film, hoping you wont loose interest,

but that the whole problem - when you go so high, how will you ever make a crescendo sound like a crescendo and still have it resonate and be powerful.

 

interestingly, albeit slightly off topic, a similar scenario was happening (and still is) in the professional wrestling world - Around 1997/2001+ hardcore/extreme wrestling was taking things to a bigger and bigger height - no longer did a chair shot have meaning, it had to be a chair covered with barbwire which when struck to someones head let off a C4 explosive.

[SR4]

Plus I don't like the way he pronounces Scorsese.

 

FLOL im glad that pissed someone else off too.

[SR4]

are there substantially more cuts in a modern film than in raiders of the Lost Ark action sequence? It didn't seem that way to me in the clip of Raiders that he showed.

I just thought most movies sucked now because a) running out of original ways to tell the same stories, b) i'm old.

 

like the critic said, its abbout being able to discern spatial/locational qualities of the actions taking place. the new "chaotic" nature of blazing-quick camera cuts not just covering one event or chain of actions, but multiple actions all big and brash, demanding attention from the viewer create this confused state where you just sit there in awe of how much shit is happening on screen. Only on successive views do you realize its a one-trick pony and the action scene looked incredibly sloppy and disorienting.

I didn't have any real problems discerning where actions were taking place in Transformers/Inception. I'm not saying they were great films (although I found Inception enjoyable enough, and thought the zero-g fight was nicely done) but they weren't difficult for me to interpret or understand.

 

Yeah, read the entire essay FFS.

pffft read, I listened to him while I was watching the clips he was talking about. reading's for suckers!

 

 

Again, the critic says its easy to gain an idea of what is happening in the film. But the spatial qualities, speeds of successive camera cuts, and a myriad of different angled/staged shots through multiple cameras create a disorienting effect. I don't really think it can be explained any more than that. It can be used to enhance a film's feel, but more than naught it creates a chaotic, jumbled set piece that detracts from the overall artistic value of the film itself.

 

I think he used the juxtaposition between modern "chaos" camera and the Ronin car scene beautifully. You have one major event, done on an expansive highway with wide high altitude sweeping shots inter mixed with De Niro setting up for the one-hit kill, thus showing how much of an adaptable expert he is at his craft. Look at how calmly he preps himself for what appears to be an impossible feat of sabotage. Tells you he's done shit like this before. Good character development without anyone saying a word.

 

Now for a Transformers scene: Transformers barrel and rollerskate over dozens of cars which fly off into the background or hitting adjacent cars which then get thrown into roadblocks or an overpass. Military men shooting rockets at these Transformers while barking indecipherable orders to each other. The Transformers themselves are using various different weapons, all of which are on display for fractions of a second at a time. Meanwhile the sound designer desperately trying to audially replicate and synchronize these hundreds of micro-events throws out nothing but loud, short and intense explosives, rapid machine gun fire, the sound of rocket jet propulsion, and Transforming sound effects simultaneously. Finally, on top of all this, the viewer is given this information through a blitzkrieg of different angles, character viewpoints, alternating shots, opposing shots, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

 

This all happens within 5-10 seconds onscreen.

 

Another example I don't feel like typing out: Star Wars prequels.

 

Another personal example: The last LOTR was incredibly underwhelming to me. Why? The last battle. Yeah, the one that was supposed to be the battle for the ages, to end Sauron or to condemn Middle Earth to endless despair under the reign of his watchful eye. But its the SAME FUCKING BATTLE AS THE ONE IN THE LAST MOVIE. The only difference is "ooh new monsters"...LOOK!!! Huge war elephants!! OH SHIT A DRAGON WITH A BEAST MAN ON TOP HE LOOKS FUCKING INVINCIBoh wait some tart knocked him off and killed him no problem...on to the next set piece, and on and on and on and on and on.

 

What relevant information is the viewer digesting, other than "SHIT IZ EPIK"?

Yeah it makes for a good popcorn flick for the ADHD generation, but does that mean it has artistic merit?

[Guest Sprigg]

 

 

Another personal example: The last LOTR was incredibly underwhelming to me. Why? The last battle. Yeah, the one that was supposed to be the battle for the ages, to end Sauron or to condemn Middle Earth to endless despair under the reign of his watchful eye. But its the SAME FUCKING BATTLE AS THE ONE IN THE LAST MOVIE. The only difference is "ooh new monsters"...LOOK!!! Huge war elephants!! OH SHIT A DRAGON WITH A BEAST MAN ON TOP HE LOOKS FUCKING INVINCIBoh wait some tart knocked him off and killed him no problem...on to the next set piece, and on and on and on and on and on.

 

 

have you read the books? The movie changed quite a bit about them, but I remember the battle portion being fairly similar in terms of setup and execution.

[chenGOD]

are there substantially more cuts in a modern film than in raiders of the Lost Ark action sequence? It didn't seem that way to me in the clip of Raiders that he showed.

I just thought most movies sucked now because a) running out of original ways to tell the same stories, b) i'm old.

 

like the critic said, its abbout being able to discern spatial/locational qualities of the actions taking place. the new "chaotic" nature of blazing-quick camera cuts not just covering one event or chain of actions, but multiple actions all big and brash, demanding attention from the viewer create this confused state where you just sit there in awe of how much shit is happening on screen. Only on successive views do you realize its a one-trick pony and the action scene looked incredibly sloppy and disorienting.

I didn't have any real problems discerning where actions were taking place in Transformers/Inception. I'm not saying they were great films (although I found Inception enjoyable enough, and thought the zero-g fight was nicely done) but they weren't difficult for me to interpret or understand.

 

Yeah, read the entire essay FFS.

pffft read, I listened to him while I was watching the clips he was talking about. reading's for suckers!

 

 

Again, the critic says its easy to gain an idea of what is happening in the film. But the spatial qualities, speeds of successive camera cuts, and a myriad of different angled/staged shots through multiple cameras create a disorienting effect. I don't really think it can be explained any more than that. It can be used to enhance a film's feel, but more than naught it creates a chaotic, jumbled set piece that detracts from the overall artistic value of the film itself.

 

I think he used the juxtaposition between modern "chaos" camera and the Ronin car scene beautifully. You have one major event, done on an expansive highway with wide high altitude sweeping shots inter mixed with De Niro setting up for the one-hit kill, thus showing how much of an adaptable expert he is at his craft. Look at how calmly he preps himself for what appears to be an impossible feat of sabotage. Tells you he's done shit like this before. Good character development without anyone saying a word.

 

Now for a Transformers scene: Transformers barrel and rollerskate over dozens of cars which fly off into the background or hitting adjacent cars which then get thrown into roadblocks or an overpass. Military men shooting rockets at these Transformers while barking indecipherable orders to each other. The Transformers themselves are using various different weapons, all of which are on display for fractions of a second at a time. Meanwhile the sound designer desperately trying to audially replicate and synchronize these hundreds of micro-events throws out nothing but loud, short and intense explosives, rapid machine gun fire, the sound of rocket jet propulsion, and Transforming sound effects simultaneously. Finally, on top of all this, the viewer is given this information through a blitzkrieg of different angles, character viewpoints, alternating shots, opposing shots, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

 

 

Yeah it makes for a good popcorn flick for the ADHD generation, but does that mean it has artistic merit?

 

Yeah i mean I get what he's saying - but transformers are fucking robots from space that can change shape and have the agility of monkeys. And violence is usually experienced in flashes like that.

Artistic merit - well, that's obviously another one of those subjective things - but does Raiders of the Lost Ark have artistic merit? I dunno, it was a good movie, but it didn't make me feel deep emotions or think incredibly deep thoughts.

I'd say part of the problem can definitely be attributed to this guy's thesis, but part of it is that you Chiapet lebouef as a lead actor.

I'd say Transformers would have done well if it had just been a 2 hour slow pan over megan fox's breasts.

 

Like any sort of popular art form, the majority of it being made is throw away dross, the good stuff will be remembered. It's not like every film made in the 1960s-90s was a veritable treasure.

 

Still, I understand the critique better now, so thanks Smetty :)

[vamos scorcho]

I think most philosophers predicted this trend in the 60s + 70s.

 

What's going to happen is that it will get worse, not better. What this is is trivialization, culture becoming increasingly empty and trite.

 

For example, a reaction against this can be seen in movies like the one from last year... the pseudo-silent film hollywood send up of itself. And action movies that self-consciously and superficially act in a way that runs contrary to this "chaotic" trend.

 

Whatever. Fuck it.

 

 

I wonder how much it would cost to make a movie identical to Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back... in 2012.

[vamos scorcho]

Bay's Transformers series sometimes borders on parody... or Jeff Koons style kitsch. It's not, right? I mean, you don't just sit down and make something like that. As in, the "chaos" of it is so consciously carried out. Like the sound effects and the "turdness" of it all. It's like a Doritos Commercial X a Taco Bell Commercial X a Call of Duty: Black Ops commercial X Cheech+Chong V X MTV The Real World Season 8 X Nickelback.

 

W/e

[Guest Iain C]

These days? Movies have always been shit.

[Guest yikes]

he glosses over the fact that these "chaos action" films are pathetically trying to make up for poor scripts ,redundant reused 4th rate remake comic book plots and horrendous acting with dreadful CGI,post editing and shaky camera work.

 

that coupled with extravagant overly loud bombastic foley and sound effects in super loud over produced surround yield toilet clogging multi million dollar turds being excreted from the gigantic malignant cancerous anus of hollywood upon the moronic masses of amoreikkka.

 

if the film industry's output mirrors the state of society at all then we are surely in a heap of dung batman…errrr um , dark [k]night….hence and the shootings in aurora have an unintended symbolic parallel, the death of modern american cinema

[BOCfan]

Thanks for the link, I'll take time out later to read it properly.