|
Nexus6BT
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Bryan
Country: United States
State: California
Metro: Los Angeles
Birthday: 2/21/1978
Gender: Male
Interests: Film, Music, Books, Technology, History
Expertise: The old "Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" routine. There are plenty of subjects on which I know just enough to get me in trouble. :)
Occupation: Assistant Editor
Industry: Entertainment
Message: message me
Member Since:
10/4/2005
|
|
| I think I may have crossed another threshold on the journey towards “getting old.” I went to see Michael Bay’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen the other day, and I’m starting to realize what my parents must have felt like while watching the original “Generation 1” Transformers cartoon with me, particularly the animated movie from 1986.
Revenge of the Fallen is, of course, the sequel to 2007’s Transformers, and though that film certainly was no masterpiece, it at least had moments (fleeting though they were) of genuine wit, imagination, and even a slight bit of awe. The new film, on the other hand, is a colossal mess: a chaotic and almost completely incomprehensible two-and-a-half-hour onslaught of Bayhem.
Now before you start criticizing me for expecting Citizen Kane or something, hear me out. I’m a fan of summer blockbusters; I realize that you often do have to disconnect your higher brain functions in order to enjoy them. So the movie’s plot is ridiculous, its characterizations are paper-thin, and its jaw-droppingly embarrassing attempts at humor aren’t the least bit funny (although I have to point out that many a summer blockbuster has cracked these problems quite successfully). Fair enough; we’re here to see giant robots fight each other, and then transform into vehicles and crash into each other.
The problem is that we don’t really get to see much of that; the camera never stops moving long enough to let us. The first time Optimus Prime transforms, the camera swerves around him a couple of times in order to, in theory, allow us to see every last gear and switch. But between the motion blur and our disorientation at the last such transformation effect, we never get a good look at any of it. Now we’re disoriented again and not able to fully appreciate seeing Prime in all his giant robotic glory before the movie cuts to something else.
While we’re on the subject of cutting, the movie looks like it was edited with a cheese grater, which adds to our bewilderment of what’s going on. Scenes are hacked up to bits in such a way that by the time we finally come close to figuring out what’s going on, we’re already half-way through another scene that’s in the middle of doing the same thing to us. There is no overall build, no sense of anticipation. For all the $200 million that went into this thing, Bay is still making commercials; each scene is shot and edited as if it were a stand-alone ad (whether for GM, the Army, or simply a better movie, I don‘t know). Even though this has pretty much been Bay’s standard operating procedure since he actually was making commercials, here it seems more glaring and obvious than usual.
I’d try to explain the plot, but there’s no point. And as I’ve said, that’s not my problem. It’s one thing for a movie to have a silly plot that you just go along with as part of the fun; it’s quite another to literally not be able to tell what’s physically happening on the screen. Let me put it this way: I know most of these characters’ names. I know that Devastator is a giant Decepticon made up of six (or in this movie’s case, seven) construction vehicles, and yet he was almost completely formed before I knew what was happening. There’s one shot where you faintly see, through a storm of digitally created sand, a cement mixer ramming into another vehicle and attaching itself to it. The rest is just a mass of metal falling on top of itself.
Many of the new characters are similarly improperly introduced, and even the returning ones are hidden once again by the motion blur of Bay’s swooping camera (I was watching the cast list at the end before I realized that Ratchet and Ironhide were even in this movie). And when it came to the much ballyhooed forest battle, even with the expanded aspect ratio of the IMAX screen, I couldn’t tell you whether Optimus was fighting Megatron, Starscream, or Mechagodzilla.
When I got home from the theater, I popped in my DVD of the aforementioned animated Transformers: The Movie from the 80s just to see if I really was unfairly trashing ROTF’s incoherence. Sure enough, the animated film is probably hard to follow for the uninitiated, but even if you don’t know the characters’ names, you can at least recognize the Autobot who sounds like Scatman Crothers every time he’s on screen and usually, you’re able to discern what he’s doing. And also…
SLIGHT SPOILER
…at least that film was able to pull off the death of a beloved character with a modicum of genuine emotion and pathos, while ROTF just kind of lets it happen almost as a “By-the-way, this is happening…” Seriously, how do you screw up a story beat like that?
END SPOILER
I dunno. I’m sure that ROTF will make a ton of money (it already has brought in quite a haul). I’m sure studio execs are thinking, “Alright, now we need more movies about giant robots crashing into each other and little dog robots humping girls’ legs and real dogs going at it on top of a mailbox and mothers getting high off pot brownies and twin robots acting like Amos ‘n Andy (because that’s really funny) and former government agents working at delis and being all funny and, and, and….” And at that point, the execs’ brains will explode from trying to comprehend the idea of all those things existing in one movie and the potential money to be made from bringing in audience members who might like one or more of them.
Meanwhile, the audience won’t know what to think, but they’ll have already paid their money, and the new execs who take over will slip on the remains of the old execs’ brains that are still on the conference room floor, see what they were thinking about, and put two and two together. Then they’ll say, “Alright, now we need more movies about giant robots crashing into each other,” etc., and the cycle will repeat itself.
And more garbage like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will get made, and we’ll probably go to see it.
| | |
| Guess I have to say a few words about the new Star Trek, which I saw last night at a slightly-earlier-than-midnight screening. I'm pleased to report that the movie is, overall, very good. There are a few minor quibbles I had, but for the most part, it's incredibly entertaining for fans and non-fans alike. J.J. Abrams and Co. have really suceeded in giving the franchise a much-needed kick in the warp core.
SLIGHT SPOLIERS (nothing too major, though): The movie pulls off the delicate trick of respecting the established Trek canon and then turning around and freeing itself from 40+ years of (admittedly convoluted) continuity. As a longtime fan, I have to say that it was the right thing to do, and that aspect of the movie doesn't bother me one bit. I realized a while back, after sitting through what I could stand of Voyager and Enterprise, that following continuity wasn't the most important thing to me; I really just wanted Star Trek to be good again. Obviously, major things needed to be respected (you can't turn Spock into an Andorian or anything like that), but as I've learned from studing film editing, if you're looking at how much water is in the glass on the table in the background, you're kind of missing the point.
With the arrival of the movie's villain, a Romulan mining ship captain named Nero (a serviceable Eric Bana), who travels back in time from the post-Next Generation era, intending to perform a little Terminator action on the Federation, things are set in motion that will alter what we have come to know as the future history of Star Trek. And we're not talking little insignificant changes; the filmmakers take decisive, deliberate, and fairly bold actions that ensure future installments of the series will not be bound by what's come before. Again, this is something I am totally on board with; it's kind of like having a new Original Series, not knowing exactly what's coming next. END SPOILERS
The film is not without its flaws. There were a few moments I felt were a little rushed, and most of the science in the movie is complete hokum. To be fair, Star Trek often hasn't been completely scientifically sound, but there was usually an attempt to make the science at least sound like it might be plausible in a few hundred years. Of course, that's a nitpicky thing; as Arthur C. Clarke famously said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," so I'll go with it. [EDIT - Actually, forget I said all of that. I doubt that red matter is really that much less plausible than age-defying metaphasic radiation, and it's certainly more believable than the Nexus.] Also, the movie is pretty short on the philosophical fun that has characterized all the Trek incarnations at their best. The "messages" in the Original Series tended to be heavy-handed at times, but for 1960s television, I guess they kind of needed to be. I can let this pass for now, too, as this movie is more about re-establishing the characters and the setting, but I hope that future movies will start to tackle some bigger ideas (albeit in a less didactic way).
However, what the movie gets totally, absolutely, and even joyfully right is the characterizations of the future Enterprise crew, which is what I was most hopeful for. By reintroducing Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Uhura, Chekov, and Sulu to new audiences, the film reminds us longtime fans why we liked them so much in the first place. Chris Pine wisely avoids impersonating a young William Shatner, and instead very effectively portrays a young Jim Kirk. Zoe Saldana is an attractive and assured Uhura, John Cho is an energetic Sulu, and Karl Urban and Simon Pegg steal almost every scene they're in as Dr. McCoy and Scotty, respectively. Anton Yelchin overdoes Chekov's Russian accent more than Walter Koenig ever did, but maybe Chekov's just young and still working on his English. Zachary Quinto also impresses as Spock, especially considering that he has to compete with Leonard Nimoy (listed in the cast as "Spock Prime," an obvious nod to the DC multiverse), who brings his iconic character full circle in a warm and, dare I say, emotional performance (he is half-human, after all).
The visual effects are also pretty impressive (with ILM making a welcome return to the franchise), and the shaky-cam cinematography is distracting only in a few places; most of the time it works just fine. Michael Giacchino's score is also notable; it doesn't quite reach the heights of some of Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner's work for the series, but maybe I'm just biased. Giacchino's music is full-blooded, distinctive, and energetic without ever becoming too repetitive, and I really hope he gets to expand his ideas in future movies.
Above all else, the new Star Trek is just a really good time at the movies. And even though the characters have some angsty issues to work out, there's a decidedly optimistic feel to the whole thing, which was another trait of the Original Series that's gotten kind of muddied along the way. Darker elements of the Trek universe have been explored, sometimes quite successfully, as in The Undiscovered Country and Deep Space Nine, but even those stories usually ended on a fairly hopeful note, and it's good to see that underlying positivity back in full force for the new movie. Despite its shortcomings, I think this film is the right thing for the franchise at this time, and what's truly amazing is that J.J. Abrams and his cast and crew have made Star Trek cool again, largely by allowing it to be itself.
| | |
| Not sure anyone really cares, but every year, I try to make up a list of my favorite films of the year. If nothing else, it sort of gives me a guide to the consistency (or lack thereof, whatever the case may be) of my taste in movies. More and more, though, I find it hard to consider my list a “10 Best” list. First of all, I didn't see everything that came out last year, and secondly, you can appreciate a film for being aesthetically good without necessarily liking it better than another one that may be “less” good. And there will always be those that disagree with you, and that’s fine. Keep in mind that the following is only one person's opinion. 
Of course, the Oscar race for Best Picture is shaping up to be predictable as usual. Of the 5 nominees, only Frost/Nixon is on my list, because I found it to be genuinely engaging and thoughtful, despite being hampered by it’s “important” outer covering. Milk, I think, truly is an “important” film, but I had some issues with the overall construction of it. However, both it and Slumdog Millionaire are decent enough, and had I seen Slumdog a little earlier (before all the hype), I might have been more impressed with it. This, of course, leaves the downright awful The Reader, which plays like an Oscar Bait for Dummies instructional video, and the mediocre The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (which plays like one of those star-studded TV miniseries events from the 80s, except without the 22-hour intermission).
This actually points to a growing trend I find interesting. I have, of course, always been more personally drawn to genre films in general, but this year’s crop seemed to genuinely have more life, personality, and attitude than most of the more “serious” end-of-the-year fare.
So here are the 10 films this year that I simply liked the best (followed by the 5 I liked the least). As usual, I’ve listed my favorite film of the year first, with the rest following alphabetically. The same pattern follows with my worst list, which shows that there are exceptions to every trend by being full of (what do you know?) genre films. And there are 5 instead of 10 because I just didn’t go to that many movies that I didn’t think I would like.
THE BEST:
WALL-E - Another year, another Pixar film on my top 10 list, but I suppose Wall-E is at the very top this year because, more than any other 2008 film, this is the one that most reminded of me of the sheer power of the moving image and more specifically, animation. It’s a film that understands and revels in, not the limitations, but the endless possibilities of the medium. What other film in the last decade, animated or otherwise, has woven such a broad assortment of ingredients (post-apocalyptic sci-fi, robot love, silent-comedy slapstick, genuinely sharp social satire, Hello Dolly!, Fred Willard, etc.) into such a cohesive whole?
THE REST:
THE DARK KNIGHT - The good in this movie so far outweighs the not-quite-as-good that my quibbles about Lee Smith’s cutting style and the score (not bad; just really ordinary) seem not to matter a whole lot. Heath Ledger was truly a force of nature who deserves whatever posthumous accolades he may receive, and the rest of the cast turns in stellar work, as well. Director Christopher Nolan keeps a sense of real gravitas throughout, and the movie walks a fine but satisfying line between superhero action flick and epic crime saga.
FROST/NIXON - Frank Langella doesn’t look a thing like Richard Nixon, even in makeup, but that’s okay. The movie’s not so much about recreating the events it chronicles precisely as they happened as it is about recreating the atmosphere of a society hamstrung by financial woes, frustrated by a former commander-in-chief‘s actions while in office, and desperately searching for a reason to be positive. Indeed. The brilliance of it, though, is that it never hammers this point home; it very straightforwardly tells a specific story and allows the audience to make whatever comparisons they choose. Also, it’s been a while since I’ve been able to ascribe the words “quietly” and “terrific” to a Hans Zimmer score, and that’s pretty cool, too.
GRAN TORINO - Clint Eastwood knows his on-screen persona so well that, in the character of Walt Kowalski, he’s able to simultaneously spoof that image and remind us of the intensity it once had. While it’s certainly no Unforgiven, what that film was to Clint’s westerns, Gran Torino is, in some ways, to his urban crime thrillers: questioning their morality and attitude, but then not really apologizing for anything, either. The script is riddled with cliches and contrivances, but somehow Eastwood manages to turn all of that into an asset and keep a straight face about it the whole way through (while laughing on the inside, I’m sure).
HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY - This will probably lessen my already shaky credibility among my film school friends, but I gotta be me. I love this movie; it’s energetic, furiously imaginative, and in a really weird way, sort of elegiac. Far superior to its decent but flawed predecessor, it gives its audience a fantastic world truly worth escaping into. Guillermo Del Toro has really established himself as a distinct genre talent, and I think action editors everywhere could learn a few things from Bernat Vilaplana’s rhythmic and precise cutting.
IN BRUGES - Alternately goofy and poignant, with a sharp script, flawless performances, and the good sense to end when it needs to, this is surprisingly one of the better gangster flicks I’ve seen in years. Its crisp 107 minutes are much more satisfying and interesting than the more “epic” American Gangster and The Departed put together (though I admit I've yet to catch Gomorrah).
LET THE RIGHT ONE IN - A haunting, engrossing, and even poetic vampire love story. Try as I might not to bring up the other such movie that came out this year, the comparison is inevitable, and Twilight does not fare too well in the contest.
TROPIC THUNDER - Not only is this a great example of Hollywood giving itself a good-natured (but still pretty firm) poke in the ribs, but it has the audacity and creativity to feature a character in what is essentially blackface and get away with it. Robert Downey, Jr. would steal the whole movie with his turn as the ultimate Method actor, if not for Tom Cruise in a career-revitalizing performance as a balding, rancorous studio executive. (In a wise choice, the two don’t share any scenes).
WALTZ WITH BASHIR - An animated documentary about the 1982 Lebanon War that is not, as many assume, rotoscoped. It also doesn’t seem to have an overt political agenda, although I’m sure many more will assume that as well. What it does do is present a unique exploration of a man’s search to recover his forgotten memories, along with the realization of why he blocked them out to begin with. Another prime example of the range of the animated motion picture.
THE WRESTLER - This is another one of those films that really illustrates the old adage that the more specific your plot is, the more universal your story can become (or something like that). Put another way, I couldn’t care less about wrestling, but I cared about Randy “The Ram” Robinson while watching this movie. Mickey Rourke gives a fearless performance that almost legitimizes Oscar hype, and Darren Aronofsky pulls off a delicate balance from the director’s chair by appearing to just let things happen, while still keeping everything under control.
-----------------------------------------------------
THE WORST:
THE SPIRIT - Just as superhero movies are gaining true legitimacy, Frank Miller (one of the people who helped pave the way for that legitimacy) goes and does something like this. The movie is a complete train wreck that almost has to be seen to be believed (but believe me, you don’t want to). There are a couple of striking images, but they’re really in the wrong movie, and Samuel L. Jackson’s turn as the Octopus ranks right up there with Jeremy Irons in Dungeons & Dragons and Faye Dunaway in Supergirl as one of the worst performances ever by a good actor in a bad fantasy film.
EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY LESS BAD:
JUMPER - Who would have thought that an Anakin Skywalker/Mace Windu rematch would be even more awkward and stilted than the first go-around?
THE READER - I stand firm in my conviction that Harvey Weinstein has embarrassing photos of Academy members stashed somewhere handy; that’s the only way I can account for this mess getting a Best Picture nomination or, for that matter, one for Best Actress. Kate Winslet (whom I normally love) practically sleepwalks through her role, and the script is full of clipshow-ready platitudes that portend Something Important simmering beneath a flat, pretentious, and just plain boring surface.
STAR WARS: THE CLONE WARS - Despite all the shortcomings of the prequels, I never thought I’d see the day that a Star Wars movie made my worst list for the year. This theatrical pilot for the Cartoon Network series of the same name (which is a bit better, at least) regurgitates many of the most annoying elements of the prequels (wooden acting, grade-school-creative-writing-level dialogue, endless Battle Droid nonsense). Also on display are more of George Lucas’s head-bashingly strange decisions (like having Jabba the Hutt’s uncle sound like Truman Capote??!!), and it’s all topped off with what sounds like a junior high marching band arrangement of John Williams’ classic main theme.
TWILIGHT - Sorry folks, I just don’t get it. An amiable cast gives it their best shot, but it’s probably difficult to do too much with such uninteresting characters. I haven’t read the book, so I can’t speak to its quality, but in simple movie terms, this is one of the most bland screen love stories in recent memory, and as a Star Wars fan, I assure you that is saying something. | | |
| ...I'm sure she's never heard that before. 
Anyway, the other night, I went to see Hilary Hahn, who was appearing with the L.A. Philharmonic and performing the Glazunov Violin Concerto. The orchestra played a couple of other tunes, including a piece by their "Consulting Composer for New Music" Steven Stucky. Afterwards, I was able to get Hilary to sign one of her CDs for me, and I wished her luck at the Grammys next week. She said thanks.
But that's not the point of this story. While I was standing in line after the concert, I struck up a casual conversation with the middle-aged woman next to me. When she asked what I did, I told her I was an assistant editor for an animated series. She then told me that a very good friend of hers was an editor and that he had worked on the first two Star Wars movies. Like the complete geek that I am, I said, "Oh, Paul Hirsch?" She said, "You know Paul?" I told her that I only knew his work, but that I was a fan. She then asked what all went into the making of an animated show, and I explained to her, best as I could, our normal workflow (voice track, storyboards, layout, etc.). I got so caught up in the conversation that I almost forgot what I was standing in line for. Of course, suddenly, there I was, face-to-face with Hilary, on whom I've had a not-so-secret and highly illogical crush for some time (not unlike the one that 99% of America's preteen girls seem to have on the Jonas Brothers). See last two sentences of previous paragraph.
But that's not the point of this story, either. After I talked to Hilary, I ran into Paul Hirsch's friend again, who was now with her husband. She said to him, "This is Bryan; he's an editor, like Paul."
Now, I don't think I'm quite ready to consider myself a colleague of the editor of The Empire Strikes Back (not to mention Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Ray, and quite a few other films), but it hit me that, yes, I am an editor.
So that's the point of this story. I have, of course, been calling myself an editor for a while now, and technically, I am currently working as an assistant editor, but I guess it was just nice to be able to introduce myself, and to be introduced, as a working industry professional.
| | |
| Well, it's been a while since I've written anything here, so I guess I'll try to catch everyone up.
I graduated from Chapman with an MFA in Film Production/Editing in May and moved up into Los Angeles, where I hoped to find some employment in the industry I've been spending the last three years (officially, anyway) preparing to enter. A script supervisor position on a series of three independent short films in June/July proved to be my first professional film work, and after that, I had some interviews, including one for a PA position on Robert Zemeckis's upcoming adaptation of A Christmas Carol, and another for a pilot for Lifetime. After that, I wound up as a vault assistant at Modern VideoFilm, a post-production facility in Burbank.
It was not what I was hoping for, but it was income and the hours were agreeable. While working there, I was contacted by a fellow Chapman 2008 graduate about an editing gig for O Entertainment, the company behind the various "Thumb" movies (Thumb Wars, Thumbtanic). They were producing a short called Thumb Debate '08, spoofing the presidential elections, and I ended up being a co-editor on the project.
A couple of weeks later, I was contacted about an asssistant editor position on a new animated series that O's sister company Omation was producing. On December 1st, I began at Omation as assistant editor on Planet Sheen, a spinoff of Jimmy Neutron, which should begin airing on Nickelodeon in late 2009.
And that, in a nutshell, is what I've been doing for the past six months. That and getting used to living in the fabled City of Angels. As The Stranger from The Big Lebowski would say, "I didn't find it to be that, exactly, though there are some nice folks there."
At any rate, I'll probably be blogging a little more regularly now, even if it is to just get some random thoughts of mine down in writing. In the meantime, I would like to recognize a small anniversary before 2008 goes bye-bye:
Over the years, I've tended to look at 1988 as the year that I sort of became conscious of the movie industry. Sure, I'd been interested in movies, and even how they were made, almost from the time I knew what one was. But that year was when I really started to pay attention to the industry, or at least as much as a 10-year-old in Wichita Falls, Texas, was able to.
I would constantly read what I could find on films that were being made, I would keep the TV constantly on MovieTime (anyone else remember that channel?), and I would always know what was playing at all three of the theaters in town. I may not have been old enough to see Pumpkinhead or Child's Play, but I could definitely tell you when and where they were playing.
Of course, that was also the year that Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the film I often cite as the one most responsible for sparking my interest in filmmaking, was released. I say "most" responsible, because, of course, there was Star Wars and other things before that, but Roger was the first film that I really dissected, and it made me think about actually doing it for real.
Twenty years later, I am living in Los Angeles, working as an assistant editor for an animated series to be shown on a national cable network, carried to millions of viewers (maybe a few million less, if said network's parent company can't settle its current beef with Time Warner Cable ). There have been some detours along the way (most of them my fault), and I probably should have reached this point a few years ago, but here I am now, and there's much work to be done. | | |
|
