Extreme Redundancy - The Cost of Chasing The "Cinematic" Look

 

    This quote from the late Robin Williams was originally from an observational joke he made about former President Ronald Reagan when he was quoted as saying, "What would this great country be without this great land of ours?" To which many of us understandably responded, "What?" This politically charged joke is the perfect analogy for today's subject: a practice utilized in Hollywood and some independent groups to chase that mythological perception of the "cinematic" look. One that I can't help but feel is far too costly and, as you might expect, redundant for its own good. 

    I have discussed the unhealthy, impractical, and ultimately defeatist idea of defining a "cinematic" look many times on this blog before. Be it regarding color correction practices, production design & lighting choices, and especially camera selection, placing any hard and fast rule as to what constitutes "cinematic" is, and always shall be, counterproductive to the very nature of cinema itself. As far as I am concerned, cinema is the art of creating movement through manipulating images to tell a cohesive and engaging story. That's it! 

    However, some people prefer a more complex definition, especially those well-embedded within the industry. They want you to believe you must have a blurry background or a specific halation of the lights and colors. All of these basically boil down to the aesthetics associated with celluloid film. In an age where digital cameras are significantly superior to celluloid film and have their own unique cinematic aesthetic and identity, the assumption that celluloid film must be the only viable option for cinema remains as absurd as it ever was! 

    This is not to say that making your digital images look more like celluloid film is inherently ridiculous; it is an entirely valid option should the story you're telling call for such aesthetics. There are plenty of creative and affordable ways to recreate that aesthetic regardless of capture format: specialized filters, grain overlays, color LUTs, etc. All of which can assist in creating the desired look for a fraction of the cost of using actual celluloid film. 

    However, one practice has my head spinning with its ridiculousness and not the good kind. 

    This machine from Arri, the company behind much of the equipment used in movie productions, mostly cameras (both film and digital), does something that, while impressive in its own right, seems wholly unnecessary to me personally. The purpose of the machine is to take a digital video file, print it onto a roll of celluloid film, and then rescan that film print to create another digital video file. This aims to create a brand new digital copy of a finished movie that was captured digitally but has now been imbued with the aesthetics and qualities of celluloid film. For more details, check out this video explaining the process: The Arri Machine. 

    Producing a film print from a digital file is more common than it may sound. Most theaters had yet to adopt digital projectors in the early days of using digital cameras for making movies. So, creating film prints from digital video was necessary at the time. Plus, film prints remain the best way to preserve and archive works of art better than any highly advanced hard drive ever could. Yes, physical media has more significant advantages, but film prints only require you to shine a light through the frame to see the action. 

    Making a film print of your digital movie is one thing, but spending the time and money to create a film print only to turn around and immediately rescan the film to create yet another digital file is entirely wasteful. Many theaters have mostly, if not wholly, adopted digital projectors by now, and the ones that still feature classic film projectors seem few and far between. Yes, the new film print may be used in some markets, and having a film print at your disposal can provide a wonderful sense of collector pride, but beyond that, this all seems rather silly and not the good kind.

    As I mentioned earlier, there are numerous ways to recreate the aesthetics of celluloid film when using digital capture that don't require costly machinery and harsh chemicals. At the risk of sounding like an old man yelling at the sun, this practice seems impractical. It comes across as yet another way the film industry is undermining the potential for exploring cinematic aesthetics within digital video itself. 

    I will never tire of saying this so long as it bears repeating: cinema is not defined by what format your story presents itself in but by how well you tell it. If your story needs to look like film but you can't afford it, there are plenty of creative and cost-efficient ways to achieve that look. Otherwise, feel free to present a story that looks like video. It might add more to your story than you think. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Birthday Special - He Walked by Night (1948)

 

Streaming on Amazon Prime and Pluto 

Rent on Amazon and Apple TV

Birthday Special Reviews continue! 

In my last review special, I tackled the ridiculous 80s action schlock fest, Warriors of the Wasteland, A mindless and mostly incompetent mess that tried and failed to skate by its lackluster budget with too much charisma and not enough texture. And yet, despite all that, it at least had some ironic entertainment value with its dumb dialogue and toy cars. At the very least, there was enough to keep me engaged, if only for the wrong reasons. 

Today's subject, He Walked by Night, a film noir crime thriller from 1948, doesn't have the same luxury. While I recognize that it's a product of its time, that still does not excuse the film for being as dull, predictable, cliche, and paint-by-numbers as it is. Sure, it barely skates by with some technical competence (proper lighting, mostly judicious editing, proper pacing, etc.). Still, without a proper emotional core for the audience to grasp, then it's all for not. Film noir may be a cold genre, but at least there's usually some heart within it! 

The story presents itself as a hybrid documentary/police procedural drama following the efforts to take down a suspected cop killer in Los Angeles. In between segments of narrated montages with infomercial levels of staged enthusiasm, we follow the "factual" events of the police's efforts to track down and bring in (or take down) their suspect. There's some cat & mouse, standard investigation efforts, and at least one big chase scene. 

If I sound somewhat apathetic towards this film, it's because it was too challenging not to fall asleep while watching it. Again, I understand that it was a product of its time, and the standards & styles for narrative filmmaking have evolved a lot since then, but I'm sorry, this movie is simply boring. 

The main issue with the film is that it seems to have no central emotionally resonating or relatable core, no in-universe reason for the audience to care about anything happening in the film. To be fair, there appears to be an attempt to build emotional resonance with one of the detectives proclaiming his close friendship with the victim. Still, we have never seen the two characters interact with one another in any meaningful way, nor do we see the victim do anything remotely relatable (thereby earning our empathy and interest) before his untimely demise. Instead, the narrator tells us who they are and what they do and merely assumes we will fill in the emotional void. 

The movie gives no sound reason to care about anything happening within the narrative, insisting that we should root for them purely because they are policemen. While I have a fair amount of respect and appreciation for the police (the good ones, anyway), no film from any era should expect to skate by demanding that we, the audience, care about a character by their occupation alone, nor can we be expected to accept aspects of characters or narrative depths simply because the narrator tells us of its existence. 

He Walked by Night is the equivalent of walking into a bakery and asking for a Chocolate Cake, only for the baker to hand you a bowl containing the ingredients and insist you can make it yourself. And on top of that, you don't have an oven! It's a film that tried to get away with less than the bare minimum of what would be acceptable as a story and refuses to provide anymore. 

    There are many other & far superior film noir classics to watch. Skip this one! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Birthday Special - Warriors of the Wasteland (1984)

 

Released in the U.S.A. January 13, 1984 

Streaming on Amazon Prime, Flexfling, and The Criterion Collection 

Rent on Amazon and Apple TV

    Welcome to the third quarter of the year, my wonderful readers! In addition to regular reviews for July, I will discuss movies released on or around some birthdays you submitted. If you still need to submit a birthday, it's still possible. We kick off this special with a movie released close to my birthday, and, oh boy, is this one special (note the sarcasm 🤣.) 

    Warriors of the Wasteland, a.k.a. The New Barbarians, is one of the many pieces of dumb action schlock that served as little more than filler on the video rental store shelves. However, it's also a prime example of the so-bad-it's-good genre, providing entertainment value despite its low production quality. Another trend back in the day was a slew of cheaply produced and quickly made films cashing in on the action craze of the time, utilizing international talent (typically from Italy) and making a small profit from video cassette sales, often after a deliberately short theatrical run (assuming it would get one at all.) 

    This practice led to several cult classic so-bad-it's-entertaining movies, or as my brother-in-law and I refer to them, "incredibad" movies, such as Samurai Cop, In The Aftermath, and pretty much anything in Reb Brown's filmography. In short, these are the kind of movies you would commonly find on shows like Mystery Science Theater 3000; terrible movies that are unintentionally funny in their unbelievable lack of quality in most areas. 

    Anyway, enough talk! Let's get to the movie itself. 

    Set in 2019, after the nuclear fallout dissipated, humanity emerged from the rubble with a new law of the land: survive. This is easier said than done when a massive cult gang known as The Templars roams around the wasteland, hellbent on eliminating the rest of humanity as some kind of redemption. At least, that's what their great leader has led them all to believe. But when they cross paths with a former member of their gang, who now has a new reason to live, things heat up, as the lone fighter takes on the entire Templar gang, with the help of some friends, to give humanity a fighting chance. 

    This movie is terrible in every possible and unintentionally hilarious way! It has all the staples of an international low-budget action film from the 80s: noticeably awful dubbing on top of already robotic dialogue, acting so wooden it could teach a carpentry class, sloppy action scenes that look more like a kid with a camcorder playing with his action figures, and ridiculously questionable costume designs for the entire cast. How ridiculous? Let's just say it's a funny reminder of the popularity of shoulder pads back then, not to mention the unusual hairstyles that would seem overtly theatrical today. 

    Arguably, the funniest thing about this movie is the vehicles. Taking notes from classic post-apocalyptic films such as The Road Warrior and Death Race 2000, many of the vehicles in this movie, though creatively designed, sound like they were powered by a blender hooked up to a Go-Kart motor; a high-pitched hum that makes all of the vehicles sound like toys and therefore not as intimidating as the filmmakers had likely intended. Never mind that they move so slowly that the people they're chasing with them can easily outrun them, yet they always seem to stop running at just the right moment and spot for the villains to deliver the killing blows. It's almost like they know the limits of these would-be death machines but don't care; they just want out of the movie! 🤣

    Despite these massive and unintentionally entertaining flaws, I enjoy some aspects of the film: The production design is charming in its crude, homemade aesthetic. Despite their silly sounds and lack of credible speed, the vehicles look fun to ride. The sets fit the over-the-top style of post-apocalyptic movies, which I enjoy and would love to play with in my own movie someday. Also, special mention must go to one of the most fantastic and criminally underutilized side characters in movie history, Nadir (Fred Williamson), a bow & arrow wielding badass who could potentially give Hawkeye a run for his money. 

    Warriors of the Wasteland is one of the many dime-a-dozen action fillers meant to pass the time while you wait for the real action gems. If you enjoy watching & making fun of bad movies with your friends over some chips and beer, this will fit the bill and then some!

    Enjoy the laughs! 🤣

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Spaceballs Sequel?

 

If you get it, you get it! 🤣

    In 1987, comedic filmmaker Mel Brooks released one of his many classics, Spaceballs, a spoof/parody of the beloved Star Wars franchise, complete with massive Starships, prissy androids, and energy-based phallic symbols...uh, I mean...Lightsabers! Like the rest of Mr. Brooks' films, Spaceballs delivers a loving over-the-top comedic romp poking fun at Star Wars while simultaneously praising what made the franchise so memorable. Apparently, Mel Brooks secured the blessing of George Lucas himself, under the condition that he does not produce any merchandise from the movie. This is a shame because I have longed for Yogurt's plush doll to add to my collection. 

    Not too long ago, it was announced that an official sequel, starring Josh Gad and produced by Mr. Brooks himself, was in production over at Amazon/MGM studios. As of this writing, this project is only in the earliest phases of development. As such, there isn't much to say about it other than it's not a good idea. Not only is there no justification for making a sequel to Spaceballs (other than as a blatant nostalgic cash-grab), but also because no one in Hollywood or anywhere else knows how to make this particular style of comedy anymore! 

    Mel Brooks's style is best defined as over-the-top silliness fused with clever innuendo and a dash of spontaneous creativity and humor the cast encourages. This style has been well demonstrated and perfected by classic comedic talents such as Rowan Atkinson, Monty Python, and Laurel & Hardy. A style that encourages letting go of convention and embracing the absurd. Mr. Brooks also remains one of the few comedic talents who genuinely understands the nature of comedy and has never been afraid to venture into the dreaded questionable realm of "Isn't that offensive?" 

    In my opinion, the comedy genius of Mel Brookes has never gone out of fashion, despite its unfortunate lack of a presence in the modern comedic landscape, which seems to favor adolescent potty jokes and what I refer to as "Awkward Moment Humor," neither of which have rarely (if ever) been actually funny! And before you point out my possible inadvertent hypocrisy with the most fantastic fart joke scene in cinema history from Mr. Brooks himself, please allow me to elaborate! 

    Yes, Mel Brooks has made jokes in his movies that could be categorized as offensive or inappropriate by modern standards, but here's the thing: At least some people perceive EVERYTHING that way in this modern world! 

    Consider this quote from another comedic icon, Steve Martin: "Comedy is not pretty." While there are many ways to potentially interpret that quote, the most essential and relevant to this blog entry is that comedy is subjective and harsh, for want of a better word! By its very nature, comedy stems from observing and singling out the absurd and impracticality in every aspect of our existence. This includes but is not limited to government idiocracy, subpar human behavior, and little unusual interactions in our day-to-day lives. These are but a handful of the strange yet familiar things found in our world that can be difficult to process and challenging to comprehend, so we turn to comedy to not only make us feel a bit better about it all but also for a little reassurance that we're not alone in our frustrations. 

    Consider another Mel Brooks classic from 1974, Blazing Saddles. For those who have not yet seen it (and why haven't you already?), Blazing Saddles is a loving spoof of the cowboy western genre. It follows the exploits of a young man, who happens to be black, named Bart, who is chosen as the new Sheriff of a small, troubled town known as Rock Ridge. Despite confrontations from heavy racism, Bart is determined to win over the people and optimistically takes on the role of Sheriff. One day, while walking through the town, Bart stops to say hello to one of the locals, wishing her a good morning and commenting on how nice of a day it is, to which the local responds, "Up yours, n!**er," leaving Bart somewhat confused and frustrated. 

    As I'm sure you've noticed, that scene contained a racial slur. It works in this scene because Mel Brooks isn't using it to be mean; he uses it to make a point! Mel Brooks points out the ridiculousness of racism in the form of a clever joke, complete with a proper set-up, build, and punchline. It's openly mocking racism without being racist itself! 

    This joke would not work without using that awful word in English, commonly known as the "N" word. Had this movie been released just a few years ago, no one would have been talking about how clever the joke was; they would have been raging over using the "N" word and completely ignoring or misunderstanding the intended use! 

    Please understand this is not me ranting about oversensitive people, cancel culture, and trigger warnings. Living in an age where people try to be more thoughtful about their past and present actions is fantastic. This quality is long overdue in our society and culture, and I greatly appreciate the efforts made to make ourselves more aware and understanding. But there is a line, and attacking comedic efforts to point out our faults and hypocrisies absolutely crosses it! 

    Comedy is not pretty because, by its nature, it delves into the uglier aspects of our humanity and tries to encourage us to do better through laughter and overwhelming emotional resonance. In the modern age of knee-jerk reactions to seemingly politically incorrect, insensitive, or inappropriate things, comedy is losing its ability to have any meaningful impact on our perception and progress as a culture and especially as a species! 

    Mel Brooks isn't a comedic genius because he used the "N" word; he's a comedic genius because he knew how to use it and why! So, unless the folks over at Amazon/MGM studios are prepared to genuinely allow comedy to return to its roots, as it were, I have no faith in anyone's ability to deliver a proper sequel to any of Mel Brooks' works, even with his direct or indirect involvement! Not only is there no justifiable reason outside of naked nostalgic cash grabs, but no one in modern Hollywood (or anywhere else, for that matter) has the courage, wisdom, or appropriate amount of legal insanity to deliver the kind of cleverness people like Mel Brooks specialized in. 

    Since the movie has not been filmed yet, I am happy to reserve my judgment for when it is released. In the meantime, I'm not holding my breath. 

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go and comb the desert for something I can't find. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Birthday Special

My beautiful readers, 

Allow me to first apologize for my extended absence. While I have seen many recent movies worth discussing, I haven't given myself the time or energy to sit down and write a review about them. Life appears to have stepped in the way of my mojo, as it were. Don't worry; all is well. I just let myself fall into a funk of sorts. 

To try and get myself out of this block, I thought it would be fun to do something a little different. 

I have many loved ones who have birthdays in July. So, in honor of them, here's what we're going to do: 

Send me a birthday, any birthday (yours, someone you know, your favorite actor or director, whatever), and I will find the movie released on or around that date, watch it (assuming I haven't already), and review it. 

July is going to be Birthday Month Special! 

You can send me birthdays to work with until July 14th. 

I look forward to seeing what I end up seeing & reviewing, and I hope you are also. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Knox Goes Away - See This Film

 

Playing in Theaters 

Rent on Apple TV, Google Play, Amazon, and YouTube 

    Knox Goes Away is a movie that more people should be talking about! It's a well-crafted thriller with the right balance of familiarity & refreshing ideas brought together by one of Hollywood's most underrated royalty members, Michael Keaton, and a sharp script. It is also a surprising showcase of the man's ability as a director, which, while still not necessarily profound, is enough to excite you for what may come next. 

    The story follows a retiring hitman named John Knox (Michael Keaton) coming to terms with a recent diagnosis of an aggressive form of dementia and only has a few weeks before his cognitive abilities become dangerously diminished. As Knox prepares to get his affairs in order, his only son, Miles (James Marsden), approaches his estranged father with a problem that requires his help. Turns out Miles killed someone who wronged his daughter and now needs someone to help him deal with it. Knox takes it upon himself to handle the situation, all the while struggling with his own uncertainties. Could this be the path to redemption he's been waiting for, or will it become his ultimate downfall? 

    The film does a fantastic job of keeping you guessing what Knox's big plan is for his efforts to help his son. Michael Keaton delivers his expected charismatic performance, which feels genuine and is delivered with a little wink at the audience. It's the kind of performance only he can deliver, and he makes the movie work because of it. 

    His ability behind the camera proves to be just as fascinating as in front. While he seems to be taking it easy with his first outing as director, signs of profound talent are waiting to be unleashed. From his ability to handle his fellow actors to his formatting choices to convey sparks of mental instability, Keaton shows enough ability to make me question why he didn't try his hand at the director's chair sooner. 

    The cinematography is the only aspect of the film that has me conflicted. Photographed by Marshall Adams, who spent most of his career working in television (both as a cinematographer and camera operator), the lighting choices in the film, while primarily appropriate, feel too on the nose for me personally. Like many modern films, some moments make me question why the scene is as dark as it is. However, unlike other cinematographers, Marshall seems to remember the importance of contrast with darker images. So, while I wasn't entirely on board with the levels of darkness in the images, I could at least comprehend their content, thanks to proper contrast ratios. 

    Knox Goes Away deserves to be seen for its sharp writing, committed performances, and delightful showcasing of an actor's potential in the director's chair. The sooner you get this film in front of your eyeballs, the better. It may not be the most pleasant thing you'll see this year, but it is the most fascinating in its own right. 

    Totally worth a look. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Riddle of Fire - Little Film With A Big Heart

 

Rent on Apple TV, Google Play, Amazon, and YouTube 

    Sometimes, a movie is so unexpected, heartfelt, and enjoyable that you can't help but wonder, " Where has this been hiding all this time?" Riddle of Fire is a coming-of-age Summer film that successfully fuses the fantastical with the natural, or "realistic" as some folks prefer. A film that is soaking in classical fantasy fair with magic and unusual quests while dealing with the madness of the modern world. Like the young protagonists, the film doesn't care how unrealistic its ideas are; they're having too much fun just going there!

    Set in modern-day Wyoming, the story follows a trio of young friends enjoying their summer vacation and getting into all kinds of mischief, including "borrowing" a brand new game console to play together. Things get a little complicated when they learn that the TV has become password-protected, and the only one who knows the password is the mother of one of the boys, who is down with a terrible cold. They try to wheedle the mother for the password and come to a special agreement: if they can help her feel better by providing her with her favorite Blueberry Pie, she will give them the password to the TV. The trio set out on their quest to find the means of acquiring the unique Blueberry Pie, leading them on a journey filled with danger and mystery, making some new friends (including a young girl escaping her terrible family), and having unexpected developments that will put their resolve (and possibly their friendship) to the test. 

    The real selling point of this film is the young cast. Charlie Stover, Phoeve Ferro, Lorelei Olivia Mote, and Skyler Peters possess amazing chemistry and deliver incredible performances. At no point in the film did I feel like the kids didn't want to be there, nor did they refuse to put anything other than 100% effort into their characters! They also played off well with the adult cast members and vice versa. While I do have my favorites of the little performers, their outstanding professionalism as a unit cannot be understated! 

    Another highlight of the film is its visual style & cinematography. Captured on Kodak 16mm film (prominently mentioned in the opening credits), the movie feels like a time capsule of classic fantasy films from the 1970s, such as Jabberwocky and Pete's Dragon. The visuals also lend themselves well to the classic gritty independent vibe of the same era, bringing to mind indy classics like The French Connection and The Harder They Come. I don't mean to say that Riddle of Fire shares similar narrative or tone styles with either of those classics. However, the visuals harken to another fascinating time in cinema history when there was an incredible feeling of change in the air. Riddle of Fire captures that beautiful and classical aesthetic thanks to the talented eye of cinematographer Jake Mitchell. 

    Writer and director Weston Razooli makes his feature film debut with this gem, and I am already excited to see what he has in store for us next. The performances from the young cast suggest and showcase a level of patience and leadership that is often hard to find in young directors. With his script, he blends all the strange and contrasting elements together playfully and coherently. This person is very much in touch with his inner child. 

    Riddle of Fire is a must-watch! It is a fantastic, promising start for the rest of the year and a strong contender for my favorite film of 2024. Please do not miss or overlook this delightful labor of love. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.