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.