Battle
So I've come up with this concept that I want to develop further that goes along with my previous regime rant. I keep thinking who would win in a fight, a person who has just been highly trained and regimented their entire life or a natural so to speak. Kind of like a nature vs nurture type of thing. Like if a Green Beret fought a Bear. The green beret has been trained to be a killing machine and the Bear is just built naturally to kill. But I dont exactly mean it in that sense. I can think of plenty of human characters that resemble a regime, specifically Rambo. but I have been having a hard time thinking of a situation where a human character is naturally a killing machine. I would like to kind of develop a plot with this situation in mind but am struggling with the natural killing machine character (which I have been referring to in my brain as the beast). Of course it wouldn't be a straight up 1 on 1 here they go fight type of situation. It would be more of an experiment in nature vs nurture or man vs beast. so what i need is suggestions of a preexisting character that would be a beast or a natural killer or something of the sort. I basically need it to develop that half of the plot and see where this idea could go. ANY suggestions people? a character that could represent the nature of this duo?
My Number One
A good friend of mine presented me with an excellent idea for a blog and I have chosen to expand it into a series. Dave asked me what I believe are some of the most important movies to watch in the history of film. I am going to twist it a bit and write about some that really inspire me and I believe present shining examples of one thing or another. We'll start with my number one, favorite film of all time; John Carpenter's "The Thing." The first time I saw it I was in middle school, and sitting home alone on a stormy saturday night. No lie, it scared the hell out of me. I can watch scary movies all day long all alone, in the pitch black on the scariest stormy nights and not be the least bit affected. There are select few that can get me. The Thing was the first. Carpenter does a spectacular job of creating a feeling of true isolation. He creates a tiny microcosm trapped off from the rest of the world. He creates 2 options for his characters, die slowly from the cold, or get ripped apart by an alien body occupying menace. He ends it with both characters seemingly defeating the monster, but still doomed to die. Another thing this movie did for me was to create a true appreciation for make-up and tangible special effects. If I were to someday be able to create movies I would limit the CGI as much as possible. The Thing was made in 1982 and the creature effects and makeup are truly sick and scary like nothing I've ever been able to see CGI recreate. The dog in the jail cell transforming into a beast and killing the other dogs set to only darkness and haunting music is a truly scary scene. To say the least, the Thing is the movie the I believe is the epitome of what a horror movie should be and the movie that made me want to make movies. GO SEE THE THING.
I have decided while writing this that I am going to call this epitome serious, where I select genres and select my favorite out of them and then write why they kick ass.
I have decided while writing this that I am going to call this epitome serious, where I select genres and select my favorite out of them and then write why they kick ass.
Why Film
For the latter years of my short beginning of a life I have known that I was meant to be a creator. Never could I occupy myself with a life of tasks with no end result. A life enclosed in a cube, filling out papers as a piece of a machine is not for me. I am not a wrench to be used by someone else in fixing something, nor am I a gear being pushed by one thing and in turn pushing another. I am the man who uses that wrench to put the gears in place, pulls the rip chord to get the machine humming and then leaves it to it’s work. I am a creator. The way I see it there are two things you can create: a utility and an art. Of course these two can intermingle. Apple’s utilities contain a lot of art but are primarily a utility, and any piece of Bruce Springsteen’s music, though utilized to inspire Barack Obama supporters, is still primarily an art. I am extremely interested in utilizing art to improve the national and global mindset. Film is the most effective art form for social change in that it contains all forms of art collaboratively, creates icons and can illustrate and conclude on an issue most completely and directly.
Music can deliver a message, evoke emotion and provide an outlook or attitude. It can provide a way of looking at things without an example of how these things would actually look. Take the lyrics to “Dosed” by Red Hot Chili Peppers
I got dosed by you and
Closer than most to you and
What am I supposed to do
Take it away I never had it anyway
Take it away and everything will be okay
In you a star is born and
You cut a perfect form and
Someone forever warm
You get the idea, there was a relationship involving two people that ended. You get one side’s view of the other and an idea of the emotions involved, but it’s lacking the entire picture. A film could provide both sides, provide causation for the emotion, create a sympathy for the characters involved in the song and create all of these things without directly saying them. It may include this song in the background for an enhancing effect but it wouldn’t rely on it.
Or take “I’m the Biz Markie” by Biz Markie. In it he describes himself as best he can.
It's me the diabolical, Biz Mark symbolical
I shakes from scripts of hits I made a while ago
Now I'm on the run again starting other capers
And people couldn't catch me even if I was "The Vapors"
I leave you in trauma with my funky personna
Cause I'm jamming just like Teddy but I'm nasty like Madonna
Cause me without big strong thoughts for a Biz song
Is like Patty LaBelle not singing with a wig on
I don't give a damn if my record gets panned
Cause my style stays fresh like I rap in Saran
Biz gives you an idea of who he is and may cause some young ‘n’s to want to be like him, but the young ‘n’s only get an idealized idea of the biz and he isn’t a true icon, he could possibly be a role model, or an image people try to imitate but he can never set or fight a precedent of an entire generation like an actor could. Music can change things and put ideas in people’s head’s but with less behind it. Most people I know don’t listen to music to challenge themselves or to symbolize their life outlook (aside from a few music scenes of course).
On the other hand, people do read to challenge themselves and to help define their vision of what life is. For presenting a philosophy a book may be the most complete medium simply for the reason there is no common length restriction on books. People read 5 page books and people read 2000 page books. Where a movie is more effective is getting people interested in a philosophy, presenting its basics and showing them in action. A movie can effectively show the positives and negatives of a philosophy or life course more quickly and well-roundedly than a book can simply because it can present both sides simultaneously while a book requires alternating sides in paragraphs or sentences. It can show both side A and side B in conflict on the same screen and a viewer can be analyzing both sides as they enter his perception at the same time. In a book the reader is presented with A for a while, takes time to ponder it, then gets side B, then side A again. Less effective.
Another place where literature can often fail (not always) is that because novels and such are often consumed over long periods of time aspects can be lost over time. There may have been something in the beginning that the reader found significant that they have completely forgotten by the end. The message can be fragmented.
On to images: paintings, drawings, prints, photography, sculptures, etc. Images can only do so much. You can look at an image and say “that’s pretty,” and appreciate it for it’s aesthetic beauty. An image can evoke emotion, an image can even make a statement, but the statement is rarely definite unless it is overly direct, and I am always for subtlety.
For example, the image of the man standing in front of a tank at Tiananmen Square; you feel a sadness that this type of thing can happen in our world, you feel his determination and some can even respect the composition. But wouldn’t it be a fuller understanding if you saw this man the day before this happened, saw the tank roll over him, and saw the effects on other’s in the country? An image can evoke many emotions, but a film has thousands of images, and under the directions of a true visionary each image can contain as much emotion as a fine artwork. Even more, the film can show the development and evolution of that emotion.
A film in most cases has the ability to surpass the abilities of each art-form individually in that it contains all of them. It can work the three together for both utility and art. A director has to be able to create thousands of beautiful images. More challengingly, his images have to move, remain powerful and beautiful while moving, and, if they’re really good, have the movement and the image enhance one another. A director has to be able to either create or find the correct music to enhance the image without overwhelming it. The music has to aid the emotion in coming across, or the music can provide the outlook of the world on a character, as the character is on the screen acting towards the world; Two sides in one image with the sound there to help. Finally, a screenwriter has to be able to write in a powerful fashion while thinking of the visuals going on, and in Cameron Crowe’s case, even providing input on the soundtrack going on in the scene. Think of the writer, director, producers out there, the Steven Spielbergs and Guillermo Del Toro’s who have their hands in every aspect of the film. They have to be masters of the visual, the literal and the musical. Rather than being a master of one they have to be master of all of them as well as masters of combining them consistently throughout a two-hour piece.
To me, Film is the ultimate art form because thousands more ideas, visions, and considerations have to go into it to present the creator’s vision exactly. American History X shows so many sides of an issue, from the racist’s, from someone growing up with a racist, the non-racist families of a racist, the people persecuted by the racist, a racist coping with recovery, a loving son, people of all ages facing pressure from loved ones, and even more. That’s at least seven, I’d like to see a song do that. I’d like to see a book do that successfully with the consumer of the piece able to absorb each one as fully as he can with a film. That’s why film. Film can set the outlook for a generation. James dean inspired millions in the 50’s. Carey Grant defined masculinity from the 30’s onward. Menace II Society epitomized LA gang-life like no song could. Fast Times as Ridgemont High provided millions with a definition of 80’s. Movies tackle complex issues like no song can. Movies change the world. Would the white-world ever have been to fully accept African-American’s as their equals had Sydney Poitier not been on screen showcasing his ability and intelligence? Twenty years down the road I’m sure Brokeback Mountain will no longer be joked about as it is, it will be viewed as a film that caused skeptics to see that a gay relationship can be legitimate and as strong as a straight one. Go see Thank You For Smoking and try not to sympathize with the Tobacco Lobbyist. Movies can force people to look at things in a new way and seriously consider it. Movies have a power no other medium has. That’s Why Film.
I really want to hear back on this one. Comments, criticisms, additions. I’ll take it all, half of the joy of writing these is to see how they are received and to find where I may be off or entirely misguided.
Either leave a comment or send me an e-mail bryce-anderson@uiowa.edu
I promise to reply to anything and welcome any sort of discussion.
Music can deliver a message, evoke emotion and provide an outlook or attitude. It can provide a way of looking at things without an example of how these things would actually look. Take the lyrics to “Dosed” by Red Hot Chili Peppers
I got dosed by you and
Closer than most to you and
What am I supposed to do
Take it away I never had it anyway
Take it away and everything will be okay
In you a star is born and
You cut a perfect form and
Someone forever warm
You get the idea, there was a relationship involving two people that ended. You get one side’s view of the other and an idea of the emotions involved, but it’s lacking the entire picture. A film could provide both sides, provide causation for the emotion, create a sympathy for the characters involved in the song and create all of these things without directly saying them. It may include this song in the background for an enhancing effect but it wouldn’t rely on it.
Or take “I’m the Biz Markie” by Biz Markie. In it he describes himself as best he can.
It's me the diabolical, Biz Mark symbolical
I shakes from scripts of hits I made a while ago
Now I'm on the run again starting other capers
And people couldn't catch me even if I was "The Vapors"
I leave you in trauma with my funky personna
Cause I'm jamming just like Teddy but I'm nasty like Madonna
Cause me without big strong thoughts for a Biz song
Is like Patty LaBelle not singing with a wig on
I don't give a damn if my record gets panned
Cause my style stays fresh like I rap in Saran
Biz gives you an idea of who he is and may cause some young ‘n’s to want to be like him, but the young ‘n’s only get an idealized idea of the biz and he isn’t a true icon, he could possibly be a role model, or an image people try to imitate but he can never set or fight a precedent of an entire generation like an actor could. Music can change things and put ideas in people’s head’s but with less behind it. Most people I know don’t listen to music to challenge themselves or to symbolize their life outlook (aside from a few music scenes of course).
On the other hand, people do read to challenge themselves and to help define their vision of what life is. For presenting a philosophy a book may be the most complete medium simply for the reason there is no common length restriction on books. People read 5 page books and people read 2000 page books. Where a movie is more effective is getting people interested in a philosophy, presenting its basics and showing them in action. A movie can effectively show the positives and negatives of a philosophy or life course more quickly and well-roundedly than a book can simply because it can present both sides simultaneously while a book requires alternating sides in paragraphs or sentences. It can show both side A and side B in conflict on the same screen and a viewer can be analyzing both sides as they enter his perception at the same time. In a book the reader is presented with A for a while, takes time to ponder it, then gets side B, then side A again. Less effective.
Another place where literature can often fail (not always) is that because novels and such are often consumed over long periods of time aspects can be lost over time. There may have been something in the beginning that the reader found significant that they have completely forgotten by the end. The message can be fragmented.
On to images: paintings, drawings, prints, photography, sculptures, etc. Images can only do so much. You can look at an image and say “that’s pretty,” and appreciate it for it’s aesthetic beauty. An image can evoke emotion, an image can even make a statement, but the statement is rarely definite unless it is overly direct, and I am always for subtlety.
For example, the image of the man standing in front of a tank at Tiananmen Square; you feel a sadness that this type of thing can happen in our world, you feel his determination and some can even respect the composition. But wouldn’t it be a fuller understanding if you saw this man the day before this happened, saw the tank roll over him, and saw the effects on other’s in the country? An image can evoke many emotions, but a film has thousands of images, and under the directions of a true visionary each image can contain as much emotion as a fine artwork. Even more, the film can show the development and evolution of that emotion.A film in most cases has the ability to surpass the abilities of each art-form individually in that it contains all of them. It can work the three together for both utility and art. A director has to be able to create thousands of beautiful images. More challengingly, his images have to move, remain powerful and beautiful while moving, and, if they’re really good, have the movement and the image enhance one another. A director has to be able to either create or find the correct music to enhance the image without overwhelming it. The music has to aid the emotion in coming across, or the music can provide the outlook of the world on a character, as the character is on the screen acting towards the world; Two sides in one image with the sound there to help. Finally, a screenwriter has to be able to write in a powerful fashion while thinking of the visuals going on, and in Cameron Crowe’s case, even providing input on the soundtrack going on in the scene. Think of the writer, director, producers out there, the Steven Spielbergs and Guillermo Del Toro’s who have their hands in every aspect of the film. They have to be masters of the visual, the literal and the musical. Rather than being a master of one they have to be master of all of them as well as masters of combining them consistently throughout a two-hour piece.
To me, Film is the ultimate art form because thousands more ideas, visions, and considerations have to go into it to present the creator’s vision exactly. American History X shows so many sides of an issue, from the racist’s, from someone growing up with a racist, the non-racist families of a racist, the people persecuted by the racist, a racist coping with recovery, a loving son, people of all ages facing pressure from loved ones, and even more. That’s at least seven, I’d like to see a song do that. I’d like to see a book do that successfully with the consumer of the piece able to absorb each one as fully as he can with a film. That’s why film. Film can set the outlook for a generation. James dean inspired millions in the 50’s. Carey Grant defined masculinity from the 30’s onward. Menace II Society epitomized LA gang-life like no song could. Fast Times as Ridgemont High provided millions with a definition of 80’s. Movies tackle complex issues like no song can. Movies change the world. Would the white-world ever have been to fully accept African-American’s as their equals had Sydney Poitier not been on screen showcasing his ability and intelligence? Twenty years down the road I’m sure Brokeback Mountain will no longer be joked about as it is, it will be viewed as a film that caused skeptics to see that a gay relationship can be legitimate and as strong as a straight one. Go see Thank You For Smoking and try not to sympathize with the Tobacco Lobbyist. Movies can force people to look at things in a new way and seriously consider it. Movies have a power no other medium has. That’s Why Film.
I really want to hear back on this one. Comments, criticisms, additions. I’ll take it all, half of the joy of writing these is to see how they are received and to find where I may be off or entirely misguided.
Either leave a comment or send me an e-mail bryce-anderson@uiowa.edu
I promise to reply to anything and welcome any sort of discussion.
Beat on the Street
Occasionally I just like to marvel at the way things work and affect us. Today's marvelation is music. Yes, marvelation is now a word, deal with it. I am just so amazed by how much of an effect music can have. I come home some nights, I'm in a mood and I know the song that fits it. I just have to hear it. But what is more startling is how a song can change a mood. Occasionally I will sit in my room and realize, "Damn, I'm feeling down on myself, I dont really have a reason to, why the hell do I feel so bad?" then I realize that there is music in the background with a somber melody that has been subconsciously bringing me down. My mood was being entirely decided by the song. If I switch to an upbeat happy song it can change just as fast. What is this link between songs and emotion? How did this form in the evolutionary cycle of things? Does it have some hidden significance? If anybody knows the science behind this I would love to know it. I just love how I hate poetry, but if someone were to sing me the same poem they just read it could get to me and I could totally feel what they meant. Also, one thing I have never been able to do is sing earnestly in front of others. I can speak publicly just fine but singing is a different story. If I were asked to recite the national anthem, no prob. But sing it? I couldn't do it. I feel lke a lot of other people know what I am talking about, singing just reveals another side of people that they don't want to reveal. Anyway, how cool is it that music exists and that it is so universally and innately enjoyed.
Some hot jams of the night... " When Your Mind's Made Up" by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, just heard it tonight and it rocked my world, the video is amazing if you can find it.
Some hot jams of the night... " When Your Mind's Made Up" by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, just heard it tonight and it rocked my world, the video is amazing if you can find it.
Hi!
so I have had this project in mind involving stop motion animation and downloaded a trial of the program Framethief. I made a really short movie just to kind of test out the features and I thought I'd post it for all of you just for fun.
Wow
I was looking through past blogs. I have a lot of typos. I am going to start checking for those before posting from now on. They're embarrassing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)