Essie Speaks - mostly about movies - but also of books, countries, life. Mostly movies though :) (Updated every weekend - sunday night latest ^-^)P.S. ALL THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS COPYRIGHTED AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF ITS WRITER - AND THAT WOULD BE ME!
My alternate rants and musings about art and philosophy continue.
This time we`re taking a 21st century point of view and throwing 3D into the mix. The way we see things and what we can see on the big screen and the small screen are changing and developping every day. And like any major change, this is having indirect effects on the art of cinema itself... And what do I mean by that?
“Yeah I
think it’s basically an ordinary animal documentary in 3d” commented one of my
fellow participants at Dream Factory in Liverpool last month. The lady in front
of us in the queue (who later turned out to be Bonnie Voland, I M Global’s head of international marketing)
turned towards us with a laugh and said “ There is nothing ordinary about THIS
documentary, I can assure you!” It took all of ten minutes of watching the
documentary to realize that she was most definitely right. This was a kind of
documentary we had never seen before and a true technical feat as far as the
filmmaking went. Do I adore it unreservedly though? Well…
The content
of Enchanted Kingdom is a little hard to describe. I strongly suspect this was
the reason the blurb in the conference program was so unspecific. Oh it was
very mysterious and very befitting of the title of Enchanted Kingdom but having
actually watched the film, I strongly suspect there was a slightly more serious
question (namely “well what DO we say it’s about then?!”) behind its creation.
The documentary takes place in Africa and is mainly aimed at the young in tone.
Idris Elba narrates as we traverse Africa, that continent so rich in landscapes
from Jungles to desserts, following various aspects of animal life in Africa…
In 3D.
And those
last two words basically form the entire hook, the USP the whole “point” of the
film. It’s in 3d. And before you snort and lose interest, let me point this out
to you; 3D technology has advanced tremendously over the last years. As a grown
woman, I was simply agog at the beauty of the images: the animals’ faces shot
out of the screen with such reality you almost felt able to touch the gorilla’s
nose or fondle the face of a lion cub. The coral reefs were particularly
striking, and I thought the volcanos gave the impression of almost being in the
very bowls of hell itself. In fact, the years and years of expertise gathered
under the roof of the BBC had brought together such a beautiful series of
images that I would dare you not to stare at them agog like a child.
But it is
one thing to take the little ones to see the film – and the children of
Liverpool were allowed in a small group into the screening and seemed to have no complaints but as an
adult… Well… I got bored. I always say that style over substance is a very
dangerous thing. And in a feature film, it is one thing to have this; at least,
being a feature, the work before you will have a minimal storyline and you will
at least have something to focus your mind on. A documentary is another matter.
It professes to teach, to tell you something you never knew before. Enchanted
Planet? It basically boils down to a series of simply gorgeous moving pictures
of Africa. And literally, no substance whatsoever.
I think
this is a rather extreme version of something I see a lot in 3D films. Possibly
because 3D itself is still a relative novelty, entire segments are dedicated
seemingly simply to showcase what the director can do with the 3D equipment.
This makes for some stunning visual results but tends to sacrifice a bit of the
content. I mean take Gravity by Alfonso Cuaron. Would the storyline have been
so gripping if the film was in 2d and had no breathtaking shots of planet earth
to fall back on? I am very, very dubious. Sandra Bullock’s character was
positively flat in places quite frankly. I know I’m meant to really sympathize
with her and all that but it somehow reached a point where we got to that epic
low angle shot of her at the end to describe what a survivor she is, I mean I
know I was meant to be excited but all I could think of was how totally OTT it
felt. Take Avatar. In 2D would it be any different than any of the hundreds of
films about the white man and the noble savage? Anyone who knows me in real
life has heard me call the film reverse Pochahontas in 3D. Take a minute to
think about it. You may not WANT to admit it but you know I’m right.
But what, I
hear you cry, of art for art’s sake and beauty existing simply for its own
sake? Why nothing at all, I never said this was a bad thing. I have nothing
against beautiful pictures existing merely for their own sake. I just found it
very hard to sit through 90 minutes of it that’s all. As far as the technology
that was used goes, along with the locations it was used in, the film truly is
groundbreaking. If you’re over the age of 8 however, it is far too long.
Bizarrely enough though, for all that ranting, I would recommend you see it. If
you like films as much as I do, you are a highly visual person and you simply
must not miss this series of beautiful images. It is truly impressive to see
what our planet is capable of, but perhaps almost as impressive to see how far
we have come with our own technological developments. 3D is here to stay no
matter what you think of it, I personally think it’s a matter of learning to
make substantial works of art with it. At the moment, we’re just staring wide-eyed at it,
marveling. I definitely wouldn’t recommend you see it all in one sitting,
however. How you’ll manage that as 3D home entertainment is not quite a day to
day item I truly do not know but… Hmm,
I’ll just be quiet and let you decide this one for yourself, shall I?
Well here comes a second documentary which I think works particularly well with last week's entry about Vivian Maier.
What if it were possible to recreate a masterpiece? I mean completely, down to the smallest details, down to the nitty gritty. Would that make you rethink the whole unique side of a work at art? And if art is actually completley recreated, well, how unique is this artwork in the first place?
Don't raise your eyebrows or tut at me... Just scroll down and it'll all make sense :)
First though, here is a little something to get you in the mood. Or satiate your curiosity if my little post piques it, so to speak. CLICK here
Art and
science. In our modern day, they almost seem like two polar opposites. It is
rare to imagine anyone doing more than dabble in both – if you’re actually good
at one or the other, that means, well…
You’re either “scientific” or “artistic” you can’t very well be both… Or can
you?... Tim’s Vermeer is all about art and scientific method coming together,
forming a rather beautiful whole – or several beautiful wholes that adorn the
walls of the world’s museums today. As the makers of the documentary point out on numerous occasions, there was a time when science and art were not so
sharply separated, and that inventors and artists were essentially the same person.
I mean, think Leonardo Da Vinci, inventor, anatomist, painter and sculptor. And in a funny kind of way, while the artist who also invents is “multitalented”
the inventor who wants to dabble in art is a kind of cheat. You know, he or she
is not “creating” it from the gut; he is probably using “inventions” and things
so it “doesn’t count”. Well, Tim Jenison is one inventor who asks the question
“well why the heck not?”
Tim Jenison
is a scientist and technician in every
sense of the word; he has built entire businesses on the back of his ideas and
won awards for his inventions. Given this context, it may seem a tad odd that
Tim wants to paint a Vermeer. But he does. And I don’t mean he wants to take art classes
and paint a copy of an original picture. He wants to paint the exact same,
identical thing. Why? Well…
See, Vermeer’s painting techniques have been a
matter of excited discussion in art history circles. The way he captures light; the fine detail present in his technique that is not present in the work of any
of his contemporaries… The way he did it is widely discussed. There are some
that claim he was merely talented, that he picked up a brush and paintings came
forth as we know them today naturally.
Well that’s
one possibility. But there are several schools of thought that point out that
as a wonderfully romantic idea as this may be, there is a greater possibility
that Vermeer had a significant amount of ocular and technical help in composing
his paintings. Now Tim’s no “pick up a brush and create a masterpiece through
inspiration” kinda guy. But if there is a technical riddle to be puzzled out,
well… Now you’re talking. With his close filmmaker friend Penn Jilette looking
on (thorough his lens, obviously)Tim begins to puzzle out how on earth Vermeer
achieved what he achieved. He is very strict about how he does it – nothing
short of 17thcentury technology is allowed. Tim even grinds his own
pigments and makes his own paint when the time comes to actually start on the
work itself. But will Tim be able to “recreate” a Vermeer? And if he does, what
does this say about the nature of this theoretically “inimitable” work of art?
Now first
of all, rest assured. If Tim wasn’t a multi-millionaire with nothing but time
and money on his hands, this endeavor would not be possible. So there is no
danger of the mystique of the arts being dissipated through the mass
reproduction of the work, down to the original pigments. I think there are two
issues here. And this is one of them. Art and artistic creation is by nature
surrounded by a certain “mystique”. But the question is why should it be?
Anyone who has truly got stuck into any creative endeavor will know that like
any craft they all have their hard and fast rules, techniques to learn. Of
course there is a certain “je ne sais quoi” added by the artist and that makes
an artistic craft different from, say, carpentry. But if an artist is good at
their craft, yes techniques have been learnt. Yes there has been blood sweat
and tears all over the “boring stuff”. So why, on earth should the idea of hard
work and technical advancement coming together with art be such an alien
concept? If you find the idea that Tim has almost “recreated” a Vermeer strange
and bothersome, do bear in mind that it is a “recreation”. Not a creation. Tim
is not trying to “be” Vermeer. He is not trying to claim he is “better” than Vermeer
or that Vermeer was some sort of cheat. He is exploring the technical aspects
of the artistic work of Vermeer. You know the old adage about creation being 1%
inspiration and 99% perspiration? Yep. It’s that 99% Tim is looking at. If it
weren’t, if you think about it, Tim would be a painter by trade not an
inventor.
And then
there are those that take offence at the claims that Vermeer used anything
other than raw talent to paint his pictures. By “anything else”, don’t get me
wrong, I mean hand ground lenses, camera obscuras and mirrors (it’ll make more
sense when you watch the documentary) . Somehow, again “it is cheating” if he
didn’t just pick up a brush and the painting didn’t just flow out of it as it were.
Ok, you may subscribe to this point of view. I would respect you for it. But I
would like to point out that you are opening a whole can of worms here. What
of, to give but one example, graphic designers? Yep, those guys creating
beautiful works of art using computers. Are we going to say they are NOT artistic
or creative because they use computer programs? Ok,
take it one step further – photographers. What will we do about them? I mean
sure we all have cameras but even if we learnt the nitty gritty of the machines
involved, would we have the dedication and inspiration to get the same results
as an award winning photographer? Yeah, I don’t think so. I mean sure, you
could RECREATE a picture. Could you create an equal but different one from
scratch? Yeah. I’m not even getting into
the whole concept of cinema and, God help us MOVING pictures… Try and create
those with no technical help if you can – and let the rest of us know if you
succeed!
And another
thing – ok so Vermeer used lenses and mirrors etc. to create his works. His
ability, through the use of these techniques to capture details (he could even
zoom in on details ladies and gents! Yes he could!) was unparalleled in his
day. His ability to capture the subtleties of light and shadow are second to
none, they are that close to reality. To the best of our knowledge (after all
the actual details of these techniques were closely guarded you need to
remember) it was his use of mirrors and lenses that made his perception so
sharp, so close to real life… Much like… A camera. Vermeer, the 17th
Century photographer? Take a minute to think about it… It’s not as nuts as it
sounds…
So, for those of you who haven't already seen it, this week we explore the life and times of Vivian Maier. An extremely talented photographer whose works went largely undiscovered in her lifetime.
Now after having spoken and written about her so much, I realised that I really should make it a bit easier for you guys to actually see what I am talking about. So behold, her official website.
I would have made arrangements to have a few pictures of hers on the website but you know... They're just all so striking and I... You know what? Just go check them out. You'll see what I mean.
I have been "into" a rather dizzying range of movies recently. One is zombie films - but more on that in the coming weeks. The other is documentaries.
If "movies" usually provide a healty dose of escapism, documentaries I find provide food for thought. It's a strange one really, the medium means there is a healthy dose of escapism still invovled but it is firmly rooted in the real world, in real life.
This week we take a look at the life and times of Vivian Maier. And while we're at it we start talking a bit about art and it's nature. First of a couple of documentaries that got me thinking on this topic - let's see what you make of it...
It is not
exactly a foreign concept to any of us,that of the artist recognized only
posthumously. Such was the life of Vivian Maier – she lived as a nanny and a
recluse for most of her life and it is
only recently that her life’s work – tens of thousands of photographs
are recognized as true works of art. Now they fetch thousands of dollars and
she is recognized as one of the true original artists of our time.
The kicker?
Maier was not a struggling artist per se. She never tried to get her pictures
published. Sometimes she never even looked at them – hundreds of rolls of film
she had taken were discovered undeveloped, their contents seen but once, by
Maier, as she took the pictures. In her old age she was a hoarder and an
eccentric and her lack of funds meant that she had to stop taking pictures
around the ‘80s, most of her income being eaten up by storage costs. The
tragedy being that the only way she was recognized as an artist was when she
could no longer keep up the payment for her storage container and the contents
needed to be sold. Even after her “discovery” well into her old age, Maier
continued to be a recluse and what we know about her is infuriatingly sketchy
and piecemeal. The only clues we do have about who she truly was are in fact,
what she chose to capture with her camera.
Well this
documentary is an eye-opener. It is, in my mind, the clearest indicator of what
separates the true artist from the amateur. Or rather the spirit of the artist
from the spirit of the amateur. Because the artist is COMPELLED to create
whatever it is his talents lead them to create. I am not about to advocate
the whole “art for art’s sake” movement in its entirety mind you. I fully
believe that some works can be too pretentious and depending on the medium and
genre of course, the interaction with the audience is a very important point to
consider especially if you are trying to become more commercial as an artist. But
this is another component to the work. It is not about how you hone and present
it. It is the moment of its inception, its birth. There is almost a
subconscious tug on the artist to create and to create in a certain way and the
results come pouring out of one, regardless of whether others get to see it or
not. Then of course comes the whole discussion of whether art is indded art
with no audience. And there’s the whole parable that you can’t call yourself an
artist unless you have been paid for your art. It has to be admitted that the
fact that Maier hoarded her life’s work instead of sharing it with the word does
constitute an argument against her. Or at least raises questions. The concept of
the reclusive artist living in his/her world save for the output of her/his
artistic endeavors is not an alien concept in the slightest. Think of directors
like Terrance Malik for instance who haven’t given an interview in years and
are yet venerated by the industry (although he does tend to divide audiences
slightly. I have had long drunken arguments about whether Malik is pretentious
or brilliant at parties. I claim he’s brilliant by the way ). The need to hide
your works is one I do not get. Well, I do in a sense. Creating anything, be it
a film review, an abstract painting, a photograph or a story is a very personal
affair. It means taking out a little piece of your soul, your being and laying
it bare for all to see. Photography is a strange one when it comes to that. Especially
the kind of street photography Maier invested in. It consists of observing life
closely and knowing that ephemeral moment that captures the essence of the
subject and preserving it, in theory for all eternity. So you would be
presenting slices of your own life. Because even if you are the observer, you
are there. You are part of it (and from this of course, the importance of the
audience). So a person who was almost pathologically private and secretive like
Maier would find it difficult to let in an audience. After all, even in life
she chose to be the audience, the observer, she is rarely “part” of the photos.
We are, as the documentary points out, deprived of that telling clue that would
have been provided by the results of her editing, i.e. what she would have
CHOSEN to represent her to the world. But instead we are just left with her
vision which we must make of what we will.
In the same
way that Maier’s unassuming, dusty suitcases gave birth to the thousands of
undiscovered works of art, this unassuming little documentary gives birth to
thousands of thoughts and potential discussions on the nature of art and the
artist. And it is one of the quirks of our universe that Maier could have
started such a (potential) argument without having ever said a word…
Age is relative. That's what I keep telling myself as I finish the third quartr of the first year of my third decade. I'm not really hung up about my age. That said turning 30 is an odd one. You're officially not "young" anymore. You're not middle aged but... Well. Far as it may be, it IS the next stop. There is a whole lot of mental adjusting that goes with that.
Which is why I liked this film. I know it's the typical Hollywood story of the underdogs doing good in the end... But hey... What can I tell you, it's hot. It's making me feel old :)
When I
first saw this film I wasn’t entirely sure I wanted to see it. I mean come on;
it’s yet ANOTHER heist type movie where George Clooney is the ringleader of the
gang. You may love George Clooney but don’t try and tell me it’s an original
idea an entire “Oceans” franchise later. But then again, as you know, I love to
keep a movie or two just for “take your brain out and relax” purposes so
Monuments Men went onto that pile. It has, much to my surprise, thrown up a
number of rather deep questions. It’s partly the film and partly my weird mind.
But hang on. Let me tell you what the film is about first.
The
Monuments Men. Otherwise known as Monuments Fine Arts and Archives. A division
not quite like any other seemingly composed of the ones the regular army
rejected. Older men, men with birth defects – heart trouble say – and their
jobs as art historians, curators an architects don’t seem to prepare them for
their roles in the war either. But you see, this a division not quite like any
other. Their duty, should the army chose to accept it (or not) is to find the
great works of art the Nazis have hidden somewhere behind enemy lines and when
possible return them to their rightful owners. The war is raging on despite the
fact that everyone seems to feel it’s winding down, so the Monuments Men face
many real difficulties. Not least among them is the fact that they find it hard
to get the Allied Forces to actually take them seriously. But the Monuments Men
are deadly serious. As their superiors and the Nazis are about to find out…
I mean it
is what it says on the tin. George Clooney – albeit not so much the handsome
rogue but a middle aged and wise curator – leads a group of disparate
(brilliant enough to make this elite force yet, naturally, sorely in need of a
leader) individuals. He has a right hand man (Matt Damon) who fills the quota
of the “heart throb of the film” an archetypal, Muppets style grumpy old man (Bob
Balaban) and the slightly younger men who gets a kick out of teasing him (Bill
Murray) forming the bickering couple (oh come on, you HAD noticed there always
is a bickering couple. Yes you had.). There are the obligatory casualties (I
will not be snide about this as not only does it represent real deaths but I
actually welled up quite a bit while watching them). There is a moment when you
think that the whole affair will be in vain. There is a chance breakthrough
and, at one point a race against time. Oh and a love triangle. Yeah. Original
it is not. But perfectly executed it most definitely is. Don’t expect any
artistic revelations from this movie but of its kind it is a perfect example.
And I mean, with a veteran like Clooney at the helm it’s pretty much a
slam-dunk. If nothing else, he has been in enough of this kind of movie to be
able to replicate it in his sleep. Plus he is a bit of a talent too, so yeah. Well
and come on with that cast (And John Goodman AND Jean Dujardin)
But then
again, I reckon the way this project got green-lighted was that it took this
tried and tested frame to a touching and original story. It is not surprising
at all that at 53 Clooney turns to a story that gives a band of seeming rejects
a place in the lime light and in history. I mean, not that I’m for a minute
implying that Clooney is headed for the scrapheap any time soon but age plays
on all our minds constantly at the best of times but in ageist Hollywood it
must be more in the forefront of Clooney’s mind than most. And I mean age is
not the only thing that makes this group “rejects” – things like sickness plays
a part also the fact that these men are not “manly men” but academics, artists,
the sensitive ones, not the big “manly men”. Of course this is less of a stigma
in the 21st century but in the ‘40s this was a whole different
kettle of fish. And of course the army is the army at all times in history so
the Monuments Men have the added duty of proving to the people who should be on
their side that what they were doing was… Well, worth doing. And I’m pretty
sure that also appealed to Clooney the artist.
In closing
I just want to express my surprise at the partly coincidental influx of films
speaking of the efforts to hide artworks from Nazis in my life. They are not
all new films, the topic has cropped up in some of the older films I have
watched (I am being a very good girl and keeping up with watching my older
movies as well as my new ones). I do wonder, in this age where the digital
melds with the classic art forms, what our reaction would be to a similar
invasion. Would we desperately be trying to secret great artworks from our
enemies? I mean, would we be doing it as desperately as the films tell us were
done? There’s part of me that would say no. But then again, our whole concept
of art has changed a lot too. I was watching a show by the Japanese group
Siro-a the other day (check them out Here if you haven’t heard of them). It’s a
wonderful visual performance combining computer generated imagery with theatre
and dance. I mean just by his poise and the way he held his hands I’m pretty
sure at least one of the performers I watched was classically trained. Yet the
whole amazing performance would not be possible without heavy digital
intervention. I’m pretty sure the older generation would say “Oh that’s not
art”; but is that fair? Is it even true? What would we try and hide if World
War 3 broke out? And would the new Monuments Men include, in part at least,
hackers? Take a minute to think about it… It’s not as crazy an idea as it
seems…
Kayıtlar
