Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

PLEASE VISIT THE ALL NEW DEINONYCHUS' DEN AT DEINONYCHUSDEN.COM!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2 

 
Mako Crab Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cryptographer

Posts: 3211
Reply | Quote
The Whole Plate: Film Analysis Series


If you haven't seen Lindsay Ellis' series dedicated to examining the Transformers movies as a means to introduce people to all the various branches of film study, then check it out. It's very cool & insightful. She's planning on making it a "12-ish" part series, and is 6 episodes into it as of this posting.





















Last edited by Mako Crab, 9/23/2017, 11:36 am
9/23/2017, 3:13 am Link to this post Send Email to Mako Crab   Send PM to Mako Crab AIM
 
Mako Crab Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cryptographer

Posts: 3211
Reply | Quote
Re: The Whole Plate: Film Analysis Series


The Whole Plate- episode 1

- It was funny rewatching this, because this time I noticed that Lindsay was using the camera technique she talks about in episode three of The Whole Plate; changing locations on-screen & forcing the eyes to refocus. Though I think the way she used that technique here was more in-line with Hitchcock than Bay. As she points out in ep 3, Hitchcock (and others) would change the location of focus, when the director wanted a visual cue to silently tell the audience, "HEY! This part is important! Pay attention!" So it was cool to notice that technique already in use.

The rest is just set-up for the series & what we can expect to see. Though I do find it important that she rightly called out the general disdain for these movies in academic circles. While the realm of academia & even casual movie goers & even die-hard Transformers fans & fans of Bay's specific brand of Transformers (so pretty much the entire world) all scoff at any close analysis of these movies, she points out that these movies have become a wildly successful & important touchstone of film in general. Lots of other movies imitate techniques & camera work popularized by Michael Bay in these movies. Like, he's been using a lot of the same tricks in his movies for years from the low sweeping cameras to shooting helicopters flying in the sunset. But his specific quirks never got picked up & copied so much until after the success of Transformers.

That, and Bay's Transformers are insanely successful coming in just behind mega-franchises like Star Wars, James Bond, Lord of the Rings, & the entire Marvel cinematic universe. And TFs has come in just behind those franchises despite having less entries in its series (only 4 movies at the time her first episode went up). So basically yeah- she spends a lot of time explaining why this series deserves to be looked at, because the entire world has said that these are mindless popcorn movies that don't merit discussion. I personally have seen die-hard fans of Bay's Transformers get upset when anyone attempts to look at these films critically. It's baffling. I almost want to say it goes back to the idea of politique that Ellis brings up later, where these flicks are just simple childish entertainment & fans want to keep it that way. Except no- Bay injected a lot of politique into these films, where the cartoons err on the side of innocent entertainment.

One final thing- she states in this first ep that film interpretation will vary from person to person. It goes back to that idea of the director communicating ideas to the audience & how well those ideas get across. If the director sucks at communicating his ideas, then his films could carry many unintended meanings. My favorite stand-by in this regard is Jack Sholder's "gay" Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. For years he apologized for accidentally making Elm Street 2 a bizarre coming out story for the horror genre's first gay hero despite being in a hetero relationship (though played by a gay actor!). It wasn't until gay acceptance became widespread that he finally accepted the honor & stopped apologizing for his strangely queer movie. The fact remains that what he tried to communicate through film was interpreted by the audience much differently than what he had intended. It's that 2-way street of film meaning.

And with that, I'll be back with my thoughts on episode 2.

Fun fact- this scene is barely edited!


Last edited by Mako Crab, 9/23/2017, 3:36 am
9/23/2017, 3:15 am Link to this post Send Email to Mako Crab   Send PM to Mako Crab AIM
 
Mako Crab Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cryptographer

Posts: 3211
Reply | Quote
Re: The Whole Plate: Film Analysis Series


The Whole Plate Episode 2: Auteur Theory vs Michael Bay

So I love the irony that under Film Academia's own guidelines, that Michael Bay can be considered an auteur. For a director whose body of work seems to be more reviled the more successful he becomes (not unlike the hate for Steven Spielberg in his early career), it must be a bitter pill to swallow to count him among the greatest auteur directors of all time. I say that not knowing who's even counted. And also, I don't much care about auteur theory anyway. As Ellis stated at the outset, film is a collaborative effort by its very nature, so to recognize only the director seems dickish to everyone else involved in the process.
But that leads into the big about death of the author- the idea that it doesn't matter who the director is. The film has to stand on its own merits, detached from the director. And since Bay doesn't line up perfectly with all the bullet points of auteor theory, Ellis argues that he can be seen as a good example of death of the author also. He doesn't state his intentions or World-view, so we have only his movies to guess from.

Anyway, aside from sticking it to film academia, which scoffs at these movies, the most interesting part of Ellis' video was the big on politique: the idea that Bay took something innocent that he has no reverence or nostalgia for (TFs) & then added in a bunch of real-world stuff that actually matters. Like his movies say, "why would you want to play with plastic toys, when you could be playing with titties?" DOTM's battle of Chicago is constantly conjuring up flashbacks of 9/11 with its falling skyscrapers & destruction of a civilian city. The scene at Chernobyl & really all the moon conspiracy is all calling back to Cold War stuff & the space race.

But for all that, there were a handful of instances where politique was present in the old Sunbow cartoon. The Golden Lagoon takes up the anti war sentiment still gripping the country after the end of the Vietnam War. The God Gambit takes on the touchy subject of religion, cults, and false idols. WebWorld gets into mental disorders & sees Galvatron checked into a psyche ward. Politique is there- not all in your face like the movies and not very often, but G1 did dabble in the waters on occasion.

And with that- on to episode 3!
9/23/2017, 12:29 pm Link to this post Send Email to Mako Crab   Send PM to Mako Crab AIM
 
Mako Crab Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cryptographer

Posts: 3211
Reply | Quote
Re: The Whole Plate: Film Analysis Series


The Whole Plate Episode 3: Why Is It So Hard to Remember What Happens in Transformers?

I would love if someone could conduct a survey of random people on the street & see just how much of these movies they can remember. Because I think Lindsay is right on the money about the visual mayhem taxing the brain way too much.
I can remember pretty much everything from the first 2 movies & most of the third. Of course, I've seen those ones the most. But AOE is a different story. I've only seen that movie once when it first came out. While I can still remember many scenes & moments (it does help that I've also seen it talked about on the forums ever since it came out too), I have a harder time remembering how all the scenes connect together & flow as a cohesive story.
Like, first they're in America. I remember the part where Stanley Tucci says they have to head to their Chinese HQ for whatever reason, but I don't remember how the Autobots also wound up there. And then I'm pretty sure Galvatron was there too, but again, I have no idea how or why. I remember the scene where Bumblebee is making fun of Stinger in the showroom, but I can't remember why he's there to begin with, how they got to that room, or why he's separated from the rest of the team, or what happens after that scene. And there's a lot of bits like that, where I vaguely remember stuff but not how it connects to anything around it.
As a result, I think that a lot of what I consider to be the most memorable scenes in my mind are the scenes that Bay would consider filler. You know what one of my favorite moments in AOE is? The scene where Cade is telling Optimus about the trouble he's having with Tessa & Optimus says, "Oh. I had to go through that with Bumblebee too." That's the scene. There are others, of course, but that's the one whenever I think of AOE. Not some big action set piece or anything like that. Not anything that Bay crafted for months on end & is especially proud of. Just a short little bit where Cade & Optimus talk about raising their young.

With all this in mind, it's funny to think that Ellis is making the best argument I've ever heard for the need of boring shots. Maybe boring is the wrong word, but certainly shots & editing that allows the brain to process what it's being shown & for the audience to take a breath. I'd wager the reason everyone remembers Optimus', "I am Optimus Prime," speeches at the end of every movie is part because the repetition of doing it every movie drills it into our heads, and part because the camera actually stays on him for a long continuous shot.

The ironic part is, I can just imagine Michael Bay getting into film making, and making it a personal mission to make every shot a beautiful one. No boring shots! Beautiful, moving, dynamic shots! Never the same angle twice! It's extremely ambitious & any one scene or shot would always look amazing. And he's shooting all this using only his imagination as to where the robots will fill the screen. It's all really impressive. On paper it sounds absolutely incredible. But if the end result is, as it seems to be, that a good majority of the audience can't even remember much of what you've shown them, then all those beautiful shots were for nothing.

HOWEVER- it could be this very Bay aesthetic that has led to the success of the movies. Right at the start of the video, Lindsay said that she herself went to see the movie a 2nd time because she had to know if her memory was faulty. What if that's what the rest of the world has been doing?! That's how they're making the money! It's diabolical! And kinda genius!

In summary:
Visually confusing character designs
+
No clear focus in the frame
+
Rapid fire cuts
+
Contrast of continuum of movement
=
Peoples' brains tuning out & only half remembering stuff.



Last edited by Mako Crab, 9/24/2017, 12:34 pm
9/24/2017, 12:15 pm Link to this post Send Email to Mako Crab   Send PM to Mako Crab AIM
 
Mako Crab Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cryptographer

Posts: 3211
Reply | Quote
Re: The Whole Plate: Film Analysis Series


The Whole Plate Episode 4: Genre

A long time ago I tried to organize my movie collection by genre. When I came to Predator I ran into a serious question- the same question that plagues Lindsay in this video essay; what genre do I sort this into? Is it a horror movie? It's got a monster that goes around killing people 1 by 1 & then skinning them & keeping their skulls for trophies. Is it a sci-fi movie? It's got an alien with futuristic technology. Is it a war movie? It's got soldiers & generals & guerillas & sub-plots about Russians and Cold War intrigue. Is it an action movie? Cuz there's tons of action.

After wracking my brain for a while, I tore apart my entire movie collection & alphabetized them on the shelf instead. And I've never looked back since. Trying to sort the TF movies into a single genre is likewise an exercise in frustration as it doesn't conform to any one particular genre neatly. And so I don't care.

I was more interested with the segment, where she talks about the inherent need for genres to change or go extinct. By definition, genres have to have a set of tropes that fulfill expectations. Watch one submarine movie. Good. Now you've seen every submarine movie ever made. Literally. They all have all the exact same scenes.

- scene where everyone gets quiet & looks at the ceiling.
- depth charges! !@#$!
- bolts exploding & richocheting all over the place followed by lots of water.
- the capt takes the sub down further than it should be able to go. Lots of creaking metal sounds.
- a depth charge sends the sub down EVEN FURTHER! Oh !@#$!! Somehow doesn't get crushed under the pressure.
- someone uses the periscope.

They're all the same. The interesting part comes when movies in a genre start playing against expectations. She gave some examples like Blazing Saddles & Logan. Frozen is also a good example of trying to turn the fairy tale love story on its head. If the audience keeps getting the same thing over & over, they will eventually get bored & go looking somewhere else for their entertainment. So yeah. Cool. Um... ok, I got nothing else. I mean, I pretty much agree with what she said. But it's still not an aspect of film study I find engaging. Onto episode 5!


Last edited by Mako Crab, 9/25/2017, 9:05 am
9/25/2017, 3:12 am Link to this post Send Email to Mako Crab   Send PM to Mako Crab AIM
 
MachSabre Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Location: Under a rock
Posts: 9523
Reply | Quote
Re: The Whole Plate: Film Analysis Series


Lindsay Ellis is way the !@#$ smarter than anyone gives her credit for.

---


9/25/2017, 10:55 am Link to this post Send Email to MachSabre   Send PM to MachSabre AIM
 
Mako Crab Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cryptographer

Posts: 3211
Reply | Quote
Re: The Whole Plate: Film Analysis Series


Yeah. I've been enjoying her other videos too. I never saw her when she was part of Channel Awesome, but I think her new content is far more interesting and engaging than the few CA videos that I've watched of hers. The CA videos were more like plot summaries. Anyone can do that. But her solo stuff is way, WAY the hell better! It's the kind of stuff I'd put on a memory stick & preserve in a time capsule.

I recently watched her series about The Phantom of the Opera, Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2, and some others. And I love whenever she drops by Andre the Black Nerd's to do a movie review. That stuff is gold.
9/25/2017, 6:35 pm Link to this post Send Email to Mako Crab   Send PM to Mako Crab AIM
 
Trium Shockwave Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Systems Tech

Posts: 4587
Reply | Quote
Re: The Whole Plate: Film Analysis Series


Lindsay has been amazing ever since she dropped Doug's format for the Nostalgia Chick reviews. Instead of going through linearly and poking fun, she brought her film academic chops to bear and did more analysis. I only wish her actual professional workload allowed her to do more videos. I always learn a ton from her.

---

In case you don't read enough of my BS here:
http://applesanddango.wordpress.com
http://www.twitter.com/triumshockwave
9/26/2017, 9:43 am Link to this post Send Email to Trium Shockwave   Send PM to Trium Shockwave AIM
 
Mako Crab Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cryptographer

Posts: 3211
Reply | Quote
Re: The Whole Plate: Film Analysis Series


The Whole Plate Episode 5: Feminist Theory

During my time in college, I had to take a class that focused on postmodern literature. Ever since then, I've had an instant negative knee-jerk reaction whenever someone describes something as being post-modern. Maybe it was the particular works we had to read, maybe it's postmodern writing itself, but whatever it was, it grew a contempt for that particular genre of writing within me. Also postmodern art movements like DADA. Man, I hate me some DADA.

Lindsay explained postmodernism more quickly & easily than a whole course-load of classes ever did. Basically, postmodernism thinking takes a look at commonly accepted universal truths (the status quo) & asks,

"BUT WHY?"

It's just that easy. And under that definition, I can actually enjoy postmodernism. I've probably written postmodern works & not realized it. So Lindsay's big question:

"Why do all the robots gotta be dudes?"

To deny that 99% of all the robots are coded as male is disingenuous & asinine, when we all know Hasbro ordered a show that would cater to boys & explicitly stated that there were to be no girls at the outset; an order they would later change, but regardless, they made it clear that all the TFs were to be male.

Simon Furman cemented the idea that the TFs have no gender, and maintained that stance long after Hasbro had already begun introducing female characters into the show. His disdain for the idea of female TFs came to a head with Spotlight: Arcee, which is like the only spotlight anyone still talks about because of how problematic it was, and Hasbro began seeking a way to finally fix the comics so as to include female TFs and (hopefully) broaden the brand's appeal. Of course, Ellis is talking about an even broader question: why does our culture see the idea of a female *LOOKING* robot an aberation in need of an explanation, but the dude bots with their deep manly voices, robo beards, robo pecs, chomping robo cigars, etc are accepted as normal?

I like Furman's idea of the TFs being a non-gendered species, but he never fully explored the idea. He never had robots that coded as female & never had a moment where the humans or other organic aliens could ask, "hey, why is that one a girl?" He never flipped the switch and had an alien species mistake Optimus & the dudes for females. Basically, he put out a statement & then never did anything with it.

The Geth from Mass Effect are a non-gendered machine species & avoid the topic by having them look inhuman & thus hard to relate to. But they also establish that the Geth can transfer their digital minds into any type of body, so they sidestep gender identity altogether. One moment they're a hulking quadruped & the next they're an agile biped. *IF* they have any concept of gender identity, it's gender fluid.

Back to TFs- I do think it's funny that the reason Roberto Orci gave for not including Arcee in part 1 was because there simply wasn't enough time in the movie to explain female TFs. But when she does show up in part 2, there's no explanation either. Like, they just had her there & it wasn't a problem. I don't think anyone in the audience questioned or cared that Arcee was female. Or Alice.

Anyway, to finish up, I'm just going to quote Lindsay here, because it's a great explanation of why we even look at & examine films closely.

Critical studies is not here to shame you for what you like, much as it apparently feels that way to some people, but rather to help give us the tools to question the media we consume & what it says about the culture that created it.
9/27/2017, 1:34 pm Link to this post Send Email to Mako Crab   Send PM to Mako Crab AIM
 
Mako Crab Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cryptographer

Posts: 3211
Reply | Quote
Re: The Whole Plate: Film Analysis Series


The Whole Plate Episode 6: Male Gaze

The premise of this ep suggests that Michael Bay actually hates his lead male characters of Sam & Cade. I had this whole thing written up questioning that idea until I remembered that Shia LaBeouf himself hates all but part 1 & that the TF movies were just a stepping stone gig for him, so he could go on to better things. I did find one interview where he claimed that Bay himself was no fan of the Transformers either and that neither of them believe in the material they're filming. Anyway, I think it may be a leap to say Bay actively hates his mains, especially since it seems like he enjoys working with the LaBeouf & Wahlberg, but I think it is safe to say that Shia is no fan of the material or the character he plays.

You hear the cynicism he has for the movies & how he loathes them & how working with Spielberg was a disappointment & you have to wonder how much of what we don't like about Sam comes from the written words in the script & how much is injected by LaBeouf with his seeming constant negativity for the whole thing. Especially when you know that a lot of the scenes are shot while ad-libing & reworking dialogue.

To be fair to the writers that put Sam on a page before he ever appeared on a screen, I think they were trying to craft a lovable loser archetype. Lindsay points out that Sam becomes involved in the events of the first & second movies through no fault of his own, but because he simply had macguffins unknowingly in his possession. And that's part of that archetype right there- Sam didn't do anything wrong. He didn't make any bad choices. He just got sucked up into this sci-fi interplanetary war through no fault of his own.

Part 2 has him leaving home for the first time & trying to find his way in life. And again, he gets dragged back into the madness despite refusing to help Optimus earlier. Part 3 finds him down on his luck. Again, he's done everything right, he went to college & saved the world twice, but now he can't even get a job. It's a common story you see, where college educated people are taking retail jobs, & finding that all their hard work in college isn't paying off.

I'm sure that's what they were going for with Sam ON PAPER. But then you've got an actor that hates his own movies & a director that has no interest in the stories, & neither of them care about or believe in the material & actually seem to have (mild) contempt for the movies that have skyrocketed both of them to mega stardom, & it is very, very likely that the Sam of the script got turned into something else onscreen.

I can't say too much about Cade. It's been too long since I've seen AOE & I've yet to see TLK (it's gonna happen soon now that it's up for rental!). But again, on paper, I'm sure they were going for the hyper protective dad that's a loser in his own daughter's eyes, because he can't succeed at anything.

... it was worth it though, to get that scene where Cade cracks open a bud lite on a car door. :D



With Simmons & Mearing, I feel like there was one important detail Lindsay left out. In DOTM, Simmons constantly hits on Mearing, who, as Lindsay points out in episode 7 of TWP, despises being called "ma'am" & seems to have self loathing for being female at all. So here comes Simmons & he's just constantly reminding her of her womanhood. At the end of the movie Simmons does pick her up off her feet & kiss her, & for the first time in the whole movie she finally smiles & enjoys the moment- promptly before having him arrested & taken away. That scene is important for Mearing, who finally accepts that she can be feminine & still do her job in a male-dominated field, but also important because it punishes Simmons for his behavior.

The Michael Bay avatar in the movies was punished for his Michael Bay-havior.

Anyway, I don't find myself disagreeing with Lindsay's assessment of the characters so much as the motivation behind their portrayal. With Bay, I'm not so sure he hates the characters as he simply doesn't care. Shia has made his hatred publicly known, so there's no question there. And I want to think the writers were actually trying, but what they put on paper got lost in translation. Much like how the framing of Megan Fox completely handicaps her character, but that's more Episode 7 stuff.

I do agree with her wider assessment, that media can shape public perception & oftentimes towards negative feelings. Her example of the dude wondering how come he can't get a hot chick, when loser Sam Witwicky has scored two was right on the nose. Stories of entitled dude-bros lashing out when they face any degree of rejection are commonplace.

And on that note, onto episode 7!
9/29/2017, 1:28 pm Link to this post Send Email to Mako Crab   Send PM to Mako Crab AIM
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2 





You are not logged in (login)

PLEASE VISIT THE ALL NEW DEINONYCHUS' DEN AT DEINONYCHUSDEN.COM!

EMERGENCY OFFSITE SHOUTBOX HERE