Movie Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Random Thoughts' started by sphinxvc, Dec 29, 2015.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ColtMrFire

    ColtMrFire Writes better fan fics than you

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Likes Received:
    6,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    One thing I didn't touch upon in my Dark Fate review was an aspect that has kind of taken over Hollywood action filmmaking in the last several decades.

    It's something I've slowly become aware of since the late 90s but was never able to put my finger on exactly what it was until a guy named Matthias Stork did an amazing job deconstructing this new style, coining it "chaos cinema". Stork's amazingly insightful break downs of this phenomenon is worth your time (links at the bottom)

    The basic idea is that action sequences in movies all throughout the 20th century (with exceptions here and there) stuck to a pretty strict structural system in order to maximize audience orientation toward the linear progression of an action sequence. Action was generally fluid and easy to follow, making it easy to understand and get emotionally invested in the stakes, so that you cared what actually happened.

    Chaos cinema, which borrows heavily from music videos, treats action as more of an abstract concept, there to be managed or mismanaged as the filmmaker sees fit for one simple goal: the perception of chaos. And as its title suggests, shots and visual geographical information are shuffled at random in order to give the impression that LOTS OF STUFF IS HAPPENING, so that the audience is disoriented, and bludgeoned into being thrilled.

    IMO this is lazy filmmaking at it's finest. For directors who have little to no skill in constructing these elaborate, important sequences, becoming the filmmaking equivalent of a button masher in a fighting video game... someone who doesn't know how to execute the combos, so hopes to get lucky by senselessly and randomly mashing buttons.

    Dark Fate really stands out as a chaos cinema tour de force. The action sequences a jumbled mess of confusion and chaos. At one point during the freeway chase, the truck our heroes are driving is going in one direction (left to right) and in the next shot or two is literally going in the opposite direction (right to left)! Consciously you know the truck is still trying to outrun the Terminator's truck, but subconsciously this lack of geographical consistency creates a kind of cognitive dissonance and it is one of the primary reasons people don't feel connected to the action.

    Check out Stork's excellent essays to get a much better understanding of these ideas!

    Just click the blue button and it will take you the video



     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2019
  2. crenca

    crenca Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Likes Received:
    3,829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Southern New Mexico
    Even before I click on the links, I first really noticed this "music video"/chaos style filmmaking when I saw the first Bourne Identity. It's the norm now, and has just about ruined "action" movies (of whatever genre) for me.

    Also one reason I liked the first John Wick was a certain amount of realism in the hand to hand (I was a competitive Judo/Jiu Jitsu player for years). Sure, it's all the flashy hail-mary-low-percentage moves but it's often real Jiu Jitsu nonetheless. As the John Wick franchise has gone on it has become more cartoonish, but at least it is not quite "chaos cinema" yet...
     
  3. Prydz

    Prydz Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Norway
    Finally got to watch "Joker". I really enjoyed it. Excellent acting by Joaquin Phoenix. He is the movie, and I dont think anyone else could have done it better.
    7/10.

    ^
    I dont know what they did with John Wick. John Wick 3 is like JW 1 & 2 turned up to 11.
    JW 3 is kinda the worst movie, but the most funny.
     
  4. Boops

    Boops Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Likes Received:
    3,179
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    New York
    This is all super interesting. I'd argue that the Bourne sequels by Paul Greengrass were the ones that veered heavily into "action as abstract concept" territory. @ColtMrFire captures it perfectly when he talks about perception of chaos being the overriding goal. It's kinetic but is very hard to engage with on a dramatic/character level, and I usually hate it.

    The first Bourne movie by Doug Liman has incredible fight and chase sequences that are models of clarity and are, in contrast to Greengrass's approach, engaging, dramatic, and easy to follow throughout.

    I happen to like the Greengrass Bourne movies, but the action sucks compared to Liman's original.
     
  5. ColtMrFire

    ColtMrFire Writes better fan fics than you

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Likes Received:
    6,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Chaos cinema can be used effectively as a tool by skilled directors. I don't think Greengrass was going for clarity in those actions scenes as much as just a kind of frenetic chaos as some kind of dramatic point.

    But I also think some directors don't have a choice, as they are not very good at doing action in the first place. So they rely on the crutch of chaos cinema to get through those scenes. I may be giving Greengrass too much credit. He's a fine dramatic director but may be out of his depth in the action genre.
     
  6. Pharmaboy

    Pharmaboy Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    May 3, 2018
    Likes Received:
    2,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Goshen, NY
    I couldn't disagree more about Greengrass' BOURNE films, particularly THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, which IMO is a model of taut/tense pacing and momentum.

    This "Chaos" idea is worthy (haven't had time to review those video links), and it helps explain how less than inspired/talented directors (and screenwriters) use action as a fog machine to obscure & misdirect viewers--pushing them into a state of overstimulated delirium as a proxy for entranced/recruited viewers who feel compelled to follow a story to its conclusion: ie, the difference between TRANSFORMERS and THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM.

    I also draw a distinction between chaos as a visual style (often used in place of genuine inspiration & ability to set up a deep, coherent action scene); and chaos as a purposeful element of an otherwise coherent/compelling action scene. That terrific train station scene in THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM is a great example of the latter:
    • there's a lot going on visually, with multiple people in pursuit, multiple moments of hand-to-hand combat and/or spycraft
    • but with the overarching countdown represented by the assassin setting up behind that big screen, then delivering the killshot
    ie, a chaotic scene, but masterfully sequenced/directed and made visually coherent.

    I saw a film the other night that sadly illustrated chaos as hail mary pass by the director: TYLER PERRY: SEA OF MONSTERS. I was on deadline & too busy/lazy to change the channel. For 2 hours countless incoherent CGI actions scene whirred by, usually with casual disengagement from any real POV by the characters I was nominally supposed to care about. It was propulsive, but shoddy--not in any real way dramatic. A big CGI cartoon.
     
  7. Boops

    Boops Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Likes Received:
    3,179
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    New York
    I don't think you're giving him too much credit, and I agree: his chaos is a deliberate dramatic choice not a crutch. Bourne vs. Desh is a good example of chaos that pretty much works from a visual storytelling perspective:

    But I can't help but think that scene would have been better if Liman was doing it. Bourne the character is not frantic and emotional, so the chaotic camera doesn't feel like a good fit. And the choreography is very good and I'm pissed that I can't see it clearly.
     
  8. Boops

    Boops Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Likes Received:
    3,179
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    New York
    Greengrass is very skilled, and that scene is good. But take Liman's embassy escape scene from the first Bourne as a parallel: a complicated sequence across complicated interior spaces with loads of tension but much clearer and, in my opinion, more engaging and better dramatically.

    Greengrass's car chases are garbage though.
     
  9. fraggler

    fraggler A Happy & Busy Life

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Likes Received:
    5,085
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Tyler Perry? Did you mean Percy Jackson? Tyler Perry doing tween Greek Mythology would have been an "interesting" mashup.
     
  10. crenca

    crenca Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Likes Received:
    3,829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Southern New Mexico
    @Boops, you're probably right in that I am likely conflating the later movies with the first one. Certainly the later ones are chaos and so shakey as to be almost unwatchable.
     
  11. ColtMrFire

    ColtMrFire Writes better fan fics than you

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Likes Received:
    6,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    It's not out of the realm of possibility that some directors know they aren't Spielberg or Zemeckis (directors whos action sequences are textbook examples of the classical style... coherent, tense, exciting, without sacrificing coherence), and attempt to compensate by using chaos cinema and aligning it with their dramatic intentions.

    I don't have a problem with that approach if it works in elevating the material. But it's hard not to look at say, the skateboard chase in Back to the Future:
    (Tip: watch with the sound off and the visual intention will be much clearer)


    Notice how you are always aware of where you are in the town square and how much danger Marty is in at all times.

    The result is that you are a participant in the action rather than a mere spectator. This is what makes it so thrilling and emotionally satisfying. Doubly so for the final clocktower scene. There is a reason that sequence is so memorable.

    Now if these scenes had been filmed using the chaos cinema style, I've no doubt they wouldn't have been as emotionally satisfying or memorable.

    Constructing these sequences takes skill. But they are not impossible. It just takes more work and foresight than alot of directors are willing to put in. A d really alot of studios don't like these kinds of scenes because shooting a bunch of crap from multiple angles means studios can have more control in the editing room if they feel the need to intervene. So part of chaos cinema was born out of this kind of studio authoritarianism. Some directors just don't have the clout to use the classical style. It's unfortunate.
     
  12. Pharmaboy

    Pharmaboy Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    May 3, 2018
    Likes Received:
    2,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Goshen, NY
    HA! Yes, Percy Jackson.
     
  13. ColtMrFire

    ColtMrFire Writes better fan fics than you

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Likes Received:
    6,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Austin, TX
  14. netforce

    netforce MOT: Headphones.com

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Likes Received:
    3,111
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Saw The Lighthouse on Saturday, didn't bring my earplugs and the foghorns were little too loud for me. Watched it with a friend and we enjoyed it. It was fun to talk about how it was open ended in more than a few places. How Willem Dafoe is likely to get nominated for an oscar again.
     
  15. Tchoupitoulas

    Tchoupitoulas Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2019
    Likes Received:
    3,711
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    PA
    Thank you @ColtMrFire for the fascinating, informative posts on chaos cinema (depressing though they are for what they say about the state of movies today). It’s great to have the mechanics of high-quality movies made explicit; it really helps in appreciating them better. Your post on Back to the Future reminded me of an old friend who’d studied film. He'd show me what it was about certain shots that worked so well, as with the axe-swinging scene in The Shining. Until he pointed it out, I’d never noticed the jarring, physical movement of the camera following Jack Nicholson's swing of the axe.

     
  16. Jinxy245

    Jinxy245 Vegan Puss

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Likes Received:
    5,733
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Montgomery, New York
    It's a good point...and I think that's also intentional. When these 'devices' are executed well, most will never notice it. I always feel if it brings me out of the story, there's something wrong.
     
  17. Za Warudo

    Za Warudo Acquaintance

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2015
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    18
  18. ColtMrFire

    ColtMrFire Writes better fan fics than you

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Likes Received:
    6,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Great article. And this quote is what makes me doubt Greengrass' skills:

    "Greengrass: “Your p.o.v. is limited to the eye of the character, instead of the camera being a godlike instrument choreographed to be in the right place at the right time.”

    But our point of view isn’t confined to what Bourne or anybody else sees and knows. The whole movie relies on crosscutting to create an omniscient awareness of various CIA maneuvers to trap him. And if Bourne saw his enemies in the flashes we get, he couldn’t wreck them so thoroughly
    ."

    Greengrass is contradicting himself. Even if unintentionally, it leads me to believe the action sequences in the Bourne sequels are less effective because they don't totally line up with his stated intentions.

    Classical filmmaking is closer to his intentions, as you are much better able to enter a character's state of mind when the proscenium and action is clearly laid out. The reason a character is forced into action in the first place is because of some sort of personal stake. And stakes are way more obvious in classical filming techniques, not chaos cinema, which treats characters and stakes as throwaway concepts... instead choosing to prioritize cheap thrills.

    When you think about it, chaos cinema does not even belong in Hollywood movies, since, on a script level, they are most concerned with strict dramatic 3 act structure and character beats... clearly laid out stakes and dramatic arcs. Chaos cinema works against these ideas, not for them. Chaos cinema is probably better suited to abstract surrealism, avante garde, etc.

    And as I said, it is easier for me to believe directors use it as a crutch, figuring out a way to justify it after the fact.
     
  19. crazychile

    crazychile Eastern Iowa's Spiciest Pepper

    Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Likes Received:
    2,512
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Eastern Iowa
    @Tchoupitoulas , from what I've read about Stanley Kubrick, (and I love all his films except the 50's era stuff), is that if something was in one of his films he meant it to be there. Especially technical aberrations. I'd like to think that in the mind of Stanley this camera shake was intentional to somehow add to the impact of the scene.
     
  20. Tchoupitoulas

    Tchoupitoulas Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2019
    Likes Received:
    3,711
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    PA
    I agree entirely. Even with the occasional, stray helicopter – one of those aberrations you mention – nothing happens by accident in a Kubrick movie.

    It’s the same with Hitchcock. I’m lucky to have an Alamo Drafthouse here. They screened Vertigo recently, and it was great to see again the sequence in which James Stewart tails Kim Novak around San Francisco. Those scenes speak to the point @ColtMrFire made about the coherence of the classical style of filmmaking. They basically involve three perspectives: establishing shots to show where the two characters are; where Stewart is in relation Novak, and then, for most of the time, the perspective of Stewart as he follows Novak and tries to figure out what she’s doing. An entire, crucial plot line is laid out in those ten minutes. And there’s not a word of dialogue in all that time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page