[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: The Lost Child...



> I completely disagree with you. I am not arguing science here. I'm arguing
> for the medium of *filmmaking* and *art* which is *not* your forte. You do
> not understand the medium.

     Obviously.  My artwork probably doesn't hold a candle to yours.  I am
SUCH a damn Phillistine.       
 
> some railroad tracks. The point is that a movie *IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A
> DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF REALITY!!* It employs exagerration on purpose. It's
> called surrealism. 

    I know what surrealism is, turkey.
    I would argue that depends largely on the movie, and what the movie
is trying to accomplish. What about "revisionist" westerns like
"Unforgiven" and "Dances With Wolves", the entire point of which is to
present an un-flowery veiw of the American West? What about movies like 
"Apollo-13" and "Glory"? The entire point of THESE movies is to tell a
story that is as true as possible.  A talented director can make us see
the inherently fascinating and absorbing aspects of real life without
distorting reality, if that is the objective of the film. Yes, there are
always slow motion shots, creative lighting, etc... to help enhance the
effect, but none of these things neccessarily mean distorting the facts.
If I want the kind of art that deliberately warps reality, I'll rent
something by David Lynch or Tim Burton.
     How does the "surrealism" of Jurassic Park enhance the film?
Speilberg went through all that trouble to make the dinosaurs act like
animals rather then monsters.  He even expressed the opinion that he
was telling an entirely plausible story.  One thing I have found about
movies is that a little bit of restraint can give the subject matter an
extra hint of authenticity.  If you are watching a movie about living
dinosaurs or space travel, in my opinion that extra authenticity can make
the scene seem that much more real, in which case the trade off is for the
better.  Did you scream during the T.rex attack or think "hmmmm.... 
interesting concept"?  Was the T.rex scary because it behaved like a
six-tonne predatory animal, or Godzilla?  Are the best actors the ones
that are convincing, or the ones that go over the top? Honestly, do you
think the misrepresentations of paleontology and Chaos theory enhanced the
film, or were they just errors?    

> Wrong again. Jurassic Park is *NOT* and never was supposed to be a
> realistic movie. What Spielberg and Chrichton have said is that it is based
> on a kernal of scientific possiblity.

    "This is probably something that will really happen someday".  Watch
some of the old interveiws with Speilberg and Chrichton.   

> The fact that they did such a good job with surrealism has
> tricked you into believing it is more than it is.

    This fellow is too cunning to be understood.
 
> My advice to all you uptight people out there who share Jeff's and Brian's
> opinion is to just sit back, enjoy the best dino movies ever put on the
> silver screen, and leave the filmmaking to the filmmakers.

      Phil Tippet made some animatics of the Velociraptors in which thier
tongues flicked in and out, like a lizard.  Horner came down on them like
a ton of bricks and they changed it.  Would Jurassic Park have been half
as convincing and real as it was if the filmakers and paleontologists
hadn't worked together to give it authenticity?  

LN Jeff
O-