SIZE (and presentation) MATTERS, by Chris Derrick – Sympathy for the Devil #2

December 8, 2011 Chris Derrick 0 Comments

Who hasn’t seen Andy Warhol’s famous Mao Tse-tung screen print? It’s nearly as ubiquitous as the famous (free) image of Che. You’ve probably seen the Mao silkscreen on T-shirts, posters, in art books or other sundry presentations… and the whole time I was kind of like “so, cool idea, but so…” that is until I saw one of the originals at LA’s Museum of Contemporary Art a few years ago as part of broader exhibit, and the most startling thing about Warhol’s Mao is that it’s huge, I mean fuqing HUGE! Maybe 30 feet high! The sheer scope for a silkscreen and the technical skill required to make it (at the time) is a little mind-boggling, and all the more impressive. Same thing happened to me when I finally had a chance to see Albrecht Durer’s Four Apostles in the Alte Pinakothek in Munich — those two paintings are over 7 feet tall! And the details of the symbol imagery can’t be accurately presented in a photograph (I’m not counting magnified close-ups).

I think about the actual presentation of visual art a lot these days (even recently printing some old photographs at 24”x30” gave them new meaning)… and while IMAX and 3D presentations seems to be the holy grail for a lot of filmmakers these days (Christopher Nolan has taken it to a new height), the onslaught of 3D films over the last three years or so hasn’t been too terribly exciting or engaging (namely any horror 3D).

In fact, most moviegoers probably have 3D fatigue (and how much of that has to do with the $5 to $10 surcharge the multiplex charges?!!?). So after seeing Scorsese’s HUGO, Spielberg’s ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, DreamWorks’ PUSS IN BOOTS and Tarsem’s IMMORTALS — all in 3D — in the last two weeks what I have gathered is that the masters of the craft definitely make it worth watching… the same dedication to telling consummate cinematic stories that Spielberg and Scorsese have done throughout their careers puts them in a vaunted position when directing a 3D spectacle.

What’s most interesting is that HUGO isn’t a spectacle film, and you would think that it doesn’t warrant 3D presentation — but the 1920s Paris that Scorsese conjures up and the inner guts of the train station’s clock tower would NOT be as claustrophically immersive and all-together impressive without 3D… and as an interesting treat, he’s even gone so far as to present the silent films in 3D!

Why mention Tarsem and his uneven film in the same breath as the maestros? Simple… IMMORTALS was one of the most authentic 3D experience that I’ve had (if only the story was more rich and less pedestrian…) for live-action or CG-animated projects, and TINTIN — where Spielberg (in full man-child mode) pulls off some spine-tingling action and chase scenes that he’s probably wanted to do for decades but was hampered by that pesky thing known as real-world physics — is more engaging as an animated project than say AVATAR, and equal to Disney’s UP (which was more impressive to an acrophobic like myself) in terms of the 3D experience. I wasn’t familiar with Herge’s stalwart youthful hero, but I’m curious to know more now.

IMMORTALS’ failings are in the script and in the attempt to make a more expansive film than 300 with the same production technique of recreating ancient Greece on a sound stage. That seamless integration wasn’t there, and there are other drawbacks (which I saw in 300 and where present here too), but some of the simple dialogue scenes contained remarkably impressive 3D. The assault/battle scenes are stunning, but they would have been so in 2D. Tarsem, like Scorsese and Spielberg, utilizes the y-axis quite effectively for dramatic effect… and that makes the film worth seeing (too bad Skyrim was released the same week – major marketing faux pas).

There were such high hopes for 3D a few years back, and then the shoddy conversions (2D to 3D digital upgrades) that soured a lot of the paying audience of the perhaps unnecessary experience. However, it was bound to happen that the top filmmakers would eventually get around to making films to be presented in this format. It would be interesting to see Francis Coppola make a 3D film or Tony Scott or Christopher Nolan or Steven Soderberg…

The only other film that I’ve extra anxious to see this year, also has presentation peculiarities about it, and that is THE ARTIST — the b&w, 4:3 aspect ratio SILENT FILM that earned its lead actor the best actor award at Cannes earlier this year. Talk about beig BOLD — a silent film!?!? In monochrome? In the old film dimension prior to Cinemascope and Panavision? Only the French (you might say); and yes, only a courageous French filmmaker could get something like THE ARTIST financed, produced and distributed…

I kind of hate it when Americans shit on the French for embracing art for art’s sake (that IS the motto at the bottom of MGM’s logo… if you didn’t know), as some of the most influential, daring, dynamic, and narratively inventive films have come from France. Also, the Lumiere Brothers and George Meliese were the earliest of cinematic storytellers; so hats off.

The idea of doing a silent film intrigues me all the more now, after again being struck by the “magic lantern aspect” of Georges Meliese works seen in Scorsese’s HUGO (which is by far his top film since GOODFELLAS, perhaps even more so because it is his love letter to the magic and inventive joy of silent cinema that he strives to preserve).

Obviously, you have to have something worth presenting in a spectacular format… but considering how the final presentation format is critical to the overall impression, it’s a wonder we don’t lament about the migration of filmed entertainment to smaller and smaller portable screens. Massive presentation is part of the experience. Why do you think Christopher Nolan is personally approving various IMAX screens that will show the first advance images of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES in front of the IMAX versions of Mission:Impossible – Ghost Protocol? ‘Cause he gives a damn about presentation…