SCREEN-L Archives

July 1995, Week 3

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"m.broderick-student-hum-acacia-92098793" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 19 Jul 1995 11:16:52 +1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (68 lines)
Rich, try looking at TRON, which is virtually (sorry, bad pun) all
sfx spectacle. See whether you think the sfx aid and abet the narrative or
distract from it. You could also try comparing this with BUCKAROO BANZAI
and read Vivian Sobchack's essay called "Postfuturism" in her book
Screening Space (Ungar, NY 1987). Another tack might be to consider if sf
cinema can 'work' without spectacle or sfx. Not too many titles immediately
come to mind, though. Maybe FRIENDSHIP'S DEATH and MAN FACING SOUTH
EAST...
 
--------------------------
Mick Broderick
--------------------------
 
On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, Donald Larsson wrote:
 
> Rich Washabaugh asks:
> "Going by the disparity in the number of these movies produced compared to
 other
> genres (thats not a scientific accounting, just observation from several video
> stores) and the general response from friends when I tell them I rented "2001"
> or "Stargate", the sci-fi/fantasy/horror genres are not overly popular. (I'm
> going to abbreviate these three into just sci-fi to save typing and space)
> Aside from the idea that the realities constructed by sci-fi are not readily
> understood by audiences, "Dune" for example, my guess is that the special efx,
> though nice to look at, actually keep people from enjoying the story. The
> movies turn out to have long, boring flight sequences, shots that contain so
> much visual info that most people can't assimilate it all, etc..."
>
>
> This is an interesting question, but I think the real test might be to get
 your
> friends' reactions to films of proven popularity such as the first two ALIENS
> films, the TERMINATOR films, and of course ET, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and the Star
> Wars trilogy. All of these films certainly revel in spectacle and have lots
> of interesting stuff to look at--but all of them fit rather comfortably into
> other established film genres: Action Film, Horror, etc. (though CLOSE
> ENCOUNTERS might be an exception).
>
> DUNE and 2001 are also very interesting visually, but are going to be
 extremely
> frustrating for people trying to watch them with standard narrative expecta-
> tions. While I like DUNE rather better than many people do (mainly *because*
> of its visuals), it suffers from a nearly-incoherent narrative that's a result
> of trying to cram an epic work into a couple of hours of film. 2001, on the
> other hand, is so spare and lean in its narrative, its human characters so
> devoid of affective affinity (i.e., likability), and so filled with narrative
> gaps (few explanations of why or how something happened) that you have to go
> for the spectacle (as many did when the film was released) or understand that
> Kubrick wants you to look somewhere else than standard narrative patterns for
> a model to rely on.
>
> So, in short, my answer would be that the FX in and of themselves aren't
> necessarily as distracting as you propose. What is more important is the
> narrative structure of the film itself--and what the film viewer thinks that
> he or she expects on going to see such a film.
>
>
> Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
>
> ----
> To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
> in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
>
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2