 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.220.101.87
In Reply to: Re: overall opinion? posted by halfnote on December 18, 2005 at 20:16:26:
I have not seen this remake, so cannot make comparsions vis-a-vis the
original, however, I have a question concerning the original's 'wonderful mythic quality': Do you think B&W photography
(especially in creating Skull Island's atmosphere)gives it an advantage over Jackson's remake in generating that mythic quality?
I've read that B&W allows more personal fantasy in interpretation,
which seems to coalign better with mythos, than color, which imparts
more realism. Conversely, color photography would be more appropriate
in certain types of films that do not emphasize fantastic imagery.
~AH
Follow Ups:
I understand what you mean, but I don't think it applies to the new Kong. The film is definitely a mixed bag, but where it sucseeds I think its often precisely due to the inherint power and grace of the Kong myth. It comes through despite Jackson's unsure directorial craft. Despite the general failure to create an elegant form for the movie, despite the frequent misteps in pacing, orchestration of mood, casting, and some very mediocre camerawork and editing, particularly in the first act, the film has a lot of punch and is worth seeing.In general I'm not usually comfortable using the term "myth" to characterize any work of art or entertainment outside of Homer, partly because that word was hijacked in the 1980's by a bunch of New Agey pop culture zombies, and to this day remains largely meaningless thanks to their dopiness.
For example, Lucas is routinely touted by many to be a "modern mythmaker" or "shaman" of some kind- all for retooling bits of movies in a space opera setting. One or two of the Star Wars films are wonderful fun movies, and the first one, (before his dopey "enhancements" perpetrated in the late 90's) brushes up against greatness in some ways. But his films are no modern myths.
Kong however, is the real deal. A genuine modern myth. I'll probably regret it, but I'll go out on a limb and say it may be the only true myth that has surfaced in modern times for modern times. The only other thing that springs immediately to mind is Mobey Dick, ( I mean the book, with no disrespect to Huston's interesting movie version intended).
Jackson's uneven handling of Kong was just good enough that the myth breaks through the clouds in parts, and when it does its riviting, color photography and all.
That's an interesting point. And there are many who point to films like the original Psycho to make exactly this point, which seems all the more relevant when you take the shadows of the jungle and the lights and nighttime backdrop of New York, particularly in the original Kong film. But I think the mythic elements arise more out of the simple ingredients of the story -- the great beauty, the powerful, yet vulnerable beast, the romance and freedom of the jungle, and the harsh, unforgiving reality of the great modern metropolis, the juxtaposition of the attainable weak human lover with the totally impossible, yet irresistibly powerful lover in the guise of the libidinous monster, the ultimate romantic force in Jackson's remake.As far as your comment regarding color film's inability to convey fantasy, per se, I think I'd have to disagree. Afterall, the utopian painters emphasized color, as did the romantics of almost every stripe. That great artist of commercial fantasy art, Frank Frazetta, worked in color as well. And we all remember a little films like "The Wizad of Oz", and 2001." I thought, in fact, that some of Jackson's sets in the new KK were Frazetta-esque, as his monsters certainly were. Perhaps, though, this is just my impression. Yet, I am sure that black and white, as you assert, can be very effectively used in fantasy film-making as well.
Yes, I agree with your disagreement about color's inability to adequately convey fantasy. Shortly after positing that notion, and
after some mental percolation, "Wizard of Oz" and "Fantasia" popped up within me noggin, making that notion seem too categorical. ~AH
children's fantasy movies. ~AH
AH, I don't know how to distinguish them, and I would say they apply to both equally. I know when a children's tale is a children's tale, and I know when an adult tale is an adult take -- but there is a continuum between the two that makes any certain line of demarcation impossible. It is true, that children's tales generally involve children dealing with childhood's problems, and adult films with adults dealing with the problems of maturity. But it is also true that we remain children until the end, and that childhood's problems simply masquerade themsleves in the day to day preoccupations of so-called adults.If an adult finds a "children's" tale involving and though-provoking and truth-revealing, is it a children's tale? On the other hand, an adult film is clearly identifiable when children find it alien and boring, when they don't have enough experience to relate to it. So an adult shares the child's experience, but the child cannot always relate to the adults. Apart from this, I don't think there's any simply way to distinguish to two poles.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
