Visual Effects: Constantine

Firstly, what is the difference between visual effects and special effects?

SFX = Special Effects – SFX refres to effects created using the physical pyrotechnics and explosive devices.

DFX = Digital Effects – DFX refers to effects created purely through computer means.

VFX = Visual Effects – VFX refers to effects created using either the digital or special effects or a combination of both.
(source:http://forum.cgarena.com/viewtopic.php?t=51)

I’ve found a site that lists the award winners for the 2007  Visual Effects Society Awards…they also have awards for special effects and its cool to see which films are classified as visual or special effects.

http://www.altfg.com/blog/awards/ves-awards-2006/

I also found the VES-Awards video of the top 50 Visual Effects Movies of all time on YouTube.

One of last years VES winners was Pirates of the Caribbean 3; here’s a really cool before and after video of the visual effects in that film.

CONSTANTINE (2005)

In order to create the hellish parallel existence of John Constantine’s world, nightmarish settings and creatures had to be created. This was done with a range of CG, and 3D animation. A collaborated team of VFX Studios and artists divided the scenes and settings and focused on every minute detail to create what we see in Constantine.

Once storyboarding was completed the artists were able to determine which scenes would need  VFX and could then conceptualize, design and build the models and locations needed as a base. This was demonstrated in the “Special Features” section of the DVD where we saw the junk yard style setting of hell and the modeled puppets for the demonic characters. A lot of puppets, models and props were used in the film as points of reference and CG was then applied to add a sense of realism and to finish off the details. This is  often done when trying to create realistic computer generated effects; a model is created and is then integrated into final composites by 2D artists. A lot of the animation interacts with the human actors or is a part of a human actor (such as the wings on Gabrielle or the veins on Lucifer’s face). These sorts of effects are obviously added to the actors once the scene is filmed.

I was impressed with the amount of detail that goes into each character. For VFX to appear realistic all aspects of movement (such as joints, muscles, reaction to wind etc) are studied as well as things like shadows and reflections (like the way Gabrielle’s wings move and the shadow they cast or how lights reflect off her feathers).

The beauty of Visual Effects is that it allows movies to create scenery and situations that can’t or don’t exist. Constantine takes a very graphic, well known comic book and manages to realistically translate it into a believable, nightmarish film. The characters were truly visionary, thoroughly designed and executed and there were very few scenes that didn’t have some sort of Visual Effect enhancing what we saw. The incredibly executed VFX in Constantine even made the poor screenplay bearable. For me, good VFX don’t feel like an effect has just been dumped on a scene, rather that it’s a realistic part of the scene, as if the actor was there really interacting with the CG character or walking through the CG location.

It isn’t difficult to see why more and more films are using VFX these days. With the every increasing quality of technology and talented VFX artists with such an incredible eye for detail, we are now able to create any setting or character we want without the hassle of building detailed sets or using heavy, restricting costumes.

We even see more and more films doing away with the need for actors. We thought animation had come along way with the likes of Surfs Up and Toy Story, but now films like 300, Beuwolf and 10 000BC are hitting the big screen, all made mostly with CG. VFX will continue to push the boundaries of film making and allow directors, writers and actors to be able to stretch their imaginations and limitations.  

Storyboarding: Sweeney Todd and Indiana Jones

Above is the storyboard for the opening credits of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd. This is a great example because of the indication of movement with the arrows. Below is an actual shot from the opening credit and you can see the original sketch of this shot on the storyboard.

The next storyboard is from one of the earlier Indiana Jones movies ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’. Once more, you can see the actual shots that were used and how similar they are to the proposed shots on the storyboard.

Other examples of films in relation to course content…

So, like I mentioned in my “How DVF has changed the way I watch movies” blog, I’ve learned to appreciate all of the elements that go into film making. I’ve looked over a few of my old favourite films and reflected on the films I’ve watched lately and come up with a list of examples of films that relate to the topics we’ve studied.

 

Development and Conceptualisation:

Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

In rewriting the latest version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory I’m assuming Tim Burton went through a lot of development and conceptualisation particularly because of the expansion of the storyline, additional depth added to the characters and the application of the true Tim Burton style. As with Speed Racer, a certain respect and homage had to be paid to Roald Dahl’s book and the original film.

Screenplay:

Winners of the Oscar for Best Screenplay, Juno (2008, Diablo Cody) and Crash (2004,Paul Haggis).

Both great stories full of visual translation and both demonstrating Syd Field’s screenplay structure. I love both of this films and totally appreciate their scripts. Links to the screenplays:

http://www.awesomefilm.com/script/Crash.pdf

http://cinemascopian.com/pics/2008oscars/juno.pdf

 

Storyboarding:

Sweeny Todd (2007)

Another Tim Burton flick. Tim Burton is such a visual storyteller! He has such a specific, unique style and I think that storyboards would be essential on a Tim Burton production to communicate with the director, designers and the crew. (See screenplay blog)

 

Framing and Composition:

Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Great film, one I only watched recently. Gone Baby Gone is Ben Affleck’s directorial debut and for that reason it seems as if he’s stuck hard and strong to the “Elements” of framing and composition. Couldn’t ignore the elements like talking room and the rules of thirds in this film.

 

Audio/Soundtrack:

Once (2007, music by Glen Hansard & Marketa Irglova)

This film is written around the music in it. So from a soundtrack point of the view the music is crucial to the storyline. The audio is done well too. One of my pet peeves in movie musicals is differing audio quality between spoken scenes and songs but Once has this great realistic, raw, live feel throughout that showcases the music and musical talent of the actors seamlessly.

 

Lighting:

Titanic (1997)

Oldie but a goodie. The lighting played a crucial part in making this film realistic. A great example of this is when the ship is actually sinking and we see people battling on board and in the water as it does. Great examples of lighting at night and following source.

Editing:

Fight Club (1999)

Incredible movie. Great pace, lots of jump cuts, acceleration editing, cutaways, insert shots…its got everything and it breaks a few rules too to keep the audience on their toes as the movie unfolds.

 

Visual Effects:

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004, VERY BIG VFX team)

This isn’t a big budget Lord of the Rings or Matrix style visual effects masterpiece. However, VFX and utilised in the coolest ways in this film and are crucial to the warped storyline. Effective without being cheesy and Hollywood blockbuster.

 

 

 

Editing: Jarhead

I’m lucky to have a bit of background into Jarhead. In 2005, the year the film came out; I attended a launch party in LA where Jake Gyllenhaal gave a speech about politics and his very honest opinion about war and how anti-war he is. With that narrative in mind, I see how he chose this role to speak out about the pointlessness of war. Some people may watch this film as a film about a bunch of soldiers but the editing of Jarhead definitely completes the narrative of the film.

 

The entire story is told from the perspective of Anthony Swofford and throughout the film, whatever action is going on in the scene, we see shots of “Swoff” and his reaction or involvement in the scene.

 

Jarhead starts by establishing “Swoff’s” motivation for being in the marines. We see cutaways of his life before the marines with scenes of his parents, institutionalised sister and his girlfriend. The audience is led to assume that this is his reason or motivation for enlisting. As the film unfolds his motivation moves further and further from these things as we see the cause-and-effect of the psychological brainwashing of the “jarheaded marines”. Now he is driven by his desire to use his rifle and kill. The audience sees his unfulfilled desires unfold and the devastating effect this has on him and the fatal effects this has on his sniper partner, Alan Troy.

 

Naturally as an action film, we see a lot of acceleration editing not just in battle scenes but also in frivolous scenes between board soldiers. An element of Jarhead that I really enjoyed was the way the pace changed during powerful and emotive moments. One of my favourite scenes is the scene at the boot camp where the soldiers are crawling through barbed wire, surrounded by explosions and gunshots over head. One of the soldiers freaks out, stands up and is shot and dies. The fast paced edits and confusion ends and we see a lingering wide shot as a sombre reality check.

 

These wide shots were used constantly throughout the film as establishing shots. Most of the establishing shots were also used to demonstrate continuity and the lapsing of time. During the first half of the film, passing of time is shown at boot camp by focussing on dwindling numbers of soldiers during training. During the second half of the film, wide shots are combined with a counter marking how many days the soldiers have been in the desert. The disintegrating psychological state of the soldiers is another indication of the passing of time.

 

The pace of the shots play a large part in the narration and portrayal of emotion in Jarhead. Pace and quick edits were often used to create tension in battle scenes.

This is evident in one of the combat scenes in the desert when “Swoff” has the task of running through the gunfire to deliver batteries to the communication troops. This scene has a lot of quick edits but it constantly matches the action. So, while we’re watching him from behind and switching to him from the front, there is great continuity in the action. In contrast, there are lots of slow, drawn out scenes that almost appear to be in real time. This method is utilised to portray the boredom of the soldiers and idle time spent waiting for go into battle. The paces of the edits were always consistent with the emotion of the scene, often accelerated in battle scenes, or lingering in intense scenes.

 

Overall, I found the editing of Jarhead really crucial to the narrative of the story. The point that the writer (Anthony Swofford himself. Screenplay by William Broyles Jr.) was trying to get across was the emphasis on wasted time in the desert, the sub-culture of soldier life and it’s irrelevance to society as well as the physiological parallel of the values a soldier has. Characters unfolded, motivations changed, battles were fought and life moved on; all within 82 minutes. Jarhead allows the audience to move and connect with the story because of the way it is edited as it allows the audience to move through time and gain perspective of the emotions being portrayed as a result of the editing, pace and continuity of the film. Jarhead was edited by an editing legend Walter Murch, who edited films such as The Godfather, The Talented Mr Ripley, The English Patient and Cold Mountain.

How Digital Video Foundations has changed the way I watch movies…

I’ve enjoyed Digital Video Foundations enough to change my major from marketing to Digital Video. I’ve always loved every aspect of movies but studying films and all of “the elements” has allowed me to gain an appreciation for the art of film making. We were warned at the beginning of this course that we would never be able to watch a movie the same way after this course. In the past, I would generally focus on screenplays, soundtracks and acting just because they are all things I love. Now, I watch films more intently because I’m interested in the choices that were made. Rather than seeing the total picture or just the actors and storylines presented to me, I pay attention to shots, framing, interpretation of script and direction. I now have an appreciation for the planning (pre-production, screenplays and storyboards) and for the process that produces what we actually see.

 

Most people may not be able to watch movies the same, but for me, this course has challenged my definition of a “good movie”. During this course we have seen some great films, some mediocre films and some downright awful films. While we’ve been required to study different elements of each film, doing this has helped me appreciate certain elements that I wouldn’t have noticed previously. For example, I may not like the soundtrack or screenplay of a film but I can still appreciate the lighting or the way it is shot.

 

So what is a good film? Now that I have the knowledge about the different things that make up a film, rather than being critical about films, I’m now able to appreciate more films. Recently I rented a movie called Things We Lost in the Fire. I was drawn to the cast…and the endorsement it received on the Oprah Winfrey Show. I did enjoy the acting, the storyline had a lot of potential (but was left a bit open ended) and at several points in the movie I actually said “that’s a great shot”. At another point I commented on the lack of music in the film except for in certain scenarios. At the end of the film, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it to a friend, but I was able to say I enjoyed it because I could take something from it. So rather than complaining about this course making me critical, it has forced me to pay more attention to films and the not-so-typical stuff like the composition, framing and lighting.

 

Saying that a film is good or bad is completely subjective to the person watching it. When you have the knowledge about what makes up a film, would you say that a film that demonstrates all of those elements is a good film? There wouldn’t be much room left for creative license if every single film stuck to all of the elements all of the time. In conclusion, this course has taught me that there is good in every film (sounds soppy I know). Though it may be something you need to look for or have a little knowledge about before hand, there is something that can be taken from each film, whether you enjoy the actual film or not.

 

Lighting: Commando

Set within a timeframe of 10 hours, Commando tends to jump between day and night and indoor and outdoor settings constantly during this action film. There was a lot that this film got away with in regards to lighting as Commando was able to use the action genre as a setup for stylised lighting.

 

A constant lighting feature throughout the film was the fact that many of the scenes followed source. ‘Practicals’ such as lamps, windows, streetlights, sunlight and moon light were utilised time and time again. As a result of this, shadows were often cast on actors, actor’s faces sometimes appeared shiny or over lit and reflections of lights could be seen on objects. Sometimes this leant to a stylised shot and other times scenes seemed under lit and were slightly unclear. This could have often been fixed with a balanced 3 point lighting system.

 

A lot of the scenes utilised location lighting and were shot in open spaces e.g. The wilderness, the airport runway, the harbour and the garden where the fight scenes take place. As a result of this, shadows were sometimes cast over actor’s faces and while a fill light could have been used to soften these shadows it made the scene more realistic and the director got away with it. Several scenes were shot during the night and while most of these scenes still tried to follow source poor lighting was the most evident during these scenes as they were often difficult to follow. However, this was actually quite effective in the warehouse scene. Arnie is spying on the workers and trying to find the office and as he creeps through the setting we see shadows cast across his face and his figure move in and out of light as he moves. A nice depth is also created at this point because in the foreground we see Arnie, in the mid ground we see the silhouette of stacked crates and in the background there are flashes of glowing light as if welding or something similarly industrial is taking place in the warehouse.

 

Other poor points of the lighting appeared during several scenes where multiple characters were in shot having a conversation. During these scenes half of the character’s faces were often in shadows. I found that the leads were often shiny as if a light was being bounced directly into their face. At first I thought this was a makeup fault as their foreheads were glowing, but even during the chase scene in the mall, people appeared to be sweaty or shining.

 

In true action genre style, there were several hero shots. This was achieved with the backlight. In several shots Arnie had a glowing hair light behind him. Silhouettes were used to create mood when the main bad guy appeared. So in contrast, Arnie appears in a pool of light and the bad guy is in darkness.

 

It may be the era or it may be the genre but there were many things that this film got away with. I’m not sure if all of the lighting choices were deliberate cost cutting methods or a tool to create a certain feel to the film. Ultimately, there were some great moments in the film in regards to lighting and a few that were a bit shoddy that could have been fixed by something as simple as the 3 point lighting setup.

Elephant: Audio

 

I was ready to shred this film really early into it. It seemed to avoid originality, lack dramatic structure (we were still being introduced to characters 10 minutes before the end), loosely stick to any compositional guidelines and lacked any gripping dialogue (the majority of the film is improvised).

 

However, I would be lying if I said this film didn’t affect me. Naturally, when dealing with such a well known scenario and socially relevant/recent issue (high school shootings) there is a sense of anticipation and underlying tension. Gus Van Sant was able to create that tension without even trying just through the subject matter. I found it painful sitting through the mundane long continual shots and meaningless, shallow dialogue – but ultimately…that’s what Elephant is all about. The fact is the horrific final moments of this film can take place amidst the mundane, slow-paced, typical, everyday setting of any high school. These every-day kids, all with their own dramas and within their own misfit worlds all have the ability to kill or be killed, and Elephant does not attempt to offer a solution or blame anything for causing this. There isn’t necessarily a connection between the characters or a reason for them to die, and Elephant doesn’t allow the audience long enough to build a deep connection or knowledge of any character –its just as impersonal and unjustified as a massacre. This film just IS…hate or love it, it’s simply presenting the reality of a sad, unexplainable occurrence that we’re all aware of.

 

As for the sound, it’s obvious from very early on that the soundtrack is minimal. When you’re sitting there gritting your teeth over yet another long boring walking sequence, you almost crave a Hollywood style soundtrack to pick up the pace and drive the film forward. Ultimately, the lack of music in Elephant imitates life. As much as we’d love it, we don’t have a constant soundtrack playing in the background of our daily life, so to remain true to the representation of the reality of everyday life, Elephant focussed less on the soundtrack but heavily on the soundscape. I was constantly drawn to the sound effects, both frame accurate and wild. The most interesting part of this was the direction of the sound. There was a constant ambience as characters moved around and often as the shot would change (eg following the character from behind, to seeing them from the front as they walked) the direction or depth of the sound would change too. The shot was either led or followed by their footsteps or the sounds they walked towards or away from (eg. Chatting students, nature sounds.)

 

There was a great clarity in the dialogue and it often felt as if there were distinct layers of sound created through the hierarchy of microphones. A fine example of this is the cafeteria scene with the 3 girls. Their conversation is clear and distinct (probably caught by a boom mic), then there is the noise of the cafeteria, followed by soft nature sound effects from outside. These different layers of sounds would be captured using a range of microphones to record the overall ambience, right down to the detailed dialogue between the girls.

 

There are constantly natural sound effects in this film. Silence doesn’t seem to be used often and this is true to the realistic feel of the film. There is constantly a conversation in the background (eg. The scene in administration where the secretaries are talking about the picture taken in Hawaii) or at least some form of traffic or birds chirping. These are examples of wild/soft sound effects. Essential frame accurate sound effects were sounds like the gun shots and students fleeing the halls of the school (though these were often also wild/soft sound effects)

One moment that I thought was incredible was the scene after Alex and Eric had been through the school on their rampage. Alex walks into the canteen and all you hear are soft birds chirping outside in contrast to the gun shots, screaming students or the earlier bustling canteen full of students. There are several points in Elephant where Alex seems overcome or confused with the noise in his head. This is represented by a distorted synthesized sound. The scene in the canteen is interrupted by Eric describing his part of the rampage, and Alex kills him suddenly…then able to clear the noise again.

 

The few bits of soundtrack in Elephant are made up of synthesized, distorted instrumental music. The official Elephant website states “Much of the film’s sound design is comprised of musique concrète, a form of electronic music developed in the late-1940s and based on natural sounds rather than conventional instruments.” (www.elephantmovie.com). The music was not necessarily emotive so it supported the heartless, detached nature of the killers. A haunting contrast in the film is the inclusion of Beethoven’s “Für Elise” and Piano Symphonies Nos. 14 & 2. I don’t think that there was any strong meaning behind this music selection, beside the fact that the actor who played Alex just happened to be able to play these songs. One moment I did notice was when the “jock” character is walking to meet his girlfriend “Für Elise” is playing. You could relate that to the stereotypical assumption that school massacres are often aimed at jocks or popular kids. Music is used sparingly throughout the rest of the film but is used most commonly to mark the introduction or focus on a new character. This simply breaks the previous scene from the next.

 

There was no narration in Elephant but music, sound effects and dialogue were essential to the flow of this movie. I almost felt as if the quality of the sound throughout the film was crucial because the storyline and even the visuals were often bland and mundane. The realistic sound effects and character specific dialogue were essential to making Elephant as realistic as it is.

 

Kill Bill 2: Framing and Composition

 

Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill 2 is a brilliantly constructed film that utilises and demonstrates every element of composition and framing. Kill Bill 2 is almost comic book-like. It often feels like you are watching a story board unfold because each shot seems so thoroughly planned and set once you are aware of the elements and “rules” of composition and framing. Tarantino works a lot in wide shots, long shots, close ups and extreme close ups. Quick edits between these shots (and the use of panning and zooming in the camera work) adds to the comic book feel. You often feel like you are jumping between every aspect of what a character is seeing and experiencing within that moment/scene. An example of this is when BB wakes at the back of the truck and the scene inside the coffin as she tries to escape.   

 

There are several reoccurring features in the shots in Kill Bill 2, they are:

-         The use and creation of depth/dimension/perspective (foreground, mid-ground and background)

-         The use of framing, lines and angles (to draw the viewer’s eye to the centre of interest)

-         The use of scenic wide shots

 

Tarantino tends to use depth/dimension constantly. I believe this creates a mood of solitude and menace throughout the film and lends to a juxtaposition of BB’s secluded world and the comic-book-like parallel world the characters seem to exist in.  To me, this dimension is something that a lot of films don’t utilise. Many films seems to use in-your-face, “what you see is what you get” styled shots, where the characters or simply placed within the setting. However, the shots in Kill Bill 2 have an element of depth and dimension which translates to visual perspective of the setting and the centre of interest’s perspective.

 

The centre of interest (usually the actor) tends to always be in the foreground (usually to the left in Kill Bill 2, interestingly). Often, the mid-ground has several strategic supporting points of interest (E.g. the character’s parked car, BB’s weapon on her back, furniture or accessories that suit the scene). This dimension/visual perspective is also created by the use of lines, lighting and framing (not through camera frames, but through directing the viewer’s eye by lighting or positioning the character within a distinct space/frame). Doorframes, windows, holes broken through walls were used throughout the film to frame characters and scenic settings in shots. E.g., BB walking out of the wedding rehearsal, BB driving to find Bill at the beginning of the film, the emphasis on doors, windows and holes in the wall during the fight scenes in the caravan and when BB arrives at Bill’s house toward the end of the film.

                                                                                                 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 180 degree rule was utilised in the majority of conversations in this film, but often you would see two leads within the same shot in a medium close up or close up with the space between them (middle of the screen) creating depth with a landscape in the background

 

In addition to dimension, focus is utilised throughout the film.

An example of this is the wedding rehearsal scene. When BB and her fiancé are speaking to the pastor and his wife, a conversation takes place between these 2 parties and Rufus the piano player. Depending on which character is speaking, the camera focuses on that character while the character in the background is out of focus. The depth is created by the contrast of the mid-shot of the speaking character, while the entire body of the out-of-focus character can be seen. This is a fine example of shifting the centre of interest and once again creating visual perspective.

 

Landscapes were utilised often in Kill Bill 2. Rolling hills or vast deserts or roads that stretch on forever. Our centre of focus is usually found on either of the horizontal lines These landscapes still tend to aid in the creation of vastness and dimension, this is often really evident with strong horizontal lines. Throughout the film we see really bold, ‘unignorable’ lines. These lines, constantly draw the viewer’s attention to the centre of interest but also create an aesthetically pleasing and edgy feel to the film.

Examples of this are the pews in the church and the horizontal panelling on the caravan. Even in the coffin BB is buried in. The only time the film breaks this “bold line” trend is in Bill’s house toward the end of the film. The entire atmosphere changes in this setting because of the circular furnishings and circular walls in the rooms. Suddenly, the film goes from harsh and cutting edge to a sincere, emotional representation of what BB is feeling. Once she has put her daughter to bed, the battle scene between BB and Bill is outside and suddenly framed with strong vertical and horizontal lines (the blinds, doors and garden furniture they are sitting on). This returns the audiences’ understanding of the mood and intensity of the relationship and task at hand.  

 

 

At several points in the film, the Rule of Thirds is bent. Several shots (usually heroic shots of BB walking away from a successful combat) featured the lead in the very centre of the scene. However, whenever this happened the horizontal lines were usually both utilised. Several shots did not leave much talking room but these shots were usually offset by a scenic wide shot or used lines to direct the viewer to the centre of interest.

 

I know that I’ve spent a lot of time focussed on depth and visual perspective but I do feel that these are 2 predominant features of Kill Bill 2. Combine this with the strong use of lines, lighting, focus and carefully framed shots; this film is thoroughly constructed and aesthetically cohesive and pleasing. Quentin Tarantino has remained true to the guidelines of composition and framing but used his creative license to creatively adapt the guidelines to produce meaning and to stylise his film.

 

 

 

 

Westworld Screenplay

WESTWORLD

(1973)

Using a copy of the screenplay, I have taken excerpts from the script to demonstrate the different points in the screenplay structure and also, the 5 elements of plot. *PLEASE NOTE: The script constantly uses the wrong names of the leads. Jon and Peter are constantly mixed up (and spelt differently).

5 Elements of Plot:

1. Lead Character:

Jon Blane and Peter Martin

2. Urgent and difficult problem:
The malfunction of the robots at Delos. The robots in Westworld attack our two leads. One (Jon) is killed and the other is left to solve the crisis.

3. Their attempts to resolve the situation that make the situation more desperate:

Jon is killed. Peter is left to fend off the western “bad guy” robot. This particular robot has a vendetta against him because Jon and Peter have “killed” him twice in two separate shootouts. Inexperienced, Peter is lead into the desert and loses his gun while running away from the bad robot. Peter is seemingly the last person alive in any of the 3 Delos worlds and is still trying to outrun the bad robot.

4. The crisis, their last chance to win.

There are a series of altercations with the bad robot. The first is in Medievalworld, where Peter sets the robot on fire. While trying to get out of Delos, Peter finds himself in the underground inner-workings of Delos. The bad robot” follows him and twice more Peter attacks the robot and finally destroys him.

5. The successful resolution.

Once the robot is destroyed….

 

SCREENPLAY STRUCTURE

ACT 1: SETUP

WHO:

2 friends, Jon Blane and Peter Martin.
Jon has obviously been to Westworld before and Peter is the inquisitive, excitable friend. We find out bits and pieces about these two within the first 20 minutes.

There is also an introduction to the “bad guy”, a cowboy robot in Westworld with a bad attitude.

(on aeroplane)

Peter

I’m not worried at all. I’m just curious.

 How much do they weigh?

John

3 or 4 pounds.

Peter

That heavy. Do they have much of a kick?

John

A Colt .45?

Peter

Well, I never fired one before.

What about that thing where you go like this over the gun?

John

Fanning?

Peter

Yeah.

John

What about it?  Is that hard to do?

Now, The gunbelt, does it have those strings to tie around your leg?

Peter

If that’s the kind you want.

John

That’s the kind I want.

I think it’s probably better for quick draws, you know.

Peter

It all depends.

John

What kind of gunbelt did you have the last time?

Peter

I had the one without the strings.

John

And you could draw fast?

Then maybe it doesn’t matter after all.

The gun they give you are real guns?

Peter

Real guns.

John

Thats incredible.

———

Attendant

May I have your name please?

John

John Blane.

Peter

Peter Martin.

Attendant

Thank you.

———

John

Julie would have loved all this.

Peter

Poking around for hours in all those funny shops, looking for silly..

John

What the hell is wrong with you? You’re a lawyer!

You know better than anybody else what a ride she took you for.

John

Well, the kids.

Peter

Fine ,the kids! But you’re here,

6 months later, still thinking about her.

John

No, not really. She just came to mind, is all.

———

A Robot

Sloppy with your drink. Get this boy a bib.

Peter

Go on!

A robot

He needs his momma.

John

Kill him.

Peter

You talk too much.

A robot

You say something, boy?

Peter

I said you talk too much.

A robot

Why don7t you make me shut up? Your move.

———

 

WHERE & WHAT:

Delos. Futuristic vacation spot where you are transported to one of 3 worlds with scientifically programmed robots. Wealthy people (with a price tag of $1000 a day) escape from reality and take on characters in their chosen world. They interact with realistic robots and play out their fantasies in the era of their choice.

 

ED

“Dalos is the vacation of the future, today.

At Delos you get your choice of the vacation you want.

There’s Medieval World, Roman World and, of course, Westworld.”

———

 

ED

“What Mr. Lewis means is  he shot 6 robots

scientifically programmed to look, act,

talk and even bleed just like humans do. Isn’t that right?

 

Yes, the robots of Westworld are there to serve you

and to give you the most unique vacation experience of your life.

Thanks you ,sir.”

———

VIDEO VOICE

Western World is a complete re-creation of

the American frontier of 1880.

Here it is possible to relive the excitement

and stresses of pioneer life to the fullest.

Western World is a life of lawless violence,

a society of gun and action.

This is Medieval World,

where we have reconstructed 13th-century Europe.

A world of chivalry and combat, romance and excitement.

Our terms of engineers have spared no expense

in this re-creation

precise to the smallest detail.

Then we have Roman world:

A lusty treat for the senses in the setting of delightful

decadent Pompeii.

Here the traveler experiences the sensual,

relaxed morality that existed at the peak of the Imperial

Roman Empire.

All together, these resorts comprise Delos.

The most exciting vacation spot in the history of man.

The whole spectrum of technology has been employed in Delos

for the vacarioner’s pleasure.

Expensive and unusual, Delos is not for everyone.

But for those who choose it ,

it is truly a unique and rewarding experience.

 

PLOT POINT 1:

THE DETECTION OF MALFUNCTIONS IN THE ROBOTS.

 INT. CONTROL ROOM

Scientist

Since we opened the resort

we had a failure and breakdown rate

conforming to computer predictions.

That is 0.3 malfunctions for each 24-hour

activation period concurrent or not.

Now, this was an anticipated

operations aspect of the resort

and we were fully able to handle it.

The majority of the breakdowns were minor or peripheral

until about 6 weeks ago.

Then Roman World had a rise in breakdown rate

which doubled in a week.

In addition, we saw a disproportionate rise

in central as opposed to peripheral breakdowns.

Now, we identified some problems

with humidity control. And regained homeostasis.

Despite our corrections, the breakdown rate continued to climb.

Then Medieval World began to have trouble.

Now we’re seeing more Western World breakdowns.

And there’s a clear pattern here

which suggests an analogy to an infectious

disease process spreading from one resort area to the next.

Perhaps there are superficial similarities to disease.

Scientist

It’s only a theoretical concept.

There are many ways to order that data.

Scientist

I must confess,

I find it difficult to believe in a disease of machinery.

Scientist

We aren’t dealing with ordinary machines here.

These are highly complicated pieces

of equipment almost as complicated as

living organisms. In some cases, they’ve been designed

by other computers.

We don’t know exactly how they work.

 ACT 2:

PINCH 1: ROBOTS ATTACK LEADS.

INT. HOTEL ROOM

John

What do you want?

Gun man Robot

Not a word.

John

Do you mind if I finish shaving?

Lady

Have you no sense of…

(ROBOT SHOOT OFF. ROBOT IS KILLED)

John

Was he bothering you? He’s not gonna bother you again.

———

EXT. WESTERN WORLD

Peter

Thank you.  Look out.

John

Let me handle this! (SNAKE ATTACKS) That’s not supposed to happen.

Peter

Maybe it is! Maybe it’s part of the thing!

John

The hell! Goddamn machines, anyway!

That’s not supposed to happen!

———

 INT. CONTROL ROOM

Scientist

A rattlesnake struck a guest?

Scientist

He was shooting at it and he missed.

Scientist

The snakes are programmed never to hit on a strike.

Scientist

Was the guest injured?

Scientist

Minor puncture wounds.

Scientist

It’s inexcusable to injure a guest.

Pick up that snake for a total post at once.

Check all the snake’s center mechanisms tonight

during the repair period.

Doesn’t anything work around here?…

 ACT 2:MIDWAY

LEAD KILLED

 

EXT. WESTERN WORLD

Gunman Robot

Hold it!

Peter

Come on, not now. Not you again. It’s too early.

John

Let me do tit this time. Your move.

I’m shot!

Peter

What?

John

I’m shot!

Peter

John? Oh my god!

Gunman Robot

Drew.

———

PINCH 2:

CRISIS ESCALATES, BUT SOLUTION IS OFFERED.

Peter

You know about the machines?

Crew

Yeah, I repair’em.

Peter

There’s one chasing me now. A gunslinger.

Crew

Gunslinger. Must be a model 404, maybe a 406.

If he is a 406, he’s got all the sensory equipment.

It’s beautiful machine!

Peter

He’s after me.

Crew

I don’t doubt it.

Peter

What can I do?

Crew

There’s nothing you can do. He’ll get you.

You haven’t got a chance.

Peter

There must be something.

Crew

Fella, don’t kid yourself. There are things you could try.

Acid for his visual system, noise for his hearing.

No matter what, he’ll always be one jump ahead of you!

You haven’t got a chance.

Peter

Yes, I do.

RESOLUTION:

SETTING ROBOT ON FIRE, BURNING ROBOT WITH ACID. THE ROBOT FINALLY BEING DESTROYED. PETER ALSO ATTEMPTS TO SAVE A DAMSEL IN DISTRESS WHO TURNS OUT TO BE A ROBOT TOO.

IN THE END, OUR LEAD IS SEEN ALONE, REFLECTING ON EVERYTHING HE HAS BEEN THROUGH.

Speed Racer – by the Wachowski brothers

 

Released in 2008, Speed Racer is based on the Japanese manga cartoon of the same name. The original cartoon was dubbed into English and released in America in 1967 (the year Andy Wachowski was born. His brother Larry would have been 2). Written, directed and produced by the Wachowski brothers, this movie has their stamp all over it, while still paying homage to the original cartoon.

 

Speed Racer is based on 18 year old car racer, Speed. The story follows Speed and his car crazy family (including a chimp called Chim Chim), his girlfriend Trixie and team mechanic, Sparky. In the movie version of Speed Racer, we follow Speed as he takes on the corrupt dealings of the racing industry in his gadget-filled Mach 5, built by his father. Set in a location that is not specific to age, era or even continent, our hero Speed takes on several racing villains and inconceivable odds in his quest for victory and his commitment to saving his family’s business.

 

It was The Matrix producer, Joel Silver who had the vision to bring the original Speed Racer cartoon to the big screen. It was only when the Wachowski brothers got their hands on in it and began writing and visualising the film was Speed Racer (the movie) born. The Wachowski brothers are best known for their Matrix films and V for Vendetta. Few people are aware that the brothers have also written a comic book together, titled “Ectokid” for Marvel Comics. It is obvious that their knowledge and skill in big budget futuristic, fast paced, action-filled films and their storyboard style comic book writing abilities make Larry and Andy Wachowski the perfect candidates for the big screen adaptation of Speed Racer.

 

The screenplay was cleverly written to reignite the love of the well known cartoon in the hearts of the now 40-somethings who grew up watching it. This was done by exceptional casting in the likeness of the cartoon and using shots and settings not too dissimilar to the original cartoon style. With a PG rating, the Wachowski brothers also targeted a new generation of Speed Racer fans. While the storyline and editing are fast paced and confusing enough for an adult to watch, the movie is a visual delight with comic anecdotes and child-friendly themes throughout.

 

Staying true to the style of the original cartoon series, Speed Racer is filmed in an almost cartoon-like manner. The real life actors are placed in a manga world. Features of manga cartoons include:

-         Having the action figure in focus while the background moves and changes.

-         Sliding layers and sweeping shots.

-         Rapid zooms and close-up shots

-         Lack on consistency in settings

-         Slow motion and dramatic pace changes

-         Repetitive shots with quick edits (often back and forth)

 

The Speed Racer film is CGI masterpiece. The colours and detail given to the imaginary settings create an extremely visually appealing movie. The Wachowski brothers seem to have had a very clear vision of the direction of the film. The story seems to have been developed hand in hand with the settings and with the features of the original manga style in mind. Evidence of The Matrix style shots can be seen in the style the action sequences were filmed. This works well with the quick edits and slow motion styled shots that you would see in a manga cartoon. The Speed Racer film is extremely progressive in the way its filmed and edited. I don’t think this was always done well because sometimes the shots were confusing and blurry. It almost felt as if there was too much action, too many racing sequences and an attempt to add twists, conflict and complications at too many points in the film. In a way, I can see that when the film was written, there was a great knowledge and back story to every character. Unfortunately, the creators seemed to have wanted each character to have several moments to shine and react as that character would within each situation they were placed in. I do think that this film could have been shorter and less confusing if they had focussed on less characters and cut out even a quarter of the manga style “decorative shots”.

 

The plot was complex for a PG film. As I mentioned above, it often felt as if we were a part of the plight of several characters rather than just Speed. Even in this far-fetched montage of technology, era and genres, the characters were well developed and believable in their motivations.

There seemed to be an array of problems that unfolded during the movie. Each one led to the next rather than one focal and urgent issue. This made the movie longer and slightly more confusing. (C’mon, does this kid ever get a break?) Speed (and his entire entourage)seem to be constantly attempting to solve a problem. Be it, the engine failure of his car, the corruption of the racing industry or the memory of the death of his brother….and then there were the ninjas.

Speed’s final chance to win came in the shape of the Grand Prix. I must admit, there was a slight anti-climax in this “final attempt” because of the previous action packed scenes and the constant issues and conflicts the characters had faced up until this point. Ultimately, there was a successful resolution (as you would expect in a family friendly movie).

 

I do believe that there was a lot of creative genius and a very thoroughly developed production by Larry and Andy Wachowski. I think this film was ambitious, almost too ambitious as it was often complicated and overdone eg. The plot and some of the editing. The Wachowski brothers ultimately remained true to the manga style of animation and the original concept, elements and story on the Speed Racer comics. This film has their stamp all over it, particularly in thoroughness and no-expenses-spared ambition. Whether I liked the film or not, I think it was done well. Very visually appealing, thoroughly executed and a respectable representation to the original Speed Racer cartoon.