[produced in Blender]
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Art Direction: Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg, with Kim Sinclair for set decoration
Cinematography: Mauro Fiore
Visual Effects: Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones
No argument on these three: quality of physically constructed sets and props and of CGI elements is pretty high, as is the overall standard of photography. The depth of simulation of Pandoran geography and culture is a factor here as it really comes across well in the film.
Editing: Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron
Has Avatar been edited in an unusually brilliant way? Not so sure, although editing is one of the most important creative processes in film; also as I've previously said, editing a 3D film is different from 2D and there may have been numerous achievements and envelope-pushes along the way. Agreed (after extra time).
Original Score: James Horner
Not the most memorable film score ever but beautifully understated, and deserves some kind of award for not going down the March of the Stormtroopers route. OK, you can have that one on me.
Best Picture: James Cameron and Jon Landau, Producers
In a year that Moon didn't even get a mention I'm going to be overcritical of the Best Picture category. Avatar is a very enjoyable film (if you're not a full time critic) and that should count for something, but is it in the Best Picture overall category? Sorry, it's no turkey but it doesn't quite make the grade.
Sound Editing: Christopher Boyes and Gwendolyn Yates Whittle
Sound Mixing: Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson and Tony Johnson
I should know more about this technically, but I actually don't think the sound was of such stand-out quality to deserve Oscar nominations in the same way as the visual elements.
Direction: James Cameron
For: Cameron is well known as a hands on director, and has pushed every aspect of this movie from start to finish. So you can't separate his input from any other aspect of the movie - if you're giving out any gongs at all you have to include him.
Against: once upon a time, a director's job included coaxing great performances out of actors. Remember? Avatar has nine nominations - none of which are for acting - and I don't believe the cast are to blame for this as they included seasoned professionals like Weaver and highly talented newcomers like Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana.
Conclusion: you can keep the nomination but only after a slap on the wrist. Understood?
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
A first attempt at a trailer. Bast is still a work in progress - some shots still need some adjustments but from this point I'll be working on the final version. The film will eventually feature an original soundtrack - for the trailer I've used Gustav Holst's classic trailer composition "Mars" performed by the USAF Bands Programme [via wikimedia commons].
The film website is here. Further updates planned soon including more about the cast.
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Blender can do chromakey - chain together as many chromakey or channel key nodes as you like, each one picking out a particular shade of green. The more nodes you can be bothered to put in and adjust, the less overspill you get.
However, sorting all those nodes out can get quite fiddly - and you can get better results by avoiding the chromakey system altogether (if you know your format well enough). Here, I'm taking my original mini DV footage and subtracting the red from the green channels - leaving only the areas that are predominantly green. Once I've amplified these remainders with a colour ramp the output is more or less what I want. I've used an animated oval in the 3D scene to create a matte so I only process a small area of the image.
Whichever approach I use, I end up with very low resolution - that's because I'm using the colour channels, and mini DV encodes squares of four pixels all in one colour. Not to worry - I just multiply my output by the luminance channel, add a bit of blur, and full resolution is restored.
Right. Three more of these and you can have a trailer.
Friday, 5 February 2010
The film does not ultimately explain any of it's premise - in particular the reason for the existence of the list remains unclear, there is no attempt to define whether the disasters are occurring for a reason e.g. punishment or as part of some greater scheme, or if they are still natural and random yet somehow predictable. Cage attempts to divert them but it is unclear whether he has made any difference, or whether this is even possible. It's not clear exactly why Cage and his family are special, or even if they are.
This is OK. The film is called Knowing. Not Understanding, or Preventing. The central theme is what happens if you know your fate - for example, you have a terminal illness, you've run out of treatment options and you know roughly how long you have to live. In this situation you can't change the outcome but what can you still do with the time left to you? The characters have to choose between trying to escape their fate, using their time to help others, setting their affairs in order, righting old wrongs, or seeking understanding - and they are in a great hurry, with little time to choose and no guarantee that they will succeed in their choice. The theme is embodied perfectly by Byrne's character who has always known the date of her death, but is in denial until the events of the film force her to act with only hours left.
You may like or dislike the ending but read on: Firstly as many commentators have pointed out, it doesn't compromise on the film's theme either by making everything all right with a quick fix, or by offering an equally quick explanation. Secondly, as with the rest of the film it is beautifully shot. The film shares a few plot points with 2012 but where that film is loud, colourful and showy, Knowing is quiet, subdued and eerie.
There are plot holes. Dammit. The lack of explanation for the premise is actually quite a good thing, but some scenes definitely need explanation. Cage's ability to figure out the third disaster in a few seconds is a bit silly - surely if [SPOILER REDACTED] it would have been predicted much earlier! Worse, when Cage's character takes his disaster prediction list to his scientific friend he is laughed out of town on the basis that he is reading too much into the numbers. Would make sense if he had used his own idiosyncratic system to "find" the references - after all Michael Drosnin does this for a living - but the list seems to feature several hundred events, in order, all clearly identifiable once you've found the first one. Together with the list's tamper-proof history it would have to be taken more seriously by a scientist - in fact you would need to go to extraordinary lengths to disprove it.
Overall though I was impressed with this film for building up such a strong atmosphere, for bringing subtlety to the apocalyptic genre and for generally not wimping out on its premise.
Monday, 1 February 2010
Most of Agatha Christie’s fiction centres not on pathological killers but on crimes of passion, necessity, or desperation committed by people who are not so unlike the rest of us. Given the time of writing, it is striking that in Curtain Christie has written both a serial killer novel and a sci-fi cross-over. Whereas today we are used to the serial killer concept and question it far less than perhaps we should, in the 1940s this would have been a relatively exotic concept and the novel takes time to justify the killer’s psychopathy, along with an explanation of a highly speculative method of killing, in psychological terms. At the same time the novel is consistent with – and explains – Christie’s reoccurring theme that anyone can be a murderer.
You can read more about the novel here – but serious spoiler alert: only follow this link if you have already read Curtain.