"Chaos Cinema"

I thought Neveldine & Taylor made an artform out of this techniques in Crank: High Voltage, so it made me tolerable.

 

Anyway, some non-english magazine made a little research into film cutting with a help of this tool:

 

http://www.cinemetrics.lv/index.php

 

It counts every shot of the movie by length. Red line marks average lentgh.

 

Here are screenshots regarding current Hollywood action in comparison to the fastest cinema of XX century - soviet avant-garde of the 20s

 

Man with a movie camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)

 

 

Domino (Tony Scott, 2005)

 

 

If anyone is interested, i can post other examples from the article (Tarkovsky vs. Sokurov, Faust by Sokurov vs. Faust by Murnau, Tarkovsky vs. Ozu & Kurosawa & Mizoguchi, Tarkovsky vs. C.T. Dreyer, Kubrick vs. Spielberg)

 

You can use this tool by yourself too.

crank 2 was the 1% exception

and the plot/acting was above average

that's sweet, it allows for a comparison of a single director's works throughout time, so it's not as meaningless as that article.

 

michael bay is actually improving with time, lol:

avg shot length of armageddon (1997) according to that database is 2.2 secs, transformers (2007) - 3 secs, transformers: revenge of the fallen (2009) - 3.4 secs. transformers 9 will probably be an art house action masterpiece.

  On 8/14/2012 at 3:08 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

what is it again ? talk to me babe

I dislike that article for so many reasons ...I have actual work to do though. I'll try to respond later.

im beginning to think most of you didn't even read or watch it.

i didn't make it to the end but he seems to be comparing some great films of the past with shitty new ones which might serve to support his claim but is ultimately pointless to me. i choose not to watch films like transformers and badboys2 for the same reasons he doesn't like them.

i'm starting to think that this is inevitable in any kind of art...

 

or maybe it's a good way to distinguish art from turds...

 

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 4:52 PM, keltoi said:

i didn't make it to the end but he seems to be comparing some great films of the past with shitty new ones which might serve to support his claim but is ultimately pointless to me. i choose not to watch films like transformers and badboys2 for the same reasons he doesn't like them.

 

exactly, i mean he puts it rather eloquently on why this style doesn't work for him but his comparisons are just that - pointless. if he would somehow prove that this style seeps into serious cinema against the will of directors it would made a much more interesting article, but there's none of that. personally of the movies i watch i can only point at batman baggins as a generally decent film with this shitty editing/camerawork during fighting scenes.

Edited August 14, 2012 by eugene

  On 8/14/2012 at 4:39 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

im beginning to think most of you didn't even read or watch it.

it's not about shitty work, it's about cheating work ffs, don't you guys see it, he's not saying it's bad, it's saying it cheats on your perceptions... geez, lol

  On 8/14/2012 at 4:52 PM, keltoi said:

i didn't make it to the end but ...

 

if this makes my point irrelevant then so be it. i'm not interested in the films he's talking about or the ones which the site seems to focus on.

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 5:21 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

it's not about shitty work, it's about cheating work ffs, don't you guys see it, he's not saying it's bad, it's saying it cheats on your perceptions... geez, lol

 

why use shitty films as examples then?

also...

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 5:21 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

it's saying it cheats on your perceptions... geez, lol

 

don't most (if not all) films cheat on your perceptions?

also also...

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 5:21 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

he's not saying it's bad

 

the topic sub-heading is...

 

  Quote

Why most movies these days are so terrible.

  On 8/14/2012 at 5:51 PM, keltoi said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 4:52 PM, keltoi said:

i didn't make it to the end but ...

 

if this makes my point irrelevant then so be it. i'm not interested in the films he's talking about or the ones which the site seems to focus on.

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 5:21 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

it's not about shitty work, it's about cheating work ffs, don't you guys see it, he's not saying it's bad, it's saying it cheats on your perceptions... geez, lol

 

why use shitty films as examples then?

blockbusters, america fuck yeah, mainstream, it says something about society...

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 6:19 PM, keltoi said:

also also...

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 5:21 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

he's not saying it's bad

 

the topic sub-heading is...

 

  Quote

Why most movies these days are so terrible.

actually that's what the overlook took out of it, the actual title is :

VIDEO ESSAY: CHAOS CINEMA: The decline and fall of action filmmaking

 

action movies

Edited August 14, 2012 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

  On 8/14/2012 at 6:07 PM, keltoi said:

also...

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 5:21 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

it's saying it cheats on your perceptions... geez, lol

 

don't most (if not all) films cheat on your perceptions?

i'll answer this one later... :)

  On 8/14/2012 at 6:24 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 5:51 PM, keltoi said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 4:52 PM, keltoi said:

i didn't make it to the end but ...

 

if this makes my point irrelevant then so be it. i'm not interested in the films he's talking about or the ones which the site seems to focus on.

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 5:21 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

it's not about shitty work, it's about cheating work ffs, don't you guys see it, he's not saying it's bad, it's saying it cheats on your perceptions... geez, lol

 

why use shitty films as examples then?

blockbusters, america fuck yeah, mainstream, it says something about society...

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 6:19 PM, keltoi said:

also also...

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 5:21 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

he's not saying it's bad

 

the topic sub-heading is...

 

  Quote

Why most movies these days are so terrible.

actually that's what the overlook took out of it, the actual title is :

VIDEO ESSAY: CHAOS CINEMA: The decline and fall of action filmmaking

 

action movies

 

come on stop being a numpty for the hell of it. if you say something is fallen and in decline you are implying that it is not as good as it used to be. ie: bad.

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 6:26 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 6:07 PM, keltoi said:

also...

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 5:21 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

it's saying it cheats on your perceptions... geez, lol

 

don't most (if not all) films cheat on your perceptions?

i'll answer this one later... :)

 

you know those people on screen are... actors?

  On 8/14/2012 at 6:26 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

  On 8/14/2012 at 6:07 PM, keltoi said:

also...

 

  On 8/14/2012 at 5:21 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

it's saying it cheats on your perceptions... geez, lol

 

don't most (if not all) films cheat on your perceptions?

i'll answer this one later... :)

 

If you want to be pedantic all films cheat on your perceptions because they are basically a slide show of frames.

But any film with editing or digital composition also cheat you, and that's basically every film I can think of. I know there was a Russian film with one continuous shot, but it still would have had a load of post production worked on it.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Roksen Creek

Still need to read the article, but i'll just leave this here:

 

 

 

 

 

lol avatar has far bigger problems than the action scenes...which btw, aren't that bad.

 

 

everyone except maybe chen, compson, and Overlook missed the point of that essay entirely.

  On 8/14/2012 at 7:02 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

lol avatar has far bigger problems than the action scenes...which btw, aren't that bad.

 

 

everyone except maybe chen, compson, and Overlook missed the point of that essay entirely.

 

I would agree, has pacing problems and the voice over dialogue throughout was bad. However the action scenes and animations are far better than transformers or other CG infested action films. Reason is what Cameron put together to streamline a virtual reality world while he was shooting. Avatar 2 won't be released until 2015 or later in 60fps/3D etc... but yesterday he talked more about the technology they are working on to ensure he tops the first movie... he also just landed a huge deal in China to get 3D implemented in theaters there because of the growing middle class.

 

  Quote

James Cameron’s Lightstorm Entertainment, has teamed with VFX house Weta Digital and entertainment content software developer Autodesk to develop virtual production technology for use in the production of the planned Avatar sequels.

 

'Avatar 2' Delayed Until at Least 2015, Says Jon Landau

“Creating the virtual production pipeline on Avatar was a groundbreaking process that only enabled us to scratch the surface of what is possible,” said Cameron in a released statement. “Together with Autodesk and Weta Digital, we have used the knowledge gained from this first experience to clearly define the ideal process and then develop the technology needed to streamline our workflow. With the resulting pipeline, on the Avatar sequels, I will be able to devote more of my energy to the creative side of the moviemaking process, and dig deeper into all that is possible with virtual production.”

 

The notion of virtual production effectively means that the director and collaborators can see their digital assets in an interactive world live on-set, so they can make creative decisions more quickly.

 

“After completing Avatar, we had a clear understanding of the developments needed to make the process more creative and efficient,” reads a statement from Joe Letteri, senior digital effects supervisor at Weta Digital, which won an Oscar for its VFX work on Avatar, as is currently working on Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit. “We knew that by bringing the whole digital pipeline more in line with the traditional onset style of shooting we could open up brand new ways for directors like Jim to make their films.”

 

Some of the tools resulting from the collaboration have been incorporated into the latest versions of certain Autodesk entertainment creation software, such as Motion Builder and Maya, which are on display at CG confab Siggraph. The conference runs through Thursday at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

 

I believe that it is the shift towards CG that killed the creative process for directors, especially veterans. The chaos comes from lack of creative control.

Edited August 14, 2012 by compson

OK, so I've just had a chance to watch both videos in full.

 

To be honest, as soon as I read the OP I knew what to expect. This is something I've noticed since the 90s, mainly because of watching a lot of martial arts films in my younger days. I used to be obsessed with them.

It was clear that at some point in the nineties there was a significant shift from showing the action on screen in a clear unobstructive way to a more hectic, chaotic approach. At the time I was wondering whether the filmakers were trying to convey, through editing and camera movement, the force and power of the martial arts rather than let the martial arts do the talking itself.

I took this to mean that the martial artists were just not as good as they used to be, they were older and needed help from the filmakers.

 

But then I noticed that this type filmaking was becoming prevalent also in other action films. To the point that I don't think I ever enjoyed any action scene since the 90s. It's nauseating, and I lose interest.

I recommend for people to watch the first video again, and at the point where the narrator mentions how modern action films can only be followed because of the soundtrack, to mute the sound. You'll be all over the place. Then keep it muted for the next example (an older movie) and you will be able to follow everything with no problem.

 

So why has this become prevalent in all action films? The narrator brings up some good points. But there is one obvious one that has been missed, and it is a similar reason to the martial arts one.

The skill on screen, whether it be fight scenes, car chases, whatever, is significantly lower than it used to be. Films are helped a lot more these days by CGI, digital compositing etc. If the action was displayed on screen as clearly as it used to be it would look unrealistic and unimpressive, and the CG more noticeable. The quick editing and camera movement masks this (I guess this is what MJ was talking about when saying cheating perception).

Stunt men aren't as important anymore, real objects/models are replaced by CG components. There's just a lot less effort being put into the set-pieces when filmed than what is put in post production.

I mean I'm not just blaming the CG, it's also the fact that filmakers are just not putting enough effort into the action sequences are masking it with this "chaos" cinema approach. They are cutting corners for sure and have to a certain degree forgotten the art-form of action cinema.

i always forget for about 5 minutes how it is ridicule to discuss on here, forget about it, i'm out... me? pedantic? geez... i just wanna have fun

 

but fuck it i know what i'm saying, lol, in the old days you had a film (pelicule), which by what i understand was not cheap, and precious, every shot, every angle, every shit that was on camera was predicted and fulcral...

 

nowadays every bastard gets his iphone, records some shitty stuff with shitty colors, shitty background or even no background or blured stuff, uninteresting paisages so that later they go full on retard on post processing, cgi mastrubating and skrillex soundtrax...

Edited August 14, 2012 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

  On 8/14/2012 at 8:00 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

i always forget for about 5 minutes how it is ridicule to discuss on here, forget about it, i'm out... me? pedantic? geez... i just wanna have fun

 

Lol, I didn't say you were pedantic. I meant a pedantic argument could be used to say that all films cheat perception because of the frames.

 

So I was calling myself pedantic not you mate!

 

It's my chaotic writing style I guess.