Okay, so it's time to get some things straight. Being that it's close to the end of the year and many top 10 lists are about to come out, a movie that I suspect will be on some of them is the remake/reboot/whatever you want to call it of "Star Trek". Now, I've always been a "Star Trek" fan, not to the point of being a full blown Trekkie however. There are certain things about this movie that are good (very good, in fact) and then there are some things that are downright stupid that are in it. We'll start with the good.
The movie has a lot going for it. A great cast, great special effects and a good script. What's hard to realize about this movie is why J.J. Abrams decided to ruin half the shots in the movie by giving them lens flare. For those of you who do not know what this is, just watch the movie. It doesn't take long to realize how much of it is in there. (Okay, so I didn't spend too much time on the good stuff about the movie.) What boggles my mind is that has such a good story going for it decides to annoy the shit out of people by how it's shot.
I know that I might be sounding a little bit like my friend Allen here with talking about shots and composition and stuff like that, but you'll have to agree. When watching the movie, it's as if Abrams was watching the movie and thought to himself, "This doesn't look futuristic enough. You know what makes things look more futuristic? Lens flare! Holy shit, I'm the genius everyone says I am."
Don't get me wrong, I like J.J. Abrams, but I think his is a case of too much too fast. And this isn't really his fault. "Star Trek", while very good, suffered a great deal from his directorial choices. The pacing is top notch and the acting is great, but everything is obscured by this dumbass flare every two seconds. From what I've heard, he employed specific lighting devices in order to get the effect of the flares. Most of the time in film, lens flares happen naturally which makes it that much cooler. Although Spielberg is known for them, the one that comes to mind immediately is when Hans Gruber is checking the detonators on the roof in "Die Hard". There's even a musical cue that goes along with it.
(After four minutes of looking for a video on YouTube for the example...)
There goes that idea. Anyway, the point is, the lens flare in "Star Trek" is distracting from the story. You're watching Spock grieve for his mother and then all the sudden, from fucking nowhere, a lens flare flashes across his face. What does that do? What does it artistically accomplish? Answer: nothing. Or wait until Spock and Kirk begin to fight (well, when Spock starts kicking Kirk's ass) on the bridge. When this happens, Spock grabs Kirk by the neck, taking all of his rage out on Kirk after losing his mother. You see the intensity on his face...
Wait a second...
No, you don't. You see lens flare. You see too much of it. This choice screws up whatever emotion Zachary Quinto was trying for. You see it, but you can't see the details, the sense of loss and anger. You are not able to see it nearly as well as you should considering what's happened to Spock. It cheapens the moment.
If you were to go back three years and remember the summer of 2006, some of you may remember going to see "Mission: Impossible III", also directed by Abrams. This was a good example of a great summer blockbuster. The movie suffered a lot of backlash because of all the Tom Cruise bullshit that was going on at the time. The funny thing about Tom Cruise is that I still like him. (I dare any of you to come up with a legitimately bad Tom Cruise movie that has come out after "Rain Man". I dare you.) If you want to see J.J. Abrams doing a good job directing, watch that movie. "Star Trek", well, you can still see it for the acting, special effects and story. Just don't go see it and act like it's some sort of masterpiece of cinema. It really is quite annoying.
Another thing about J.J. Abrams: He was in Entertainment Weekly's Entertainers of the Decade. And a lot of the things that were talked about in there was his TV work which is substantial. He worked on "Felicity", "Alias" and, of course, "Lost". I never watched "Felicity" except for Keri Russell, but I did watch "Alias" and do watch "Lost". The thing to realize though is that I doubt Abrams was that much involved with the development of "Lost".
The simple fact remains is that Abrams has only had two writing credits on that show should show anyone that it's not him that's the cultural genius that everyone thinks he is. "Lost" is not his show. They show him as a creator, but let me tell you something. For those of you who don't know by now, I write pretty extensively. Screenplays, plays, short stories, novels and reviews like this one. I've come up with a couple of ideas here and there with other people and while they are not actively involved with the process of getting it down on paper, legally, if I were to sell the screenplay, I'd be obligated to put them on paper as to getting credit for it. Abrams is nothing but a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
And I swear to God, on this webpage right now, that if he ruins the end of "Lost" like he fucked up the series finale of "Alias", I might just kill him. Let's just hope the series creators work on the finale and not him. He can direct the series finale. Just make sure there's not a budget for unnecessary lighting.
Oh yeah too Entertainment Weekly, he's not the next Spielberg. If you go back to when Spielberg was first getting started, he did this thing. It's a weird thing for people to have a grasp on at this point in culture, but it's this little thing known as being original. I know, it's a fancy concept with an even fancier name, but for Christ's sake, Spielberg at least took original concepts and put them out for people to look at. I know what you're gonna say: "Jaws" was a book before it was a movie." Good one, fuck nuts. No shit. Think about the stuff afterwards that he did. "Close Encounters", "1941", "E.T."
Now, look at J.J. Abrams. He's done some TV (where none of us are quite sure how much involvement he's had in them) and he's directed two movies. One was the third in a series of a remake of a show. The other was the eleventh in a series of a remake of a show. Think about that. Abrams also wrote the Harrison Ford drama "Regarding Henry", "Forever Young", "Gone Fishin'" and "Armageddon", along with "Joy Ride". So before we put the cart before the horse too much, let's realize what we're working with.
We're not working with the next Spielberg. They said the same thing about M. Night Shymalan and look what happened with him. He went from doing "The Sixth Sense" to doing "Lady in the Water". But at least Shymalan has a crisp look to all of his movies. Abrams is still thinking in the TV mindset because that's all he's directed so far aside from the two movies. "Star Trek" was the perfect opportunity to expand his horizons, but instead, he just depended on lens flare to get him along.
Let's just hope that when he does do a sequel that he learned his lesson and has matured a bit more as a filmmaker by then, rather than resting on his laurels.
No comments:
Post a Comment