Eva Brumberger’s article on the connect or disconnect between visual and verbal thinking in an interesting read, but it pretty much says things that have been said before, and what’s more, are obvious in today’s generation; her belief is that typeface and design play a role in how we perceive any given text, and to some degree or another, this is true. For example, if I wrote a phrase somewhat equated with a ‘redneck’ manner of speech, such as “squeal like a pig,” in a calligraphy-style font, it would be so jarring that it would affect one’s perception of the phrase, and the writer. No one would take it seriously. However, her theory seemed to be more along the lines that even a less-drastic change in typeface could dramatically alter the perception of the material and it’s author, and I think the results of her study showed that this is not true to any noticeable degree.
This article did bring up another issue, however, that I would like to discuss in length; the divide between the verbal and visual type of thought. I, like Brumberger and a number of her colleagues that she cites, feel that one is not separate from the other. Some might be more inclined to one than the other, but we all think both verbally and visually. I, for one, would like to draw upon my own experiences to make a point on this topic; I think in both verbal and visual terms at the same time, almost to the point that I cannot separate the two (at least in regards to writing). I have a condition known as Synesthesia, specifically Grapheme > Color Synesthesia. That means…
This is how I perceive this sentence.
Every single letter and number has a specific color to me. It never changes (i.e. B is always blue, C is always red, etc), and is entirely automatic. And when I hear words being said, it is also largely automatic that I imagine the words for a moment, with said colors in mind. Yet at the same time, whenever I read words, I hear them in my head. Because of the color associations hard-wired into my brain, when I hear I see, and when I see I hear. It is a constant back-and-forth discourse between the verbal and the visual worlds. And I am far from alone in this regard. Recent studies have shown that accounts of Synesthesia are far more frequent than previously believed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17076063), and it is believed that 1 in 23 people have it. The numbers may be even higher, as to people with the condition, they often times have no idea the way they think differs from anyone else’s.
Of course, I don’t believe one has to have a form of Synesthesia to think both verbally and visually. I merely used it as an interesting example. I believe almost everyone thinks in both terms as opposed to just one or another. Both senses interact to give the viewer/listener a much more in-depth view of the world around them than just one or the other could do alone.
- Chris Muise
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Swedile in the Classroom #2 - The challenges of hybrid forms of electronic writing
Having read Dene Grigar’s essay on hybrid forms of electronic writing, I was reminded of some thoughts I’ve had on the direction in which we read and write as a society. First of all, I’d like to point out that this essay, probably the first scholarly essay I’ve seen written like this (i.e. one not on a blog), uses Hypertext. I find that very interesting. However, what I find most interesting is not that Hypertext was used, but that it was used without changing the format of the annotated essay we’ve all seen and written.
The Hypertext was simply inserted into the essay, as many scholars would insert a reference to another scholarly work or an example from which they draw thoughts on or allude to. The writer did not have to alter the usual writing style to any degree to insert these links. Why is it the format of the essay already established - many decades before the advent of the personal computer and the Internet – lend itself so well to Hyperlinking? I think that speaks to the nature of the human mind and how we read, or perhaps more appropriately, how we’ve always wanted to read.
I don’t believe human beings think as linearly as we sometimes like to think we do. Speaking from personal experience, I can say my thought process, when reading at least, is both linear and non-linear at the same time. If I read an essay that has sources cited, or reading about something in an encyclopedia that mentions only briefly another subject, I often think (if the source cited is interesting), “Huh, I should look around for that. It might be interesting and informative.” I don’t believe I’m alone on this, either, considering the outstanding success of Wikipedia, which satisfies our instant curiosity; if you’re reading about Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, and you suddenly think, “Gee, I’d like to know what else Frank Miller has done,” a link within the article itself links to a page on Frank Miller, and often times even a specialized page just on the works of the artist/writer.
The way I see it, human beings have, if not for eons, than at least for a number of centuries, have been prepared to read the way we read now. The only think preventing that was technology. Gutenberg could not burn links into the paper with his printing press, nor could it be transmitted with the speed at which we have now. The best people could do for years was to provide directions to the source, which they could check when they found the time and energy to do it. Now, the information is right there at our fingertips. However, I’m sure that, had the technology existed, people in Johannes’s time would be browsing Albert II and Hyperlinking to previous rulers of Germany, the Holy Roman Empire, and what have you. I think we’ve always been ready for this sort of reading experience; the problem was that technology just didn’t exist until recently. To have arguments about how it’s classified, and debates over the term “new media” versus “Electronic Literature” or “Electronic writing” seems like splitting hairs. It’s like Eagleton said, writing simply changes with the zeitgeist. And I’m sure it’s not done changing yet.
- Chris Muise
The Hypertext was simply inserted into the essay, as many scholars would insert a reference to another scholarly work or an example from which they draw thoughts on or allude to. The writer did not have to alter the usual writing style to any degree to insert these links. Why is it the format of the essay already established - many decades before the advent of the personal computer and the Internet – lend itself so well to Hyperlinking? I think that speaks to the nature of the human mind and how we read, or perhaps more appropriately, how we’ve always wanted to read.
I don’t believe human beings think as linearly as we sometimes like to think we do. Speaking from personal experience, I can say my thought process, when reading at least, is both linear and non-linear at the same time. If I read an essay that has sources cited, or reading about something in an encyclopedia that mentions only briefly another subject, I often think (if the source cited is interesting), “Huh, I should look around for that. It might be interesting and informative.” I don’t believe I’m alone on this, either, considering the outstanding success of Wikipedia, which satisfies our instant curiosity; if you’re reading about Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, and you suddenly think, “Gee, I’d like to know what else Frank Miller has done,” a link within the article itself links to a page on Frank Miller, and often times even a specialized page just on the works of the artist/writer.
The way I see it, human beings have, if not for eons, than at least for a number of centuries, have been prepared to read the way we read now. The only think preventing that was technology. Gutenberg could not burn links into the paper with his printing press, nor could it be transmitted with the speed at which we have now. The best people could do for years was to provide directions to the source, which they could check when they found the time and energy to do it. Now, the information is right there at our fingertips. However, I’m sure that, had the technology existed, people in Johannes’s time would be browsing Albert II and Hyperlinking to previous rulers of Germany, the Holy Roman Empire, and what have you. I think we’ve always been ready for this sort of reading experience; the problem was that technology just didn’t exist until recently. To have arguments about how it’s classified, and debates over the term “new media” versus “Electronic Literature” or “Electronic writing” seems like splitting hairs. It’s like Eagleton said, writing simply changes with the zeitgeist. And I’m sure it’s not done changing yet.
- Chris Muise
Friday, October 17, 2008
Swedile at the Movies: Iron Man
That's right, I'm only now getting to this. If you know me, you'll know that I had a shit summer with lots of BS going on around me, and it didn't put me in the mood to put up with Blogger's nonsense to write a 1000-word opus on any movies I was seeing. However, that's all changed, and I want to write these reviews, dammit! This summer was spectacular (more or less) for movies, and it seems a shame I put so much effort into 2007 where the only really decent movies were Ratatouille and Transformers. So I come to you now, in October, with my reviews on the summer blockbuster season of 2008, in as close to chronological order as I can remember.
As ever, my near-flawless Batman & Robin movie gradation scale is going to be used. For those new to my blog, a quick rundown:
0/4 - Perfect or near perfect movie
1/4 - An otherwise good movie that has negative aspects too big to overlook
2/4 - Mediocre; not bad, but nothing special
3/4 - An otherwise bad movie with a few good aspects
4/4 - Bad movie, with almost nothing to keep your attention
5/4 - A special score for movies so bad they cause cancer
Okay, with that out of the way, Iron Man
Story:
The basic plot is very true to the comics; weapons industrialist Tony Stark is captured and gravely injured by insurgents and ordered to build a megadeath weapon to crush America with. Instead, with some coaching from an old man, he builds a suit of armor for himself to keep his heart from stopping, and also to kill some motherfuckers with. Then when he gets home, he realizes that weapons are, in fact, bad. Thus he tools around the world in what is, let's face it, a weapon, and destroys other weapons. Tony's new-found attitude angers his business partner, Obediah Stane, who gets ahold of Stark's original armor plans and builds one of his own. The two duke it out, Obediah dies, and Tony reveals to the world that he's a superhero.
Okay, looking back at this movie, there's really not much too it. I always wondered how they'd make Iron Man into a movie, because there's not a whole lot to him. He's a lush with a tank strapped to his ass, basically, and he fights a lot of other guys with tanks strapped to their asses. But you know what? For a movie, they succeeded for the most part on the story aspect. Not a whole lot really happened between his origin and the final battle, but it tells a story more or less without incident. The only complaints I had here were that there were not that many action sequences, and that the terrorists were not that believable. They were really trusting. They've asked him to build a missile, and they see him on their security cameras working on a knee joint? And they argue about whether or not it looks like the missile. No, terrorists, it doesn't. Any real terrorist worth his weight in bomb vests would shoot Stark the moment he sneezed in a suspicious manner. But then again, this is a superhero who builds a suit of armor to escape captivity, so you gotta take it with a grain of salt. What really drove this story was charisma, with story second, which brings me to...
Acting:
Meh. I'll admit, Robert Downey Jr. was an excellent Tony Stark. Who better to cast as a womanizing drunkard who throws money around like it was nothing than Downey Jr, a man who was a womanizing drunkard who threw money around like it was nothing. It's a welcome change from Commander Asshole in the comics nowadays, who's done everything in his power to ruin everyone's day. Robert's Stark is charming, witty, and someone who's completely unreliable and irresponsible, but only just enough so it's considered a charming quirk. Seriously, this movie did as well as it did greatly because every single woman in North America was in love with this guy. I'm excited to see him return.
As for everyone else, well, it's a mixed bag. Jeff Bridges as Obediah Stane/Iron Monger wasn't that bad. For 95% of the film, he's a cold, calculating tycoon who puts a hit on his business partner, and later rips out Tony's mega-pacemaker while Tony sits paralyzed in horror. And even in the Iron Monger suit, his voice sounds like a broken-glass-and-sandpaper sandwich, which was awesome. But then in his last 15 minutes, he suddenly had to ham it up. He was calling Stark a prick, going over the subtle nuances of his evil scheme, the works. Why? But still, he was also firing rockets and bitch slapping Iron Man with motorcycles, so at least they make up for it.
Pepper Potts, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, was...unpleasant. Why are all the love interests whiny and needy and complain about everything? Can't there be any fun love interests, someone with a good personality that someone might, you know, actually love? And in the comics she's barely a love interest at all. I do, however, like the bit at the end where they play on this superhero movie staple; she rejects him flat out for being an unreliable asshole. Thank goodness they changed SOMETHING about that tired formula.
And lastly, there's Terrance Howard as James "Rhodey" Rhodes. Let's just say I'm ultimately glad they're replacing him with Don Cheadle in the next one, and that's saying something coming from someone who hates it when they change actors between movies (more on that in my Dark Knight review).
Special Effects:
Pretty damn good, actually. I'm really super glad they got Stan Winston to make the suits. I'd have been majorly disappointed if there weren't a practical Iron Man armor in this movie, and had been done completely in CGI. This movie was, in fact, Stan's final work before he passed away this summer, and he went out with a bang. Teaming with Adi Granov, the guy who designed the current comic version of the armor, they really brought the character to life. It looked like fucking Iron Man, but he's real! I was wowed. And even the CGI wasn't too noticeable. When he was walking around on the ground (to which I say, WHY?), you could tell. Yeah, it was simple. But it wasn't glaring or anything, it was just...there. However, when he's dogfighting jets or whizzing in the air or some shit, it's seamless. It looks really good.
Music:
Not bad, but for the most part nothing memorable like Spider-Man, Superman, or Batman. There are a few scenes where you've got something close to a theme, but generally it's kind of just rock-and-rollish and meh. Luckily, it doesn't deject from the film much at all, and you get stuff like ACDC to jam to.
Humor:
Not bad, actually. I'm notorious for finding things funny that no one else does, and vice versa. It really makes me squirm when something mind-numbingly awful comes on the screen and while I wince, everyone laughs. However, here, yeah, I laughed with everyone else. Maybe not at EVERYTHING, but overall it was just lighthearted humor. Tony Stark really is charming. The first scene in the movie is him lightening the mood. Really. However, the funniest part of the movie for me wasn't even in the movie; it was some 13-year-old, in back of us, saying with the utmost seriousness regarding the movie's villain, "God, that guy's a dick. I hope he dies." Priceless.
Samuel L. Jackson Factor:
It's goddamn Sam Jackson as Nick-motherfuckin-Fury. YES INDEED!
Direction:
To be honest, I didn't really notice anything in way of direction. Normally, I can catch the subtle differences between one director's work and the next. I know when I'm watching a Spieldberg movie, or a Burton film. Jon Favreau really didn't have any defining directorial features. Maybe it's because I've never seen another film by him. Maybe it's because he's mediocre. Or maybe it's because he's genius. Ernest Hemmingway once said that easy reading is "god damn hard writing," and maybe that's applying here; he's so good, we don't even notice him. However, I'm inclined to think it's a mix between the two. On the one hand, the story was told very fluently which, trust me, can be fucked up real quick. So you gotta give him credit for that. But on the other hand, it just felt kind of generic. Charming lead, fights with airplanes, evil businessmen. It's all business as usual. But I'd rather a director be unremarkable than be extraordinarily remarkable for how bad he is (here's looking at Uwe, Boll). Gotta give props to that.
FINAL SCORE:
1/4
Yeah, it was pretty decent. Besides the few flubs I mentioned above, I really have no complaints. You might be asking, then, why it's not a 0/4, if my complaints were so minimal that it barely tainted my perception. Well, there's one complaint that I didn't address directly, but would hope it'd be more clear once the entire review was read; it seemed very ordinary. When I, a comic book geek to rival most, go to a comic book movie, I want to be wowed. Not just in cool action sequences, but just in the whole idea. I still get chills when Peter Parker swings from a thread for the first time. But I didn't feel that with this movie. I don't know if it's because I don't follow Iron Man as much as other heroes, but I really doubt it. I almost never read anything about Superman, but Superman Returns had some epic moments. And that's special, seeing as it had even less action than Iron Man did. I'm more inclined to believe that the film just wasn't as epic as it could have been, or at least had hoped it would be. But still, all in all, it had some good acting, some good sequences, a story that wasn't completely convoluted, and most of all, it had friggin' Iron Man flying around in the sky shooting repulsor blasts and unibeams. What more can a moviegoer ask for?
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Ceasar's Palace to bet an island on a game of craps, and maybe save the world later if I feel like it.
Next up: Speed Racer
- Silent G
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Swedile in the Classroom #1
I find myself quite ambivalent towards corporate websites. In the rare instances I find myself visiting one, it’s always needlessly complicated and slow and it just doesn’t make me want to bother. Promotional movie websites are notorious for being very showy with very little content. The study performed by Deborah E. Rosen and Elizabeth Purinton seems to more or less make it evident that people prefer simple web designs to large, showy ones that only deter people from wanting to interact with the site.
While reading this study, I was immediately reminded of a post by rude, crude online personality Maddox. It was a post made about the same time (give or take a year) as when this study came out. In the article, Maddox demonstrates that, while major corporations pour millions into advertising and image, he gets more traffic than all of them without spending a dime on putting his name out there. As he puts it, “I've spent a grand total of $0.00 promoting my site. McDonald's corporation spent about $1.2 million on Internet promotions last year, so you'd think that of the "millions served daily," a few of them would log on every now and then and check their site just out of curiosity, if only to see nutritional (or lack of nutritional) information.” He even provides a graph, showing the amount spent on advertising and what have you (I think it’s safe to include money spent by companies on consultants who perform studies to determine their best possible image on and off the web) versus the Alexa traffic ranking from 08/15/2003 (Alexa.com), where a smaller number denotes a higher ranking (Yahoo being #1, MSN #2 and so on):
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=owned
This is rather telling, since not only is his website uncomplicated, Maddox basically uses regular HTML and homemade graphics he makes on MSPaint.
Not only does this example give credence to the study above, in that the simpler website received (in 2003 at least) far more traffic than any of the major fast food chains did, but it also points to the notion of content. What content does Pepsi give us? I went on their website (http://www.pepsi.ca/en/promo.htm), and after being accosted with a false homepage, a pop-up of the real page, busy graphics, and insufferably bland music, I can honestly say this; I have no idea what they have on their site. I saw something about playing some game, some contest stuff, and something about designing a can. I had little – well, actually, no – interest in going further. What the article said about a site having ten seconds to catch our attention really is true, it seems. Pepsi had its chance to grab my attention, but it threw a bunch of nonsense at me instead.
I do somewhat disagree with one aspect of the study, though, and that is on the subject of mystery. The study seems to suggest that people want websites to be concise and not mysterious, so that we do not have to spend a great deal of time searching and exploring. While that is certainly true of the Pepsi site, there have been a few examples of late that seem to suggest mystery is welcome in the right circumstances. First of all, this may just be me who feels this way, but when I’m on one of my geek news sites (Superherohype.com, TFW2005.com, Ain’t It Cool News, etc), and their headline that one clicks to read the full article says something like “And Captain America is being played by…” and you have to go on to the full article to find out who, I think that’s enticing. It’s sort of like opening a present; you have that momentary thrill of uncertainty and mystery.
However, an even bigger example is the sudden onset of Viral Sites. It takes the concept of the “Captain America will be played by…” hook and amps it to the max. This past year, with the release of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight fast approaching, Warner Bros. opened a various number of tiny little websites under the heading of “Why So Serious?” The sites looked like newspaper clippings with scratched out or replaced words, as if it were a personal message from the Joker himself.
These sites were basically cryptograms, and when someone cracked the code or the password or whatever, exclusive content would be unearthed, like a new trailer or a sneak peek of Harvey Dent as Two-Face; Something or other to reward the involved participant for their efforts. It was hugely popular, and Warner Bros intends to repeat the process with similar movies, one such example being the upcoming Watchmen. These sites are anything but concise, but they saw a huge amount of traffic and scored the movie huge buzz. It’s little wonder the movie did so well.
- Silent G
While reading this study, I was immediately reminded of a post by rude, crude online personality Maddox. It was a post made about the same time (give or take a year) as when this study came out. In the article, Maddox demonstrates that, while major corporations pour millions into advertising and image, he gets more traffic than all of them without spending a dime on putting his name out there. As he puts it, “I've spent a grand total of $0.00 promoting my site. McDonald's corporation spent about $1.2 million on Internet promotions last year, so you'd think that of the "millions served daily," a few of them would log on every now and then and check their site just out of curiosity, if only to see nutritional (or lack of nutritional) information.” He even provides a graph, showing the amount spent on advertising and what have you (I think it’s safe to include money spent by companies on consultants who perform studies to determine their best possible image on and off the web) versus the Alexa traffic ranking from 08/15/2003 (Alexa.com), where a smaller number denotes a higher ranking (Yahoo being #1, MSN #2 and so on):
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=owned
This is rather telling, since not only is his website uncomplicated, Maddox basically uses regular HTML and homemade graphics he makes on MSPaint.
Not only does this example give credence to the study above, in that the simpler website received (in 2003 at least) far more traffic than any of the major fast food chains did, but it also points to the notion of content. What content does Pepsi give us? I went on their website (http://www.pepsi.ca/en/promo.htm), and after being accosted with a false homepage, a pop-up of the real page, busy graphics, and insufferably bland music, I can honestly say this; I have no idea what they have on their site. I saw something about playing some game, some contest stuff, and something about designing a can. I had little – well, actually, no – interest in going further. What the article said about a site having ten seconds to catch our attention really is true, it seems. Pepsi had its chance to grab my attention, but it threw a bunch of nonsense at me instead.
I do somewhat disagree with one aspect of the study, though, and that is on the subject of mystery. The study seems to suggest that people want websites to be concise and not mysterious, so that we do not have to spend a great deal of time searching and exploring. While that is certainly true of the Pepsi site, there have been a few examples of late that seem to suggest mystery is welcome in the right circumstances. First of all, this may just be me who feels this way, but when I’m on one of my geek news sites (Superherohype.com, TFW2005.com, Ain’t It Cool News, etc), and their headline that one clicks to read the full article says something like “And Captain America is being played by…” and you have to go on to the full article to find out who, I think that’s enticing. It’s sort of like opening a present; you have that momentary thrill of uncertainty and mystery.
However, an even bigger example is the sudden onset of Viral Sites. It takes the concept of the “Captain America will be played by…” hook and amps it to the max. This past year, with the release of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight fast approaching, Warner Bros. opened a various number of tiny little websites under the heading of “Why So Serious?” The sites looked like newspaper clippings with scratched out or replaced words, as if it were a personal message from the Joker himself.
These sites were basically cryptograms, and when someone cracked the code or the password or whatever, exclusive content would be unearthed, like a new trailer or a sneak peek of Harvey Dent as Two-Face; Something or other to reward the involved participant for their efforts. It was hugely popular, and Warner Bros intends to repeat the process with similar movies, one such example being the upcoming Watchmen. These sites are anything but concise, but they saw a huge amount of traffic and scored the movie huge buzz. It’s little wonder the movie did so well.
- Silent G
Monday, September 22, 2008
Swedile at the Movies: Death Bed
Reader beware, you're in for a scare - and not the kind of scare you might want from a horror film.
If this movie sounds familiar to you, comedian Patton Oswalt mentioned it at some length in his Werewolves & Lollipops album. If it doesn't seem familiar, that's likely because this film was made in the 1970s, and never ever released, until just recently on DVD. It's a lost movie, that has the dubious honor of being a lost film that should have remained lost. It wasn't released for a damn good reason, as I shall delve into thusly.
My friend and I had heard about this film, from Patton, and decided it might be fun to watch and mock. We asked the local video store if they had it, and they said they did not, but would order it. It would be ready by September. Who knew September would become such an ominous and terrible month.
Please, I beg of you, take this review not just as a review, or a comedic ripping apart of someone else's work; take it as a DIRE warning.
Story/Plot
Some vague amount of time ago (one can assume at least a century), a demon tree decided to become a breeze, then finds a girl, becomes a person and makes a bed. They proceed to fornicate on the bed maybe, but the chick dies, the demon cries blood, and the blood gets on the bed. Now the bed falls under the ownership of random priests, artists and orgyists, and proceeds to eat them all by dissolving them with a disgusting yellow foam, and yet inexplicably chewing. In the present, random assholes find the bed and have sex on or undress near it, all the while killing them while some douche in a painting waits for the original demon to fall asleep so he can somehow kill the bed.
If that sounds confusing, don't take it as a sign that my writing skills leave something to be desired. That's as best as I could describe the plot of this movie. Why was it so hard? Because this film is incredibly convoluted, characters pop in and out without any explanation whatsoever, and the series of events are told so lazily that we get exposition in it's most obvious form; a character reminiscing about past events. SERIOUSLY. The guy in the painting, throughout the WHOLE movie, engages in a one-sided conversation with this bed, asking it why it does things, then answers his own questions, all the while providing plot details during the lull in action. Which is pretty much the whole movie.
To say this movie has a completely random, convoluted plot that seems to have been written haphazardly as the filming took place is to give this film far too much credit.
Acting
NON-EXISTENT. The actors just wander about with dull gazes on their faces, narrating lines with such boredom that the bed seems much less threatening than a bed that slowly dissolves you already is. Never again will I harshly judge movies like House of Wax or the Saw series or what-have-you ever again, because as bad as their acting is, they at least ACT. Fucking ZOMBIES have more pathos than these emotionless shades. They don't even act terrified or in pain. One guy loses his goddamn hands to the bed, and pulls out nothing but the bones (still attached somehow), and he just looks mildly bemused. BEMUSED. If I lost my hands to an acidic bed, I'd be slightly more distressed than that. Did the casting director decide to hire mutes or something?
The one scene of "acting" I saw in the movie that actually sort of impressed me was when the token black chick somehow escaped the bed after having her legs half-eaten. She finds herself crawling to the door without being able to use her legs, and she does a good job of not using her legs. But that's it. That's literally the only scene in the movie that I'd even consider to have any acting at all. The rest of the scenes feature random people basically reading their lines out loud. Sometimes. Most of it was voice-over anyway. So really, the film is just people wandering aimlessly around the woods.
Special Effects/Production Values
To call these effects "special" is only apt when one uses the word "special" in an ironic, insulting sense. When I heard about this movie, I envisioned a bed that literally morphed into a monster mouth and chewed people up in a bloodbath with bones flying and organs crunching under the weight of the massive teeth of this four-poster bed. That turned out to be expecting WAY too much from this movie. Foam forms around stuff on the bed, which are shot at angles so that you don't see (most of the time) the holes food and people are being pulled through. Then they cut to said foodstuff/peoplestuff floating in yellow water. That's it. That's how the bed eats you. It's so lame, even for the seventies. The seventies had Star Wars and Close Encounters, don't tell me that bed-monster technology doesn't exist. No, this was foam, holes, and a tank of piss.
As for production values, they too sucked. The room the Death Bed resides in literally is cardboard walls painted to look like brick. The outside scenes were filmed out in the forest somewhere. Everything else was depicted with the green screen of the 70s, the black screen. It looked very much like the set of a cheap porno. Which is not that far from what the film was. Random nudity occurred a lot. A LOT. I think only one girl did not undress in this movie at inexplicable moments.
This movie could be made better with $70. Better yet, it could be made better with the 1970s equivalent of $70. There's no excuse for this nightmare.
Music
There wasn't any. There was only noise.
Disturbing Factor
VERY strong. If I gave positive points for proficiency in this category, it'd be a 0/4. The bed masturbates. In the immortal words of thespian/schmucky the clown Lewis Black, I WILL REPEAT THAT; The BED MASTURBATES! Need I say anything more?
Editing
Really bad. The first scene had two people talking and the words they said did not match their mouth movement. This had me believing that this may be a foreign film. Of course, next time someone spoke it was in proper sync. That just means the very first shot with people in it was butchered so badly that it would make people think the film was foreign. I think they decided to narrate everything (literally, ALMOST EVERYTHING) else so as to avoid this dilemma.
As for the rest of it, exposition was deposited in random places where the director basically thought, "Oh shit! We need this scene in there or the movie won't make sense! Stick it in there someplace!" (Clearly the director forgot a few of these, as the movie did not make any sense)
Direction
This movie reads as if the director found a camera laying around in the woods, and decided to make a movie on the spot. He found a few random people, most of whom were willing to be naked for the chance to be in a movie, and used what he could find in an afternoon to make a horror film. Having found a hole in the ground, his grandma's bed, and a few bad paintings, he decided to make Death Bed: The Bed That Eats. And so he did.
BAD, BAD directing.
Happy Ending
Everyone dies. EVERYONE. The bed. The dipshits who somehow survived the bed that were tricked into death by the painting man. The painting man. EVERYONE. That's what I call a happy-fucking-ending.
FINAL SCORE:
5/4
Even this score is a generous score. I say 5/4 only because I am wary of redefining my entire movie Gradation Scale by creating a new score lower than this. I toyed with it. I contemplated giving it a 6/4, which would be the rating given to things that technically are not movies. A porno would score a 6/4. Or a chair. Or non-matter. This film is on par with non-existence. Do you understand the implication that I am making? This movie is SO BAD, it borders on not being a movie at all. This is better described as a mishmash of videos and sounds sewn together in a remedial attempt at a narrative with boobs thrown in for good measure. Oh, and a demon bed that eats you. That was really more of an afterthought, or a catalyst for nudity. And at that point I say, why not just make a porno? Make a porno, not a horrible movie that would score higher on my scale had it never been made.
I am truly sorry for unleashing this wretched thing upon the people of Halifax. I post this in the hopes that maybe I can reduce the destruction I have wrought upon Metro's cinematic landscape.
Yours in horror,
- Silent G
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Ad Nauseum: Symbicort
The argument for and against partially or wholly socialized medicine in the United States is a hot one; There are lots of reasons for it, and only the Rebublican's fear of Commie Cossack as an argument against it. However, the ultimate reason to give way to socialized medicine is it will also abolish a place in society for prescription drug advertisements. These need to stop.
As a Canadian, I never see prescription drug ads on stations like CBC or CTV or what have you. Why? Because Canada is a socialist paradise compared to our neighbors to the south. There's no need to push drugs on TV here, because we don't have to be suckered into buying them. In the states, however, it seems daytime television is watched only by the uneducated and the severely, monstrously ill. Every commercial break during The Price is Right is for some pill for erectile dysfunction or free scooters. I've always had a tenuous relationship with these ads before, but I saw something recently that just blew my mind.
This seems like a pretty standard asthma medication ad at first glance, but did you catch that odd bit? The part where one of the listed side-effects is a GREATER RISK OF ASTHMA-RELATED DEATH? To me, that's when I go back to the drawing board, if the medicine I'm making for a specific illness has the unfortunate side effect of increasing the risk of dying from from that malady.
She says it in such a callous way, too. She sounds so chipper about the fact that this could kill you from what you're using it to alleviate. Obviously she's been paid well. Though that's not so uncommon, talking about side effects worse than the disease in such a calming tone. What do these people think? I know they have to list the side effects, but do they think people will ignore side effects like "greater risk of asthma-related death" if it's said in a pleasing tone? Or, here's a novel idea; don't put drugs on the market with that many side effects, especially ones that are worse than, or, in this case, can cause death from the disease?
If this isn't a good reason to provide socialized health care, then I don't know what is.
- Silent G
Monday, January 14, 2008
An Open Letter to KTS
Dear King's Theatrical Society,
You have a warped sense of entitlement, and a far worse grasp on priority. Your theatre shares space with the tunnels that connect Alex Hall to the A&A building, where just about all of us eat every day. And yet you choose the worst possible times to occupy this space. Why?
I am a resonable man, KTS. I can understand that when you are putting on a performance for an audience, that disturbances are unwelcome. Hell, I can even understand being asked to take the outdoor route when the weather is reasonable. But it is when you demand of us to take the to the streets during a snow warning or, even once, a blizzard, just for a rehersal. That is warped. What is your reasoning behind this?
The way I figure it, it's all a display of power. I've met a lot of Directors in my day, and let me tell you, they get off on it. There's no other logical explanation for it. Let us assume for a moment that my presence does disrupt the flow, the feng shui of the rehersal. Okay, fine, BUT; The Pit takes about 4 seconds to cross, at a regular pace. It takes about the same amount of time for the director to say to me, "Excuse me, we're doing a rehersal, you need to go the other way." Either way, it disrupts the rehersal. I've often noticed how no one rehersing even notices me until the director points out my presence by addressing me. And I'm sorry KTS, but not everyone is going to see those asinine signs you put up, and a number more won't care. When you see someone, just let them pass when it's horrible out, God.
The worst case of the above was during an actual low-level blizzard earlier in the year. I am AT THE DOOR. Like, not the door to enter the Pit, the EXIT. TO WHERE I AM GOING. I had successfully crossed the Pit before the director noticed me. When he saw me he got up and said, "You're going to have to go outside, this is a rehersal!" I look around. HE IS THE ONLY PERSON IN THE ROOM! Are you fucking kidding me?!? I told this guy off a little, telling him how moronic he was being, and that there was no way in hell I was going to turn around, back through the Pit, and go outside IN A BLIZZARD. I was a split second away from him even noticing me, and unless he was practicing for The Vagina Monologues, there wasn't even a rehersal to be had. Do you not see how insane that is, KTS?
Another problem I have; You KNOW when dinner is served, and yet you ALWAYS hold your rehersals around that time. When you KNOW there will be a large amount of traffic wanting to go that way. STOP DOING THAT. If you don't want to be bothered, don't reserve the room during mealtime. I'm also sure your cast is so glad to be missing supper for your magificent opus.
One of the things most kids learn early is to how to share. Well, KTS, you're hogging the ball on this one, and you need to let us play with it too.
When it's a blizzard, put up with 4 seconds of your time disturbed by us avoiding the harsh elements. And we wonder why this school has mumps epidemics come spring.
Sincerely yours in outrage,
- Chris Muise
Post Script to Cindy Day:
"Winterlude?" REALLY? No wonder CBC took Peter Coade.
You have a warped sense of entitlement, and a far worse grasp on priority. Your theatre shares space with the tunnels that connect Alex Hall to the A&A building, where just about all of us eat every day. And yet you choose the worst possible times to occupy this space. Why?
I am a resonable man, KTS. I can understand that when you are putting on a performance for an audience, that disturbances are unwelcome. Hell, I can even understand being asked to take the outdoor route when the weather is reasonable. But it is when you demand of us to take the to the streets during a snow warning or, even once, a blizzard, just for a rehersal. That is warped. What is your reasoning behind this?
The way I figure it, it's all a display of power. I've met a lot of Directors in my day, and let me tell you, they get off on it. There's no other logical explanation for it. Let us assume for a moment that my presence does disrupt the flow, the feng shui of the rehersal. Okay, fine, BUT; The Pit takes about 4 seconds to cross, at a regular pace. It takes about the same amount of time for the director to say to me, "Excuse me, we're doing a rehersal, you need to go the other way." Either way, it disrupts the rehersal. I've often noticed how no one rehersing even notices me until the director points out my presence by addressing me. And I'm sorry KTS, but not everyone is going to see those asinine signs you put up, and a number more won't care. When you see someone, just let them pass when it's horrible out, God.
The worst case of the above was during an actual low-level blizzard earlier in the year. I am AT THE DOOR. Like, not the door to enter the Pit, the EXIT. TO WHERE I AM GOING. I had successfully crossed the Pit before the director noticed me. When he saw me he got up and said, "You're going to have to go outside, this is a rehersal!" I look around. HE IS THE ONLY PERSON IN THE ROOM! Are you fucking kidding me?!? I told this guy off a little, telling him how moronic he was being, and that there was no way in hell I was going to turn around, back through the Pit, and go outside IN A BLIZZARD. I was a split second away from him even noticing me, and unless he was practicing for The Vagina Monologues, there wasn't even a rehersal to be had. Do you not see how insane that is, KTS?
Another problem I have; You KNOW when dinner is served, and yet you ALWAYS hold your rehersals around that time. When you KNOW there will be a large amount of traffic wanting to go that way. STOP DOING THAT. If you don't want to be bothered, don't reserve the room during mealtime. I'm also sure your cast is so glad to be missing supper for your magificent opus.
One of the things most kids learn early is to how to share. Well, KTS, you're hogging the ball on this one, and you need to let us play with it too.
When it's a blizzard, put up with 4 seconds of your time disturbed by us avoiding the harsh elements. And we wonder why this school has mumps epidemics come spring.
Sincerely yours in outrage,
- Chris Muise
Post Script to Cindy Day:
"Winterlude?" REALLY? No wonder CBC took Peter Coade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)