Saturday, March 7, 2009

Slow-mo ocean

Originally posted September 22, 2008 on my group forum of friends back home.

***

So I watched another segment of the movie 300 (I think people who watch it all in one sitting suffer migraines) recently. The film is closer to the “torture” end of the entertainment spectrum.

This is a slow movie. It has action, yes, but it is SLOW. Every single time the director wants to make a scene "totally badass" he uses the very original mechanism of slowing the motion.

I will agree that using slow and fast motion can be used in a constructive way to add dramatic effect. However, just like highlighting an entire page of text just turns the page into a blur of pretty colors, slow-mowing 80% of the movie turns it into a dizzying blah of a migraine. This movie is like a person whose argumentative strategy is simply to yell angrily rather than make a point. Yelling is only effective if you're not always yelling, otherwise people will tone you out (and tone out your point). I toned this movie out.

The director's slow motion fetish is a glaring problem, but it is [merely] a problem of style. Although it is a big enough problem to sink the ship, the movie would have died of dysentery anyway because without slow motion we would recognize that we're watching a bunch of ridiculous people jumping around fighting with lame moves and screaming corny lines. How could such a classic story be butchered so badly?

-----

Let me give an example of good use of slow motion (in my humble opinion as lord of this blog).

Perhaps my favorite scene in the movie Braveheart is when the magistrate executes Murron, the wife of William Wallace, who then rides in broken but enraged. I like this scene because of the tension—because the pace of the scene will not let you get comfortable.

Prior to the scene, Wallace is established as a strong, though peaceful, and crafty character. We expect him to use his "wits" to save his wife from the unjust execution, especially since she took an awful risk marrying him in secret. He damn well better rescue her. He's the film's hero, isn't he?

The scene begins with Murron tied to a stake before the magistrate. He makes an inflammatory speech which the cowardly citizens swallow. Then immediately after, and before you have time to construct a guess as to how Wallace will come in to save the day, her throat is opened. She's dead.

This quick execution is brilliantly followed by one of the slowest scenes of the movie—one where slow motion is appropriately used. Complemented by the tense music, William Wallace enters, appearing broken and vulnerable after failing to liberate his love. All hope is lost and we have to sit and take it in slow motion—until his concealed weapons crash into the first young soldier, making the normal speed seem like a rush. Thus the transition into battle is stunningly stark and with our hearts pounding and consciences outraged we welcome the ensuing massacre.

2 comments:

  1. Response posted by my respected director friend Chris:

    I am not the biggest fan of 300. It was just a 2 hour fight scene with no real focus on story. If you can name one character from that movie I would be surprised. I also feel that slow-mo should be only occasionally. Also 300 represent a new wave of films that shoot entirely on green screen... I blame George Lucas. These films fail to suspend belief, when you watch 300 you may be entertained but in the end you know you are watching a bunch of mostly naked dudes swing swords around a sandbox with a giant green cloth behind them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. you mean it wasn't really filmed in...Sparta?

    ReplyDelete