Peter Jackson's Love of HFR and Why We Love to Hate It (Entry #11)

     Most movies that you see in theaters today are shot in 24p, a video format that operates at 24 frames per second. But in 2012, Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey introduced moviegoers to a projection frame rate of 48 frames per second, or "High Frame Rate" as it was advertised to the public. It was the first feature film with a wide release to be shown at this rate. Some people loved it, and some people hated it, and the funny thing was, they loved and hated it for a lot of the same reasons.
     Jackson was attempting to create the uncanny on purpose in his film. The Hobbit series, a total of three films with the last being released this year, serves as a prequel to Jackson's other film franchise, The Lord of the Rings. All of the films are visual epics, filled with hobbits and goblins and trolls and elves, amongst a slew of other fantastic mythical creatures and locations. CGI is heavily relied on to create the world, which makes for a very imaginative, make-believe, fictional world.
     However, when Jackson decided to film The Hobbit series in HFR, there was a clash in the look and feel of the film. The HFR created a very non-cinematic picture. Movies in general look different from TV shows, particularly reality TV shows, due to lighting and other elements. When people first saw The Hobbit in HFR, it looked like a video game. The picture was unusually sharp and crisp, and reminded viewers of their HD TVs at home, not what you usually see in a movie theatre.
     A quote from Rolling Stone might help:

     "Couple that with 3D and the movie looks so hyper-real that you see everything that's fake about it, from painted sets to prosthetic noses. The unpleasant effect is similar to watching a movie on a new HD home-theater monitor, shadows obliterated by blinding light – yikes! – reality TV."

      This article from Vulture compares The Hobbit to a slew of other entertainment forms, live theatre a very interesting comparison. Although it received mixed reviews, Jackson continued his use of HFR into the second film in the trilogy, released last year, and will do so in his final film this December.
     I think Jackson's use of HFR made a noticeable mark in the history of filmmaking. While HFR might not have been a successful venture in the world of fantasy, CGI, special effects filmmaking, what might HFR do for other genres of film? In gritty, human dramas, HFR might be a nice touch to make it seem that much more real, and less cinematic in form, more personal and intimate. The uncanny could blur the line that the cinema often creates, and could even welcome the intimacy found in black boxes and live theatres into movie theatres. We often go to the movies to escape, but what if we started going to the movies for a totally new experience? It's hard to see what impact Jackson's choices have now, as it's a relatively new form of technology, but it would be interesting to see if it has any lasting effects in moviemaking over the next few years.

Fifth of July Is Over! If You Want It (Entry #10)

     First, I apologize for my lateness for the second week in a row. (This isn't a protest of Maggie's post, mind, this is a 'I-blame-Fifth-of-July-for-Taking-Over-My-Life' and now I'm back in the game… thing. I hope to return to my usual prompt self soon.)
     Now, to the prompt. I'm not going to lie, although I read, and reread the prompt and questions, I'm not 100% sure what's being asked, so I will use my recent experience with Fifth of July and our Forum about Outworks to help shape my response. (I also enjoy that we live in an age of cynicism and apathy - I'm finally home!) Throughout my experience in Fifth, I often wondered, "Why are we doing this show?" When I asked Rick, his response was vaguely, "Because I wanted to". Interesting, not that he felt that Ken and Jed's struggle with life and the war was worthy of being performed today because it is relatable, or that in a bigger picture, the ideals of the late 70s are relevant to today's collegiate audience, but because Rick "wanted to". Why do the show then? It's no longer relevant. George Morris, Baton Rouge's love-to-hate-him theatre critic, said

 "First staged in 1978, “Fifth of July” may have resonated better in an era when much of America was struggling to shake off the bad dream of the Vietnam War and the social upheaval that surrounded it. Today, it feels like a play that just needs to get to the point."

     I fear Morris may be right. (Read the rest here, it's a delightful doozy of a review.) The next step theatre must take in order to create new dialogue and initiate change is to do theatre that is relevant, or at least relatable, to today's audiences. I think that the reason for doing theatre today must be greater than just "wanting" to do it. It must be performed for this specific reason. Does all theatre have to have a "point" then? Some call to action, didactic message that changes your life view on a topic? Not necessarily. Mary Poppins and The 39 Steps are worthwhile pieces of theatre, though they might not have powerful messages. The difference in performing shows like these and shows like Fifth lies in the intention. Mary Poppins' intention is to entertain. Fifth's intention is to… well, I don't know. At least today, in 2014 Baton Rouge I don't.
     The same goes for Outworks. We can't take advantage of our 1020 audiences just because we have them captive. It's not fair. It's one thing to celebrate the LGBTQ lifestyle, but it's another thing to force a mass group of traditionally non-theatregoers to attend a play festival, and then get angry when they don't love it. You can't preach at people who don't want to listen. The same goes for Fifth. Don't abuse your audience because you can. It's just the wrong way to go about creating theatre with a message attached. To initiate change, we have to change the way we're doing it for anything to happen.
     I think theatre is one possible answer to things like war and oppression. An artistic view on an issue might be the thing one needs to fully grasp what's happening. Others might want facts and figures. It depends on the person and how they process information. Sometimes theatre is quite helpful in making an issue relatable and bringing it close to home. It can shed new light on tired issues. Lee Blessing's Two Rooms comes to mind. Others might only be swayed by a news article or segment on tv, the same news story that is lost on another. Theatre could always be an answer, just like a news segment. Different strokes for different folks.

Stop the Protests (Entry #9)

     By the time I post entry #9, it will be late because I put it off. I put it off because I don't find protests that effective. Oftentimes, the protest is less about changing the opposer's mind and more about finding likeminded individuals who share your opinion on a given topic. 

     With that said, I joked about creating a protest that wasn't a protest. A protest to protest protests. So my issue of social importance in my community would be the onslaught of unnecessary protests. I don't agree with mass gatherings of people holding up signs saying "End _____" or "Stop _____". It's important to me because nothing is getting done. No one is listening, people who pass by are annoyed that you're in the way, the people who you're trying to convince are so hard-set in their viewpoint that you aren't going to sway them, the people who agree with you are marching alongside of you, and those in the middle don't care because to them, you're just another angry group of people. 

     My act of protest would be an end to protests. This isn't an end to free speech, but the end of the ideology of activism through the act of protest. I'm not sure how little old Michael will end all protests, but in this hypothetical world they would just cease to exist because I willed them to stop. Like MySpace, jelly bracelets, bell-bottom jeans, and Lady Gaga, the act of protest would just fade into the abyss.

     My protest of protests would include the tactic of forgetting. It might involve recruiting a group of naysayers who drift by protests and mumble things under their breath like "(what are you doing?)" or "(do you think anyone's even listening?)" or "(just stop)". It might also involve proof of the ineffectiveness of protests, like a chart showing how many people felt a certain way about a topic, and then how many of them changed their view after the experience with the protest. 

     The media, in my situation, obviously is no help to me. The media must present a neutral (HA!) stance on the protest, and then like all good news segments go, talk about the protest ad nauseam. They would only perpetuate the ineffectiveness of the protest in hand by furthering the separation of those too strong-willed to be swayed from those too invested in the cause to hear the other side. 

     My protest of protests will end in one of two ways. 

1. Protests in general will come to a halt. All is well. 
2. People realize protesting is ineffective and get on their feet and actually DO something besides walking around in a circle, chanting and holding signs. They take an active role in whatever is being protested and do something about it. Then, and only then, will things actually change.

     Until then, we will continue in the thought of thinking we're actually doing something when we are really, in all reality, not.