Category Archives: Movies

Saturday Night Fever Dream

[Note: I changed the name of this post to something more suitable.]

Back in 1976 and a year out of high school I got a part time job at a single screen movie theater as a projectionist. The first movie I ran by myself was a Roman Polanski movie called The Tenant. It was the third in a trilogy of Polanski horror movies after Repulsion and Rosemary’s Baby. Both films had won critical acclaim. I can only assume this is why the owner of the local theater chain company booked it.

Over the stretch of 6 days we sold 7 tickets, of which 5 walked out during the show. One night we ran the movie for no one. The owner was watching this unfold and by the 7th day, we had a new movie to show. Low ticket sales also meant low concession sales. Minimal staff meant a manager to supervise and work ticket sales, a concessionaire, and a projectionist. On the bright side for the janitor, there was little to clean up.

Spoiler warning. The Tenant wasn’t a happy movie. There is a scene where the main character begins to take on the symptoms of madness that the previous tenant had. Eventually he throws himself out of his apartment window and survives like the previous tenant did. But, not one to easily give up he drags his broken body up the stairs to try again. The second attempt doesn’t work either. But that isn’t the end of it. You’ll have to see it.

My first theater had two of what were at the time relatively new 35 mm Norelco projectors. At this time theaters commonly used two 35 mm projectors sitting side by side in the darkened upstairs projection booth. Movies were shipped in one or more metal shipping containers in roughly 5 to 7 20-minute reels. Since the Norelco projector used 1-hour reels, three shipping reels were spliced head to tail and wound onto the larger reel. Usually there was only one changeover. We spliced in short preview clips on the first reel. This gave folks time to hear the movie begin and rush to their seats after getting concessions. When customers weren’t bitching about the price of popcorn, they would complain about the previews. We ignored them. That decision was way over our heads.

Older model Norelco projectors in a typical projection booth. Source: Norelco.

Two projectors were used to avoid interruptions between reels. Near the very end of a reel, a black spot would appear twice in the upper right-hand corner of the image. The first time was the signal to be sure the lamp was lit and to get the motor rolling on the other projector. Shortly after this was the second appearance of the black spot. This time it was the signal for the changeover. This was the cue to drop the dowser on the first projector and block the light while simultaneously opening the dowser on the other letting light through the next reel. At the same time the sound was shut off from the first projector and activated on the second projector. The result was smooth continuity of image and sound between reels.

At this point, the take-up reel was rewound and put away, ready for the next run. Leaving unrewound reels for the next guy was a major faux pas. Wash, rinse and repeat.

35 mm movies shipping reels. Source: ebay.

Most movies arrived on 5 to 7 reels in 2 or 3 shipping cans. The more common brand of projectors, Simplex 35’s, were designed to run the shipping-reel sized reels on the upper feed side directly. We’d use our own better-quality reels for use. The Simplex projectors came with carbon-arc lamphouses that required some attention when they were lit up.

A Simplex projector. It looks old because it is old.

Above is a common example of the Simplex 35 mm movie projector. It is comprised of a lamphouse, the upper feed reel, the intermittent movement and film gate, the spinning shutter, the optical sound pickup is below and slightly behind the image in time. The take-up reel is at the bottom. Between the shutter and the light is the dowser. There was one for manual use and later, one for automatic use. The purpose of these black pieces of thin metal was simply to block the light from getting to the gate where the film passed through. One reason is to avoid projecting an undesired image or white light onto the screen. It’s unprofessional and bad showmanship. The other reason is to prevent light getting to the film if the motor gives out and the film stops in the gate. Lamphouses generate considerable heat and a stationary piece of film will begin to melt within a second or two. Naturally, this fiasco will show up on the screen for God and everyone to see.

Inside view of the Simplex 35 carbon arc lamphouse.

The component in the center (above) of the housing held two copper-clad carbon rods which were slowly fed towards one another with one rod penetrating the mirror. The position of the rods was continuously moved towards the focal point as the rods burned up in the arc. Good ventilation was required. The purpose of the motion was to keep the size and shape of the arc constant and in the focal point of the parabolic mirror. Once the arc moved away from the focal point, the brightness of the projected image would diminish. If the gap between the rods became too long, the arc would wander around and become unstable causing flickering to appear on the movie screen. The arc lamp for our indoor theater used 70 to 80 amps DC. The high DC power was supplied by a vacuum tube rectifier. The projectors for our drive-in theater used 120 to 140 amps DC. Longer throw and larger screen.

Copper clad carbon rods for arc lighting in a movie projector.

The gate mechanism was interesting. At its heart was a Maltese cross intermittent movement. It would twist a sprocket enough to pull the film down by one frame and then leave it there for a short time. While stationary, the shutter blades would alternate letting light pass through and blocking it. The frame rate was 24 frames per second, but to prevent flickering, each frame is shown twice. While the shutter blocks the light, the gate mechanism pulls down the next frame.

The intermittent movement pulled the film through the “
gate” for steady projection.

The intermittent movement pulled the film through the film gate and stopped momentarily in time with the shutter. The purpose of the gate was to clamp the film stationary in the focal plane for a moment while the light passes through. It was built to hold the film firmly in place but not adversely affect the movement of the film or damage it. Movie prints are expensive and not always replaceable, especially if they are older. One side of the gate had two smooth, polished steel sliding surfaces for the film sprocket-hole sides to slide on and the opposite side had two flexible steel bands sitting over the polished slides to apply light pressure to the film to prevent chattering.

The gate also holds the aperture which determines the shape of the light beam giving the image on the screen. It is just a thin black metal plate that has a precise rectangular hole in it. The idea is to put image on as much of the screen as possible. Apertures are defined by their aspect ratio, or the ratio of length to width. The most common aspect ratios are the normal 1.85 to 1 and the anamorphic wide screen ratio of 2.39 to 1. We used to refer to the anamorphic image as “Cinemascope.” The 1.85 ratio works well both in cinema and television. Movie theater screens were adjustable in width by black curtains called “masking.” There were two positions for the masking- fully open for wide screen Cinemascope and partially closed for the regular format. Theaters could have used fully exposed screens like they do today, but the aesthetics then was to cover unused screen at that time. The 2.39 to 1 Cinemascope format works well in the theater but adjustments have to be made for it on television screens. They will either lop off the left and right sides and convert it to 1.85 to 1, or they will broadcast the movie in letterbox form, preserving the entire image, but making it smaller vertically on the TV screen.

Some theaters use curved screens but most do not. If you think about it, the distance of the film plane to a flat screen is minimum from the film to the center of the screen. This distance, however, increases from the center to the edges of the screen. So, it isn’t possible to focus the center and the edges simultaneously. In practice, the center of the screen is put in focus. A concave screen overcomes this problem. The larger the screen the more obvious the improvement in focus will appear.

Projecting a large image onto a large screen has certain problems to contend with. A large image from a 35 mm frame will magnify any imperfections in the image like graininess and focus but also you will come up against limits on brightness of the image. The image on the film should be what the director intended- perfect and usually it’s quite good. Focus is mostly a theater problem. Focus degrades with image size inherently but also with how well the operator can use the focus knob on the projector.

When a complaint came in about the focus, I would check it right away. Usually, the image on the screen was already at the optimum focus. To show the audience we were attending to the issue, I would crank it way out of focus, then back through focus and to the other extreme. Then I would then bring the image back into focus carefully, demonstrating that the image on the screen was as good as it could get. At one theater we had a 960-seat auditorium with a large, curved screen. The large size of the screen image came from a 35 mm piece of film meaning the magnification was very large. Focus and graininess were always an issue.

The anamorphic lens will take a distorted image from the film and spread it out to give a proper wide screen image. On TV they refer to these movies as letterbox movies due to the wide image but narrow height on a TV screen.

Simplex 35 mm film gate. Source: Ebay.

So, what’s the deal with the noise? Projectors make a characteristic clattering noise that isn’t always very quiet. The film is fed to the upper end of the gate at a constant speed, but the film has to stop every 24th of a second so a stable image can be shown twice. The film motion into and out of the gate area goes from constant-feed to intermittent-movement to constant feed-out. To do this, a loop of film is placed a above and below the gate forming two bits of slack in the film. The slack is alternately fed in and out and pulled in by the intermittent mechanism. It’s a bit noisy, but the customers never hear it. There might be other noise from the motors and gearing mechanisms as well.

Platter projection systems eventually came along with better automation for easier use by people with a broader job description in the movie house.

A single projector system with platters feeding and taking up film, No rewinding or changeovers. Source: Sprocket School.

The platter system came to our neck of the woods in the late 1970s. Our platters were air driven so they made a constant whining sound. The entire film was spliced together with heads in the middle and tales on the outside. One platter fed the film to the projector and a second one was the take-up platter. The film fed through a speed control mechanism in the center of the platter and then on to the projector. Out of the bottom of the projector, the film threaded through a speed controller and then rewound on the take-up platter. The third platter was a make-up platter for putting together the next movie. This system was not so good for the projectionist profession but did allow the theater to have a manager run the projectors and take care of everything in the lobby as well. I used to be a manager/projectionist at a duplex theater then later at a 4-plex theater while I was an undergraduate. If there was a power trip and the projectors dropped out, I would have 4 auditoriums of upset folks to content with. The house lights would automatically dim up so the crow could conveniently find their way out to complain. Lucky for me I was in one of the two projection booths getting the projectors running and away from the mob spilling out into the lobby. On the good side they usually bought concessions while pacing in the lobby.

When splicing film reels together it was convenient to mark the splice location along the edge so it could be seen wound onto the reel. We used white shoe polish to mark 2 ft of edge. When we were breaking down a print to ship out, unless there was a mark between reels, you could easily pass the splice as you were rewinding onto the shipping reels. We saved the head and tail leaders and spliced them back on for shipment. This was always done late Thursday night during and after the last show. Any previews had to be returned as well. Over time, movies came with previews attached.

Tape splicer for 35 mm movie prints. There is a cutter on the right side for getting clean, square edges, and a roll of tape at the splice point. We would overlap the splices by 1 sprocket hole for strength. Butt splices were prone to failure after too many flexures but did not show during projection. Both sides of the print were taped. Note the holes on the top part. Punches would come out when in use to punch out the sprocket holes. Image from ebay.

The film lab where prints are made would do lab splices when a new roll of stock was needed in the middle of a reel. These splices were overlapped about 1/2 a sprocket length and were either thermally fused or glued. Normally you never noticed them.

A “normal” movie print has one or two parallel optical soundtracks along one side that passes over the sound head. The sound head consisted of a lensed light source and a photodetector. The soundtrack(s) are black with variable transparent area that changes in proportion to the magnitude and frequency of the sound. Movies came with a single track early on and eventually changed to dual track stereo sound. In recent decades other schemes came along like Dolby sound and others. There are other sites where this is explained in more detail and with copy written graphics.

A 35mm movie print frame with dual soundtracks. The two soundtracks are different as you would expect stereo channels to be.

The Saturday Night fever Disaster.

On the opening Friday night of Saturday Night Fever back in late 1977, I had just started the first showing. In the other theater, I started a sci-fi movie called Coma, written by Michael Crichton. Seeing that they were both running on our platter systems nicely, as manager/projectionist I had to attend to the lobby to check the ticket booth and grab some of the larger bills from the cash drawer and then the same at the concession stand. About 60 minutes later and into the third reel of Saturday Night Fever I went into the booth to check the projectors. Coma looked just fine. What I saw at the other projector floored me. I couldn’t believe it. Never had I dreamed that such a thing was possible.

What I saw was on the take-up platter of Saturday Night Fever. There was part of the film that was half gone across the film width. The film wound up smoothly as usual and the top surface looked smooth as it always did, except for maybe 80 % of a reel where the top half of the print was just gone! It looked like a gutter was gouged into the print. I looked everywhere in a panic for the missing film, many hundreds of feet of it, but it was not to be found anywhere. So I began to look closer at the print on the take-up platter. Where the next reel began (remember the shoe polish?), the layers of the film had a slightly different texture.

Feeling nauseated and incredulous all at once that I had destroyed a print of a blockbuster movie that people were dying to see during the very first showing, I stopped the projector, refunded 210 very hacked-off customers and halted sales for the next show. Turns out this was not really necessary but I did it in panic. Then I called the owner of the theater and explained what had happened. He was already pissed about something- taxes maybe- so my news just threw gasoline on the fire.

While he was on the way, I began to sort out what had happened. By the next day when I very laboriously removed the print, and instantly say what had happened. Early into reel 2 a lab splice had torn halfway across the width of the print, then down the middle for 80 % of the reel. It only stopped when it came to my tape splice between reels 2 and 3. So, this 80 % of reel two had piled onto the floor then at the beginning of reel 3 began to be pulled off the floor and onto the take-up platter where it neatly rolled up between layers of reel 3. Because it was from the top of reel 2 and layered along the top of reel 3, it wasn’t easily visible. Nobody had heard of such a failure before. Usually a print tore completely across and the projector automatically shut down.

The Simplex 35 platter projectors we had were equipped with a failsafe feature below the sound head. By this time, projectors had long had failsafe mechanisms, but they only detected tension in the film. This device did two things- it detected broken film and it detected a thin piece of conductive tape along the edge that would signal the automation to close the dowser and shut off the lamp to block the light, shut off the sound, dim up the background music (Neil Diamond, usually), signal the house lights to dim up, reset the masking curtains, and close the main curtains in front of the screen. The sensor consisted of two curved paddles that sat in the film path and across and against the film as it left the projector below the sound head. The stationary paddle picked up the shut-down metal tape that triggered the automation and the other spring-loaded paddle sensed the loss of film coming out of the projector. But it only sensed the presence of one side of the film. If the other side was somehow missing, there would be no film breakage detected. And that’s what happened.

The big problem was that we had an empty screen and needed a movie to throw on it. All 1400 of the Saturday Night Fever prints were in use across the world. There were no more, or so we were told. What we did to keep butts in seats was to show one print in 2 theaters simultaneously. Both projectors had Selsyn motors that would cause the two projectors run synchronously without creating or losing slack in the print between projectors. We called it “running in synch”. So, for 6 days we ran Coma on both screens. The cast included Geneviève BujoldMichael DouglasElizabeth AshleyRichard Widmark, and Rip Torn. Among the actors in smaller roles were Tom SelleckLois Chiles, and Ed Harris. It was pretty good.

A plea to filmmakers

The quote below gives the most interesting explanation I’ve seen of gun culture in the US.

Guns are at the center of a worldview in which the ability to launch an armed rebellion must always be held in reserve. And so in the wake of mass shootings, when the public is most likely to clamor for gun regulations, Republicans regularly shore up gun access instead.”

No matter your position on firearms, there is no point in scolding the opposite side since few if any people are ever convinced to join your side. It is a waste of time and energy. The grownups of America need to find a way to de-normalize violence in general. Guns happen allow a person to commit violence from a safe distance, plainly a reason for their popularity. Obviously, self-defense is a delicate spot, but if committing violence is not nearly viewed as normal by the broader population, the need to for lethal self-defense just might diminish a bit.

American gun culture as I see it is comprised of a spectrum of individuals ranging from violent criminals to paranoid militiamen to peaceful hunters and sport shooting enthusiasts. Criticism of gun culture should not bunch them together under one umbrella. Carefully chosen vocabulary should be used so as not to antagonize the more peaceful side of the spectrum.

When the European frontier was settled by stone age people 40 or 50 thousand years ago, there were no firearms. There were weapons that could only be energized by their personal strength. Fighting was more intimate in the sense that clubbing and jabbing had to be done up close to your adversary. Stoning could be done from a few steps back. Killing wounds led to exsanguination and a rapid death while others led to sepsis and a longer, agonizing death.

The invention and spread of gunpowder starting in 9th century China led to the development of guns, cannons and, eventually, exploding projectiles. It was lost on no one that firearms enabled the projection of lethal force from a safer distance. The first really big war, World War I, in Europe was when advances like the Maxim recoil-operated machine gun and high explosives like picric acid were first put to large scale use. When the Maxim machine gun came out, many predicted that the mere appearance of the weapon would frighten the enemy into submission. Of course, it didn’t work and over the years the result was more and more efficient and mutual slaughter of opposing forces.

Male humans in particular have always been drawn to weapons and the martial arts. There are exceptions obviously, but men seem to take a shine to guns early in their lives. When asked why they like guns, they usually mention something about protection from intruders or perhaps just being a good guy with a gun in general. Often heard is the argument-terminating reminder of the 2nd Amendment and the vow that their guns could be confiscated only from their cold, dead hands.

Some Americans do live their lives in dangerous places. With some training, having a handgun in the nightstand may indeed be necessary for protection. Speaking for myself, I have never lived anywhere that was so burdened with crime that I felt it was necessary to pack a handgun. So, I can’t criticize those who are threatened by crime.

What I can criticize, though, is the broader culture that idolizes the Hollywood image of a good guy (or gal) who resolves conflict with a firearm. We have the screenwriters to thank for this. They dream up the story arc in the screenplay to include some fancy gun play. Death is always immediate and without the off-putting cries of pain and writhing that comes with a serious wound.

Gunplay in European TV programming is much less common. I’ve watched TV police drama series from the UK, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy and Germany. The only significant shooting I’ve seen is in a show from Germany called Luna & Sophie. Surprise, surprise. It turns out that a compelling police drama screenplay can be written without a lot of shooting and gratuitous violence. Or even with none at all. Perhaps it is because guns are not very abundant in the general population in Europe.

An effect of repeated and detailed depictions of gun violence on TV is that it suggests that shooting people is, well, normal. It normalizes the notion that the shooter can be the judge, jury and executioner. Killing someone with a gun also bypasses all of that due process stuff that wastes so much time. We all know that this is a dramatic depiction and that shooting people in real life will have very serious consequences. In my idea of civilization, people would be safe without a firearm. But, this is a fantasy I never expect to see unless I move to Iceland.

Maybe you could say that gunplay on US television mostly depicts good guys with guns defeating bad guys with guns. I’ll agree, that is a positive spin. The problem lies with population distribution within a large group. It often happens that a classroom or a large population will distribute itself unevenly when certain measurable attributes like personality or other performance metrics are considered. It is referred to as the bell curve. In the ideal mathematical sense, there is the standard distribution. Below is an example of a bell-shaped curve of % of members of a population versus age.

What is interesting to note is that as the population increases in size and barring any other influences, you would expect the population of each of the individual age groups to grow in number, though not necessarily in percentage. The point is that as the population grows, so does the subgroup of younger criminals.

Credit: National Institutes of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/media/image/2776

So, as the general population increases we can expect the population of criminals to grow as well.

Reality

Clearly, America is in a pickle. Mass shootings have been increasing in number, unlike with most other comparable nations. But with every mass shooting the cries for gun control go unanswered no matter the number of bloody dead children strewn about the floors of American schools. What can be done?

  • Removing guns from citizens or blocking their ownership will not happen. This is completely unworkable and serious people know it. It will only lead to civil war.
  • More laws and tougher sentences for gun-related crimes. This has been done and hasn’t solved the problem.
  • Training teachers to shoot attackers. If you know many teachers, you know this is unworkable.
  • The congress will accomplish absolutely nothing but handwringing.
  • A president can do nothing without the support of the congress. Nothing will happen here.
  • The gun lobby and the National Rifle Association will continue to spew their cold dead hands rhetoric, shouting down voices in favor of even the faintest of gun control remedies, regardless of the bloody mayhem happening.
  • Citizens dedicated to maintaining the status quo with 2nd Amendment hysterics will continue to shout, wave their flags and demand freedom.
  • Republicans will continue to whip up hysteria by lying that gun rights are on the cusp of disappearing.
  • Militiamen will continue to gather in the woods hoping for civil war.

The US has planted itself into a sort of cul-de-sac of violence and extremism in regard to the possession of needlessly powerful weapons and there seems to be no way out. There is no viable political action on the horizon. Instead, let’s forget the damned guns and look elsewhere.

A simple suggestion

In the US we are bathed in violence as entertainment. There were 45,222 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2020 according to the Centers for Disease Control. That is an average of 124 Americans dying per day from firearm-related injury. These aren’t misfires from gun cleaning.

While multiple factors lead to violent actions, a growing body of literature shows a strong association between the perpetration of violence and exposure to violence in media, digital media, and entertainment.

Credit: American Academy of Family Physicians, https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/violence-media-entertainment.html

I’m not sure that viewers are actually asking for all of the entertainment violence that we see- it’s just that if it’s there we’ll eagerly watch it. It resembles click-bait. It is easy to write screenplays with of violence in it. Violence is genuinely exciting to most viewers. Violent content in programming helps to sell projects to those who finance and buy it. It definitely draws eyeballs which sells tickets, subscriptions and advertising. This is a reliable money machine.

What applies to movies also applies to video gaming. Many games are chock-full of violent content where the gamer does the simulated killing personally. I’ve played it myself. It triggers something that compels you to keep killing. But, does that condition you to committing actual violence? Maybe it is an effective release.

Producers and writers of violent content know full well what it takes to kick up the excitement factor. It is formulaic. While they operate under some sort of content guidelines, they are motivated to push it to the edge. The question is, do shoot ’em ups have to be every 4th scene? Are writers unloading their responsibility for compelling content to the stunt coordinators of gun fights and other violence?

What is needed is for screenwriters, producers and directors to back off on the violence a bit. All of the violence on TV comes from the imagination of the writers and producers. Surely it is within their power to throttle back a bit on the shooting, blood and guts. Desecration of human beings as entertainment should have tighter limits.

The goal is a safer and less violent civilization. The people who portray violence in vivid detail and orgasmic revenge produce a commercial product idealizes violence. They should be expected to self-govern better.

A Plea to Filmmakers

Your advertisers know that a certain fraction of viewers are persuaded to buy their products because of advertising within your TV programming. If they are persuaded to buy widgets they probably don’t need, don’t you think that your portrayals of violence might also be effective in negatively influencing impressionable young people? Will half the violence really reduce your profits by half? Does reducing violent content really infringe on your creative freedom? How limited are your creative abilities that you must accurately portray the destruction of human life?

Top Gun: Maverick

History. I’m preparing myself for the upcoming May 27th release of Top Gun: Maverick. To be blunt, I’m still disappointed by the first movie which was released in 1986, so I’m bracing to be disappointed again. Make no mistake, I am an aviation enthusiast and I did really enjoy the flying action scenes with the F-14’s in the first movie. The flying shots were well thought out and captured on film. So, what’s not to like? Well … the rest of the story. The content that is left over when you take out the aircraft and the flying. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times said it best, “”Movies like Top Gun are hard to review because the good parts are so good and the bad parts are so relentless.”

Current. On to the recent release, Top Gun: Maverick. As before the flying sequences were quite good. But again it was against the backdrop of, well, a dumb story. As before the story is written to feature studly macho bravado against the lone-wolf instinct on the part of Maverick. The strenuously independent behavior of Maverick flies in the face of military discipline and is where I part company with the story.

The old timer, Maverick, is finally brought in to lead a group of Top Gun fighter jocks to bomb a highly defended hard target in what looks like a deep crater with impossibly steep walls. Among the best of the best, Maverick is regarded by old timers to be the very best despite his undisciplined ways. Of course, the new generation of fighter pilots are skeptical.

A lot happens … yada, yada, … love interest … yada, yada … guilt trip …. etc, etc … steal a fighter from the enemy … resolve to overcome adversity one more time … zip, zing, zowie … triumph!!

A movie is entertainment that requires you to set aside disbelief. Very often I can do it. But this time I couldn’t.

Heap Big Stinkum

The current movie “The Lone Ranger” is a real stinker. The buffoons who produce pictures like this should not be encouraged with good attendance figures. You can’t build a movie solely on a sight gag consisting of Johnny Depp with a dead crow on his head. In fact, I’d rather not invest anymore heartbeats on the topic. <end>

A most unlikely question

Saw Apollo 18 at the cineplex last night. It is filmed in a rough documentary style with “recovered” footage. My recommendation? It’s worth seeing on a big screen. Probably not a good date flick, though.  But that depends on your date.

While at a brew pub in Denver Friday night, I was summoned to a table of 20-something ladies who were obviously celebrating a girls-night-out before a wedding.  The bride-to-be, decorated with a pink faux veil, gestured for me to come answer a question. I walked over and bent down to hear her. It was then that she looked me in the eye and asked a question that most fellows rarely ever hear: “Can I pat your booty?” she said.  I looked at the table of a dozen well coiffed lovelies watching me for some sign of a reaction.  The guest of honor had a list of items in her hand that she needed to check off.  Seeing this, and noting the urgency with which she needed to complete the task, I grinned and “relented”.  At least she asked first. So I stood up, turned around and bent over a few degrees in supplication, and received the pat. With my brief role completed, I turned back around and bid them a farewell. Moments later I found my dinner party and sat down with them, satisfied that I had just participated in an important cultural rite of passage.  Hours later the wife unit assured me that this happened only because I appeared harmless. So it goes.

Bug Hunt: Los Angeles

Big, angry, armored termite soldiers from the Planet “O” land off the coast of SoCal and make an amphibious assault. Luckily for humanity they land near Camp Pendelton. Thus begins Battle: Los Angeles. 

Filmed in a documentary style, this movie follows the travails of a platoon of Marines on a mission to pick up civilians at a police station in Malibu and take them to a forward operating base (FOB) before heavy bombardment of the coast begins. The aliens take and keep the initiative early in the invasion.

The invaders aren’t misunderstood ET’s with big blue cow eyes.  These bipedal and possibly cyborgish critters are loaded with high velocity rounds and are fiendishly single-minded in their attempt to secure the planet. Aaron Eckhart plays the lead character, Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz.  Along the way the platoon picks up USAF staff sergeant Elena Santos played by Michelle Rodriguez. The casting of Rodriguez was particularly smart from the marketing perspective. Hotties with automatic weapons are irresistable to the male moviegoer. I’m thinking of Ripley making her escape from the Nostromo.

OK, guys, this is not a chick flick. It’s not especially bloody, but it is filled to the brim with male bravado and long satisfying bursts of full automatic gun fire. Wives and girl friends may be unmoved by the machinegun aesthetic. Just thought I’d mention it.

It’s not Academy Award stuff, but it is worth seeing on the big screen.

On a separate topic, for the fans of Dune, there is this link.

Avatar

I’ll be brief. Having viewed James Cameron’s new 3D  movie Avatar, I have to admit that it was simply stunning. It has all of the elements of a blockbuster movie: strong emotional appeal, a compelling story line, just enough character development, and fantastic visuals. And with production and marketing costs that some are estimating to approach half a gigabuck, it’ll need all the buzz it can get to give a blockbuster return to the investors.

As we filed out of the theater last night I couldn’t help but think that we had just witnessed a paradigm shift in the business and technology of cinema. Going forward, the bar has just been raised in the expectation level of audiences. 

Hmmm. I wonder if Unobtainium occurs as the sulfide or the native element?

Three Hundred

I finally saw the movie 300. This picture is a fictionalized retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae (the Hot Gates). I quite enjoyed it, though I can see how others might not. The unique cinematography enhances the highly stylized approach to the story. It is a moving picture graphic novel.

The storyline is Greek Tragedy in motion. The distinctive imagery and staging mimic the style of scenes depicted on Greek pottery. I have no doubt that the great directors of the past would have used the same techniques if it had been available then. This manner of film making would have suited C.B. DeMille or John Ford.

The story is a bit rough on the Persians, however. But critics need to realize that this is a Spartan story about Spartan exploits. No doubt Persian story tellers had their own version.

Prawns and Cat Food

The movie District 9 opened friday in the US. It is a SciFi action picture with an abundance of aliens and action. The story takes place in Johannesburg, South Africa, and deftly folds in the country’s history of aparteid and cross border dispute into the structure of the storyline.

The style of cinematography is somewhere between Saving Private Ryan and Cloverfield.  Most of the shots are from handheld camera work and the definition is low color density and a bit grainy. I’m guessing that this may be advantageous for CGI rendering, and to my eyes, adds considerably to the realism.

I won’t spoil the storyline. But I will say that it is quite violent with an abundance of Afrikaaner F-bombs and, in my opinion, not suitable for the under 16 crowd.

It really isn’t a “date movie”. Fellows, this is unlikely to make for a memorable evening for your date. After the (n + 1)th Prawn gets wasted, cell phones will come out and text messages will get checked. A sure sign of boredom.

All in all, I recommend that SciFi fans see it on a big screen. It is quite well done with an intriguing story and excellent visuals.