Re: Cinema

If sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots and rereleases are for purpose of bringing something new from an old franchise to a modern audience then why must everything used within the production be excessively modern?

The other week I set out for the cinema to find a simple evening’s viewing; there I found Fright Night (2011) was only playing in 3D. “2D in selected cinemas”. With that, the notion of a night at the cinema was hastily rejected. The next day I noticed an independent cinema showcasing Gillian Wearing's brilliant film, Self Made (2011). For half the price and the “two dimensions” I received triple the emotional experience of the last dozen commercial films I have seen in the cinema. Now I’m not at all suggesting the cliché that cinema is running low on ideas, rather I feel it’s pushing too far forward and missing the point. 

Of all recent 3D films, Tron (1982) is an understandable upgrade. Revisiting a film centred on submergence within A.I. from 20years previous - Tron Legacy (2010) sure demonstrates astounding progress in technological capabilities utilising high definition, a wider aspect ratio, surround sound, CGI and “state of the art” 3D technology. It makes perfect sense. Although everything about Tron Legacy bar the audio/visuals seems to fail, I feel it a valid piece of cinema. Though the plot may be questionable, its merit and most obviously its intentions lie within the context of rapidly developing technology and more specifically, viewing experience. As the French movement “Cinema du look”, favoured style over substance, one must wonder if Hollywood’s indulgence of 3D and viewing experience is amidst a similar wave favouring visual over visceral.

Looking at the trailer for prequel, The Thing (2011), we are to understand this film is set before the events of John Carpenter’s The Thing from 1982. Clothing, technology and sets are faithfully recreated as to keep in with the time period of the original; even similar effects and makeup that defined the original have been put to use – albeit being heavily manipulated with CGI of course. The survival aspect of The Thing (1982) benefits from obscured vision through blizzards, darkness and wonderful (mis)direction by John Carpenter, each element alluding to the core factor of The Thing: not all is quite as it appears. Therefore the pairing of these two surely brings a paradox. Chronologically, we watch a modern version of older events in HD, within a wider format utilising stunning CGI, while The Thing (1982) looks dated through camera quality alone. One accepts the films are divided by 29 years, though as the basis of the alien antagonist is imitation, I feel a great opportunity has been lost for the prequel to imitate its original by utilising the same form of camera and film. Perhaps this would make the 29 year gap seamless and create a better film and overall a better series? 

I'm sure a number of directors have dabbled in this area yet rarely commited to a full deskilled film. Those that come to mind are purposefully trashy films, those being Grindhouse (2007) and Black Dynamite (2009). Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds (2009) uses an archaic Paramount logo within the opening credits, immediately setting a scene without having even showing a single still of his own work. More recently with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) I often noted the camera looked somewhat dated and noisy in some respects. Looking round at the viewing audience I was clearly the youngest there by 20+years. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is evidently not a film aimed at drawing audiences through visual effects more so those who enjoyed the original novel and series back in 1970s.

More commonly in home releases, visualisation and restoration are pushed unnecessarily. I don’t quite want to argue anything over tweaking existing films to such extents as Star Wars and the fantastic spoof "re-re-re-release" more so the picture/film quality. Talking to an acquaintance he held arrogance over me for possessing the film Withnail & I (1987), in Blu-Ray format. He claimed “you can see the dirt better”. A black comedy focused on drugs and despair benefits from lacking an acute picture. If the central characters are constantly drugged, paranoid, without foresight and with delusions of grandeur, then how would high definition benefit the film? And that’s not to mention the underlying theme that is the setting in the fall of the sixties with uncertainty laying in wait. Furthermore it seems paradoxical and almost illogical to view this 80’s movie set in the 60’s, restored and formatted with the technology of the 10’s. But then, one has to ask; how else will future audiences see this film once DVDs become archaic? 

Though what irony is my ignorance when of course the original release of Withnail and I would have been through VHS (I would have been much too young to notice a film like this back in the day). This led me to think; home entertainment is the adverse effect of old exploitation films. The more home releases the more improved the quality and the more screenings of exploitations films, the more the diminishing the quality. Or is that the other way around? Do we lose or improve the quality of an aged film by restoring it? One might pontificate that it is merely preservation, in a similar way priceless paintings are restored. 

Similar arguments can be posed against music. I imagine many people have updated their collection through vinyl, cassette, CD and now digital downloads. Though while many would pride themselves to owning a film on Blu-Ray as opposed to a DVD or VHS, I take solace that a large percentage would much rather prefer an age old vinyl to the digital download.

Nathan