CMT - The Shining

In order for films to work, and to wind up being well regarded, a lot of things have to go right. The screenplay should be strong, ideally. The acting should be top notch. The production itself, should be one of visual, audial, and artistic quality. However, if you don't have all of that, if there has to be a weak link somewhere, what is the most important aspect to focus on?

Classic Movie Trailers: The Shining (1980)

My money's on acting. It's arguable, certainly, but there are reasons for this. If the script is bad, the movie's not in good shape, but good actors can take poorly written lines and change them, and make them their own. They can also, through spontaneous action, ultimately change the director's vision, regarding where the picture is going. On the other hand, if the acting falls flat, pretty words aren't going to save you.

Have you ever seen a movie with poor acting, but fantastic special effects? I actually believe, that some film crews intentionally beef up the visuals, to compensate for such shortcomings; the results are variable, to say the least. This is part of the reason why CGI serves to disillusion us, from certain pictures. Even if the detail is cutting edge, but especially when it isn't, it's difficult to feel emotions, looking at a computer generated image.

They feign emotions with animation, and I would argue that technology won't advance enough, to trick the human eye into belief, for some time yet. With real skilled actors, you can connect with the audience, and bring them over that wall, that leads to immersion. You can even tell stories within stories, in a significant way. For example, after watching "The Shining", I'm willing to bet that the audience can say certain things, about Jack's marriage to Wendy.

We can say what kind of relationship they have. We can make educated guesses, as to whether that arrangement will last. We could even say, with relative certainty, why they got married in the first place. The answers are definitely in the words, but the acting leaves no doubt, and that could have been unclear, otherwise.

Personally, I found that the end of the movie, was left wanting. If they pushed the drama, and the danger further, the real horrors of the situation would have made "The Shining" an excellent film. As it stands now, it's merely a good one. However, if you take away Jack Nicholson's performance, if you excise Shelly Duvall's and Daniel Lloyd's work, it wouldn't even be that.

----------------------------

@ChannelSeals

http://youtu.be/1G7Ju035-8U

CMT - The Wolf Man (1941)

When real life terror, is mixed in with the supernatural, it makes the latter more effective. Frankenstein's Monster, it can be said, is an example of the perils involved, when one leaves a child without guidance. Mr. Hyde is an example, of the dangers that can result, from hiding our true natures for too long. But what about The Wolf Man? What can we learn from him?

Classic Movie Trailers: The Wolf Man (1941)

I've had my share of nights, bar-hopping. Looking back at it now, it seems like a gigantic waste of time. However, I can proudly report, that I left that period healthy, and with my reputation intact. There was some voice, in the back of my head, that worried about what would happen if I drank too much.

The scariest thing about that situation, is drinking to the point where you can't remember everything. I know there's people that drink to get drunk, and if you do that occasionally, and you don't hurt anyone, hey, I understand and that's ok. But just the idea, of being drunk to the point where I've lost time worries me, and it has always stayed my hand and stayed on my mind. What if I do something in that state, and I can't account for it?

What if I got grabby, with the wrong girl? Would I have to show up in court, and talk about a scene I can't remember? What if someone says the wrong thing, and I attack them? A beating would be nasty, especially one I can't recall, but I'd take it over an assault charge, any day of the week.

Acting so brashly, would be uncharacteristic of me. But that's what alcohol does; it lowers your  inhibitions. It keeps you from realizing the consequences, and it keeps you from remembering the mistakes. The most horrifying thing about that is, you could hurt someone you love, and lose them forever.

So kudos to the cast and crew, of 'The Wolf Man", and to everyone involved. They hit the nose on the head, in regards to where the fear of werewolfism comes from; it's about losing control of yourself. It's about someone you'd normally trust with your life, that undergoes a rapid change, and becomes a very dangerous threat.

Forget about the gore, and the blood and the special effects, that are showcased in later pictures. "The Wolf Man" does so much more, with so much less, and it's easier to swallow... easier to believe. I'd go so far as to say, that this film puts those movies to shame. How is it, that you can spend millions of dollars to create a work of art, and yet you can say nothing of significance?

Is "The Wolf Man" dated? Yes, and it probably isn't 'scary' by today's standards. At least not at first glance. Not until you sit and think about it. Whether it's alcohol, or the glare of a full moon that brings it out, nothing is more frightening than the monster that's in me, and in all of us.
---------------------------------

@ChannelSeals

http://youtu.be/AsrFMBWRC1M

CMT - Flash Gordon (1980)

So what is camp, anyway? When someone refers to a TV show, or a film as being camp, or campy, what are they talking about? According to Merriam-Webster, camp is something that is "so outrageously artificial, affected, inappropriate, or out-of-date as to be amusing". The word that's missing from that definition is 'fun'; camp is fun.

Classic Movie Trailers: Flash Gordon (1980);

There's been a few 'campy' versions of Batman, and it's ironic, to think of it. That character has one of the darkest origins in comics, and yet, there are periods in his history, most notably comic's Silver Age, that allow lighter interpretations. The best examples include the 60's TV show, and 'The Brave and The Bold'. However, like Green Hornet, The Caped Crusader must ultimately, return to more serious roots.

Enter The Flash, or in this case, Flash Gordon. During the 30's, his strip had a powerful influence, on the birth of the super-powered heroes, that would eventually steal his thunder. But you can't steal fun, and in 1980, when public consciousness of Flash was returning, thanks to an animated series, we got this Hodges/De Laurentiis production. It followed the release of "Superman" and "Star Wars", and if you love the visual effects in those movies, you'll be delighted here.

As for the comedy, it's performed with the utmost seriousness, and I think that's a trade secret. Go too far, with the winks and the nudges, and you'll have Schwarzenegger, in a Mister Freeze costume, telling you to "chill out". Get too serious, and you'll be expecting your audiences to buy outrageous things: like aliens from outer space, that look like men from Kansas. Forgive me, but that's the advantage that "Flash Gordon" has; it's high-adventure and action and fun, that's never feigns at making sense. Never.

To go along with the light-heartedness, the music by Queen is akin to the exaggerated letters, and spiky word balloons, you would find on the page. It's wonderfully complimentary, and the film would be so much less without it. In regards to the effects, you could arguably say the same. The flying lasers in this film, emphasize the comic-strip roots; so, in this environment, the feel of them is different, than in the Sci-Fi epic, "Star Wars".

"Flash Gordon" may be lesser known, but it's just as memorable, as George Lucas's film. The production quality is comparable to it. The cast, which features Timothy Dalton and Max Von Sydow, is just as strong, or stronger. If I haven't sold you yet I'm not going to, but if I have, then grab a snack, kick back, and get ready for a good time.

http://youtu.be/8EY8QsBH5OU

CMT - Battlestar Galactica (1978)

Boredom is the dark side.

That may seem bizarre, at first glance, but it's true. If your wish is to entertain an audience, you will write and rewrite, edit and shoot new scenes, brainstorm and plan and remove subplots, all to eliminate boredom. Creating "entertainment" means eliminating boredom; it's the opposite of the desired goal, and removing it takes time.

Classic Movie Trailers: Battlestar Galactica (1978)

Time, as it turns out, is an important thing, when watching a feature. In order for an audience to connect to the story, it takes screen time. Storytellers can choose to begin films with great tragedies, but this is done with limited results. When the audience first sits down, they have a barrier of time, that prevents their immersion into the fiction, and any attachment to the characters.

Say you blow up a bus full of people, at the beginning of your movie. If the story requires that scene, you put it in, but don't expect tears. They're not going to be laughing at that moment either, but if they had more time with those characters, their on-screen deaths would mean so much more. This concept also applies, to romances between characters.

You can have two characters that are together, or even married, in your story. Then, you can open a film, with one character cheating. However, this is a dangerous game; if you don't establish the loving relationship first, no one's going to care about the infidelity. Even worse, your audience may not even realize, that one character's committed to another, especially if they're not watching closely.

To avoid confusion, and save time, you can use things like genres, as reference points. You probably don't have to explain what a cop does, in a cop drama. Doctors are self-explanatory, and certain things, like cowboys and dwarves and humanoid aliens, are going to be expected in specific settings. Whenever you introduce a new setting, or a new type of character, you have to give your audience enough time, to grow comfortable with them.

I've seen a number of films that don't take this into account. If you've ever felt lost, while several actors are blathering on about several planets you've never heard of, don't blame yourself. You've just been thrown in the deep end of the pool, without first being taught how to swim. The authors have to take the time, to explain things.

Omitting the scenes, or chapters needed for exposition, is a fatal mistake. You see, omission leads to confusion. Confusion leads to indifference. Indifference leads to boredom...

Jedi pen masters must resist the trap of boredom; it's the one pitfall, they will be glad you avoided.

http://youtu.be/9_opi69O2Q0