More Frames...

So, this week I have managed to skulk myself into not one, but two free screenings of Christmas blockbusters - and by blockbusters I mean highly anticipated, mega-budget, 3-D spectaculars. The results, folks, have been interesting.

First up "The Hobbit". Now, I am a self-confessed Lord of the Rings maniac, therefore I could not have been wetter with anticipation over this film...at first. Now, as seems to always happen around the actual release time of a film I'm into, I found myself not being that fussed by the whole affair. I suddenly fell into the old "it's not gonna be as good as the first lot" way of thinking. However, last night, as soon as the opening titles began I found myself giddy as a lovesick schoolgirl. The rest of the three hours was absolute, open-mouthed, fan-boy bliss. I thought it was out-bloody-standing.

Except one thing.

For anyone who doesn't know, Peter Jackson decided to shoot the entire Hobbit Trilogy digitally at 48 frames per second. For anyone who doesn't know what on earth that means, the frame rate required to achieve live motion has always been traditionally 24fps, which of course came from film passing through light at a certain speed to achieve the art of "motion pictures". Shooting at twice the frame rate, in theory, should make the image clearer and almost entirely eradicate the problem of motion blur, which happens when cameras whip around too fast etc. One problem though, it looks terrible.

You see, I consider the first LOTR batch to be some of the most visually stunning films ever made. Not once did I, or do I, find myself thinking "god, if only this bloody motion blur wasn't there I'd be loving this". No, instead I just involuntarily let out the sound "weeeeeee" at various intervals. But there were long stretches of The Hobbit where I found myself removed from the action purely because of the 48 frames thing. Some action sequences look exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, like a video game. A massive disappointment.

The upside of this shooting format was the actual act of camera motion. When it moves, you really do move with it (as apparently evidenced by the amount of people complaining of motion sickness at advanced screenings) which, I must admit, is quite a thrill. I just wish people would stop relying on gimmicks or technological tricks to tell a story. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Upon leaving the cinema, my first thought was "I would love to see that again, at 24 frames and NOT in 3-D"

However, there is another side to that argument and that side is represented by Ang Lee's "Life of Pi". Again, after seeing the trailer, my ignorant idiot side immediately dismissed this film as 'green-screen shite' and I had no desire to see it whatsoever. As luck would have it though, I got into a free screening on Monday night. I was mildly curious purely for the fact that A) it was Ang Lee, who is a bloody good director and B) I couldn't remember the last time I went into a film knowing absolutely nothing about it. What followed completely blew my little mind.

This was also in 3-D (only the second film I'd ever watched in that format) and immediately I realised I was in for a treat. From the opening shot this film is a visual feast. From there it goes on to be one of the most spectacular things I've ever seen in the cinema, if not the most. I have never seen anything like it. At night I closed my eyes and still had the sensation of being in the ocean. Incredible. Of course it helped that the story was fascinating and the lead performance (from an unknown Indian kid) was nothing short of brilliant.

But that's my point, see. I knew I had one. My point is that technology is all well and good if used correctly. In the case of Peter Jackson, the technology as hand was used magnificently to create Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit needed not anything beyond that. Because all the technology in the world can't save a bad story (George Lucas, I'm looking at you...) but it can help a good one massively, like Life of Pi, but the story should never be the special effects, which it was with Avatar, it is with all the Transformers shithouses and almost became with The Hobbit. Point is, the story should always come first. Yes, that was me - a so far unproven talent of any kind - berating some of the more successful directors in history. You did read that right and I am aware of the 'those in glass houses' theory. However, it's my bloody blog and I'll say what I want!

I'm off to play with my precious.

JB.