Barbara Gamble's "Natural Affinities"

For the past year and a half I've had the privilege to work with Ottawa painter Barbara Gamble for her upcoming gallery exhibition Natural Affinities opening October 10th at the Canadian Museum of Nature. The exhibition runs until January 4th and is located on the third floor of the musuem.

Gamble's exhibition concerns itself with the vulnerable botanical species in the surrounding Ottawa area. Her methods include a layering of oil paints with wax on various canvass, metal and wood surfaces. The exhibit also includes a collection of books by 19th Century pioneer Catherine Parr Traill containing a variety of pressed plants.

My contribution to the show is a 40 second video piece focusing on a rare species of orchid found in the Ottawa area. I accompanied Gamble and several biologists to a top secret preservation site and gathered footage of the orchid. The idea of the video is to provide a visual record of the habitat of the orchid and to offer an otherwise unseen angle of the tiny flower.

I encourage anyone who wants to see some amazing paintings (and possibly my video) to check out the Canadian Museum of Nature when they have a chance.

Here is the museum's page on the exhibit: http://nature.ca/exhibits/exs/gamble/index_e.cfm

"The Dark Knight Rebuttal" by Ryan Bradley

Summer 2005. I walk out of a Batman Begins and want to slap Adam Slight in the face. How dare he make fun of the world’s greatest detective and my beloved Batman? Batman Begins reinvented a series that Joel Schumacher ran into the ground. For that alone Christopher Nolan should be applauded not to mention the fact he delivered perhaps the best superhero movie ever.

Summer 2008. I do in fact see the err of my ways and now accept some of the criticisms laid out by Adam. Batman Begins suffered from poor dialogued and some very dry scenes. The movie was not the perfect film that I once thought it to be. Nonetheless, it was still a decent comic book movie and has earned a deserved place in the superhero world along side the greats; Sin City, Spiderman 2, Batman Returns and Iron Man.

Despite my new found skepticism in this re-amped Batman franchise, I still looked forward to this The Dark Knight. Massive viral campaigning and what seemed like hundreds of trailers showing the same scenes in different orders were constantly thrown in my face. It looked amazing and it appeared that Heathy Boi (R.I.P!11!) was going to steal the show. When I saw the movie I was somehow surprised and even offended once again by Adam's review. Here we go again. Its him vs. the rest of the world – the nerds, the common movie goers and the newly found Ledger fans. Is he right? Was this movie garbage? Should people read his review and take the ravings of a madman as fact? Or Is The Dark Knight one of the greatest movies of the year? Does Heath Ledger deliver an Oscar rumored performance? Should you go out and add to the $158.4 million that this movie swept in over the past weekend?

The first attack by Mr. Slight is aimed at the soundtrack and quite frankly he mostly nails this one. The music is perhaps my greatest criticism of the movie as there are only two songs used. The movie is constantly intense and the viewer is always on edge of their seat especially in the second half of the film. Track 2 :“This Part Is Very Exciting” unnecessarily adds to the already nerve racking intensity of the film to a point where it becomes annoying. You feel like you cannot enjoy the movie at many points because that grinding song is continually playing. Track 1: “This Part Is Very Sad” is meant to be a relief from the only other song in the movie. If anything this song may be the reason that we will not see a Brokeback Mountain 2 because a certain star could not take hearing it anymore. It seemed to be played on loop just at a lower level than Track 2 so whenever Batman was not in the picture this is all you hear.

Let us now turn our attention to the acting which I do have some problems with. I could not help but wish that Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent both got blown to millions of little pieces. I think that I showed more emotion during Princess Diaries 2 after the third time watching it. This lack of emotion was only compounded further by having some of the cheesiest and driest dialogue in what was otherwise a cleverly written movie. Nevertheless, the other characters in the movie were pulled off well while Heath Ledger lead the way. Ledger delivers the Joker in a way that I would never expected. He was tortured and torturing at the same time. Intense and scary as hell. That being said, I do not think that at the end the 5 minute Oscars montage of his mediocre movies that he should be awarded as best actor. Adam is correct - he was great but not worth digging the poor guy up for. Do not forget that we saw Sarah Jessica Parker deliver an amazing performance in this summer’s Sex and The City and she is still in the land of the living.

The final issue with this film is linked to the length, although my view on it differs SLIGHTly from Adam’s. This movie was one of the darkest and most intense movies that I have ever seen in theaters. 2 hours in, I needed a break but it continued for another 30mins. I was trying to take everything in but the length hindered me from doing so. I needed a break, not because of uninspired and bland cinematography but because the movie was so good at keeping me involved in the film. The second half of the movie is in no way like a bad case of diarrhea - unless you get diarrhea whenever you are completed drawn into a movie and never want to take your eyes off the screen. The second half is aesthetically and cinematically inspired and is definitely what could make it the best movie of the year.

The themes and ironies are in evident in this movie but it is in no way as evident and annoying as the repetition of the Fear theme in Batman Begins. All superhero movies have these themes tossed in your face which is necessary to stay true to comic book criteria. Justice and forbidden love are mixed in with the moral ambiguity in manner than it is not repetitive, not easily noticed and not annoying (Unless of course you are the Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End lover Adam Slight).
This movie was excellently executed. Great story, a much better script than Batman Begins, interesting set and costume design, amazing characters and some decent acting – all combine to create a dark and intense movie experience that I have never felt at the movies before. This being said there are some flaws with this film and perhaps it was not exactly the masterpiece that most claim it to be. It was still a great movie and in a year that has not been the best for stellar films The Dark Knight is among the top. It is highly unlikely that you will want your evening back but see it for yourself. Don’t accept this to be a masterpiece until you have thought about it. Ignore the blogs, critics and any chump that tries to tell you that you are an idiot for hating or loving a movie.

"The Dark Knight Review" or "The Friday Night I'll Never Get Back" by Adam Slight

As many have known in the past, when Batman Begins came out I was one of the few people in the world who didn’t like it. For the longest time I fought an exhaustive crusade defending my tastes and position from Batman zealots and radicals. After the dust had settled the trailer for The Dark Knight hit the screens. The funny thing about trailers is that they are designed to make movies very appealing. I thought, “This is nice, The Dark Knight looks a lot better than Batman Begins”. With that thought in mind I decided to revisit Batman Begins with an open mind after all these years in hopes that I could find it in myself to enjoy the movie. Upon reviewing Batman Begins I was able to set aside my previous hatred and enjoy the film as a flawed, but above-average superhero film. I’d put Batman Begins, Spiderman 1&2 and X-2 on the top of the superhero movie food-chain.

So with this new open-mindedness towards the Batman reboot franchise I was growing quite excited for The Dark Knight. The film was treated to astronomical reviews and Heath Ledger’s performance has been heavily decorated for the past few months. I had been assured that this was the movie to see. Last Friday evening I saw The Dark Knight and to put it frankly I wish I could have my Friday evening back.

While I’m normally not a fan of reviews or writing reviews, I feel it is important for me to state why I disliked The Dark Knight so much, as I am up against a world of crazies. I am often accused of having a bias against The Dark Knight, or even a closed mind. If The Dark Knight was really such a masterpiece I think it would be very difficult for me to sustain a closed mind, especially considering the positive expectations I’ve had since the beginning. I tried to like this movie, and trying wasn’t enough.

So here is my review:

The Dark Knight essentially has two songs in the soundtrack: “This Part Is Very Sad” and “This Part is Very Exciting”. The film uses these two songs to instill emotions into the audience, emotions that the film otherwise doesn’t have. A moving soundtrack is a cheap trick that films with no emotional dynamics use to manipulate the audience’s heart-strings. In the case of The Dark Knight, music was used to compensate for the stale, emotionless dialogue being uttered by a predominantly stiff actors. I’m not just saying this. Watch Batman Begins, or re-watch The Dark Knight and actually look for this stuff. Its like being at a funeral for three hours.

One thing I’ll credit the movie for is the set and character design. Aesthetically everything -looked- cool: The Joker’s make-up, Batman’s costume, the towering skyline of Gotham. Unfortunately this rich set-design was wasted with extremely uninspired and bland cinematography. I can honestly say that I can’t remember half of what happened in that movie because so much happened in the same places, and the monotonous dialogue and cinematography gave me nothing memorable to distinguish scenes from each other. Remember, this is the movie whose first hour includes an almost completely unnecessary legal tirade involving a global chase for some accountant guy that really amounts to nothing. After an hour of legal banter in offices I felt like I could pass the bar exam. This hour of office chatter represents a fraction of the copious amounts of filler hot-air packed into this movie. And why do they have this filler in there, when the last hour of the movie is like a bad case of diarrhea: Its all over the place, and it just won’t stop. Ultimately the length of this movie made me feel like it was a long day at work and I just wanted it out of there.

I think the reason why a lot of people didn’t really get bothered by this was Heath Ledger. I’m not going to bash him too much. He was definitely an enjoyable entity in the movie however I’d only say his acting was above average. The thing is, when one or two critics start a chain reaction before long everyone is walking into the movie expecting to see the best performance of the decade. How bad does it look professionally when a critic decides to give a negative review when 90% of the industry is drinking Ledger’s clown piss from a golden chalice? With those kinds of expectations, the late Mr. Ledger has most of the audience eating out of his cold dead hands. He could go up on screen and fart the entire movie and people would love it. I thought he was great, but I don’t think it’s worth digging up his grave to stick an Oscar into his coffin.

Now for the biggest crime of them all: These Batman films simply love to latch onto certain themes and ironies and beat them to a living pulp. Like Batman Begins: OK! We know the theme of this movie is fear! Stop driving it into my skull. The Dark Knight was so obvious about the fact that yes, this movie is about moral ambiguity. We get it thank you. Additionally, The Dark Knight loves to play up the irony card. OMG – the villains are torturing their victims the way they were tortured! How clever! Oh look, its happening again and again and again…this is so dramatic! Repetition is a device this movie thrives on. Is this really the deep writing that critics are all crapping their pants over?

In the end the dramatic scenes were bland and emotionless and far too plentiful and the fighting scenes gave me seizures. This ocean of mediocrity dwarfs the few moments that I thought were actually cool, beautiful and intelligent. Its hard to see past all the clown make-up, but there you’ll see the cold and calculated gears of a movie designed for the sole purpose of tricking the audience into thinking the movie is a masterpiece.

Why do I think this and 99% of the world thinks the opposite? This is a battle I need to fight one inch at a time. If you haven't watched it yet, or plan on watching it again...please try to remember this review!

"Revisiting Sound in Video Games: The Road to Total Cinema?" By Adam Slight

On March 28th of this year I presented an essay at the Carleton University Film Studies Undergraduate Colloquium. Allow me to briefly summarize this essay before I continue:

As technology develops, video games have become more and more cinematic (film-like) to the point where games are almost films that one controls. Arguably, there is little visual difference between a film and modern video game. However as far as sound design goes, I argued that video games have surpassed film.

Using mostly examples from the Nintendo Wii, I demonstrated how the interactivity of the video game medium has allowed greater freedom in sound design experimentation than film. Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess has put the player in control of how the game score plays out depending on how the player performs (slow walking=subtle music, horse riding=epic music, monster fighting=dramatic music; all within the same scoring sequence) and Super Mario Galaxy has demonstrated how music, sound effect and player action can interact to create unique sonic experiences.

I also demonstrated how video games such as Medal of Honor can present realistic, interactive sonic environments. In games such as these, sound is put into the perspective of the character/player immersing the player in a life-like environment. This is reminiscent of André Bazin’s theory of Total Cinema. In this theory, Bazin argues that conventional cinema is only one step in a historical progression in which mankind attempts to build a life-like, all-encompassing recreation of reality (think The Matrix). Video games such as Medal of Honor represent the next step in this progression towards artificial reality.

Lastly, I mentioned how games such as Guitar Hero and Rock Band put the player in control of the video game’s soundtrack. The delivery of the soundtrack depends of the success of the player in playing the video game. I also briefly showcased the Nintendo DS game Elektroplankton. This game was designed with few goals beyond those of free-play of sound experimentation and manipulation.

During the question period proceeding the presentation I was made aware of several interesting arguments against some of my claims. Most arguments were directed towards my use of the word “interactivity” and addressed the actual extent to which interactivity can actually apply to video games. I was told to read Jesper Juul’s Half-Real: Video Games Between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds which discussing many founding theoretical ideas surrounding the emerging field of video game theory as well as game theory in general. I have since read this book and would like to defend and redefine my claim.

As the title of Juul’s book implies, video games can be seen as a system of real rules (in that they actually apply) as well as fictional worlds (the fictional elements that disguise the rules). The real rules come to define the fiction of the game, and the fiction defines the rules. This was brought to my attention during the question period. How can one truly interact with a progressive game such Super Mario Galaxy when the choices and options that the game presents are already pre-designed. When one plays Super Mario Galaxy they are playing within the confines of the rules. As far as sound design goes, the sounds within the game are pre-recorded and pre-set and are emitted when triggered within the game realm. Thus games are not truly interactive, nor can they offer realistic decisions (as action options are severely limited).

I would like to think otherwise. We live within a system of rules. That is the rules of physics define what we can and cannot do. To expand on this, the rules of physics also define the sonic environments that we live in. With this in mind it can be considered that the limited interactivity of video games merely represents simplified real-life physical rules.

The complexities of causal sound in reality could be applied to video games. Digital technology already allows us to convert real sound into digital representation. If real sound can be represented by digits then it is possible to create realistic sound from scratch in a digital realm. If every possible nuanced sound can be represented by digital code, then hypothetically it is possible to create a mathematical system in which different sound can be produced depending on digital variables. That is to say sound in video games can be unique depending on the in-game conditions they are triggered by. No samples would be used, only in-game conditions such as surface textures, environment acoustics, impact velocity and air density. These would all be conditions that would affect the artificial reproduction of the game sounds. This would be pure interactivity.

This could no doubt apply to video game visuals. Digital technology allows accurate visual representation in visual form. Who is to say with stronger graphics capacity a realistic interactive visual environment is not possible. This would no doubt bring us closer to the Total Cinema that Bazin forecasts. This idea of immersion in a video game is discussed in Janet Murray’s Hamlet on the Holodeck and is commonly referred to as virtual reality.

Juul addresses some pitfalls to this model of video game. He uses the example of entering a car in Grand Theft Auto III. In real life there are an infinite number of ways to enter a vehicle, however in GTAIII there is only one way: Press the triangle button on the game controller. If the game required a button combination for each task required to open a car door and enter the vehicle the game would be tedious and boring. Instead the fiction of the game is simplified and stylized for player enjoyment.

So while a Total Cinema approach to video games would be revolutionary, it is possible that it would ruin the game play of the game. So perhaps Total Cinema does not lie in the video game genre, but through the video game platform. Video games themselves should always remain as games, however the technology of video games may hold the key to a lifelike and interactive Total Cinema.

"Narrative vs. Spectacle 2: Son of Narrative vs. Spectacle" By Adam Slight

In regards to my previous article “Narrative vs. Spectacle: Mortal Combat” and Philip Decloux’s commentary “Narrative vs. Spectacle: Ph.D Chim-Chimes in Support of Speed Racer”, I wish to rephrase my stance as it may have been misinterpreted. Having never seen Speed Racer (which I still intend to see as soon as I can), I cannot claim to have a decent impression of its story or convention-bending visuals, nor was it my purpose make such claims. Neither was it my strict purpose to defend Pirates of the Caribbean 3 or any effect-heavy summer blockbusters for that matter. These were merely analogies to express my rhetorical opinion: Why does story/narrative in cinema matter so much? Why does story matter at all?

While subjective taste towards one movie or another could be argued endlessly, I would like to address Decloux’s assertion that cinema stands for “taking you out of your normal, everyday life and infusing it with concentrated suspense, romance, action, adventure, or comedy”. Decloux’s claim stands as an ideal starting block for the expansion of my original point. Decloux’s opinion is that quality cinema consists of a healthy balance of narrative structure and visual spectacle. While I agree that such a balance can result in strong cinema, I would disagree that strong cinema depends upon this formula.

When I suggest that one ignores a film’s narrative in favour of its aesthetic elements, let me not be misread. I am not suggesting one to mindlessly allow the film’s visuals to filter through their brains unchecked. What makes watching cinema different from reading books? A film’s technical and visual elements can be, and are often more-so, thoughtful than the actual narrative. Should we forget the “suspense, romance, action, adventure, or comedy” in a film’s formal elements in favour of narrative structure? A single shot has the potential to have more meaning than an entire 90 minutes worth of narrative.

And must we condemn a sequence just because it comes with a hefty price tag? Money does not create ideas. I think Evil Dead would look a lot like Spiderman if it had a $150 000 000 budget. A multi-million dollar blockbuster requires immense talent to form a polished finished product. The problem is that these talented people and products do not always mix well with each other. It can be rest assured that a multi-million dollar blockbuster such as Pirates 3 will have a talented editor, cinematographer etc. in order to gain trust from financial backers.

I use films such as Pirates 3 and Speed Racer as examples for the obvious gap between visual and narrative. However, this has seemed to restrict our dialogue to the realm the blockbuster. Afterall, “spectacle” does not have to pertain to high budget effect shots. It can merely be associated with the very “attraction” that a viewer has to the visual presentation of the film. This “attraction” has been written of by soviet filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein as well as the previously referenced Tom Gunning. Similar to that of a carnival exhibition, this “attraction” is the fabric of the visual cinematic spectacle.

Frankly, I think that claiming cinema as an escapist medium belittles the power of motion picture. By lingering around mainstream summer blockbusters we have failed to address other aesthetic functions of cinema. As stated in my previous article, the early soviets used cinema’s purely visual characteristics as a means of indentifying the uneducated masses to the soviet cause. Direct Cinema and Cinema Verité provide cinematic means to their subjects to project their agency upon the viewer. The narratives of these films seem to take a backseat to visual language and/or revelation.

Aside from various forms of documentary, animation (traditional or computer generated), avant-garde and experimental film use film spectacle as a primary means of expression, whether narrative is present or not. And often the narrative does not bear the true crux of a film’s “message” but rather the true message lies within the films’ presentation.

One may argue however that without some (even minor) system of narrative to hold it together, a film would be nothing less than a chaos of visuals. I can draw upon two examples of films that use non-narrative forms of structural organization. For the most part Disney’s Fantasia replaces narrative, instead using music to organize the spectacle of the film. Similarly, Berlin: A Symphony of a Great City uses time of day to structure a visual cinematic meditation of Berlin.

Before I spiral deeper and deeper into what is becoming dangerously close to a rant, I think it is important to address that everyone has different expectations from a movie-going experience. This reflects in the many voices of mainstream critics. Benjamin Wright responded to my “Narrative vs. Spectacle: Mortal Combat” with a noteworthy paradox:“Syndicated film critics are, by and large, trained not in film but in English literature… They can only stand in awe of the visual kinetics or reject them entirely because aesthetic criticism has never been a foundational aspect in mainstream film criticism… The flip side to this coin of criticism is the academic critic. Your only shot at informed aesthetic commentary comes from "intellectual" critics, either film students or academic writers…The problem with many in this category is their rejection of commercial filmmaking in general. So even if you're looking for a thoughtful essay on Speed Racer, you won't find one from them, since they've already dismissed it as crass commercial product or insipid, uninspired Hollywood drivel.”

So in summary, mainstream cinema (such as Speed Racer) is narrowly limited to narrative-based criticism, and most who are trained to lend formally-based criticism to mainstream blockbusters are unwilling to do so. It is not to say that scholarly formal analysis of film is more important than mainstream textual criticism. The only issue here is that the narrative, textual side is given a lot more accessibility and therefore comes to be favoured by the public.

Ultimately, I think this public focus on narrative distracts audiences from other enriched aspects of the medium. While I can not disagree that balanced attention towards narrative and technical is very positive, I think that such a balance is also close to non-existent in the mainstream sphere.

When all is said and done, it is difficult to deny the connection that spectacle and narrative share. Spectacle predominantly requires some sort of context and cause to exist (often provided by narrative). Then to conclude, perhaps I would like to state it is not my purpose to deny the validity of narrative but to open a movie-viewing perspective in which narrative lacks importance. If the film still stinks after distancing story from the spectacle, I assume no responsibility.

"Narrative VS. Spectacle: Ph. D chim-chimes in support of Speed Racer" by Philip Decloux

Ph. D (Philip Decloux) wrote this article in the Toronto Film Junkies film blog in response to Adam Slight's "Narrative vs. Spectacle: Mortal Combat":

The critics this summer have been an enigma to me. Before going to see Iron Man, I noticed that it had an unbelievable 93% rating on Rottentomatoes dot com. This, I confidently assured myself, should be the best superhero movie ever made! Look at all of that critical acclaim! I was deluding myself. While every facet of the film was polished to a mirror shine, as I walked out of the theater, I found myself... ambivalent. I started unconsciously nit-picking certainly elements of the film... the shitty, phoned in soundtrack, Terrence Howard's weak voice (and I loved him in "Hustle and Flow"!), Gwyneth Paltrow's uneven performance. Things that, while somewhat detracting from the film shouldn't affect the overall sense of satisfaction I felt from watching it. But the damage was done. Perhaps it was the overwhelmingly positive critical reception... the hyping and promoting on various websites I frequent. Somehow it couldn't possibly meet the bar that had been set.

Now that I've got my original ambivalent reaction out of the way, lets look at one thing that Iron Man got right: for one, it has a very finely tuned balance between it's superhero origin narrative, and a solid sense of spectacle. It doesn't only have one or the other, it has a very crowd-pleasing, critic appeasing blend of these two elements, and that's what has made it a success. Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark, and ILM did a real awesome job on the special effects. So really, unless you're a basement dwelling, scum-sucking aintitcoolnews talkbacker, you should be able to realize the success of Iron Man, as it pertains to this balancing act of Narrative and Spectacle.

It's what cinema is all about, it's about taking you out of your normal, everyday life and infusing it with concentrated suspense, romance, action, adventure, or comedy. The best films please you on the visual, purely aesthetic platform of film while engaging your mind with wit, subtext, and other things that intellectuals like to blabber about. This is why Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" is by far my favorite film that I have seen to this date. Real, vibrant cinema is about the ideal marriage of visual entertainment and storytelling. They live off each other, and if one outstrips the other, the whole suffers.

Adam has proposed that critics have panned "Speed Racer" in the same way they derided "Pirates of the Carribean 3: the World's End". He proposed that critics panned POTC3 because the film was a meandering mess, unredeemed by it's well-tuned audio-visual experience. They panned it because the movie did not live up to the promise of the first film, and the fact that it did not improve upon the second film, which was a somewhat bloated, confused CGI-fest. POTC3 didn't have a point. If we're talking about Narrative vs. Spectacle, it's a failure. No matter how impressive your 2 million dollar shot of a pirate ship exploding is, it isn't worth squat if the audience doesn't care about any of the characters or the plot. In the end, it's ridiculous to think that ILM special effects and a Hanz Zimmer score (he's as practiced as James Horner at cannibalizing his past efforts) are redeeming values. These qualities alone make a good popcorn film, but not what I would deem good cinema.

Adam is correct in asserting is that critics have unfairly panned "Speed Racer". I've seen this one twice now, both times in IMAX. Critics hated it because they couldn't get past the ground-breaking visual effects and childish sense of play that make this seem like a real-life anime-cartoon. If Adam gets to see this film (and I dearly wish him and every reader of this blog to see it before it leaves IMAX screens), he'd realise that not only have critics been unfair, but that he is (happily) mistaken in thinking (through the views of misled critics) that Speed Racer is a purely visual spectacle, or lacking "a good story". The Wachowskis have achieved quite a feat, because they made a real family film. There is heart here. There are morals to teach to the youngsters who are going to love the racing segments. I don't know why, but the critics have mistakenly ignored on the great, avant-guarde examples of Narrative-Visual cinematic art ever achieved.

We, as the film-going public, have mis-treated this film. I enjoyed it much more than Iron Man, and tons more than POTC3. If you have any sort of inner child which is not covered with the sickly burlap of cynicism, go and see this film now and realize how wrong the critics have been, and how utterly crazy the Wachowskis were to attempt to make this film.

"Narrative vs. Spectacle: Mortal Combat" By Adam Slight

Although I have yet to see Speed Racer I have noticed a common trend in its reviews. The line is divisive. On one side critics marvel at the film’s style and breaking of visual conventions. On the other side more critics simply long for a “good story”. Sometimes this can be an issue with me. Since when do movies need an in-depth story when it’s strong in its other departments?

We could blame history. Theorist Tom Gunning wrote that since 1906 cinema has increasingly been more focused on story over visual spectacle. It was in 1906 that the number of narrative-oriented films surpassed that of visually-focused film. These visual films had been able to stand on their own merely through display of images moving independently on a screen. At the time this spectacle was enough to keep audiences paying. And I bet most critics love that old stuff. So why not Speed Racer? Why is it that audience would pay for a purely visual spectacle then, but not now?

For that matter let’s use examples that I’m more familiar with. Last summer Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End hit the screens. While praised for its visuals the film widely flopped with critics due to a series of tedious and confusing plot twists. This makes me wonder when it was that pirate movies picked up the expectation to rival Shakespeare’s Macbeth? Instead of dwelling on where the film lacks, why not emphasize the film’s strengths. This scene in particular struck me as one of the most inventive and unique sequences I had ever seen in a summer blockbuster. It may not have made sense necessarily but it was executed very well. In fact the movie’s cinematography grabbed my attention for most of the film. Aside from the cinematography, the music was also noteworthy. In fact, there are plenty of elements that make up a film and yet story is most widely favoured by audiences.

But I suppose one could argue that as a summer blockbuster Pirates of the Caribbean 3 should have a balance between story and visual as to not isolate audience. This privileging of narrative has plagued technical cinema for decades. Soviet filmmaker Dziga Vertov (1896-1954) dealt with similar criticisms. Vertov felt that by seeing the world through the eye of a camera lens, the masses could achieve a higher understanding of the world they live in resulting in political revolution. Vertov avoided narrative and fiction in his films as they were bourgeois notions. Vertov’s Man With a Movie Camera was meant to mobilize the masses through the stylized representation of Russian workers. Instead, some critics felt that the “flashing of images was exhausting”.

Perhaps it can be argued that films dependent on visual spectacle should be short and sweet. After all, Pirates clocks in at 168 minutes and Man With a Movie Camera (which depends strictly on visuals) clocks in at 80 minutes. With no rest in sight it is understandable how one may have trouble sitting through these films without narrative tension driving them forward.But I’m not letting narrative off that easily.

I’m sure everyone has at least one friend who can not sit through a film without pointing out every plot hole that he or she may find. You may be watching a generally solid film with your disbelief relatively suspended by the plot, yet your friend refuses to submit. It is my own personal theory that these people refuse to allow the suspension of their disbelief in an insecure attempt to appear better or smarter than the logic of the film. Not that I condemn the heckling of a movie. I’m talking about extreme cases here.

What these people fail to grasp is that the film itself relies on such discrepancies and trickery to exist. This not only applies to narrative but also to other formal elements. First off, a film’s narrative can never be completely coherent. As a construction at the hands of a writer, a film’s narrative will always be fundamentally flawed. The audience has an advantage of viewing the events of a film’s narrative at a distance, making it easier to criticize the events and actions of the film. With this in mind, I think it is important to quickly identify what a film is going for and not resist the suspension of disbelief. After all, the visual presentation of a film also relies on audiences to submit to illusion. One easily forgets that the motion that is perceived as cinema relies on the viewer’s eyes to fail in distinguishing all 24 frames that a film presents each second. Do people feel the need to point that out every time they see a movie?

I think that people are conditioned to pay more attention to the story of a film. Not only have we been presented with narrative cinema our entire lives, but the history of narrative surpasses that of cinema by millennia. It isn’t a surprise that film has stepped up to the plate as a vehicle for story and narrative. We see the same thing happening to video games. Games that once relied entirely on game play now adopt narrative structures. For example, this is evident in the Super Smash Bros. which, with every installment, incorporates more and more storytelling elements.

We can’t forget about the purely visual aspect of cinema which originally defined the medium. There is an importance in occasionally distancing story and visual in an attempt to appreciate the spectacle. There is validity in Vertov’s desire to avoid narrative. Our culture’s emphasis on “good story” (which can be considered bourgeois…if you want) eclipses the important social functions of cinema. We more often look at films in hopes of having a good time, when often the function of cinema is the opposite.

Aside from that though, can’t we all agree that it can be fun to just go to a theater, turn our brains off, smile at the pretty lights and maybe forget about those undesirable plot twists.