Read the rest of this entry >>

Film forensic autopsies aren’t all that popular, and I have to admit, I could do a lot more to make them more readable. It recently occurred to me that plot summaries would be very handy indeed. The films reviewed tend to be mediocre or bad, and it’s often hard to remember the details that we suggest changes for, especially if the reader hasn’t seen the film recently.

So, I’m going to spend a little time writing up plot summaries for some of the films in the archives. I’ll put a plot summary at the head of each autopsy, in a different colour so that if you clearly recall the film, you can just skip it. This will probably take a bit of time, especially when I don’t remember the film all that well myself! But I think it’ll be useful. My autopsies do assume a recent viewing of the film at the moment, and this will allow a greater readership (hopefully) - including people who have’t seen, and/or have no intention of seeing, the film in question. Because sometimes it’s just fun to watch someone pulling something apart.

You’ve probably seen the creatively edited trailer for “The Shining”, called “Shining” (The competition that spawned it is discussed at Making Light, by the way.) There were quite a few entries in that competition, and “Shining” was clearly the best of them.

So what makes a good creatively edited trailer? It’s not merely enough to pick the spookiest and darkest moments of a romantic comedy, and put scary music over it. The most fun to be had is when the scenes, taken out of context, perfectly fit the new theme while viciously undercutting what they were *supposed* to mean. “Shining” has these moments in spades. The son looking up at room 237, yearning to make contact with Dad. Jack kissing the woman in the shower, cut short enough that you might imagine it was Shelley. The crayon “redruM” on the door, simply a precocious kid looking for attention.

Here is a more recent example - in my view, even better than “Shining”. Look for “Brokeback to the Future” in the “videos” section.

It makes me want to do one of these. I’ve always loved this kind of willful misinterpretation (The Wizard of Oz: “A young girl travels to a surrealistic landscape, kills a woman, then conspires with three strangers to rob and kill the woman’s sister.” Also, my friend Chris wrote a lovely interpretation of the Star Wars series.) But now that my DVD collection has hit critical mass, and transferring them onto computer and editing them have become a piece of cake, my only excuses are time and creative talent.

Hmm. Perhaps I should start a competition. I’ll get back to you all on this one…

It’s been a week since I’ve seen King Kong. Unfortunately what I’ve got to say, has been said on other boards, but since it hasn’t been said here at FF I thought I would in the hope it might get a little discussion of the film going.

I want to like King Kong, but its length really wore me out. A movie of over 3 hours needs pretty hefty character interactions and/or a lot of plot. But neither are required in the telling of Kong, and their addition to this film in fact hamper the film’s impact.

For plot, there is nothing that can be added to the original 1933 film version of King Kong without it appearing extraneous. Let’s face it, its a pretty simple story. Even when watching the original film, short though it is, some Skull Island scenes have the feel that they are there for no other reason than to show the wonder of stop-motion. And so too with action scenes in the new King Kong . Almost all go beyond a length that maintains interest. In a film of this length action scenes need to add something to the plot, in such a way that can only be provided through the action. But its not so.

The brontosaurus charge was the major offender; it added nothing to the movie except the CG. The upshot of the brontosaurus charge was to set up Baxter as a coward who leaves (to return with the rescue party). But this set up could have been done without this overly long scene. The insect pit too, falls into this set. Once Baxter has gone, then he has to come back and save them from another drawnout CG peril.

And so the plot becomes a slave to the minor characters that so much time was used on to introduce. If Baxter had been kept in the background, then he would never have had to been given something to do to justify the time spent on him.

King Kong would have been better spending more time on its leads, keeping eveyone else in the background, and so keeping its running time down. In this respect I think the 1976 version is far superior. Its length is right for what it has. Lest you should think I didn’t like this new version, there is actually much of it I did like. Still, sometimes less is more.

Well, I finally knocked off the “War of the Worlds” dissection, and yup, that’s one ugly alien (though not, perhaps, as ugly as it should have been). I’m not enormously happy with my analysis, so if you disagree with me or have better ideas of why you thought the film worked or didn’t work, why not post a reply?

Coming up in the next weeks: Dr. Winston analyses “The Terminal” and “Goldeneye”, guest Forensic Analyst Dr. Keith Kelly takes the Doctor Who serial “Arc of Infinity” for a spin, and I determine whether “Unleashed” has been a bad boy. As usual, if you have any suggestions or criticisms, feel free to email me or leave a comment on this post. Thanks for coming.

Coming up next week, Dr. Winston will be analysing the corpse of “Thunderbirds”. Did the cutting of the strings result in a limp, boneless mess, or am I carrying a metaphor too far? Tune in on Sunday to see.

I am also accepting comments on “The War of the Worlds”, my next Film Forensic (tentatively due on Sunday 8th January). Please mail me or put a comment on this post if you have any salient pathology reports to add.