(Mad Max) 

Videoteca do Beto #20

Dirigido por George Miller.

Elenco: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Steve Bisley, Tim Burns, Roger Ward, Lisa Aldenhoven, David Bracks, Bertrand Cadart, David Cameron, Max Fairchild e Sheila Florence. 

Roteiro: George Miller e James McCausland. 

Produção: Byron Kennedy. 

[Antes de qualquer coisa, gostaria de pedir que só leia esta crítica se já tiver assistido o filme. Para fazer uma análise mais detalhada é necessário citar cenas importantes da trama].

Um pequeno orçamento de 400 mil dólares foi o responsável pela estréia de duas importantes carreiras no cinema mundial, além de gravar na história do cinema o nome desta aventura futurista com um ar decadente, que se tornou cult com o passar dos anos. Mad Max é um filme cheio de adrenalina, com uma densa carga dramática e personagens interessantes. O mundo cruel dominado por gangues retratado no longa serve de pano de fundo para as sensacionais cenas de perseguição na estrada, que se tornaram famosas ao longo dos anos e inspiraram duas continuações (o bom Mad Max 2: A caçada continua e o fraco Mad Max 3: Além da cúpula do trovão).

Num futuro caótico, o mundo foi dominado por gangues que vivem à procura de gasolina. Após o jovem e talentoso policial Max Rockatansky (Mel Gibson) matar acidentalmente um integrante de uma perigosa gangue, sua família e seu melhor amigo Goose (Steve Bisley) passam a ser perseguidos e as conseqüências trágicas desta perseguição despertam o pior dos sentimentos em Max, a vingança.

George Miller abusou da criatividade para realizar Mad Max. Como o orçamento do filme era extremamente limitado, muitos carros e motos foram remendados e reutilizados o que, somado às roupas nada convencionais das gangues, contribuiu para criar um visual diferente e atraente. O diretor acertou ao manter o ritmo ágil da narrativa, sem muitos floreios, utilizando criativos planos cheios de estilo nas cenas de perseguição – com a câmera no nível do asfalto, na frente de motos e carros, nos olhos de Max, entre outros – que aumentam ainda mais a alta carga de adrenalina. Em muitas destas cenas, Miller utiliza uma quantidade menor de frames (quadros por segundo) para dar uma sensação maior de velocidade, como na cena em que Max passa pelos motoqueiros e os joga da ponte. Nesta cena, aliás, ele alterna da alta velocidade para a câmera lenta durante a queda dos motoqueiros, mostrando em detalhes o impacto do choque. O diretor também utiliza a câmera para aumentar o suspense, como no plano onde vemos uma mão no tronco da árvore enquanto Jessie caminha até a praia. Toda esta tensa seqüência, desde a praia até a volta pra casa, passando por pombos, um cachorro morto e pelo deficiente Benno (Max Fairchild), culmina com a fuga de carro de Jessie (Joanne Samuel, em atuação que não compromete) e May (Sheila Florence) para a estrada, onde a tragédia se consumará. E nesta cena, que é a de maior impacto no espectador, Miller nos poupa ao mostrar um plano subjetivo, com a bola e o tênis do bebê na estrada indicando o resultado trágico. E se o resultado já seria trágico naturalmente, soa ainda mais dolorido porque o bom roteiro do próprio George Miller, auxiliado por James McCausland, acerta ao nos envolver no relacionamento cheio de amor e carinho de Max e Jessie. O impacto do drama vivido por Max após o ataque à sua família é maior justamente porque sentimos simpatia pelo casal. Também direto e sem muitos rodeios, o roteiro funciona perfeitamente, pecando apenas no terceiro ato, que é curto demais. Culpa também da montagem de Cliff Hayes e Tony Paterson, que por outro lado, acerta em cheio nas cenas de perseguição na estrada, criando seqüências de tirar o fôlego. A direção de fotografia de David Eggby explora ao máximo a beleza das estradas australianas e cria um visual quente e seco, aproveitando o maravilhoso brilho do sol naquele país. Finalizando a parte técnica, merece destaque a qualidade do som, principalmente na estrada com o barulho das motos e dos carros, e da trilha sonora de Brian May, rápida, alucinada e perfeita para aquele mundo.

O ataque ao jovem casal na estrada mostra o perigo que aquela gangue de motoqueiros representa. Malucos e arruaceiros, estes nômades não tem piedade de ninguém. A insanidade do grupo fica ainda mais evidente na cena em que Jessie vai comprar sorvete, quando todos partem como animais que cercam a presa para cima da moça, até que ela se aproveita do interesse do líder da gangue para se livrar dele e escapar. O próximo encontro entre eles só confirma a crueldade destes vilões. E mesmo que quisessem mudar este comportamento não poderiam, como fica evidente quando um dos motoqueiros se recusa a matar Goose da forma que seu líder queria, mas é obrigado a fazê-lo para evitar ser assassinado por eles. Por outro lado, as fracas interpretações de praticamente todos os atores do grupo prejudicam o tom ameaçador da gangue, que poderia soar muito mais perigosa e assustadora. O visual dos bandidos é muito mais assustador que eles próprios.

Para que “Mad Max” realmente funcionasse, seria necessário um personagem principal carismático, e Miller acertou em cheio na escolha. Desde sua excelente introdução (o diretor cria um suspense para lentamente revelar seu rosto, mostrando inicialmente as botas, óculos e luvas pretas) nos identificamos com Max, um policial destemido que não foge do choque e provoca a morte do até então temível “Dark Knight”. Vivido com competência por Mel Gibson, Max é uma pessoa simples, apaixonada pelo que faz, e que ama sua família. O ator é talentoso ao transmitir esta paixão de Max pela esposa, como podemos observar na bela cena em que, deitado na grama com Jessie, tenta dizer o quanto à ama usando como exemplo sua dificuldade em demonstrar afeto pelo falecido pai quando ainda era criança. Por outro lado, Max é também uma pessoa destemida e que gosta da adrenalina da estrada. Seu diálogo com Fifi Macafee (Roger Ward) deixa claro que ele está começando a gostar daquilo tudo e, se continuar nesta profissão, ficará tão louco quanto os baderneiros motoqueiros. Esta perigosa mistura de paixão e loucura o torna uma bomba relógio, pronta pra explodir caso algo aconteça às pessoas que ama. E a tragédia acontece, transformando Max no pior dos inimigos para aquela gangue, aquele que não tem mais nada a perder. O plano em que Max olha fixamente para a máscara do monstro é bastante simbólico, já que agora, sem a mulher, o filho e seu melhor amigo, ele se tornou o próprio monstro.

Além das excelentes cenas de perseguição que são um prato cheio para quem gosta de carros, colabora para o sucesso do filme (e o status de cult alcançado ao logo dos anos) o árido e sujo mundo futurista criado pela boa Direção de Arte de Jon Dowding (“Velocidade é só uma questão de dinheiro. Quão rápido você pode ir?” é a interessante frase de uma borracharia). Mais importante ainda são os excêntricos figurinos dos motoqueiros criados por Clare Griffin. Os figurinos, aliás, também tem função dramática no filme, pois indicam o estado psicológico de Max. Inicialmente, ele se veste muitas vezes de branco, colocando o preto somente pra trabalhar. Mas depois da morte de sua família, Max não abandona o preto, refletindo a escuridão que tomou conta de sua vida. E até mesmo o carro de perseguição colabora. Inicialmente utilizando o Interceptor amarelo, Max muda para o carro completamente preto na seqüência final. E aqui, Gibson também é competente ao retratar com o olhar a angústia, fúria e sede de vingança de Max.

Vingança, aliás, é o tema principal de “Mad Max”. O filme utiliza a vingança pessoal do policial como pano de fundo para as sensacionais cenas de perseguição. E mesmo que esta violência “justificada” não seja algo que eu, racionalmente, considere correto, é inegável que julgar a reação de Max ao enorme sofrimento que sentia seria leviano e hipócrita. Desta forma, ele parte sem medir conseqüências em busca da vingança, e o espectador torce por ele. Vale notar também como o modo cruel que Max faz sua última vítima inspirou um filme recente de bastante sucesso, com a sugestão de utilizar a serra como forma de escapar da morte.

O visual criativo e original se tornou um clássico com o passar dos anos, assim como as cenas em alta velocidade. Repleto de adrenalina, com um personagem carismático e cenas de perseguição de tirar o fôlego, “Max Mad” é um exemplo de que mesmo com orçamento baixo é possível fazer bons filmes, desde que se tenha talento para isto. Felizmente, este é o caso da dupla George Miller e Mel Gibson.

Texto publicado em 28 de Novembro de 2009 por Roberto Siqueira

“Impreuna pentru eternitate”? Nu prea. Cel putin, nu pentru unele vedete.

1. Sean Penn & Robin Wright

Au fost impreuna, apoi s-au despartit, apoi iar impreuna, apoi iar s-au despartit. Abia ce parea ca lucrurile s-au linistit in mai; in luna august a acestui an Robin Wright a cerut divort pentru a treia oara de cand sunt impreuna.

O luna mai tarziu Sean Penn a fost vazut in compania modelului Jessica White.

2. Rihanna & Chris Brown

Finalul acestei povesti de dragoste, nu a fost deloc frumos. Internetul a fost impanzit cu acea poza in care Rihanna era pur si simplu desfigurata. Povestea are insa si un final fericit. Chris Brown a fost nevoit sa faca munca in folosul comunitatii.

3. Miley Cyrus & Justin Gaston

Cand ai 16 ani, te simti foarte bine sa te intalnesti cu un baiat de 20 de ani si model pe deasupra. In aprilie, Miley declara ca Justin este cel mai frumos lucru ce s-a intamplat in viata ei. Trei luni mai tarziu, pe Twitter, cantareata anunta oficial ca relatia lor a luat sfarsit.

4. Avril Lavigne & Deryck Whibley

Abia ce credeai ca Avril s-a asezat la casa ei; nimic mai gresit. Pe data de 24 octombrie Avril a divortat de solistul trupei Sum 41 dupa 3 ani de casnicie.

Prietenii celor doi sunt de parere ca Avril s-a casatorit mult prea tanara, iar acesta a constituit in mare parte motivul divortului.

5. Lindsay Lohan & Samantha Ronson

Cuplul “gay” al anului de la Hollywood. In ciuda faptului ca Lindsay se certase cu toate rudele, aceasta declara ca se simte foarte bine in relatia cu Samantha. Dupa zvonurile conform carora Lindsay a inceput sa se intalneasca cu baieti, aceasta a declarat ca nu s-a despartit de Samantha. Ulterior insa, aceasta a pus punct relatiei.

6. Corey Feldman & Susie Sprague

Toti cei care au vazut “The Two Coreys” ar fi crezut ca cei doi sunt destinati sa ramana impreuna pentru totdeauna. Pe data de 22 octombrie, Susie si-a socat sotul dupa ce a cerut divortul dupa o casnicie de 7 ani.

7. Mel Gibson & Robyn Moore

Au petrecut aproape 30 de ani impreuna. In aprilie insa, actorul a semnat actele de divort, declarand ca ei nu mai formau un cuplu de mai bine de trei ani. In confirmarea acestei declaratii vine stirea conform careia cu ceva timp inaintea divortului, actorul a fost vazut in compania modelului Oksana Grigorieva.

8. Demi Lovato & Trace Cyrus

Starul Disney Demi Lovato si fratele lui Miley Cyrus, Trace Cyrus au anuntat in 21 iulie ca nu mai formeaza un cuplu. Motivul pare a fi faptul ca cei doi nu aveau destul timp de petrecut impreuna.

De asemenea, de curand s-a speculat ca Demi Lovato ar forma un cuplu cu Joe Jonas.

9. Jennifer Love Hewitt & Ross McCall

Dupa ce actorul de origine scotiana i-a declarat actritei din “Mesaje de dincolo” ca o iubeste, cei doi au parut de nedespartit. Jennifer i-a fost alaturi chiar si in momentele grele, cand Ross a fost spitalizat, insa relatia lor n-a fost sa fie.

10. Milo Ventimiglia & Hayden Panettiere

Diferenta de mai bine de 12 ani si-a spus cuvantul.

Cei doi si-au luat oficial “la reverede” in ianuarie acest an, punand astfel capat unei relatii de un an de zile.

Sunt celebri pe toata planeta, iar viata lor se afla in permanenta sub microscopul presei, dar asta nu-i impiedica pe unii artisti sa dea frau liber maniei si sa uite de autocontrol. De-a lungul timpului, mai multe celebritati au demonstrat ca, uneori, cedeaza nervilor si au iesiri violente fie vizavi de fani, de paparazzi sau de simple cunostinte. Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse, Jude Law sau Snoop Dog sunt doar cateva exemple de VIP-uri care au atacat cu ce le-a venit la mana atunci cand au fost deranjati de cineva. Chiar daca unii dintre ei au fost pusi sub acuzatie, nici unul nu s-a ales cu pedepse prea drastice. Cel mai frecvent, agresorul a cazut la intelegere cu victima sa si a scapat de inchisoare.

Cunoscuta pentru firea ei colerica, Amy Winehouse a fost protagonista mai multor episoade violente. In mai 2008, cantareata a fost acuzata ca, la iesirea din apartamentul sau din Londra, a agresat un fotograf. Vedeta l-a impins, apoi a incercat sa-i arunce camera, dupa care i-a dat un pumn in fata. Dupa ce si-a varsat nervii pe fotograf, Amy s-a retras intr-un local, unde a inceput sa planga. Nu a fost singura data cand despre artista s-a spus ca ar fi fost agresiva cu paparazzii. Cu toate astea, ea nu a fost pusa oficial sub acuzare. Nici fostul ei sot, care, din informatiile aparute in presa internationala, ar fi primit cativa pumni de la Amy, nu a reclamat-o pe aceasta la politie. In septembrie 2008, Winehouse a fost acuzata ca ar fi agresat o admiratoare, pe cand se afla la un bal caritabil in Londra. Sherene Flash a declarat instantei ca Amy se afla sub infuenta drogurilor sau a alcoolului, iar motivul altercatiei a fost ca Flash a dorit sa o pozeze pe cantareata. Victima s-a ales cu un pumn in ochiul drept. La scurt timp, Winehouse a fost declarata nevinovata in proces, dupa ce a negat acuzatia de agresiune ce i se aducea. Judecatorii au precizat ca dovezile medicale prezentate de avocatii acuzarii “nu au relevat tipul acestei vatamari corporale” care ar fi putut aparea in urma unei lovituri in zona ochilor.

Busta Rhymes s-a enervat ca un pusti i-a scuipat masina

Un rapper ale carui iesiri nervoase au devenit celebre este Busta Rhymes, acuzat in mai multe randuri ca si-ar fi agresat fanii, fie verbal, fie fizic. Cu ani in urma, Busta a trecut printr-un proces dificil, dupa ce a lovit puternic un pusti care ii scuipase masina. Americanul a fost insa absolvit de vina, dupa ce a cazut la intelegere cu fanul batut, care a avut nevoie de spitalizare.

Snoop Dog, nevinovat dupa ce a lovit un fan

Ca si colegul sau de breasla, Busta Rhymes, rapperul Snoop Dog a fost acuzat ca a agresat un fan care a sarit pe scena, in timpul unui concert in Seattle, in 2005. Un tribunal civil din Santa Monica a decis insa că starul nu a fost implicat direct în dispută, însă a ordonat casei sale de discuri, unui alt rapper şi altor părţi implicate să plătească despăgubiri în valoare de 449.400 de dolari. Victima, Richard Monroe Jr., susţinea că starul hip-hop l-a lovit cu un microfon după ce a sărit pe scenă şi a pus mâna pe umărul lui Snoop, înainte ca agenţii de securitate să-l imobilizeze şi să-i administreze o bătaie cruntă. ”Am fost lovit cu pumnii, picioarele, apoi iar cu picioarele, iar cu pumnii. A fost brutal. Eram şocat, nu-mi venea să cred”, a afirmat Monroe în deschiderea procesului, cerând despăgubiri în valoare de 22 de milioane de dolari. După ce a urmărit o înregistrare video a incidentului, juriul l-a găsit nevinovat pe Snoop Dogg. Casa sa de discuri, Doggystyle Records, rapperul Soopafly şi alte părţi au fost condamnate în schimb să plătească despăgubiri.

Mel Gibson i-a rupt tricoul unui admirator, de nervi

Nici Mel Gibson nu este o vedeta tocmai prietenoasa cu admiratorii sai. In iulie anul acesta, actorul i-a rupt tricoul unui admirator, in momentul in care acesta incerca sa-l fotografieze impreuna cu iubita lui, rusoaica Oksana Grigorieva. Se pare că Gibson a reacţionat violent, după ce i-a rugat pe cei doi să nu-l fotografieze. Potrivit poliţiei din Los Angeles, admiratorul nu a fost rănit, doar tricoul a avut de suferit.  Totuşi, “persoana agresată” a depus o plângere oficială, la poliţia din Los Angeles, împotriva lui Mel Gibson. Pentru ca in urma conflictului nu au rezultat vatamari corporale, actorul nu a fost pus sub acuzatie.

Akon a aruncat un fan de pe scena

In noiembrie 2007, Akon a riscat pedeapsa cu inchisoarea dupa ce a lovit si a aruncat de pe scena un baiat, in timpul unui concert. Una dintre persoanele din public a aruncat un obiect catre Akon, chiar cand acesta incepuse sa cante, iar starul s-a oprit si a cerut spectatorilor sa il identifice. Vinovatul, un baiat de 15 ani, a fost adus pe scena, iar starul l-a ridicat pe umeri si l-a aruncat inapoi in multime. O tanara din public, pe nume Abby Rosa, care a fost lovita in urma acestui incident, si-a scos un certificat medico-legal, a angajat un avocat si a facut o plangere la politie impotriva artistului. Cateva probe video care demonstrau vinovatia lui Akon au fost depuse la dosar, iar artistul a fost acuzat de lovire de gradul II si de punerea in pericol a unui minor. El a fost condamnat la 65 de ore de munca in serviciul comunitatii si la plata unei amenzi de 250 de dolari.

Kanye West a atacat un fotograf in aeroport

Nervos pe un fotograf care isi indreptase camera spre el, rapperul Kanye West si managerul sau l-au atacat pe acesta si i-au distrus si aparatul in valoare de 10.000 de dolari. Incidentul a avut loc in septembrie 2008, in aeroportul din Los Angeles. Cântăreţul american a fost inculpat oficial pentru agresiune, jaf şi vandalism, iar managerul sau a fost arestat dupa ce lovise si el alte doua persoane. Desi faptele se pedepseau cu pana la trei ani de inchisoare, in urma procesului, rapperul a primit doar 50 de ore de munca in folosul comunitatii. Kanye West, care a vândut în cariera sa 24 de milioane de discuri, a mai fost arestat şi în Marea Britanie cu ani in urma, pentru o bătaie din faţa unui bar, dar a scăpat fără nicio acuzaţie.

Jude Law loveste cu sete femeile paparazzi

Iritat de o femeie paparazzi care a vrut sa-l fotografieze, actorul Jude Law i-a ars acesteia o palma peste cap, in septembrie 2007, in fata locuintei actorului din Maida Vale, vestul Londrei. Law a fost arestat de poliţia londoneză si dus la secţie sub suspiciunea de vătămare corporală. Protagonistul filmului “Alfie” a negat acuzaţiile, iar dupa ce i s-au luat amprentele, actorul a fost eliberat pe cautiune. Fotograful a declarat că a suferit leziuni minore după ce Law a încercat să-i smulgă camera video din mână. La scurt timp dupa altercatie, justiţia britanică a decis că nu există suficiente dovezi pentru a-l pune sub acuzaţie pe Jude Law. “Bineînţeles că mă simt răzbunat”, a declarat Law prin intermediul purtătorului său de cuvânt, dupa ce a aflat verdictul instantei.

Britney Spears ataca paparazzi cu ce-i vine la mana

In perioada ei tulbure, Britney Spears a avut cateva iesiri necontrolate din cauza carora ar fi putut ajunge la inchisoare. In februarie 2007, vedeta a atacat cu umbrela cativa paparazzi aflati intr-o masina, iar in octombrie 2008, un alt fotograf i-a cazut victima, dupa ce cantareata l-a agresat, in Beverly Hills, ranindu-l usor. De asemenea, in noiembrie 2007, artista a fost acuzata ca a lovit cu masina cu paparazzo, insa a scapat de sase luni de detentie, dupa ce instanta a stabilit ca vina era, de fapt, a fotografului. Despre Britney s-a mai spus ca, iritata peste masura de cativa fotografi, in Los Angeles, a inceput sa arunce in ei cu hamburgeri si cartofi prajiti. Nimeni nu i-a facut insa plangere la politie.

Bruce Willis, arestat pentru ca a agresat un ofiter de politie

Desi pare un tip destul de calm la ora actuala, Bruce Willis a avut o tinerete zbuciumata, din cate povestesc prietenii lui. In 1987, el a fost arestat pentru ca a agresat un ofiter de politie care fusese chemat sa calmeze spiritele la o petrecere organizata de actor. “De ce injuri asa de mult?”, a fost intrebat Willis. “Ce e asta? Ora de bune maniere?”, a replicat starul. Acuzatiile au fost retrase in momentul in care actorul a acceptat sa le ceara scuze vecinilor.

Keifer Sutherland a scapat de inchisoare, dupa ce a batut un designer

Kiefer Sutherland a fost arestat, in mai 2009, de politia new-yorkeza, sub acuzatia de vatamare corporala, dupa ce actorul l-a batut pe stilistul Jack McCollough, la o petrecere. Sutherland a devenit agresiv în momentul în care stilistul s-a lovit pur şi simplu de actriţa Brooke Shields. Sutherland s-a certat cu Jack McCollough, apoi l-a lovit pe acesta cu capul în plină figură. Luna aceasta insa, Keifer a scapat de necazuri si a aflat ca nu va fi condamnat la inchisoare, deoarece acuzatia i-a fost retrasa.

Sursa: Gardianul

Oftentimes childhood memories will blindside me from nowhere and I’m compelled to blog about them, especially since I wish I hadn’t been such a shit of a child.

Mommy! I need my shitty Pampers changed!

I recall an incident where I was a fucking brat, and old enough to not be throwing temper tantrums. I’m guessing I was 11 or 12 years old. I was at a mall with my mom and brother. For whatever reason, I got an attitude. That was when my mom told me that now we were not going to see Lethal Weapon after the mall. I started bawling and begging and saying I would be good. All this for Lethal Weapon. Wow, I had fucking issues.

Don't make me shoot you, you whiny little bitch!

And how about all those times I refused to eat fish sticks for dinner? Everytime my mom served them to me I whined and cried. And everytime I was sent to my room, where I proceeded to gag and heave, for a whole bottle of tartar sauce never killed the taste for me. Eventually I was let out of my room and there those fucking fish sticks were, still sitting on my plate at the table, waiting to be eaten.

I'd eat fish dicks before fish sticks. Believe me.

I’m sure I threw more tantrums than Satan as a baby. I was a brat, a spoiled fucking brat. Don’t argue with me. If I had a baby picture handy, you’d agree. Cause I’m probably crying in the photo.

Watched the movie Gallipoli a few nights back. Still thinking about it, a very disturbing movie. The DVD cover says: “Honor. Friendship. War.” Yes. It was also a story about runners. And British imperialism. And nationalism I suppose.
Beyond the story, the setting is reason enough to watch- the desert of western Australia and early 20th century Cairo are mesmerising.
It stars Mel Gibson and Mark Lee. Directed by Peter Weir. 1981.

Hace tiempo, pero que mucho tiempo, que tenía en mente incluir en esta recopilación de películas de cine con relación con la fotografía a este filme de Peter Weir. Pero es una película que vi en su momento hace muchos, muchos años, y quería volver a verla para tener frescas las impresiones del comentario.

El miércoles por la tarde sufrí un accidente doméstico, que aconsejó que ayer pasase la tarde en reposo y con el pie en alto. El cuarto dedo de mi pie izquierdo, tras un golpe con la pata de un sillón, tenía el tamaño del dedo gordo y estaba negro como mi conciencia. Descartada mi hora de tenis de los jueves, repasando la programación del satélite, he aquí que TNT programaba la película que me interesaba, ¡y además, con la opción de verla en versión original subtitulada! Y ya tenéis la reseña de El año que vivimos peligrosamente en mi colección La Fotografía en el cine.

Muchos serán los que piensen en el pesado de Mel Gibson al recordar esta película, aunque en aquel momento el australiano no había alcanzado el grado de endiosamiento que posteriormente le caracterizó. A mí siempre me ha parecido un actor mediocre,… lo que son las cosas. Sin embargo, para mí el/la protagonista absoluta/o es Linda Hunt con su interpretación del pequeño pero interesante Billy Kwan, el fotógrafo y camarógrafo del periodista que interpreta Gibson.

En fin, una entretenida e interesante película, no exenta de defectos, pero que merece la pena verse. Y claramente relacionada con el mundo de la fotografía.

Os dejo con una relajante fotografía otoñal.

Paseo a orillas del Canal Imperial de Aragón en Zaragoza - Panasonic Lumix LX3, G 20/1,7 ASPH.

“Courage is as often the outcome of despair as hope; in the one case we have nothing to lose, in the other, all to gain.”

~ Diane de Poitier

Image from Braveheart (1995), courtesy of www.scene-stealers.com

Every Wednesday, from today until the end of time, my close friend and bitter foe Mad Adam is going to stop by and attempt to clarify his delusions of grandeur, dominance, and defeatism. He’s very complex. And, as you’ll soon find out, most of what he has to say comes out of his ass, but man, is he angry! And I’m not talking the kind of angry that can be aptly expressed with all caps and exclamation marks, or even simple declarations of anger… you’ll have to use your imagination a little. Picture the bright red face. Picture the popping veins. Picture the holes in the wall, the shattered remotes, the hospitalized “friends”. Now, multiply it by 386. That gets you halfway there. But here, we’ll let him explain it…

Hello everyone.  Allow me to introduce myself.  My name is Mad Adam.  That’s right, not Mad Hatter (Les Miles), Mad Max (Mel Gibson) or Mad Men (those booze swilling cats at Sterling Cooper).  No, just Mad Adam.

Why Mad Adam?  First, I have an anger control problem. This is particularly true when it comes to my sports teams.  I get mad when they let me down.  I get mad when they get screwed over.  I sometimes get mad even when things are going well. What can I say….I’m Mad Adam.  As a bonus, my name is a palindrome.  Don’t know that is? Look it up loser.  And while you are at it, send some hate mail to your language teachers who obviously let you down.

Now that I have revealed that much of my anger is centered on my favorite teams, I better let you in on who those teams are.  Warning, I grew up as a military brat, so I never stayed in a place long enough to pick a team based on geography.  So, I have a pretty disparate set of favorite teams (with the exception of my college team which is clearly a result of the totally awesome education I received at the undergraduate and law schools of the institution listed below).  So, in no particular order, here are the teams that matter most to me: New York Jets (last Super Bowl….1969, the roots of my anger begin to surface); Los Angeles Dodgers; Los Angeles Lakers; Manchester City Citizens (EPL soccer you morons); and of course, my beloved OU Sooners.  Looking for a hockey team?  Go (ice) fish.  Not a fun game to watch on TV.

My proclivity for temper tantrums does not end with my favorite teams.  I also get mad about betting on sports (i.e. placing bad bets, not the act of betting on sports which I am very much in favor of), bad calls, terrible commentators, incomprehensible TV twists, bad uniforms, those who don’t appreciate good music, politics, stupid fans, silly traditions, inane rules….you get the idea.  I am Mad Adam.

The gracious, yet logic deficient Ed Honcho, has asked that I occasionally drop by this site and let all of you know what I am currently mad about.  I appreciate the forum and the opportunity to vent.  I would be remiss if I did not kick things off with a mailbag devoted to my legions of fans and their questions.  So, without further ado, away we go…..

Q: Did you see the Patriots throw a deep pass with only 30 seconds to go this past weekend when they were up 31 – 14 on the J-E-T-S, Jets, Jets, Jets? How did that make you feel? Cuz, I will tell you how it made me feel.  It made me feel like punching Tom Brady in his pretty face and defecating on Bill Belichik’s car.

- Francis Anastasio, Elizabeth, New Jersey

A: Francis, or can I call you Frank? No? OK. Francis, you could not be more right (except the part about shitting on his car, which is a tad bit weird). Not since Michael Bay decided to have “ghetto” robots in the newest Transformers movie have I seen such a brash and uncalled for decision.

What is he hoping to accomplish?  By kicking the Jets when they are down, does he hope to draw attention away from the most colossal coaching mistake in his career from the week prior against the Colts? By allowing a long pass to Randy Moss did he hope to show that Moss does in fact own Darrelle Revis? (if so, too bad, because Moss turned in a pedestrian 5 catches for 34 yards against my boy Revis).

Or is this just one more bully move by a guy that thinks he is God, but is in fact still the same a-hole that could not turn around the Browns and WHO WALKED OUT ON THE JETS IN 1999 A DAY AFTER TAKING THE HEAD COACHING JOB? What a loser. I HATE that guy. And, I really hate those spy-gate cheating, pretty boy Pats(ies).

Q: How are you feeling about the Lakers so far?

- Bonita Benson, Culver City, California

A: In a word….AWESOME.  So far, Khlomar has not been a distraction.  The return of Gasol has transformed the team.  Ron Artest is playing within the system and has not punched Nicholson in the face on his way down the court yet. And Kobe? Well, he is busy doing work.

Since the Lakers’ Western Conference coronation is all but assured, let’s turn to the more important issue.  Will those turd burgers from Boston make an appearance and get the whupping they deserved two years ago? As of this writing they are 10-4, and look pretty good (for a team in puke green adorned with a picture of a leprechaun sporting a vest, hat and bow-tie covered in freaking shamrocks).  I don’t want another beat-down on Orlando.  I want Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and “look at me I am yelling a lot, I must be really intense” Kevin Garnett to face the music like they did in 1985 and 1987 when Magic and crew beat Bird and his brigade of losers (like Kevin “the Armpits” McHale and Robert “Reefer” Parrish). SCREW THE CELTICS!

Q: When are you going to talk about the Sooners? Texas Tech destroyed Stoops and company and the crowd turned the House of Pain “Jump Around” into an anti-Sooner anthem.  And, don’t forget Capel’s b-ball team that got rocked by the VCU Rams, his former team.  Seriously, did you jump off a cliff this weekend?

- Rusty Jackson, Texhoma, Texas

A: I am typing out this response from the rather large ravine that I did indeed toss myself into after the collective DUMP THAT OU TOOK ON ME THIS WEEKEND.  This is the kind of showing that makes you want to give up sports.

That raises the issue.  Is it possible to really give up on your favorite team?  I say no.  The first time I ever tried to do it was when I was 8 years old and the Dodgers were on a serious losing streak. I declared that I was no longer a fan of Dodger blue and tried to become a Cincinnati Reds fan.  However, each morning when I would look through the box scores in the local paper I found my gaze straying from the Reds to find out what the Dodgers had done the night before. The reason?  If you are a true fan, you can NEVER give up on your team.  Even when they TEAR OUT YOUR HEART, LIKE OU DID TO ME THIS WEEKEND.

Did I kinda avoid answering your questions Rusty? You bet. Stay tuned, though, because if those goat loving, tobacco chewing troglodytes from Stillwater win Bedlam this weekend, then I may have to dedicate an entire column to how FREAKING BAD THIS OU FOOTBALL SEASON HAS REALLY BEEN.

Q: So, how about Les Miles and his clock management skills?

- Earl Papadeaux, Natchez, Louisiana

A: Oh, how I detest Les Miles.  What an overrated, egotistical, arrogant insipid little man crowned with an ill-fitting hat. How many times must he do something like this before Tiger Nation rises up and says enough is enough.  The LSU school newspaper, “The Daily Reveille” is calling for the firing of offensive coordinator Gary Crowton over this debacle.

First, “The Daily Reveille,” really? I had to look up “reveille” to even know what the students there are referencing.  It is a bugle call associated with the military.  So, the newspaper is a daily bugle call.   Whatever.

Second, firing the offensive coordinator is completely missing the point.  Did anyone see Les Miles’ patented “deer in headlights” look as the precious seconds ticked away in the game against Ole Miss? He was befuddled, bamboozled and flummoxed all at the same time. This man could not coach his way out of a paper bag when decisions that are tougher than what to eat after the game are on the line.  Speaking of food…

Q: Don’t you think that Mark Mangino is just mean, mean, mean!

- Dolores Bitterbottom, Mulberry, Kansas

A: Look, I have had my share of crude talking insensitive coaches.  Heck, it is really part of the job description as far as I can tell.  Reminds me of a funny story.  Ed Honcho and I used to have a baseball coach that referred to him as “Colonel Sanders” because he was too “chicken” to get down on the ball when fielding grounders in practice.  That was funny. What Mangino (allegedly) has been doing?  Not cool.

When a college student confides in a coach about his alcoholic father, that should remain between him and the coach. Same thing with a player that tells coach about his brother getting shot in the neighborhood he grew up in .  To use that information against the players is the sign of a man that has lost touch with reality.  He is not breaking players down and then building them up.  He is just breaking them.

While we are on the subject, I am wondering if any Jayhawk ever gave it back to the coach? In case they have not, and current Jayhawks are looking for some ideas, here is my humble proposal for a dialogue with Mangino:

Mangino – “Hey, stop loafing WR!  You keep that up and you will wind up on welfare and turning tricks in an alley for crack cocaine like that story about your mom you shared with me in a closed door meeting the other day.”

WR – “Hey Coach.  Here’s a thought.  Maybe you should drop your daily caloric intake by, I don’t know, maybe 40,000 calories.  Seriously, do you really need that entire rack of ribs to go with your 22 ounce steak, double cheese-burger and fried okra covered in brown gravy?  I’m just looking out for you.  Well, I am also looking out for the players that keep getting hit by one of your 17 chins when you move suddenly on the sideline.”

Q: How about Jimmy Clausen getting cold-cocked by an angry Irish fan at local bar?

- Gaye Barr, Elkhart, Indiana

A: This had to be the first time anything associated with the Irish was on target this whole season.  My only question is why not track down and punch Charlie Weis?  The guy is pushing 3 bills and his knees are shot.  There is no way he could get away quickly enough to avoid a total pummeling. (please note that Mad Adam, while prone to fits of anger, does not condone nor promote violence against athletes and/or coaches….you know, unless they really deserve it).

Q: As an unabashed fan of front-running, big money teams like the Lakers and Sooners, is it any surprise that you’ve recently declared yourself a Manchester City fan? And even though you’ll do your best to spin the answer, it’s mostly rhetorical, as the indisputable answer is “no.”

- Ed Honcho, Sunbathing on the French Riviera

A: Nice try Ed.  You are clearly trying to bait me into a fit of rage.  However, unlike Tila Tequila, I am not that easy.  You see, what you are failing to tell our readers is that it is “undisputable” that I became a fan of the Blues prior to September 2008 when Man City was purchased by the Abu Dhabi United Group, making it the wealthiest club in the world.

Which means that I became a fan of Man City, a team that has not won silverware since 1976, before this fortuitous twist transformed them into the Champions League chasing team they are today.  So, SUCK IT ED.  Seriously.

Q: Is it true that you’ve been in the same fantasy football league for almost 20 years and never won?

- Bjorn Bjornssen, Hammerfest, Norway

A: Bjorn, now I am starting to get pissed.  Your “source” is mistaken.  Allow me to provide you a history lesson. Yes, I have been in the same fantasy football league since 1988.  In fact, Ed Honcho, myself and friends may have indeed invented fantasy football.

No, it is NOT true that I have failed to ever be crowned champion.  My team has a long and storied history.  I consistently make the playoffs, and I have been in not one, not two, but THREE championship games.  Several years ago Ed Honcho and I squared off in the championship game.  The game ended in a tie according to an on-line fantasy sports site that will not be named.  Incredibly, after nearly two decades of fantasy sports our collective group had never devised a tie-breaker scenario.  So, we declared a tie and the championship was split between Mad Adam and Ed Honcho.

Now things get interesting.  Approximately 6 months later, one of our friends and fellow fantasy owner, we will call him “ass-wipe,” decided to peruse the web-site because he had nothing better to do.  He was surprised to see that the CRAPPY, STUPID AND PROFESSIONALLY NEGLIGENT web-site that shall not be named had changed the score for Jeff Garcia (my starting QB at the time) by one measly STUPID point.  Ass-wipe decides to share this information with the league.  The result? Years of bickering and a COMPLETELY FALSE AND WHOLLY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM of an undisputed and sole championship by Ed.

Many of you may ask, and rightly so, how in the world can you change the score of a fantasy sports championship MONTHS after the fact?  Isn’t that like tuning in for the Super Bowl and watching the Pats lose to the Giants, only to find out the following summer that the NFL had changed its mind and declared that the David Tyree “helmet catch” was an incompletion and the Pats actually won?  Good point.  And Bjorn, you no fantasy knowledge having dude from Hammerfest, did you stop to ask what would have happened if we applied the tie-breaking rules we have today?  No? Well, let me tell you what would have happened. I WOULD HAVE WON.  And, what would have happened if we played the next week (since we tabulated the points just to see)?….wait for it….that’s right….. I WOULD HAVE WON.

Dammit.  Now my blood pressure is though the roof.  Bjorn, I am sure you can see from the foregoing synopsis that in fact I DID WIN A FREAKING CHAMPIONSHIP.  And, if you don’t agree with me then you CAN JUST ENJOY YOUR CITY WHICH REEKS OF REINDEER MANURE.  That’s right, I said it.

Q: Why so angry? Childhood trauma? Life stacked against you? What?

- Adolfo Ocampo, Ushuaia, Argentina

A: As I am sure you can see from the questions posed by some ingrates above, as well as the other stupid topics that got me riled up, there are plenty of reasons I am angry.  SO, STICK YOUR POP PSYCHOLOGY UP YOUR ASS ADOLFO.  I will be sure to call if I ever need your attention.  Don’t hold your breath in the meantime.

Thank you loyal readers.  Until next time, keep watching sports and DON’T PISS ME OFF!!!

A menudo me hago esta pregunta… ¿se archivan las palabras enteras? ¿o más bien se archivan en trozos, sílabas y letras cada una por su lado? A veces, me inclino por la segunda opción, sobre todo cuando no recuerdo una palabra y sin embargo soy capaz de recordar que tiene tal o tal sílaba…

Para recordar ciertas palabras, tengo que recurrir a la asociación de ideas. Nunca recordaba la palabra “estornino” hasta que pensé en un estor de ventana y se solucionó el problema.

El actor Mel Gibson tiene un nombre que me resultaba muy escurridizo hasta que lo relacioné con la miel y ya siempre me acuerdo de su nombre.

Pero hoy he rizado el rizo con la palabra, siempre difícilísima de recordar para mi, “hipocondríaco”. Un día hace tiempo decidí que para recordarla tenía que pensar en hipopótamo. Pero la uso muy de tanto en tanto así que se me había olvidado, en parte, la asociación… Y digo en parte porque lo que me vino a la mente fue “obesidad”. Dándole vueltas a obesidad, pensé en un hipopótamo y ya por fín me acordé de la palabra que buscaba…

Nuestro buen amigo Freud seguramente tendría mucho que decir sobre este tema.

A first look at the movie made me feel that this is some insane movie about some arbit tribe in some unknown jungles of Africa. Why did the director even think of making such a movie? But as time progressed, my opinion started changing. And it changed so drastically that as the end of the movie approached, I felt goosebumps all over my body. I felt so happy to see the villain die, to see the protagonist survive. And believe me whenever someone feels like that, it means that the movie has left a great impact on the viewer’s mind. (You can think of Matrix as an example). “Truly genuine master-piece” is the phrase I can associate to the movie.

I agree that the movie has a lot of blood-shed and violence, but I would rather say it was not meant for the weak-hearted audience in the first place. The language of the tribe was the least important thing in the movie and yet the meaning was conveyed successfully. I am already a huge fan of Mel Gibsons’ acting, and now his direction has made a deeper impact on my thoughts.

A few dialogues that I liked the most in the movie are:

Those people in the forest, what did you see on them? Fear. Deep rotting fear. They were infected by it. Did you see? Fear is a sickness. It will crawl into the soul of anyone who engages it. It has tainted your peace already. I did not raise you to see you live with fear. Strike it from your heart.  Do not bring it into our village.

And a small story told by the eldest of the village:

And a  Man sat alone.  Drenched deep in sadness. And all the animals drew near to him and said “We do not like to see you sad. Ask us for whatever you wish and you shall have it.”

The Man said, “I want to have good sight.”

The Vulture said, “You shall have mine.”

The Man said, “I want to be strong.”

The Jaguar said, “You shall be strong like me.”

Then the Man said, “I long to know the secrets of the earth.”

The Serpent said, “I’ll show them to you.”

And so it went with all the animals. And when the Man had all the gifts they could give, he left.

Then the owl said to the other animals, “Now the man knows much and is able to do many things. Suddenly I’m afraid. “

The deer said “The Man has all that he needs, now his sadnes will stop.”

But the owl replied “No. I saw a hole in the Man. Deep like a hunger he will never fill. Its what makes him sad and what makes him want. He will go on taking and taking until one day the world will say: I am no more and I have nothing left to give.“

How true! There can’t be a story better than this to describe a man’s greed.

VERDICT:
7/10 Vegemite Sandwiches

Just one more reason why I need to get off my ass and make my own damn movie already.

Not Quite Hollywood is a documentary about the revolutionary Australian genre exploitation movies that came to rise in the 1960s but never quite made it to the big time and have since been all but forgotten. This isn’t Baz Luhrman and Peter Weir we’re talking about, this is gratuitous sexploitation romps, grisly C-grade horror movies drenched in karo syrup, and some of the most badass car chase action movies you’re likely to ever see.

It’s a pretty fitting title for one utterly insane look back at a whole slew of groundbreaking movies that Hollywood wouldn’t even go near, not even by today’s standards. Chances are you’re in the same boat as me and haven’t heard of 99% percent of these movies outside of Mad Max, but that doesn’t matter, because if things go according to plan, you might just find yourself with pen and paper in hand ready to write the names of these suckers down.

Then again, I can see how this one might not necessarily go according to plan for a lot of people out there. Not only is this a movie about movies you’ve never heard of, but it’s only really catering to all us cinephiles/nerds in the audience as it more or less boils down to people talking about movies for two hours. And while those are two hours I’d gladly spend, I’m not gonna delude myself into believing that this is gonna convert anyone that’s not already part of the congregation.

So for all you out there who are still reading and still interested, here’s what the movie breaks down to.

Not Quite Hollywood is split up into three sections that all provide the audience with a look into what was really going down in Australia when the rest of thought it was all boxing kangaroos and dingoes eating babies.

The first part covers the whole sexploitation genre, and who knew those Aussie’s were such horny bastards. Can’t say that I’ve ever seen such a constant barrage of full-frontal nudity in a movie before, so much so that it could easily pass for softcore porn after a while, so…way to go, Australia, I guess. It gets to be a little much after a while as it’s not exactly glorifying the female body as it is exploiting it, but, man, times were different back then. Pretty interesting in light of the Australian censors nowadays, something that could be said for the next two sections as well.

The second and third parts focus on the horror and action genres. The horror stuff has this early Sam Raimi vibe to it, and even though there’s not a whole lot going for this section, it’s interesting to look at these movies in contrast to what America was putting out at the time. But the action genre…wow. If you’ve seen Mad Max, you’ll understand what I mean. They still don’t make car chases like the Australians did back then, and boy howdy do they stand the test of time. No special effects, overtly dangerous camera angles, complete disregard for personal safety, tons of destruction, super high-octane, and enough badassery to go around to make Vin Diesel piss himself running. Fast and furious my ass.

It’s all really interesting for the most part and some of the commentary had me laughing out loud, but after a while it gets to be a little overwhelming. There’s a lot going on with these movies and in between trying to catch what everyone is saying and the total overstimulation of it all, Not Quite Hollywood sort of ends up being its own worst enemy. And some of us can only listen to people talk about B-movies like they’re golden oldies for oh so long.

Recently I read an interview with one Rob Zombie where he said that Hollywood has turned into a “scared town” that is too afraid to back original movies in lieu of financing another shitty remake that’s going to be box office gold. And you know, Rob is right. As someone who’s had it up to here with all the bullshit that gets released in theaters nowadays just because a frightening amount of people are more than ready to dish out their money on movies that fucking suck, I take a look back on the movies showcased here in Not Quite Hollywood and I think, “What the hell happened?”

Sorry if I’m going off on a bit of a tangent here, but this is one of those movies that gets you thinking, primarily about how ridiculous the so-called “limitations” are that have been put on amateur and veteran filmmakers alike by the producers who only have eyes for the Benjamins. It’s very fitting that Quentin Tarantino is one of the main commentators here, because this is a guy that truly loves movies regardless of their budget and is living proof that you can make effing great movies as long as you just go out and do it.

To say that movies in general have changed a good deal over the course of 40 or 50 years is one disheartening understatement. This is a celebration of filmmakers who had balls, of guys who just went out there and did it regardless of their budget, of movies that are unabashedly lewd, horribly gory, and unanimously crazy, and considering how much green the new Transformers sequel raked in this year, these are indeed qualities to be celebrated. Not Quite Hollywood isn’t for everyone, and sorry for the long review, but if you’re a total movie geek like me and are interested in this kinda stuff, it might just be right up your alley.

Good on ya’!

From Toy Story to Bolt, animation has brought us an array of wonderful characters to cherish and enjoy. This roundup highlights a selection of simply awe inspiring 3D characters.

Stunning 3D Characters

Captain Jack Sparrow

Created using 3DSmax, Zbrush and Photoshop, the attention to detail and expression are fantastic.

Bobby, The Little Octopus

Textured using ZBrush and decorated with Blender, taking 5 days of work. Bobby is a unique and fascinating piece of work.

Harlequin

Hauntingly realistic, Harlequin is truly a spectacular piece of art. At first glance, one might think this was a well lit photo.

Science Doc

Modeled in maya and rendered in Mental Ray, Science is an excellent character, with matching production values.

Goblin Mechanic

Inspired by Max Cant’s soldiers when modeling the furnace on his back he is full of expression and crammed with an array of wonderful details.

Will Smith Caricature

Hilarious and superbly created using Cinema 4D, ZBrush and Photoshop. It has a warmth and charm that make it stand out.

Jelly Spider Friend

Realistic and a little creepy, this is beautifully crafted with amazing colors and textures. The lighting adds to the freakish feel of the piece.

Cloud Tribute

A tribute to the popular Final Fantasy character Cloud, the emotion behind the eyes is extremely powerful.

Beautiful Vanadisa

Created in Daz Studio with a rendering time of over 22 hours, this is a simply breathtaking 3D portrait.

Isabelle

Modeled using a combination of Poser, Vue, Cinema 4D and Photoshop CS, she has a real sense of mystery and magic.

Art Ventura

A wonderful caricature, Art Ventura solves mysterious CG cases. The behind the scenes of its creation is worth viewing.

Ogryn Stare

The artists first project using ZBrush with the entire piece taking over two days. It makes great use of textures.

Rose

A beautiful pose and composition, great use of light and a thoroughly captivating expression make Rose a compelling piece.

Emocionado

A funny and charming piece with great attention to detail on the cloth patterns and the stubble on the chin.

Aztec Priest

Inspired by Mel Gibson’s movie “Apocalypto”, this Aztec Priest is detailed, imaginative and original.

Cyber Goth

Created using a combination of Poser and Photoshop, the design on her scalp and the eye markings really draw the eye.

Samurai Troll

The texture work in the armor plates and skin are amazing given that the artist views this as a work in progress.

Smoking Creature

I don’t what’s more frightening, the hideous character or the amazing amount of realism he possesses.

Kai

This is Kai, Nariko’s dedicated friend (from Heavenly Sword). Created using Poser, Vue and Photoshop.

Shadow Conscious

Absolutely incredible detail, the artist really captured the emptiness in her eyes and created a character deep in thought.

Female Vampire

Inspired by the vampire film 30 Days of Nights, this female vampire looks really realistic and deliciously evil.

Arwen

Created using Cinema 4D, Poser, Vue and Photoshop with an obscene render time, Arwen is a pearlescent beauty.

Fries With That

Fantastic modelling, texturing and shading make this utterly realistic, you will think it’s a photograph. An amazing achievement in 3D realism.

Suspicious Minds

An incredibly striking, beautiful, realistic and moving portrait with an interesting story behind it.

The Worlds Enemy

A superb model of Sephiroth from Final Fantasy with the rendering taking 3 hours and the post production taking 6 hours.

Chris In 3D

An absolutely stunning combination of Poser and Photoshop work. Do yourself a favor and check out this render’s immaculate details.

Cyborg Head 01

The level of detail is nothing short of amazing, enhanced by the textures and lightning that give this 3D render superb qualities.

Ethereal

Artwork based on the W40k universe, it’s an Ethereal from the TAU empire, taking 2 days to complete using Cinema 4D, ZBrush, VRay and Photoshop.

Knight of the Temple

A lone knight of the Temple, standing guard. The chainmail and stone are particularly brilliant in detail and texture.

Grandma

Just awesome detail, amazing textures, superb blending and the befuddling expression on the woman’s face make this a wonderful piece of work.

Humans have been telling stories to each other since time immemorial. They serve a deep psychological and sociological need. Let us examine a few key concepts:

WHAT IS A STORY?

Quite simply, it is a journey of inter-connected events with a beginning, middle and an end providing

• dramatic fulfillment
• education
• knowledge
• entertainment
• emotional stimulation and,
• a satisfying conclusion (we love closure)

Stories began as visual medium when our forebearers painted images on cave walls. or drew with sticks in the sand. They were accompanied by words or grunts. As complex language developed, stories were increasingly verbalized, and later on written. Stories today can be exclusively composed of images, written words or speech, but often times are a combination. Cinema is primarily a visual medium, with a lesser proportion of words (dialogue). Television is more dialogue based than cinema in general.

A story must have a purpose. For instance, the Australian Aboriginal woman at a rock formation called “The Devil’s Marbles” in the Northern Territory told stories to keep youngsters away from these rocks to avoid danger. A story can be as dry as a depiction of actual events or “life-like” events. Even fantasy fairy tales emulate “life-like” events through suspension of disbelief. Whatever dungeons and dragons we use, the events in a story must feel authentic .

Stories also need a theme (exploration of the human condition). What topics or concepts is your story exploring? Racism? The power of the human spirit during disaster? Love always triumphs over evil? Revenge? And the list goes on. This has been discussed in an earlier blog in the 36 dramatic situations by Georges Polti.  Be careful that you are only exploring one central theme and perhaps one or two minor ones. Otherwise your story loses focus which must be found.

In order to make a story compelling, there must be a protagonist (hero), a goal, a dilemma, conflict, an antagonist (nemesis) and a moral (leading to growth) to create a complete experience. And more importantly, an audience. Stories help us communicate with each other, and add meaning and enrichment to our lives. They bring people together through sharing and help us evolve and grow stronger.

Dramatica defines story as a grand argument dealing with a problem or an inequity. Huh? Basically, it raises the issue of a hero with a conflict as they are yanked from their natural world through a critical or inciting incident, and how they go about solving it.

During a recent seminar by Jen Grisanti (a Hollywood writers’ consultant and wonderful person too), she spoke of the importance of finding your story. What is the writer specifically trying to say? Why are they taking up her with a series of events? Is your story too episodic? What do you want your audience to get from watching your film? What message are you trying to convey to your audience?

The movie “Tootsie” spent close to a decade in development until the writer Larry Gelbart finally decided that ‘Tootsie” was a story about a man who had to become a woman in order to better understand them and himself. It wasn’t so much a story of desperation, the lengths people go to to make it as an actor, or about a guy liking to dress up. Consider “What Women Want” with Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt which was essentially the same story with body rather than clothes swapping.

Jen Grisanti sees stories as media for building communities. Pretty powerful stuff. A good story must have clarity and must be relevant to the times. How does the story make you feel? These are primal concepts, but difficult to nail down. It must also possess deeper symbolism to have a greater impact on us. She sees the important aspects of raising the emotional stakes in a story as being

• anticipation
• expectation
• participation
• surprise and,
• a delayed payoff

WHAT IS A PLOT?

A plot is simply the way a story is executed, or a cause and effect series of events. A road map. It is the mechanics of your story; how the sequence of events are put together. Many writers confuse the two and think writing event after event constitutes a story, especially in action films. Is your plot linear, non-linear or avariant? Classic examples of unconventional plotting include “Memento”, “Reservoir Dogs” and “Run Lola Run”. Plot also relates to structure, the most common being the Aristotelian three act structure. Is there a clear concept or story idea, which is more specific than a theme? Good versus evil isn’t a story concept.  Is there a well defined central/main character with a clear motivation, goal, a dilemma and obstacles. One way to enhance your plotting is to consider what is the worse case scenario if your main character doesn’t achieve their goal. The ultimate failure to achieve a goal is death.

Subplots are secondary or tertiary storylines. Some readers have complained that, because a writer hasn’t really found their story, some subplots are actually more intriguing than the main plot. It happens in unpolished scripts. Even to me! Another problem I recently grappled with is my choice of main character to drive the plot. In the end I switched the boy to a girl (literally not surgically) and everything fell into  place.

FINDING YOUR VOICE

These are the less tangible qualities that define you as a writer. Jen Grisanti claims that many newer writers lack a distinct voice which distinguishes them from other writers.

This is a difficult process of self exploration. It means that we need to delve deeper into our psyches than ever before. She made us define a critical or life changing incident where the rug was pulled from under our feet and we are forced to deal with a new reality. Sound familiar? In doing so, we help shape our characters which are products of our creativity and therefore ourselves. Imagine placing your profile on a social website. Think of how you would describe your personality? What are your likes and dislikes? What do you value most in your relationships with other people? Certain patterns will emerge which define you as an individual. Are you easy going? Wound up tight? Chatty? Pensive? Conventional? Alternative? Think about how a producer might discuss what qualities you possess as a writer. If a project is greenlit and a producer is looking for a writer and they say “This project is perfect for xxxx (insert your name)”, it’s because of your voice.

Part of finding your voice involves common themes in the stories we like to tell. Are we animal lovers? Philanthropists? Comedians? Feminists? Optimists? Cynical? Interested in human suffering? Are your characters strong, successful people? Are you strong and successful or do you aspire to be? Are characters underdogs? What is their disposition? Happy? Smarmy? Cheerful? Quirks?

Finding your story and finding your voice is rather like wanting a quick definition of the meaning of life. The only way to find it is to keep searching. And the search lies in the writing. So what are you waiting for?

When a person’s rising sign, Mel’s in Aries, squares his Sun sign, Capricorn, you often get a person who seems to have multiple personalities. Since the rising sign is how people see you (Aries, childlike), your Sun sign is who you really are (Capricorn, serious). But even more confusing is how the person feels himself — torn in different directions.

Three focal planets later, fixed Mars (strong willed dare-devil), fixed Saturn (ambitious, compulsive) and fixed Neptune (needs that ordinary outlets don’t satisfy) and you’ve got a complicated person, but one that can make things happen. With his Venus in Aquarius (a placement that has trouble with trust) and you can see why he stuck with his wife so long — he trusted her. But it’s also a cool and fickle placement since Aquarius is ruled by Uranus (the volatile planet). So rumors of him philandering are probably true.

Mel Gibson is yet another  famous person who has a very unique chart. That’s why they are famous. His natal Saturn is 29 degrees. That allowed it to do an usual thing which was progress to the next sign, Sagittarius. There it squared his natal Jupiter for 30 years from age 9 to 29. The definition of this is that ambitions are thwarted and enemies can be made. But, the big but and why he is such a mega-star, his natal Jupiter was so low, it retrograded by progression to the next sign, Leo and conjuncted his Pluto for 30 years from age 15 to 45. So through the protection of Jupiter, he didn’t suffer much. But you can see some of the Saturn progression in his personality which can be quite controversial.

Currently he has a very difficult chart with progressed Mars (energy) squaring his Moon (feelings) and inconjuncting his Jupiter (money). Some people deal with this by leaving their partners in the hope that they will find happiness with someone else. But you can’t run away from an aspect. So for now, he’s not feeling all that great. But how sorry can you feel for anyone this lucky?

EVIL LAUGH/MUSTACHE
You’re doing it right.

(Mel Gibson)

I’ve seen him somewhere before.

Picture by: dunno source Caption by: WheresPooh via Poster Builder

» Recaption This!

» View All Captions

Quand la chaîne du câble américain AMC annonça voilà quelques temps déjà qu’elle lançait très officiellement un remake télévisuel du Prisonnier, série phare de la fin des années soixante pour laquelle le terme « culte » semble avoir été créé, on put lire ça et là deux types de réactions. Tout d’abord celle d’un public lambda n’ayant pas vu la série originelle, donc peu ou pas marqué par la saga. Ces spectateurs-là s’en foutaient un peu, attendant sans engouement particulier de voir ce qu’on allait leur offrir. Et il y eut la réaction des fans, des connaisseurs, des amoureux, ceux pour qui les dix-sept épisodes de l’œuvre matricielle forment un monument intouchable et indépassable. Voulue, créée, produite, scénarisée et réalisée en grande partie par Patrick McGoohan, alors mondialement connu pour son rôle de l’agent secret John Drake dans la série Destination Danger et qui s’adjugea au passage le rôle-titre, Le Prisonnier est forcément une œuvre à part.
Après les nombreuses rumeurs au cours des années passées sur la possible adaptation de la série sur grand écran (1), le serpent de mer cinématographique prenait finalement son essor sur l’étrange lucarne qui hante nos salons. Puis arrivèrent les premières informations : la série ne reprendrait pas le décor de l’original, préférant un nouvel environnement à la surexploitation d’un lieu devenu mythique (2), le numéro 2 serait le même tout au long de la série alors que ce rôle très symbolique se voyait incarné par un nouvel acteur à chaque épisode.
D’ailleurs cette nouvelle version n’en comptera que six, épisodes, rejoignant en cela la volonté première de McGoohan qui dut « rallonger » son œuvre plus qu’il ne le voulait afin d’en faciliter la vente (et donc la production même) aux Etats-Unis.
Des marques importantes de respect, une nouvelle vision et non une basse copie mercantile et servile, une actualisation d’un feuilleton qui fut en avance sur tout le monde.
Et puis avouons-le, lorsque l’on apprend qu’en plus l’unique numéro 2 sera joué par le grand Ian McKellen, quand même, on se dit que ça a de la gueule et ça rassure.
La série fut diffusée sur trois soirées à raison de deux épisodes par jour. Une « salve » du genre à marquer le coup et à attirer les spectateurs potentiels qu’il faut bien pouvoir arracher à leurs shows habituels. Le Prisonnier possède comme toute grande œuvre un rayonnement que les années n’ont pas su entamer et les plus réfractaires comme les plus curieux ne purent facilement résister à l’envie de voir enfin ce qu’allait apporter cette nouvelle vision en dehors du rôdeur – la grosse boule blanche – aperçue dans la longue-bande annonce afin de tranquilliser tout le monde.

Un homme (Jim Caviezel) se réveille dans un désert de dunes. Il y découvre « le village », une cité où les habitants se désignent par des numéros au lieu de noms et vivent sous l’autorité bienveillante du numéro 2. Comment est-il arrivé là ? Il l’ignore et découvre que partir ne sera pas facile, personne autour de lui ne semblant croire qu’il puisse exister un « ailleurs ». Bien décidé à s’enfuir, le nouveau numéro 6 va se lancer dans une bataille pour retrouver l’existence qui était la sienne, ce qui l’amènera à découvrir le secret de ce lieu étrange.
Si le résumé de cette nouvelle version sonne comme l’exact reflet de son modèle, autant vous avertir tout de suite que la comparaison s’arrêtera là et que quelques minutes suffiront pour vous convaincre qu’un bon sujet sans vision solide derrière n’amène qu’à la déception. Car ce Prisonnier 2009 n’est que cela au final, une déception amère – encore que pas tout à fait surprenante – au regard des moyens déployés.
Le village ressemble à une station balnéaire figée dans les années 50 sans qu’il n’apporte un supplément d’âme, les personnages sont creux, souffrant d’un manque de caractère flagrant. Au premier rang desquels nul autre que le héros, numéro 6, partagé sans cesse entre ce qu’il doit faire, se laissant plus porter par les événements que prêt à se retrousser les manches pour se sortir de là. Même le numéro 2 laisse un certain goût d’inachevé tant il ne semble pas faire grand chose à part se balader en costume blanc. Un super méchant ramené à l’état de « El gringo », on a connu plus ambitieux.

Ajoutez à cela une forme aussi languissante et mal maîtrisée que le fond (les enchaînements de scènes laissent parfois à penser que le monteur devait travailler sous l’influence de substances illicites) et vous obtenez ce que beaucoup attendaient et/ou redoutaient : un effroyable ratage, un enterrement grand luxe pour un projet qui partait avec une montagne trop haute à escalader. La décence, le devoir de réserve ainsi qu’une certaine honnêteté nous obligent à passer sous silence la résolution du tout, volontairement alambiquée mais fumeuse à laquelle le spectateur déjà à moitié endormi par les cinq heures et demie précédentes ne prêtera que peu d’attention. Là où McGoohan jouait avec les attentes de ses spectateurs et transformait son travail en “énigme allégorique” inscrivant la série dans les annales de la télévision autant que dans les consciences, cette nouvelle version ne se hissera jamais qu’au niveau d’un Lost ou d’un Prison Break, deux plaisirs coupables dont plus personne ne parlera quand ils auront disparu des écrans.
Car qu’on le veuille ou non, chaque image, chaque action, chaque faux pas de la copie est inconsciemment comparé à l’excellence de son modèle, une œuvre si forte qu’elle reste une référence incontournable quarante-deux ans après sa création.
Bonjour chez vous.

(1) Suite à leur collaboration fructueuse sur Braveheart, Patrick McGoohan soutint la mise en chantier d’une version avec Mel Gibson dans le rôle-titre.
(2) La ville de Portmeirion qui servit au tournage existe bel et bien sur les côtes du Pays de Galles > http://www.portmeirion-village.com/

Julien Taillard

> Site officiel de la minisérie

Trailer de la mini-série Le Prisonnier version 2009 sur AMC


Trailer de la série originale