Nosferatu, a symphony of horror.

Netflix has a slew of silent movies made available for free streaming. Among them are two versions of perhaps the greatest horror movie of the silent era, NOSFERATU.

They are actually the same film (albeit with a few edits with titles and lengths) with a different soundtrack: one uses a Dolby Digital score composed and performed by Silent Orchestra with some organ compilations performed by Timothy Howard. This version has the Netflix title of Nosferatu: Original Version (even though the digital print still claims the title card Nosferatu, a symphony of horror.). This is far from the true 1922 original Hans Erdmann score, which was meant to be performed live by an orchestra during projection of the film and has since (and sadly) been lost to time.

The second version has a “gothic-industrial score that intensifies the film’s dark overtones,” as the Netflix blurb reads, and goes by the name Nosferatu: The Gothic Industrial Mix. The score is terribly composed and calls way too much attention to itself. I wanted to laugh at the pub scene’s quote-unquote music, with its, from what I can make out and can only guess is, ritualistic Jaberwocky being mumbled over synthesized 4/4 rhythmic repetitions of elementary ideas of chords and harmonies; however, just when my laughing levee was about to break, the soundtrack literally laughed for me. (No joke.) It literally laughed a Michael Myers tinged maniacal Dr. Evil laugh, complete with drawn out fade.

Do not see this version.

The soundtrack is arranged and mixed by Aleister Einstien from the albums “Vampire Rituals” and “Gothic Vampires from Hell,” whose titles confirm for me what SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE knew all along: that real vampires were actually involved in the making of this film. Another misstep, on top of the completely misguided score, the film itself doesn’t use the original colored tints of the original print and tinkers around with the title cards, specifically in the use of Bram Stoker’s character names. The whole debacle is quite silly and cheapens the film for me.

The whole experience made me wanna grab a vinyl of infinitely better music and have it played over the muted film a la Dark Side of the Rainbow, which I have yet to experience; however a happy accident occurred a few weeks ago when some friends and I happened upon Dark Side of the Moon on vinyl playing over Miyazaki’s animated SPIRITED AWAY on DVD.

"Somewhere over the rainbow..."

That experience was completely unintentional, but fun nevertheless. I’ve also experienced parts of the French documentary MICROCOSMOS on Netflix playing against side 4 of the original Broadway cast vinyl recording of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, which added a seedy, angry, pulsating energy current to some beautifully shot close-up nature cinematography of caterpillars running into one another. Most of these happy accidents seem to occur when I’m writing or when I have peers over for social, casual conversation and audio/visual stimuli hums in the background to relax the present company.

Adversely, I do find experimenting with 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY‘s fourth and final chapter “Jupiter and Beyondthe Infinite” set to another of Pink Floyd’s works, the single “Echoes” from the 1971 album Meddle, to be intriguing. However my intrinsic curiosity probably stems from the fact that I love 2001 and Pink Floyd, and not because there is any real intent for the synchronization. Again, happy accidents. But both pieces are approximately 23 minutes in length; and Pink Floyd’s ethereal, psychedelic ballads with their warm vocals and poetic lyrics would seem, in theory, to nicely compliment the contrast to Kubrick’s emotionally cold, color photography of space and conceptually abstract visuals of life beyond the cosmos. It also piques my interest to wonder how different the film would play if David Gilmour and band mates had said ‘yes’ to Kubrick’s request to compose an original score for 2001. I think having the classical soundtrack of the original film is essential to its status as a masterpiece. However, if Kubrick had indeed commissioned an established music artist of the era to compose a score for his opus, I can think of a no more culturally influential fitting musical act than the band Pink Floyd. If nothing else, at least the idea shows what fabulous taste in music (and keen understanding of how that music can affect the way a film is interpreted by its viewer) Stanley had back in the day.

Got 23 minutes? Sit down and enjoy the ride of "Echoes" and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

All this waxing on about soundtracks and scores and music has me excited about a project I’ve been thinking about for some time now – film festival which projects movies in the public domain accompanied by live musicians playing a new original score. Talking with a few local colleagues about the project has confirmed there is a local interest out there for a few musicians/bands/artists to create. I’ll be doing some research work on this project over the next few weeks. More to come. So please stay tuned.

…and that’s a wrap!

UPDATE: I just finished synching “Echoes” and “Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite;” and I have to say that it was quite worth it for a fan of Pink Floyd and 2001.

Girls in pink and boys in blue - quite a lovely image

Note: The second entry in my “Observations on a Shot” series for TMP covered this shot from 2009′s UP.  You can read the full article by clicking here.

Up was one of my favorite pictures from 2009, so when the chance to write about the film presented itself, I naturally jumped at the opportunity.  I chose the above shot (or more accurately, if strictly sticking to proper film term use, the capture or re-rendering – more on that in a bit.) for a couple of particular reasons.  One, it was readily available on the net as a frame still; so no hardcore searching for a high quality resolution was needed.  There’s nothing more frustrating (other than trying to convince an adult that Justin Bieber is in fact a teenage boy and not a lesbian) than picking a shot from memory and not being able to find or create a good enough reproduction.

A photograph of Justin Bieber (Not a shot, not a still. And not a lesbian.)

Secondly, I knew I wanted to choose a current film that was in color, so as to not limit my analyses to only black and white cinematography from the twentieth century. While I am of the vaguely general belief that black and white movies are more stunning to look at than color ones (I see color in real life; black and white only exists in the abstract.), the point of my column is to shed light on the often overlooked and painstaking craft of cinematic photography (cinematography - Ooh, you see what I did there?) in all varieties of film. (The saying “a picture is worth a thousand words” is true, perhaps even more so, when applied to movie stills.)

Moreover, picking a still from a CG animated movie would further distinguish this selection from my previous entry and subtly hint at my view on the debate over “real” cinematography versus AVATAR (see Jim Emerson’s scanners first post and, I think, his more accessible second post on the subject for a good starting point).  In all honesty, Up has no cinematography – the photographic process that involves capturing light through a lens – in the accurate definition of the word.  The argument stems from the misuse of the word cinematography by the Association of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences and how that misuse over the years (decades, centuries) has led to a broader, more generalized (mis-)understanding of the term.  By giving Avatar eligibility approval (and the ultimate win) in the Best Cinematography category at this year’s Academy Awards, it is clear that AMPAS’ definition of cinematography needs to be more clearly defined.  Or, perhaps even better, eligibility rules need to be modified and new categories need to be introduced in order to make sense outta the mess.  All in all, whoever decides on the “official” definition of terms, needs to look into redefining cinematography (and, as a direct effect, photography) in light of new technology in the modern millennium.

Award winning cinematography - err, visual effects (or is it animation...?) from Avatar

Taking a cue from that issue, the very name of my column (“Observations on a Shot”) needs to be addressed.  A shot in film vernacular, according to Wikipedia, is a continuous strip of motion picture film, created of a series of frames, that runs for an uninterrupted period of time.  A frame is one of the many single photographic images in a motion picture.  So, “Observations on a Frame,” would be correct.  Right?  Not necessarily.

When it comes to animation, frames are referred to as cels.  Cels can then be photographed to produce a still. However, cels are not used in computer animation.  The act of “photographing” a single frame from a computer animation does not produce a cel, but rather a re-rendering of the original rendering from the 3D model.  And when the source material can’t be accessed, an image can be captured from a recording, resulting in – well, a capture.

A tradional hand-drawn cel from Hayao Miyazaki's Spirited Away

So, for this particular entry from Up, the accurate title would be “Observations on a Re-Rendering,” which doesn’t read or sound as good.  And taking into account all my past and future entries, I would have to call my column “Observations on Either a Shot, Frame, Still, Cel, Rendering, Re-Rendering, or Capture (just depends)” and that just won’t do.

So, for the sake of sanity and time consumption, I’m sticking to Shot.  It gives the series title a bit of a rhyming scheme and flow, plus it simplifies and broadens my material for future use.  And if you’re curious about the actual 1.5 seconds long shot itself, a low quality version can be seen below starting right after 58 seconds in.

…and that’s a wrap!

TheMoviePool.com mini-blog permalink

Pictured from left: Sydney Greenstreet, Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman (click picture to enlarge)

The use of shadows intently cast over bodies and faces is a recurring theme in the film CASABLANCA (1942). We see them almost every time Ilsa (Bergman, right) and Lazlo (Henreid, center) are in a scene, portraying their physical trappings inside the city of Vichy controlled Casablanca in French Morocco. In this particular shot, the shadows featured most prominently, perhaps at their most obvious use in the movie, are the cross bars sprawled over the bodies of Ilsa and Lazlo, again indicating imprisonment, literally and, on a deeper level, emotional turmoil. The cross pattern also makes me think of the Christian cross, bringing to mind the symbol of the French Resistance, perhaps implying a higher power looking over them. Perhaps.

The time I wish it was.

Imported from my Movie Pool mini-blog, posted February 2, 2007:

My alarm is currently set for 7:20am, 10 minutes before the 82nd Academy Award nominees will be announced live for the best of film in 2009. It is now 3:45am.

What the hell is wrong with me? That is a rhetorical question that you need not answer. But here are my improvised predictions for the morning in 9 of the major categories.

Best Picture
Avatar
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Invictus
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
A Serious Man
Star Trek
Up
Up in the Air

Star Trek (a Producers and Writers Guild recipient) may get bumped for The Blind Side, District 9, or A Single Man.

Best Director
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar
Lee Daniels, Precious
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

Clint Eastwood for Invictus may be a dark horse.

I am skipping over Best Screenplay (Original & Adapted) because the last time I checked, there were a few films that were ineligible (Inglourious Basterds??). Plus, I need to try and get some sleep.

Best Actor
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

Tobey Maguire (Brothers) is a super dark horse.

Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia

Imported from my Movie Pool mini-blog:

Here at the TheMoviePool.com, we understand the meaning of fertilization. This site has been incubating in founder Gabriel Barboza’s hands for quite some time now after first being conceived in his mind’s eye however many years ago. With more and more content at the “presses” (publishing via online formats still has too many terms to agree on i.e. ‘post,’ ‘blog,’ ‘ping,’ etc.) and ready for distribution, TheMoviePool.com promises to provide interesting and ongoing commentary on the state of film.

And with some of that content being provided by yours truly, TheMoviePool.com also commits to be a place where conversation and debate will be palatable, if not encouraged.  Having been in the ‘blogosphere’ (and if that term doesn’t get your argumentative juices flowing, you need to get online more) for about 6 years now, I’ve managed to develop a public profile that is bold, to say the least. If you haven’t friend requested me on Facebook or followed me on Twitter yet, you are surely missing out on controversy that you are probably left better off without; but what fun is that? But it’s not controversy brought on by anything I actually write, but more with the amount of conviction I write said statements. I am a very opinionated and like to make my feelings known.

With TheMoviePool.com, I am concentrating all my filmic efforts (I am responsible for the creation of new vernacular terms on occasions) into this site for the benefit of its growth. It’s like I’m the drunken uncle – a pain in the ass who always has something to say about the well-being of your bastard child. It’s only because I care, and not just about the growth of TheMoviePool.com, but about the subject we plan on fostering itself, film.

So, here’s looking at you kid.

…and that’s a wrap!

TheMoviePool.com mini-blog permalink