Tron's light cycle scene "Sweded"
March 30, 2008 4:14 PM Subscribe
Ironic that the non-computer stop-motion animation probably needed more computer horsepower to make than the original "computer generated" version.
posted by seanyboy at 4:24 PM on March 30, 2008 [6 favorites]
posted by seanyboy at 4:24 PM on March 30, 2008 [6 favorites]
This is awesome.
The only thing I wish they had done differently is, instead of using the real sound effects, had the dudes going "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"
posted by Senor Cardgage at 4:46 PM on March 30, 2008 [8 favorites]
The only thing I wish they had done differently is, instead of using the real sound effects, had the dudes going "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"
posted by Senor Cardgage at 4:46 PM on March 30, 2008 [8 favorites]
I'm loving the fact that Sweding is actually starting to catch on. Be Kind, Rewind was sometimes overly silly, but I found the film to be legitimately inspiration, in that it makes a pretty good case that anybody, given some cheap video equipment and a lot of imagination, can make a film. The fictionalized biography of Jelly Roll Morton that the cast made at the climax of the movie was just gorgeous.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:01 PM on March 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:01 PM on March 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
Except the quality of these is so high, I'd be intimidated to try without a team willing to invest a few hundred hours.
Great job, though. Love it.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:35 PM on March 30, 2008
Great job, though. Love it.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:35 PM on March 30, 2008
That kicks so much ass.
posted by billypilgrim at 5:38 PM on March 30, 2008
posted by billypilgrim at 5:38 PM on March 30, 2008
This Swedishness has caught my eye, too, A-Zom, but I'm curious if this will end up a footnote in some cyberwag's "Top Ten Fads of '08" or if it has legs.
If I read this phenomenon correctly, it is the product of CONSUMERS aiming not to precisely and minutely COPY but to recreate and HIGHLIGHT the underlying spirit of some Original Cultural Artifact that was previously the sole realm of PRODUCERS...
I'm of two minds, both thinking about this too much:
1) Fun! Provocative, much like Warhol's "Brillo Boxes"-- fetishizing and elevating the general (be it cleaning supplies or a Disney movie) into a personal response. An expression of obsessional love for something so deep that the artist/author feels fullest when he becomes/(re)creates the fetish object.
A tradition that hearkens back to Early American itinerants aping the European "Salon Schools" for a new Merchant Class, perfected by Nostalgia-Meister Walt Disney himself who sprinkled it over a restless country hungry for "authenticity", then re-defined by consumers themselves in a million ways from Elvis impersonators to "Make Your Own Twinkies At Home" afficianadoes.
Yet---
My initial delight in seeing these DIY versions of glossy source material is soon tempered by my actual memories of the original.
I admire the transformation from slick to homespun, yet I find it not so much "a lot of imagination", but perilously close to gimmickry bereft of it. "Tron" made my jaw drop open in wonder-- The "Swedish [sic] Tron" made me giggle, but because I felt in on the joke and appreciative of the hard work made possible to realize it.
Rich Little did a really fine John Wayne impersonation.
But it wasn't as truly cool as John Wayne himself.
So--
Maybe what I'm looking for is an artist to take it to the next step; i.e. make a riff on a riff on a riff-- take Cultural Artifact A, transform it by "Sweding", then take it through ANOTHER transformation, to see what stands out and what is pared down and what becomes NEW.
Kinda like a giant game of Cultural Telephone.
I'm curious as to your thoughts. Anybody out there?
posted by Dizzy at 5:50 PM on March 30, 2008 [3 favorites]
If I read this phenomenon correctly, it is the product of CONSUMERS aiming not to precisely and minutely COPY but to recreate and HIGHLIGHT the underlying spirit of some Original Cultural Artifact that was previously the sole realm of PRODUCERS...
I'm of two minds, both thinking about this too much:
1) Fun! Provocative, much like Warhol's "Brillo Boxes"-- fetishizing and elevating the general (be it cleaning supplies or a Disney movie) into a personal response. An expression of obsessional love for something so deep that the artist/author feels fullest when he becomes/(re)creates the fetish object.
A tradition that hearkens back to Early American itinerants aping the European "Salon Schools" for a new Merchant Class, perfected by Nostalgia-Meister Walt Disney himself who sprinkled it over a restless country hungry for "authenticity", then re-defined by consumers themselves in a million ways from Elvis impersonators to "Make Your Own Twinkies At Home" afficianadoes.
Yet---
My initial delight in seeing these DIY versions of glossy source material is soon tempered by my actual memories of the original.
I admire the transformation from slick to homespun, yet I find it not so much "a lot of imagination", but perilously close to gimmickry bereft of it. "Tron" made my jaw drop open in wonder-- The "Swedish [sic] Tron" made me giggle, but because I felt in on the joke and appreciative of the hard work made possible to realize it.
Rich Little did a really fine John Wayne impersonation.
But it wasn't as truly cool as John Wayne himself.
So--
Maybe what I'm looking for is an artist to take it to the next step; i.e. make a riff on a riff on a riff-- take Cultural Artifact A, transform it by "Sweding", then take it through ANOTHER transformation, to see what stands out and what is pared down and what becomes NEW.
Kinda like a giant game of Cultural Telephone.
I'm curious as to your thoughts. Anybody out there?
posted by Dizzy at 5:50 PM on March 30, 2008 [3 favorites]
Dizzy, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Particularly the second point, which I think is the HUGE elephant in the cultural room that everyone has been ignoring. Aside from transient, incredibly forgettable internet memes, has Western culture produced anything unique in the past ten years?
What I mean is, it seems like everything we've produced—including films, literature, fashion, graphic design, and ESPECIALLY music—in the past ten years has basically been a complete rehash of what's come before, without any new element to make it distinctive. (A movie like the Matrix would be exempt from this criticism, for example, because even though it's just a pastiche of cyberpunk, HK martial arts films, anime, etc., it nonetheless has some sort of distinctive flavor that just REEKS of the late '90s to me.)
I would LOVE to be corrected on this—because I'm sure there are some glaring oversights on my part—but it seems like we're coming up on the end of the decade without having produced anything to distinguish it as its own stylistic entity. No one will say "Oh, that's so '00s" because there's no inherent aesthetic style or trend to speak of. Also, because who the fuck knows how to say "'00s"?
Perhaps, in decades to come, we'll look back on this decade and realize that the period of reflection/stagnation was somehow important, but for now, it just seems like no one is willing to embrace (if not create) anything significantly different from what we've already seen in the past 30-40 years of Western culture.
posted by incomple at 6:23 PM on March 30, 2008
What I mean is, it seems like everything we've produced—including films, literature, fashion, graphic design, and ESPECIALLY music—in the past ten years has basically been a complete rehash of what's come before, without any new element to make it distinctive. (A movie like the Matrix would be exempt from this criticism, for example, because even though it's just a pastiche of cyberpunk, HK martial arts films, anime, etc., it nonetheless has some sort of distinctive flavor that just REEKS of the late '90s to me.)
I would LOVE to be corrected on this—because I'm sure there are some glaring oversights on my part—but it seems like we're coming up on the end of the decade without having produced anything to distinguish it as its own stylistic entity. No one will say "Oh, that's so '00s" because there's no inherent aesthetic style or trend to speak of. Also, because who the fuck knows how to say "'00s"?
Perhaps, in decades to come, we'll look back on this decade and realize that the period of reflection/stagnation was somehow important, but for now, it just seems like no one is willing to embrace (if not create) anything significantly different from what we've already seen in the past 30-40 years of Western culture.
posted by incomple at 6:23 PM on March 30, 2008
But, see, any era feels like that when you're in the middle of it. It's like how you can't taste your own mouth or hear your own ears, how you don't see the water when you're submerged in it.
Back in the 90s, nobody saw any "special '90s flavor" in The Matrix. People had all sorts of different reasons for loving or hating it, but "It's so '90s" just wasn't on the list.
posted by nebulawindphone at 6:59 PM on March 30, 2008 [2 favorites]
Back in the 90s, nobody saw any "special '90s flavor" in The Matrix. People had all sorts of different reasons for loving or hating it, but "It's so '90s" just wasn't on the list.
posted by nebulawindphone at 6:59 PM on March 30, 2008 [2 favorites]
What I mean is, it seems like everything we've produced—including films, literature, fashion, graphic design, and ESPECIALLY music—in the past ten years has basically been a complete rehash of what's come before, without any new element to make it distinctive.
I could not disagree more, and think that anyone who can't find anything original or distinctive in the last 8 years and change in any artistic medium is operating with blinders on, or is just profoundly ignorant.
It's far easier to pick out, nearly ten years on, what was distinctive about the artifacts produced by 90s culture. The fact that we're still neck-deep in the 00s makes it nearly impossible to judge the last 2-3 years. It's slightly easier to look at 2000-2005, but still exceptionally difficult, if not impossible.
I'm not going to try to argue for any particular work in movies, TV, comics, music, etc. because I think that will just devolve into list-making, or "THINGS WERE BETTER/MORE ORIGINAL BACK THEN" rose-colored nay-saying.
But come on.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the 6+ years since 9/11 haven't had a profound enough impact on Western culture to drive. You can't think of a single distinctive work in ANY field that couldn't have been made at any other time than it was? That is wholly of this decade?
If so, I think it's not capital-letters Western Culture that's got a problem.
posted by sparkletone at 7:02 PM on March 30, 2008
I could not disagree more, and think that anyone who can't find anything original or distinctive in the last 8 years and change in any artistic medium is operating with blinders on, or is just profoundly ignorant.
It's far easier to pick out, nearly ten years on, what was distinctive about the artifacts produced by 90s culture. The fact that we're still neck-deep in the 00s makes it nearly impossible to judge the last 2-3 years. It's slightly easier to look at 2000-2005, but still exceptionally difficult, if not impossible.
I'm not going to try to argue for any particular work in movies, TV, comics, music, etc. because I think that will just devolve into list-making, or "THINGS WERE BETTER/MORE ORIGINAL BACK THEN" rose-colored nay-saying.
But come on.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the 6+ years since 9/11 haven't had a profound enough impact on Western culture to drive. You can't think of a single distinctive work in ANY field that couldn't have been made at any other time than it was? That is wholly of this decade?
If so, I think it's not capital-letters Western Culture that's got a problem.
posted by sparkletone at 7:02 PM on March 30, 2008
I'm totally willing to admit that it's possibly because I'm 24, and just now becoming aware of there being a "now" and a "near past," but yes, I'm seriously going to tell you that there has been little or nothing distinctive about the past 6+ years of fashion, music, graphic design, and film, and that it's all basically been directly derivative of some prior style or aesthetic.
The only elements (or, if you will, "things") that I can think of to set apart this decade is that popular movies, music, and television have a definite undercurrent of paranoia and sadism... But I want to be wrong.
posted by incomple at 7:16 PM on March 30, 2008
The only elements (or, if you will, "things") that I can think of to set apart this decade is that popular movies, music, and television have a definite undercurrent of paranoia and sadism... But I want to be wrong.
posted by incomple at 7:16 PM on March 30, 2008
But nebulawindphone, that's not true at all. Even when upon its original release, when I was but a shitnosed fifteen-year-old, I thought that the Matrix was so "of its time" that it was destined to age horribly. Instead what it did was drag that superslick patent leather/sunglasses/bullettime action aesthetic out for another few years, and THEN age horribly.
posted by incomple at 7:25 PM on March 30, 2008
posted by incomple at 7:25 PM on March 30, 2008
For those who were just taken back to greenscreen computer games:
Flash tron cycles
posted by pompomtom at 7:28 PM on March 30, 2008
Flash tron cycles
posted by pompomtom at 7:28 PM on March 30, 2008
Be Kind, Rewind was sometimes overly silly, but I found the film to be legitimately inspiration, in that it makes a pretty good case that anybody, given some cheap video equipment and a lot of imagination, can make a film.
I found it insulting and corny to the extreme. Did you really need a film to show you that anyone with a video camera can make a film? Have you heard of YouTube?
The sweded films in Be Kind Rewind are mildly humorous - and that's the highlight of the entire endeavour for me. After that, it's all downhill with unearned sentimentality and the moral of the story - history doesn't matter - really annoyed the crap out of me.
Honestly, lots of reviews have said Be Kind Rewind loves movie-making. I think it really reduces the end product to nothing.
posted by crossoverman at 7:29 PM on March 30, 2008
I found it insulting and corny to the extreme. Did you really need a film to show you that anyone with a video camera can make a film? Have you heard of YouTube?
The sweded films in Be Kind Rewind are mildly humorous - and that's the highlight of the entire endeavour for me. After that, it's all downhill with unearned sentimentality and the moral of the story - history doesn't matter - really annoyed the crap out of me.
Honestly, lots of reviews have said Be Kind Rewind loves movie-making. I think it really reduces the end product to nothing.
posted by crossoverman at 7:29 PM on March 30, 2008
no one is willing to embrace (if not create) anything significantly different from what we've already seen in the past 30-40 years
The 00s will be known for pirate/mash-up/re-mix/swede culture - it's always existed but it's come to the fore as mainstream. The 00s is an era of prohibition, boredom and extremes - the last dieing days of the old order of the 1960s.
If one believes in generational theory, mashup culture is a trait of GenX, in the same way its spiritual brethren the Lost Generation were known for experimental modernism which was re-mixing classical culture motifs. The next generation, the "Millennials" (born post 1982?) are the same in spirit as the "Greatest Generation" (born 1900-1922?) so perhaps some guidance to where the future is headed can ge found by looking at what the GG artists were doing early on - some examples off the top of my head: Steinbeck, Richard Wright, George Orwell. These artists, IMO, paid homage to the form of modernism but in spirit were closer to the artists of the generation prior to the Lost Generation (which has equivalences to the Baby Boomers, bohemian romantic rebels like Robert Louis Stevenson). Likewise in the future we might see art created in the new forms pioneered by the mash-up culture of GenX, but paying homage to art created in the 1950s-80s era. Which I guess is exactly what we are seeing.
posted by stbalbach at 7:30 PM on March 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
The 00s will be known for pirate/mash-up/re-mix/swede culture - it's always existed but it's come to the fore as mainstream. The 00s is an era of prohibition, boredom and extremes - the last dieing days of the old order of the 1960s.
If one believes in generational theory, mashup culture is a trait of GenX, in the same way its spiritual brethren the Lost Generation were known for experimental modernism which was re-mixing classical culture motifs. The next generation, the "Millennials" (born post 1982?) are the same in spirit as the "Greatest Generation" (born 1900-1922?) so perhaps some guidance to where the future is headed can ge found by looking at what the GG artists were doing early on - some examples off the top of my head: Steinbeck, Richard Wright, George Orwell. These artists, IMO, paid homage to the form of modernism but in spirit were closer to the artists of the generation prior to the Lost Generation (which has equivalences to the Baby Boomers, bohemian romantic rebels like Robert Louis Stevenson). Likewise in the future we might see art created in the new forms pioneered by the mash-up culture of GenX, but paying homage to art created in the 1950s-80s era. Which I guess is exactly what we are seeing.
posted by stbalbach at 7:30 PM on March 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
Is it OK if I just think this is cool, without engaging in any sort of cultural analysis at all?
posted by pompomtom at 7:36 PM on March 30, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by pompomtom at 7:36 PM on March 30, 2008 [5 favorites]
If you ever wanted to play Light Cycles on your real-life bicycle, here's how.
posted by hydrophonic at 7:37 PM on March 30, 2008
posted by hydrophonic at 7:37 PM on March 30, 2008
I found it insulting and corny to the extreme. Did you really need a film to show you that anyone with a video camera can make a film? Have you heard of YouTube?
It's pretty rare you'll find a YouTube video with anywhere near the ambition, intelligence, creativity and humor that was represented by the folk history of Jelly Roll Morton woven throughout Be Kind, Rewind; and obviously a number of people have legitimately been inspired by the low-fi recreations of high-budget Hollywood blockbusters. So I would make the case that I didn't need the film to teach me that such a film could be made, but the film did a marvelous job suggesting a form that the movie might take. Too much of YouTube seems made up of people blathering into their Web cams.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:40 PM on March 30, 2008
It's pretty rare you'll find a YouTube video with anywhere near the ambition, intelligence, creativity and humor that was represented by the folk history of Jelly Roll Morton woven throughout Be Kind, Rewind; and obviously a number of people have legitimately been inspired by the low-fi recreations of high-budget Hollywood blockbusters. So I would make the case that I didn't need the film to teach me that such a film could be made, but the film did a marvelous job suggesting a form that the movie might take. Too much of YouTube seems made up of people blathering into their Web cams.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:40 PM on March 30, 2008
Building on assertions made above, I suggest that one possible "new" art form is the PROCESS of transformation and reclamation of older artifacts.
So there isn't a new genre, per se, but there is the WAY we mash-up older forms to produce new things that define us anew.
We still watch "Star Trek", but now we watch it on our phones, not at home around a large immobile object.
We don't make new "Star Trek", but we parody and reformulate and rejigger through fanfic, etc.
So maybe my qualms with this re-configured" product completely miss the point.
It is about the transmitter, not the thing being transmitted, that is sui generis to how we live now?
But that still doesn't satisfy me: when our cultural delivery shifted from radio/audio to tv/movie/video, whole new vistas of entertainment, whole new ways of communicating were born.
So isn't Sweding just a throwback to nostalgia itself, i.e. "OOOh look at little Tommy and what he did with his (metaphorical) Super 8 camera! Isn't he cute, making movies like The Big Boys...?"
The clumsiness, the brashness, the low budget-- that is the appeal, yes?
Remember the outcry when the original-series Star Treks were all cleaned up and enhanced--- Anti-Sweding Backlash!
Anti-Sweding: making the authentic look "too new".
Sweding: making the new look "authentic".
I'm all over the place here.
But much like when New Money seeks out "Antiquities" to give the present the pre-fab patinated gravitas of the tried and true, so does this calculated effort at "directed simplicity" inherent in Sweding signal a return, a reaction, to yesterday.
Tomorrowland can be so disappointing; Yesterdayland, carefully tended, pays and pays.
Ramble over.
posted by Dizzy at 7:44 PM on March 30, 2008
So there isn't a new genre, per se, but there is the WAY we mash-up older forms to produce new things that define us anew.
We still watch "Star Trek", but now we watch it on our phones, not at home around a large immobile object.
We don't make new "Star Trek", but we parody and reformulate and rejigger through fanfic, etc.
So maybe my qualms with this re-configured" product completely miss the point.
It is about the transmitter, not the thing being transmitted, that is sui generis to how we live now?
But that still doesn't satisfy me: when our cultural delivery shifted from radio/audio to tv/movie/video, whole new vistas of entertainment, whole new ways of communicating were born.
So isn't Sweding just a throwback to nostalgia itself, i.e. "OOOh look at little Tommy and what he did with his (metaphorical) Super 8 camera! Isn't he cute, making movies like The Big Boys...?"
The clumsiness, the brashness, the low budget-- that is the appeal, yes?
Remember the outcry when the original-series Star Treks were all cleaned up and enhanced--- Anti-Sweding Backlash!
Anti-Sweding: making the authentic look "too new".
Sweding: making the new look "authentic".
I'm all over the place here.
But much like when New Money seeks out "Antiquities" to give the present the pre-fab patinated gravitas of the tried and true, so does this calculated effort at "directed simplicity" inherent in Sweding signal a return, a reaction, to yesterday.
Tomorrowland can be so disappointing; Yesterdayland, carefully tended, pays and pays.
Ramble over.
posted by Dizzy at 7:44 PM on March 30, 2008
But nebulawindphone, that's not true at all. Even when upon its original release, when I was but a shitnosed fifteen-year-old, I thought that the Matrix was so "of its time" that it was destined to age horribly. Instead what it did was drag that superslick patent leather/sunglasses/bullettime action aesthetic out for another few years, and THEN age horribly.
Well, fair enough. (What can I say — "No, you didn't react that way"? I know I didn't, but I'm not you.)
All I'm saying is, give it a decade or two. It's hard as hell to judge what you're still in the middle of. For all any of us know, there's great timeless art being made right now, and we're too blinded by the wave of superficially similar crap to see it. In a little while, when the crap's been forgotten, the good stuff will be easier to spot.
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:47 PM on March 30, 2008
Well, fair enough. (What can I say — "No, you didn't react that way"? I know I didn't, but I'm not you.)
All I'm saying is, give it a decade or two. It's hard as hell to judge what you're still in the middle of. For all any of us know, there's great timeless art being made right now, and we're too blinded by the wave of superficially similar crap to see it. In a little while, when the crap's been forgotten, the good stuff will be easier to spot.
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:47 PM on March 30, 2008
The only elements (or, if you will, "things") that I can think of to set apart this decade is that popular movies, music, and television have a definite undercurrent of paranoia and sadism... But I want to be wrong.
To address the part I haven't quoted: Dude, I'm 24 and can think of all kinds of things that could only have been made in the current climate, and for which I can think of no precedent in the past. Again, I don't want to get into "Best $X of $DateRange" list-making, but it's not hard to think of examples.
I don't think your age has anything to do with it, though the just-starting-to-widen cultural perspective might?
In any case:
Your definition of "directly derivative" seems quite restrictive to me. Restrictive to the point of uselessness. I'm tempted to ask what you think wasn't derivative in the past. Comes-from-nothing originality doesn't exist. Nothing comes from nothing. You seem to be laboring under the impression that it does.
posted by sparkletone at 7:56 PM on March 30, 2008
To address the part I haven't quoted: Dude, I'm 24 and can think of all kinds of things that could only have been made in the current climate, and for which I can think of no precedent in the past. Again, I don't want to get into "Best $X of $DateRange" list-making, but it's not hard to think of examples.
I don't think your age has anything to do with it, though the just-starting-to-widen cultural perspective might?
In any case:
Your definition of "directly derivative" seems quite restrictive to me. Restrictive to the point of uselessness. I'm tempted to ask what you think wasn't derivative in the past. Comes-from-nothing originality doesn't exist. Nothing comes from nothing. You seem to be laboring under the impression that it does.
posted by sparkletone at 7:56 PM on March 30, 2008
Yeah, what nebulawindphone said. There have been people complaining that there's nothing new anymore, everything is rehashed these days, etc., in every era. That should really be sufficient refutation for you, at least for now. Wait 25 years or so and then try to make your argument about the 00s.
posted by ludwig_van at 7:57 PM on March 30, 2008
posted by ludwig_van at 7:57 PM on March 30, 2008
> What I mean is, it seems like everything we've produced—including films, literature, fashion, graphic design, and ESPECIALLY music—in the past ten years has basically been a complete rehash of what's come before, without any new element to make it distinctive.
I ain't saying I agree with you, I ain't saying I disagree with you...but people have been complaining about this sort of thing for a long time.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:57 PM on March 30, 2008
I ain't saying I agree with you, I ain't saying I disagree with you...but people have been complaining about this sort of thing for a long time.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:57 PM on March 30, 2008
The 00s will be known for pirate/mash-up/re-mix/swede culture - it's always existed but it's come to the fore as mainstream. The 00s is an era of prohibition, boredom and extremes - the last dieing days of the old order of the 1960s.
This, stbalbach, I totally buy. I've wondered if our current cultural dearth is the final, dying gasp of the post-war culture that maybe began with rock and roll and the youth culture (as we know it), but before it dies, we must reflect... Thanks for laying it out, in a somewhat clear and academic fashion.
Anyway, nebulawindphone, I sincerely hope you're right, if only because I'm narcissistic and would hate to think that my generation produced little of artistic significance.
posted by incomple at 8:04 PM on March 30, 2008
This, stbalbach, I totally buy. I've wondered if our current cultural dearth is the final, dying gasp of the post-war culture that maybe began with rock and roll and the youth culture (as we know it), but before it dies, we must reflect... Thanks for laying it out, in a somewhat clear and academic fashion.
Anyway, nebulawindphone, I sincerely hope you're right, if only because I'm narcissistic and would hate to think that my generation produced little of artistic significance.
posted by incomple at 8:04 PM on March 30, 2008
One of my favorite graphic design gym routines was to take an admired work, analyze it and try to figure out what makes it great, and then try to remake it with whatever tools I had available.
In the process of remaking, a lot of invisible stuff becomes visible, like grids, subtle color choices, why an element works where it is placed and nowhere else, etc... At the end, I would realize how much I missed in the analysis, and how much I learned from doing. This made me a better designer, after a couple of years I would start thinking on how to improve on all these works.
I could do it because I had a computer, cutting and pasting with an xacto knife and paste would have bee impractical. I could not do the same with movies, a good enough camera and a computer with enough power to edit would cost more than $10K.
I wish for just one of these "sweders" to keep replicating older movies, figure out what works and why, and in a decade or two surprise all of us with one of the best films ever made. A film so risky and radical no studio would put $100 million on the line, but a group of friends with a lot of time and no money to lose could do just for the fun.
posted by Dr. Curare at 8:12 PM on March 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
In the process of remaking, a lot of invisible stuff becomes visible, like grids, subtle color choices, why an element works where it is placed and nowhere else, etc... At the end, I would realize how much I missed in the analysis, and how much I learned from doing. This made me a better designer, after a couple of years I would start thinking on how to improve on all these works.
I could do it because I had a computer, cutting and pasting with an xacto knife and paste would have bee impractical. I could not do the same with movies, a good enough camera and a computer with enough power to edit would cost more than $10K.
I wish for just one of these "sweders" to keep replicating older movies, figure out what works and why, and in a decade or two surprise all of us with one of the best films ever made. A film so risky and radical no studio would put $100 million on the line, but a group of friends with a lot of time and no money to lose could do just for the fun.
posted by Dr. Curare at 8:12 PM on March 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
Maybe what I'm looking for is an artist to take it to the next step; i.e. make a riff on a riff on a riff
I don't think the riff-on-a-riff thing is really quite what the next step will be.
You know how people have been doing those shot-for-shot remakes of movies for years now? The first step in the creative development of anyone is parroting the things you find awesome. Synthesizing those things into new stuff comes later.
The Broken Saints guys did what they did in no small part because the writer/director guy looked around and decided that something more could be done with little flash movies than was being done at the time they started out, and he had the ambition and creative friends necessary to get the project going.
I'm not aware of anyone with sufficient ambition, and resources, to pull such a thing off doing that to YouTube yet, but all the pieces are there so I think it's just a matter of time...
posted by sparkletone at 8:14 PM on March 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
I don't think the riff-on-a-riff thing is really quite what the next step will be.
You know how people have been doing those shot-for-shot remakes of movies for years now? The first step in the creative development of anyone is parroting the things you find awesome. Synthesizing those things into new stuff comes later.
The Broken Saints guys did what they did in no small part because the writer/director guy looked around and decided that something more could be done with little flash movies than was being done at the time they started out, and he had the ambition and creative friends necessary to get the project going.
I'm not aware of anyone with sufficient ambition, and resources, to pull such a thing off doing that to YouTube yet, but all the pieces are there so I think it's just a matter of time...
posted by sparkletone at 8:14 PM on March 30, 2008 [1 favorite]
I wish for just one of these "sweders" to keep replicating older movies, figure out what works and why, and in a decade or two surprise all of us with one of the best films ever made. A film so risky and radical no studio would put $100 million on the line, but a group of friends with a lot of time and no money to lose could do just for the fun.
For a while I had a pet theory like that about fanfic — that sooner or later, one of the gazillion slash authors out there would take her experience dissecting and reassembling characters' motivations and interactions, and build the Great fucking American Novel out of it.
I'm no longer holding my breath for the Great American Novel, but I'm still willing to bet we'll see bestselling authors in the next few years who got their start writing fan fiction.
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:15 PM on March 30, 2008
For a while I had a pet theory like that about fanfic — that sooner or later, one of the gazillion slash authors out there would take her experience dissecting and reassembling characters' motivations and interactions, and build the Great fucking American Novel out of it.
I'm no longer holding my breath for the Great American Novel, but I'm still willing to bet we'll see bestselling authors in the next few years who got their start writing fan fiction.
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:15 PM on March 30, 2008
I think the best homage/remix spirit of a "sweded" movie I've seen so far is my favorite...
"THe Princess Bride", sweded, in 5 minutes.
posted by ShawnStruck at 9:07 PM on March 30, 2008 [2 favorites]
"THe Princess Bride", sweded, in 5 minutes.
posted by ShawnStruck at 9:07 PM on March 30, 2008 [2 favorites]
the folk history of Jelly Roll Morton woven throughout Be Kind, Rewind
Yes, almost as good as the fictional film they made of Fats Waller. That must have made a great impression on you...
posted by crossoverman at 9:11 PM on March 30, 2008
Yes, almost as good as the fictional film they made of Fats Waller. That must have made a great impression on you...
posted by crossoverman at 9:11 PM on March 30, 2008
crossoverman, responding with sarcasm when someone has actually responded to your crankiness in a sincere and civil tone makes you look all the more cranky. . .
That said, I think you've missed the point of the film. The film is actually championing history as something that gives our life meaning--Fats Waller is a hero to the characters in the film, and through the reenactment of his story they connect to a broader cultural history. Note that the only revisionist point in this retelling--his birthplace--is essentially irrelevant.
Additionally, the film intends to reclaim movies as something that we participate in, not merely consume. It invites us to participate.
In both respects it champions the imagination. And all of this is captured in its aesthetic, as well as its story and characters. I found the film profound and moving, but to each his own. I predict, though, that it will eventually stand out as a work that crystallized significant themes of its time--I agree that mashup/DIY culture/the reclamation of technological art forms as folk culture (as media technology becomes widely accessible) are among those themes that characterize our moment.
posted by flotson at 10:56 PM on March 30, 2008
That said, I think you've missed the point of the film. The film is actually championing history as something that gives our life meaning--Fats Waller is a hero to the characters in the film, and through the reenactment of his story they connect to a broader cultural history. Note that the only revisionist point in this retelling--his birthplace--is essentially irrelevant.
Additionally, the film intends to reclaim movies as something that we participate in, not merely consume. It invites us to participate.
In both respects it champions the imagination. And all of this is captured in its aesthetic, as well as its story and characters. I found the film profound and moving, but to each his own. I predict, though, that it will eventually stand out as a work that crystallized significant themes of its time--I agree that mashup/DIY culture/the reclamation of technological art forms as folk culture (as media technology becomes widely accessible) are among those themes that characterize our moment.
posted by flotson at 10:56 PM on March 30, 2008
I liked "Be kind, rewind" because of its creativity. It took an idea that everyone has and put it to practice. Sure, the story was lousy, but it had that delicate, subtlety that Gondry captures in all of his work. It had that element of "I could do this" without being too clichéd or simplistic.
As far as cultural wanking goes, the 00's have produced so much original material, its stupid. Obviously you havent been keeping up with american "loser lit" which has become a new genre in the past few years. Their are classics that are being penned now like "The Interpreter of Maladies" which outlines subtle details of culture and personal adaptation. There is also Ian McEwen who has written several books that could only have been written now. They deal with the modern topics and classical themes...
You know, maybe the 00's are unoriginal. I mean, everything is recycled and interpreted from the past, but then again, isnt everything? Didnt 50's counter-culture become cool again in the 70s? Didnt double-breasted suits become popular again in the 80s? Didnt disco become cool again in the 90s? In this way, I think the 00's are original in their embrace of history and repackaging it for a modern generation.
With the progression of the internet into somethign that shares historical ideas so easily (RickRoll? How can a 20 year old music video become so popular in an ironic sort of way?), people are exposed to more culture and ideas that they may only be discovering. Due to this abrupt learning curve, ideas are being reshaped and cultivated into something new; an amalgam of old and new beliefs. In this way, I think "Be Kind, Rewind" defines the 00's as a generation of personal thinking and appreciation for classical culture.
Taking an old idea and making it new is not new itself. Michaelangelo, Shakespear and Aristotle were doing it centuries ago. It just takes new medium to to make interpretation accessible to millions.
posted by subaruwrx at 11:04 PM on March 30, 2008
As far as cultural wanking goes, the 00's have produced so much original material, its stupid. Obviously you havent been keeping up with american "loser lit" which has become a new genre in the past few years. Their are classics that are being penned now like "The Interpreter of Maladies" which outlines subtle details of culture and personal adaptation. There is also Ian McEwen who has written several books that could only have been written now. They deal with the modern topics and classical themes...
You know, maybe the 00's are unoriginal. I mean, everything is recycled and interpreted from the past, but then again, isnt everything? Didnt 50's counter-culture become cool again in the 70s? Didnt double-breasted suits become popular again in the 80s? Didnt disco become cool again in the 90s? In this way, I think the 00's are original in their embrace of history and repackaging it for a modern generation.
With the progression of the internet into somethign that shares historical ideas so easily (RickRoll? How can a 20 year old music video become so popular in an ironic sort of way?), people are exposed to more culture and ideas that they may only be discovering. Due to this abrupt learning curve, ideas are being reshaped and cultivated into something new; an amalgam of old and new beliefs. In this way, I think "Be Kind, Rewind" defines the 00's as a generation of personal thinking and appreciation for classical culture.
Taking an old idea and making it new is not new itself. Michaelangelo, Shakespear and Aristotle were doing it centuries ago. It just takes new medium to to make interpretation accessible to millions.
posted by subaruwrx at 11:04 PM on March 30, 2008
I thought it was fun, you guys totally ruined it.
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 12:04 AM on March 31, 2008
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 12:04 AM on March 31, 2008
Additionally, the film intends to reclaim movies as something that we participate in, not merely consume. It invites us to participate.
It's difficult to believe that in the 00s this point needs to be made and made so clumsily. We essentially have a town falling in love with these films because they are shorter and funnier. And because they can make a film, they do make a film. And people wonder why the internet is full of crap...
I like what video cameras have done to the filmmaking process in the sense that people can participate in a medium that was so far out of their reach before. I have a hard time swallowing the notion that just because you can do something, that you should do it.
There is a very clear subtext that history - of the films they make, of Fats Wallers life - is not important to their finished product. The film rails against Hollywood and yet the townsfolk make the film as a committee would - voting on every aspect. Collaboration is one thing, but it doesn't take much to look at the films of Gondry himself to see where a strong artistic vision helps (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, thanks to writer Charlie Kaufman) and where this kind of mish-mash filmmaking leads: Be Kind Rewind is self-indulgent - it's badly paced, its strongest moments trade on our collective knowledge of film history (and essentially degrades it) and the ending challenges the corn of Frank Capra at his most sugary sweet.
In the end, the town loves the film because the town made the film. To me that is the very definition of self-indulgent Hollywood and masturbation.
posted by crossoverman at 4:24 AM on March 31, 2008
It's difficult to believe that in the 00s this point needs to be made and made so clumsily. We essentially have a town falling in love with these films because they are shorter and funnier. And because they can make a film, they do make a film. And people wonder why the internet is full of crap...
I like what video cameras have done to the filmmaking process in the sense that people can participate in a medium that was so far out of their reach before. I have a hard time swallowing the notion that just because you can do something, that you should do it.
There is a very clear subtext that history - of the films they make, of Fats Wallers life - is not important to their finished product. The film rails against Hollywood and yet the townsfolk make the film as a committee would - voting on every aspect. Collaboration is one thing, but it doesn't take much to look at the films of Gondry himself to see where a strong artistic vision helps (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, thanks to writer Charlie Kaufman) and where this kind of mish-mash filmmaking leads: Be Kind Rewind is self-indulgent - it's badly paced, its strongest moments trade on our collective knowledge of film history (and essentially degrades it) and the ending challenges the corn of Frank Capra at his most sugary sweet.
In the end, the town loves the film because the town made the film. To me that is the very definition of self-indulgent Hollywood and masturbation.
posted by crossoverman at 4:24 AM on March 31, 2008
"French filmmaker Freres-Hueon" = e.g. "American filmmaker Cohen Brothers."
posted by Flashman at 5:53 AM on March 31, 2008
posted by Flashman at 5:53 AM on March 31, 2008
I didn't see Be Kind Rewind but I thought the whole point was that the amateur remakes were comically bad? This one was impressive!
posted by scarabic at 7:44 AM on March 31, 2008
posted by scarabic at 7:44 AM on March 31, 2008
So, the bikes were made of corrugated cardboard and the walls were notecards? Clearly the best way to survive on this version of the light-cycle races was to arm yourself with a garden hose...
I kid, that was great. Though I do agree with Senor Cardgage that going with an improvised sound would have made it even better.
I love that with a bit of patience, this kind of thing is now within the realms of the average person. Hopefully, *fingers crossed* I will one day be able to do my Sweded version of Plan 9 from Outer Space.
posted by quin at 9:45 AM on March 31, 2008
I kid, that was great. Though I do agree with Senor Cardgage that going with an improvised sound would have made it even better.
I love that with a bit of patience, this kind of thing is now within the realms of the average person. Hopefully, *fingers crossed* I will one day be able to do my Sweded version of Plan 9 from Outer Space.
posted by quin at 9:45 AM on March 31, 2008
Larger views of originality and creativity aside, these were really enjoyable to go through and watch and they look like a lot of fun to make. People are spending their time creating film, not in opposition, but in addition to passively enjoying them. Derivative? Certainly. Funny? Most of them.
Favorites include:
The Princess Bride in 5 Minutes
Total Recall
and the really awful yet hilarious Willy Wonka
I think all of this is a blast.
posted by Muttoneer at 4:32 PM on March 31, 2008
Favorites include:
The Princess Bride in 5 Minutes
Total Recall
and the really awful yet hilarious Willy Wonka
I think all of this is a blast.
posted by Muttoneer at 4:32 PM on March 31, 2008
We essentially have a town falling in love with these films because they are shorter and funnier.
More significantly, they love these films because they and their friends are in them, and made them.
And because they can make a film, they do make a film. And people wonder why the internet is full of crap...
Well, another way of looking at this is that internet is full of media that serve a cultural purpose that is more localized. What you see as a crappy pointless youtube video may hold a lot of meaning for a family, or a high school, or a group of neighborhood kids, etc.
I like what video cameras have done to the filmmaking process in the sense that people can participate in a medium that was so far out of their reach before.
We are in agreement here.
I have a hard time swallowing the notion that just because you can do something, that you should do it.
I just don't think the film is making this argument. Rather, it's saying "do this because it's fun and meaningful".
There is a very clear subtext that history - of the films they make, of Fats Wallers life - is not important to their finished product.
I think there are significant differences in the movie's evaluation of the historicity of "Ghostbusters" and the life of Fats Waller. No, it doesn't really matter if they stay faithful to the original script of Ghostbusters. Nothing is lost in reinventing, here. But where are you getting the idea that the movie argues that the history of Fats Waller is not important? What I remember is that the film the community makes is rich with cultural history--describing the phenomenon of the speakeasy, for instance. The ways in which that story strays from historical fact are insignificant (e.g. FW's birthplace), in my opinion. On the contrary, the movie uses these departures symbolically, to assert that we are free to choose our own heros and define our cultural milieux for ourselves (rather than, for example, allowing Hollywood to do this for for us). If you can remember specific departures from fact that diminish or alter the importance of FW as a cultural figure, I'd be interested to hear. Also bear in mind that realism is not the only way to tell the truth. At least, I believe this is so.
The film rails against Hollywood and yet the townsfolk make the film as a committee would - voting on every aspect.
In the end, the town loves the film because the town made the film. To me that is the very definition of self-indulgent Hollywood and masturbation.
I just think you're missing something important here. Although both Hollywood and the neighborhood in the movie employ collaborative methods of movie-making, their intentions are entirely different. Hollywood makes movies primarily to make loads and loads of money. The neighborhood in the film makes their movie because it's fun, and to create something of value for their community, while helping a friend in need in the process. The significances of these acts of collaboration are very different.
Be Kind Rewind is self-indulgent - it's badly paced, its strongest moments trade on our collective knowledge of film history (and essentially degrades it) and the ending challenges the corn of Frank Capra at his most sugary sweet.
To each his own. It worked for me. You are certainly entitled not to like it.
posted by flotson at 7:01 PM on March 31, 2008
More significantly, they love these films because they and their friends are in them, and made them.
And because they can make a film, they do make a film. And people wonder why the internet is full of crap...
Well, another way of looking at this is that internet is full of media that serve a cultural purpose that is more localized. What you see as a crappy pointless youtube video may hold a lot of meaning for a family, or a high school, or a group of neighborhood kids, etc.
I like what video cameras have done to the filmmaking process in the sense that people can participate in a medium that was so far out of their reach before.
We are in agreement here.
I have a hard time swallowing the notion that just because you can do something, that you should do it.
I just don't think the film is making this argument. Rather, it's saying "do this because it's fun and meaningful".
There is a very clear subtext that history - of the films they make, of Fats Wallers life - is not important to their finished product.
I think there are significant differences in the movie's evaluation of the historicity of "Ghostbusters" and the life of Fats Waller. No, it doesn't really matter if they stay faithful to the original script of Ghostbusters. Nothing is lost in reinventing, here. But where are you getting the idea that the movie argues that the history of Fats Waller is not important? What I remember is that the film the community makes is rich with cultural history--describing the phenomenon of the speakeasy, for instance. The ways in which that story strays from historical fact are insignificant (e.g. FW's birthplace), in my opinion. On the contrary, the movie uses these departures symbolically, to assert that we are free to choose our own heros and define our cultural milieux for ourselves (rather than, for example, allowing Hollywood to do this for for us). If you can remember specific departures from fact that diminish or alter the importance of FW as a cultural figure, I'd be interested to hear. Also bear in mind that realism is not the only way to tell the truth. At least, I believe this is so.
The film rails against Hollywood and yet the townsfolk make the film as a committee would - voting on every aspect.
In the end, the town loves the film because the town made the film. To me that is the very definition of self-indulgent Hollywood and masturbation.
I just think you're missing something important here. Although both Hollywood and the neighborhood in the movie employ collaborative methods of movie-making, their intentions are entirely different. Hollywood makes movies primarily to make loads and loads of money. The neighborhood in the film makes their movie because it's fun, and to create something of value for their community, while helping a friend in need in the process. The significances of these acts of collaboration are very different.
Be Kind Rewind is self-indulgent - it's badly paced, its strongest moments trade on our collective knowledge of film history (and essentially degrades it) and the ending challenges the corn of Frank Capra at his most sugary sweet.
To each his own. It worked for me. You are certainly entitled not to like it.
posted by flotson at 7:01 PM on March 31, 2008
but I'm still willing to bet we'll see bestselling authors in the next few years who got their start writing fan fiction.
What do you mean the next few years? If you accept that four best novel Hugos (and two Nebulas for that matter) make someone a best selling author, there's always Lois McMaster Bujold. She actually publishes some Sherlock Holmes Mary-Sue Fanfic in Dreamweavers Dilemma, and strongly implies that in the first draft of what became Shards of Honour and Barrayar has Aral Vorkosigan as a Klingon. And she got her first Best Novel Hugo as far back as 1991 and first Best Novel Nebula in 1988. That's just off the top of my head.
(And that's without getting into issues such as the fanfic involved in the various Arthurian legends, or just about any other art form).
posted by Francis at 3:18 AM on April 1, 2008
What do you mean the next few years? If you accept that four best novel Hugos (and two Nebulas for that matter) make someone a best selling author, there's always Lois McMaster Bujold. She actually publishes some Sherlock Holmes Mary-Sue Fanfic in Dreamweavers Dilemma, and strongly implies that in the first draft of what became Shards of Honour and Barrayar has Aral Vorkosigan as a Klingon. And she got her first Best Novel Hugo as far back as 1991 and first Best Novel Nebula in 1988. That's just off the top of my head.
(And that's without getting into issues such as the fanfic involved in the various Arthurian legends, or just about any other art form).
posted by Francis at 3:18 AM on April 1, 2008
« Older Horton Does Some Pretty Cool Art | Genocide Olympics Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by psmealey at 4:23 PM on March 30, 2008