*Note: Title credit goes to ESPN's Scott Van Pelt.
Wow. Last night was something, wasn't it. Dan Johnson? Who the hell is he? Robert Andino? Who the hell is that? Evan Longoria? Ok, might've heard of him. This kind of stuff isn't supposed to happen until late in October, long after the regular season's given way to the playoffs. But it did. And it didn't just happen. This wasn't just a "that's baseball" moment. This was the sports equivalent of poetry, of magic. It had underdogs and heavy favorites. It had nobodies becoming super heroes, and it had super heroes doing what they do best.
Derek Jeter didn't do anything impressive. Alex Rodriguez wasn't there to choke it away. Mariano Rivera wasn't out there to close it out. No one threw the game of their life, no dueling shutouts or strike out battles.The Phillies tied the Braves with a sacrifice fly. The Red Sox tied their game on a balk. A balk. Not a clutch base hit or home run. On a tiny little flinch by an Orioles pitcher. The guy who hit the game-tying home run for the Rays probably won't even make the post-season roster. I had to Google the guy who had the game-winning hit for the Orioles to find out his name. There won't even be a one-game playoff to determine a wild card spot.
But then the Rays scored six runs in the bottom of the eighth inning to pull within a run of the Yankees. Then the Braves' unhittable closer was hittable and blew the save. Then Dan Johnson happened. Then the Braves lost. Then the Red Sox blew the lead in the bottom of the ninth. Then Robert Andino happened. Then Evan Longoria happened.
I know that in the grand scheme of things, last night wasn't one of the greatest moments in sports history. It probably doesn't even breach the top ten. It was more about being in the moment, rather than the moment itself compared to others. But you had to be there, glued to the TV, sitting on the edge of your seat, holding your jaw to keep it from hitting the floor. You had to be there, hoping the night wouldn't end.
It did, of course. We probably won't ever see another night of baseball quite like that, but that's ok, because you can't replicate perfection.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
How Not to Make a Horror Movie
I just got done watching "Insidious," a supernatural horror film that I though was going to be good and scary. It wasn't. Well, it was, but only for about half an hour. After that, it became painfully obvious that the filmmakers were using the exact same technique to try and scare the audience over and over and over again, completely ruining the film's second half. I should also mention that I'm not a huge fan of supernatural horror, because generally there's nothing the protagonist(s) can do to overcome what's haunting them (I.E. my problem with "The Grudge").
The first few scare moment were pretty decent, albeit the sound effects dragged them down somewhat. They were fairly standard frightening moments: Shapes in the background, faces suddenly popping up and creeping on a baby, an unseen intruder, and sudden appearances of bloody hand prints. Let me talk about one particular scene that really stood out to me, which came early on in the movie and really raised my hopes that this would be a good movie.
The unseen intruder scene was particularly well done, as it relied on different techniques to achieve a suspenseful sequence than pretty much every other scare moment. It relied on natural sound (the home alarm went off), mystery (the antagonist had yet to be revealed, so the possibility of an unexplained intruder really fit with the building creepy tone), the set lighting was revealed little by little (the house lights would only illuminate so much), and the choreography of Patrick Wilson (the lead actor) moving throughout the house without the camera revealing too much as it moved from room to room. And thanks to a few earlier scare moments, the sequence felt genuinely frightening and suspenseful.
But unfortunately all the other scare moments and scenes after that relied on the exact same techniques: jump cuts and sound effects. The sound would go down to near silence, the camera would do a close up on a particular actor, then quickly do a jump cut to whatever specter was haunting said character while at the same time a loud sound effect is struck up (just in case you blinked) to break the silence. Then the specter is gone. The filmmakers used this technique the entire second half of the movie. Every. Single. Time.
Pretty soon, you're jumping not because you're scared by what's on screen, but because of your innate reflex to the sudden loud sound effect that cuts through the silence. After a while you stop jumping because the moments aren't just the same technique, but they become entirely predictable. Once there's a brief period of silence, you're expecting a scare moment. The rest of the movie is effectively ruined (well, the horror aspect at least, though the rest of "Insidious" also kind of stunk; minor SPOILER ALERT: the twist ending didn't come as a surprise at all, thanks to the final act's soporific climax).
Jump cuts can work. Brief, incomplete glimpses of monsters can be incredibly frightening, as it really draws on each individual audience member's imagination to fill in what's missing. But they should be used sparingly. If I were to go back and watch "Insidious" again, counting the number of jump cut scare moments, I'd probably count at least two dozen different moments. Complete Overkill. You also don't need jump cuts to induce thrills. Take "Halloween," for example. That relied on the reverse: Long shots that emphasis the foreground versus the background, with Michael Myers always lurking in the corner of the frame. The scare isn't forced onto the viewer. (Also, "The Strangers" is a great example of this stylistic approach, though the ending of the movie sucked).
Well I think I've reached the end of my rant. I just happen to find it sad when something that has potential goes to waste. As I stated earlier, the first half hour of "Insidious" was great. But then it became formulaic and boring, not to mention the rather ridiculous supernatural elements that dominated the final act. Better luck next time, filmmakers.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
The first few scare moment were pretty decent, albeit the sound effects dragged them down somewhat. They were fairly standard frightening moments: Shapes in the background, faces suddenly popping up and creeping on a baby, an unseen intruder, and sudden appearances of bloody hand prints. Let me talk about one particular scene that really stood out to me, which came early on in the movie and really raised my hopes that this would be a good movie.
The unseen intruder scene was particularly well done, as it relied on different techniques to achieve a suspenseful sequence than pretty much every other scare moment. It relied on natural sound (the home alarm went off), mystery (the antagonist had yet to be revealed, so the possibility of an unexplained intruder really fit with the building creepy tone), the set lighting was revealed little by little (the house lights would only illuminate so much), and the choreography of Patrick Wilson (the lead actor) moving throughout the house without the camera revealing too much as it moved from room to room. And thanks to a few earlier scare moments, the sequence felt genuinely frightening and suspenseful.
But unfortunately all the other scare moments and scenes after that relied on the exact same techniques: jump cuts and sound effects. The sound would go down to near silence, the camera would do a close up on a particular actor, then quickly do a jump cut to whatever specter was haunting said character while at the same time a loud sound effect is struck up (just in case you blinked) to break the silence. Then the specter is gone. The filmmakers used this technique the entire second half of the movie. Every. Single. Time.
Pretty soon, you're jumping not because you're scared by what's on screen, but because of your innate reflex to the sudden loud sound effect that cuts through the silence. After a while you stop jumping because the moments aren't just the same technique, but they become entirely predictable. Once there's a brief period of silence, you're expecting a scare moment. The rest of the movie is effectively ruined (well, the horror aspect at least, though the rest of "Insidious" also kind of stunk; minor SPOILER ALERT: the twist ending didn't come as a surprise at all, thanks to the final act's soporific climax).
 |
| Foreground vs. Background |
Well I think I've reached the end of my rant. I just happen to find it sad when something that has potential goes to waste. As I stated earlier, the first half hour of "Insidious" was great. But then it became formulaic and boring, not to mention the rather ridiculous supernatural elements that dominated the final act. Better luck next time, filmmakers.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)