639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
Crikey, I just realized that the squishing in Naqoyqatsi makes it a sitter for my all-purpose capsule review:
"Looks like shit; too many dwarves."
Sincere apologies for not figuring this out sooner.
"Looks like shit; too many dwarves."
Sincere apologies for not figuring this out sooner.
- matrixschmatrix
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
So, just to define our terms, here: Koyaanisqatsi is a good movie, right? We can debate about what makes it work, or what's good or bad as far as the rest of the creators' work, but we're broadly agreed that the first one is an entrancing thing in its own context?
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
As far as all purpose succinct reviews, clearly you've forgotten the commenter here years back who posted such a memorably weird and garbled take that it was for a time our board's official banner:zedz wrote:Crikey, I just realized that the squishing in Naqoyqatsi makes it a sitter for my all-purpose capsule review:
"Looks like shit; too many dwarves."
Sincere apologies for not figuring this out sooner.
I can't even tell you how many times a week I think of this line, regardless of situationJennifer L wrote:u know how old movie go with acting
- matrixschmatrix
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
Oh Jennifer Lawrence, how far you've come
- Moe Dickstein
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:19 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
I guess that's where taste comes in, I certainly can concede that the mixing of the two forces works best (Sort of my theory of AI bringing out better qualities in Spielberg and Kubrick via their influence on each other's temperaments). But for me the Fricke films work far more than the other Qatsi titles.
- matrixschmatrix
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
Wait, are you arguing that A.I. is a standout amongst Kubrick's work, due to Spielberg's influence? That is, uh, an unusual viewpoint...
- Moe Dickstein
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:19 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
It's an asterisk in Kubrick's work - but considering that SS was operating on the principle of being faithful to SK's vision, it's a creative meeting of their two styles. The coolness inherent in Kubrick tempers Spielberg's maudlin tendencies, and his warmth and heart gives a different dimension to an inherently Kubrickian world.
I find it an essential "non canon" aspect of looking at SK critically. Maybe you can make the comparison to Never Say Never to the Official Bond canon. You have a key element of the true series (Connery) but without whatever overall creative guidance and taste Cubby brought to it.
If anything to me it's a standout in Spielberg's work for the influence Kubrick brought to it. I think you can see the residual effects of that in Minority Report.
I find it an essential "non canon" aspect of looking at SK critically. Maybe you can make the comparison to Never Say Never to the Official Bond canon. You have a key element of the true series (Connery) but without whatever overall creative guidance and taste Cubby brought to it.
If anything to me it's a standout in Spielberg's work for the influence Kubrick brought to it. I think you can see the residual effects of that in Minority Report.
- matrixschmatrix
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
Oh, ok- yeah, I'd broadly agree with that, it's an interesting example of a fundamentally Kubrickian work inflected by another director, in the same way that Poltergeist is interestingly Hooper-inflected Spielberg. The way you originally put it made it sound as though it was standout for both Kubrick and Señor Spielbergo, which would be claim that needed some serious defense, to say the least.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
I actually find The Beard's affect on Poltergeist overstated. Beyond the general fact that a lot of his crew from the time worked on the film it seems very clearly in the mode of other Hooper films. Now I think the two are very similar directors at least in how they use the medium if not the stories they tell, but I find Spielberg's effect on the film generally overstated especially compared with something like Who Framed Roger Rabbit which by all accounts he had to babysit Zemeckis through and which is clearly a few steps removed from the rest of Zemeckis' output.
- Roger Ryan
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
Detroit is famous now for resembling a bombed-out war zone, but Reggio was definitely ahead of the curve by shooting this footage when he did. There is an extremely popular barbeque restaurant within walking distance of the Michigan Central Station, so there are always folks around taking pictures of the dilapidated building while they wait for a table.manicsounds wrote:That was Michigan Central Station?! I thought it was a building relic from a war....Roger Ryan wrote:I believe the "new" footage shot for NAQOYQATSI is presented in the 1.78:1 aspect ratio undistorted, but I'm not sure this includes much more than the opening footage of the Michigan Central Station.
- Moe Dickstein
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:19 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
I suppose it's up to my lack of knowledge of other Hooper works, but Poltergeist has always felt like a totally Spielberg film to me. I'd never considered Roger Rabbit in that context though. Zemeckis and Spielberg always had a very close relationship (He essentially got his first 2 pictures made and wasn't even able to get BTTF off the ground for him until after Zemeckis realized he had to do something without SS's stamp and made a success of Romancing the Stone). But I'd figure that Zemeckis was a "big" enough director at that point where maybe we worked with SS for advice but certainly didn't need him to step in as Hooper did (I've read somewhere Hooper was impaired by drug use on Poltergeist).
I don't doubt what you report Mr. Ryan, but I'd be interested to read more about the Roger Rabbit situation if you have any links?
I don't doubt what you report Mr. Ryan, but I'd be interested to read more about the Roger Rabbit situation if you have any links?
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
I don't have any problem believing that the director of Salem's Lot and The Funhouse made Poltergeist.
- Roger Ryan
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
Well, I wasn't the one who suggested Spielberg held Zemeckis' hand on ROGER RABBIT (that would be "knives"), but my opinion is that RABBIT is all Zemeckis with its emphasis on motion-control camera effects, etc. POLTERGEIST closely resembles a Spielberg film because he wrote the script and had a hard time allowing another director to interfere with how he envisioned the finished product. Crew members have been saying for years that Spielberg was a constant presence on the set and called a lot of the shots.Moe Dickstein wrote: ...I don't doubt what you report Mr. Ryan, but I'd be interested to read more about the Roger Rabbit situation if you have any links?
- matrixschmatrix
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
I would assume that if anyone was a co-auteur on Who Framed Roger Rabbit? it would be Richard Williams, as the fluidity and characterization of the animation is fully as important as the live action stuff.
- willoneill
- Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
- Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
A few years back I went to a screening of WFRR that Richard Williams introduced, and that's basically how he himself painted the situation.matrixschmatrix wrote:I would assume that if anyone was a co-auteur on Who Framed Roger Rabbit? it would be Richard Williams, as the fluidity and characterization of the animation is fully as important as the live action stuff.
- manicsounds
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
The most haunting scene is obviously the final scene of the explosion in Koyaanisqatsi. Whoever the camera operator was (probably someone from NASA), amazingly kept that shot in focus and in frame seems almost like a miracle. Miracle for the film of course, not for the destruction of an expensive piece of mechanism.
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
After having watch this numerous times, I'm quite certain that most of the emotional intensity coming from this scene is also coming from the Glass music, which perfectly fills this instant with melancholy about the fate of mankind, now at this stage of destruction, going down like Icarus after trying to fly too close from the Sun.
I've been able to see the movie "live" with the Philip Glass Ensemble and there is a definite beauty in the score which has always profoundly moved me.
I've been able to see the movie "live" with the Philip Glass Ensemble and there is a definite beauty in the score which has always profoundly moved me.
-
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:43 am
- Location: somewhere deep in Russia
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
Reggio, how? How you can "approve" this??? Where your eyes?
- Oedipax
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
- Location: Atlanta
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
I've held on to my IRE copy despite also getting the MGM DVD and the Criterion box. Definitely a film that works much better in academy for me.
- HitchcockLang
- Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 1:43 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
If any movie deserved the On the Waterfront treatment of "Choose Your Own Adventure" aspect ratios, it was Koyaanisqatsi.
- EddieLarkin
- Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
1.85:1 was the director and cinematographer intended ratio for the film. We have this from those people directly.
On the Waterfront was most likely 1.85:1, but we have that mainly from documentation rather than the creators, and since the film was produced on the cusp of the switch to widescreen some valid arguments can be made for other ratios. That is not the case at all for Koyaanisqatsi.
On the Waterfront was most likely 1.85:1, but we have that mainly from documentation rather than the creators, and since the film was produced on the cusp of the switch to widescreen some valid arguments can be made for other ratios. That is not the case at all for Koyaanisqatsi.
- Oedipax
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
- Location: Atlanta
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
But why did Reggio have it transferred in academy when he oversaw the transfer for the IRE edition?
- EddieLarkin
- Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
Because, as with many many other flat widescreen films being released on home video, it was a different time. In this particular case, 15 years ago. Not many widescreen TVs around back then.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
And, it probably needs to be added, the original projection ratio. The fact that this film (and countless others) was at one point presented in open matte for television screenings and pre-widescreen home video releases has no bearing on what its actual aspect ratio is.EddieLarkin wrote:1.85:1 was the director and cinematographer intended ratio for the film. We have this from those people directly.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: 639-642 The Qatsi Trilogy
As EddieLarkin says, this was created at a time when the vast majority of Americans still had fullscreen televisions - and so it clearly made more sense to cater primarily for them, especially given that he wanted the image to be as big as possible for maximum impact. In other words, the reason for sanctioning an Academy transfer in the first place was still valid.Oedipax wrote:But why did Reggio have it transferred in academy when he oversaw the transfer for the IRE edition?
But in 2014, that rationale no longer makes sense, as 4:3 televisions form an infinitesimally tiny minority of the total. Which is why the Reggio-approved Criterion disc is in the original 1.85:1, and the Arrow edition will be following suit.
As it happens, I'm sure that Arrow would gladly have considered a dual-ratio edition (they have form, after all), but the only HD master available to them was framed at 1.85:1, and they didn't have the budget to create one from scratch - which in any case would be quite hard to justify given all the unambiguous evidence that 1.85:1 is the correct ratio.