This is a rather brilliant idea, and I wish I could claim it as my own, but Dresden Codak creator, Aaron Diaz, (I've not read it, either) has come up with an excellent idea for a new public holiday (or indeed, just a great fancy dress idea).
December 8th, 2007 - Pretend to be a Time Traveller Day!
On Dec 8th you dress up and behave as if you are from a different century. Mr Diaz explains you choices:
#1: Utopian/Cliché Future
Star Trek! Imagine you're Picard or Kirk (or from any other similar sci-fi) and you've suddenly been sent hurtling through time. Think all-in-one velour outfits. You're completely out of your depth, but also very polite. Interact with wonderment at all the "primitive" technology and show extreme ignorance in operating it. Expect everything to be voice-activated; vending machines, pay phones, elevators, etc.
- Ask shops if they'll accept Credits for payment. Act very "proper" and polite. If you're travelling on public transport, sit-up straight and look around at everything.
- Try to "hide" alieneqsue features, like Spock ears under a sweat band, and then act self-conscious about them.
- Refer to things that don't exist, for example: "Where's the nearest matter transporter?"
- Refer to cars as "vessels" or "ships" and when travelling in one, look confused when trying to put on your seatbelt.
- Stop people in the street and ask them if they've seen any of your crew-mates, describe them as being basically human, but then add alienesque features at the end. Eg. "Quite tall, brown hair, heavy build... big wrinkley forehead", "She's my height, with blonde hair, blue eyes, green skin, big smile", etc.
Remember: You'll be trying to "fit-in", so explain your behaviour by "pretending" you're joking: "Of course! I was thinking it had an holo-fusion reactor... How silly of me! (nervous over-the-top laughter)." Then act lost by randomly changing direction.
#2: Dystopian Future
This one offers a little more flexibility. It can be any kind of future from Terminator to Mad Max. The important thing to remember is dress like a crazy person with armor. Black spray painted football pads, high tech visors, torn up trenchcoats and maybe even some dirt here or there. Remember, dystopian future travelers are very startled that they've gone back in time. Some starters:
- If you go the "prisoner who's escaped the future" try shaving your head and putting a barcode on the back of your neck. Then stagger around and stare at the sky, as if you've never seen it before.
- Walk up to random people and say "WHAT YEAR IS THIS?" and when they tell you, get quiet and then say "There's still time!" and run off.
- Stand in front of a statue (any statue, really), fall to your knees, and yell "NOOOOOOOOO"
- Stare at newspaper headlines and look astonished.
- Take some trinket with you (it can be anything really), hand it to some stranger, along with a phone number and say, "In thirty years dial this number. You'll know what to do after that". Then slip away.
#3: The Past
This one is more for beginners. Basically dress in period clothing (preferably Victorian era) and stagger around amazed at everything. Since the culture's set in place already, you have more of a template to work off of. Some pointers:
- Airplanes are terrifying. Also, carry on conversations with televisions for a while.
- Discover and become obsessed with one trivial aspect of technology, like automatic grocery doors. Stay there for hours playing with it.
- Be generally terrified of people who are dressed immodestly compared to your era. Tattoos and shorts on women are especially scary.
And that's pretty much it. Just remember, try to fit in! You obviously wouldn't want people to know you are from another when, so never admit you're a time traveller and make really bad attempts at keeping a low profile.
Not sure yet how I'm going to go... Its a toss between the past and dystopian future... leaning toward dystopia right now.
Anyone else want to accompany me on my imaginary trip through time?
What a hilarious idea, and certainly one that could down well at fancy dress parties, too! Kudos to Aaron Diaz (whoever he may be) and Flint Paper (whoever he is), whose blog I found this on!
It's the new Talk Like A Pirate Day!
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
Saturday, 6 October 2007
Retro review: Red Dwarf - The individual novels
Occasionally my excitement for things that I used to love is reignited, and not so long ago I found my it lit up for the classic BBC TV sci-fi comedy show, Red Dwarf. It's always had a soft-spot in my heart (and undoubtedly will), and I decided to re-read the classic novels written by Rob Grand and Doug Naylor.
After seriously enjoying Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers and Better Than Life (the first two books), I decided to give the subsequent solo novels another go and see how I felt about them; Doug Naylor's Last Human and Rob Grant's Backwards.
For those who are unaware, or may have forgotten, Doug Naylor and Rob Grant wrote the first two Red Dwarf novels together (under the pseudonym Grant Naylor), but after a split in their working relationship and an aborted attempt to write a third novel together, they separately wrote two completely unrelated sequels. Unlike their work together, which was well received, their individual efforts received mixed reviews, especially from fans.
Here were my immediate reactions after reading them again:
Backwards by Rob Grant
I've just finished re-reading Backwards and I have to say that I'd forgotten how completely brilliant it was. I'd forgotten just what a good, satisfying well-paced read it is. I was also surprised (and perhaps pleased) at how little was taken from the TV series. In all, there were four ideas taken from three episodes: Backwards (obviously), Dimension Jump (the idea of Ace Rimmer) and Gunmen of the Apocalypse (pretty much the whole show, including the idea of xenophobic battledroids hunting humans).
Only really Gunmen was referred to heavily (which was an odd choice considering how much of that show was based on visual humour), and even then almost all of the dialogue was different (unlike the first two novels which copied dialogue verbatim, more often than not, when taking things from the TV series). The other ideas taken from the series were expanded and changed considerably, even more so than the first two novels.
For whatever reason, it seemed as though Grant was trying very hard not to use too much from the series, and thankfully it's not to the book's detriment.
Despite feeling like a fairly large tome, the story runs at an incredibly comfortable pace. You really get the idea that Grant could have just happily kept on writing and writing and, interestingly, I don’t think the reader would have gotten bored, either. Maybe because of this, the ending does appear a tad rushed and/or abrupt (although this may just be an illusion caused by the spelling errors that even made their way into the final chapters of paperback edition).
Still, despite it’s size and apparently rushed ending, it’s a incredibly cohesive and satisfying read. I don’t think I really noticed the journey that Rimmer goes through when I first read it (no idea why, perhaps I was too young to pick up on it), but this time it was clear to me that he was the backbone of the whole story.
There was at least one missed opportunity by Grant, though: A scene where an uptight Rimmer and a reluctant Ace talk in private to try and figure out where their lives diverged would have been utterly priceless (and could have set up the epilogue nicely, too). Bizarrely this undoubtedly interesting conversation is replaced by the “wrap things up quickly” scene from the TV series (where Lister has sudden and amazing insider-information on where the change took place). Ah, well, in another universe, perhaps.
Rimmer's personality is reset to “bastard mode”, which doesn't fit continuity from the warmer person he changed into when Lister grew older in the second book. That said, it's no surprise, as Rimmer generally works better as a character when he's at his most antagonistic, and it felt like the right starting off point for the book.
(As an aside; is it just me, or is that chapter featuring a teenage Cat and a young nubile woman in a gingham dress just a little bit weird/creepy/disturbing/wrong? Why is it in there?)
In all it was a great read, much better than even I remembered or expected. I ordered a copy of Last Human to see if it could impress as well.
—————————-
Last Human by Doug Naylor
I made it 50 pages into Last Human, and I just couldn’t take any more… It’s very funny, don’t get me wrong, and there’s some brilliant lines, but it doesn't feel right. Reading it was like driving in a car in dire need of a mechanic; It looks OK and is driveable, but it keeps making such horrendous and unhealthy noises that you don't want go keep going.
For a start, Naylor clearly has no issue with messing with the entire Red Dwarf canon. Take for example, Rimmer's inferiority complex regarding his more successful brothers. Whereas Grant thoroughly explored these issues, and used them as the backbone to his entire story (turning them into something we could all relate to in process), Naylor says they're all down to the fact that Rimmer didn't get a memory implant when he was a boy. Not an inferiority complex as much as actually being inferior. Not only is the explanation completely unrelateable to the reader, but it's also completely illogical: Why doesn't he buy a memory implant now, as a grown man?
The fact that this character-changing line is tossed away in such an unemotional manner is unfortunately indicative of the care and thought seen elsewhere into the book. Another example is the amount of pseudo-science, that not only doesn’t hold up to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny, but also disregards everything we know about the Red Dwarf universe.
All over the place random scientific sounding bits and bobs that are tossed into the story and dialogue without explanation. All of a sudden even the Cat is an astrophysicist. Things like “unused time lines” (how can a parallel universe be considered "unused"? We can supposedly visit them, so do the people living in them consider their universe "unused"?) or the fact that Starbug has a “Hubble telescope” installed (I mean, come on) are just horrible.
I guess Doug would argue that it’s all about entertaining readers, and don't care about the science and technology (so long as it sounds ok), they just want a laugh, and while I can definitely agree that Last Human tries very hard to tickle your rib bones (and succeeds very often, too), I have to ask; if you're going to do the science-fiction without the science, why bother?
—————————
Reading both books gave me a very strong idea of who did what in the Red Dwarf universe. Doug Naylor was clearly the man with the funny one-liners but, unfortunately for his book, no grasp of characterisation and no exploration of ideas or concepts. Rob Grant’s book feels deeper and more satisfying, with the laughs tickling your brain more than your ribs, but it's also much heavier by comparison. The writers seem like two parts of the same brain.
When they merge they turn from two funny, talented guys into one hilarious, unique, sublime, gestalt entity. I hope they work together again at some point.
Grant Naylor, are you out there?
After seriously enjoying Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers and Better Than Life (the first two books), I decided to give the subsequent solo novels another go and see how I felt about them; Doug Naylor's Last Human and Rob Grant's Backwards.
For those who are unaware, or may have forgotten, Doug Naylor and Rob Grant wrote the first two Red Dwarf novels together (under the pseudonym Grant Naylor), but after a split in their working relationship and an aborted attempt to write a third novel together, they separately wrote two completely unrelated sequels. Unlike their work together, which was well received, their individual efforts received mixed reviews, especially from fans.
Here were my immediate reactions after reading them again:
Backwards by Rob GrantI've just finished re-reading Backwards and I have to say that I'd forgotten how completely brilliant it was. I'd forgotten just what a good, satisfying well-paced read it is. I was also surprised (and perhaps pleased) at how little was taken from the TV series. In all, there were four ideas taken from three episodes: Backwards (obviously), Dimension Jump (the idea of Ace Rimmer) and Gunmen of the Apocalypse (pretty much the whole show, including the idea of xenophobic battledroids hunting humans).
Only really Gunmen was referred to heavily (which was an odd choice considering how much of that show was based on visual humour), and even then almost all of the dialogue was different (unlike the first two novels which copied dialogue verbatim, more often than not, when taking things from the TV series). The other ideas taken from the series were expanded and changed considerably, even more so than the first two novels.
For whatever reason, it seemed as though Grant was trying very hard not to use too much from the series, and thankfully it's not to the book's detriment.
Despite feeling like a fairly large tome, the story runs at an incredibly comfortable pace. You really get the idea that Grant could have just happily kept on writing and writing and, interestingly, I don’t think the reader would have gotten bored, either. Maybe because of this, the ending does appear a tad rushed and/or abrupt (although this may just be an illusion caused by the spelling errors that even made their way into the final chapters of paperback edition).
Still, despite it’s size and apparently rushed ending, it’s a incredibly cohesive and satisfying read. I don’t think I really noticed the journey that Rimmer goes through when I first read it (no idea why, perhaps I was too young to pick up on it), but this time it was clear to me that he was the backbone of the whole story.
There was at least one missed opportunity by Grant, though: A scene where an uptight Rimmer and a reluctant Ace talk in private to try and figure out where their lives diverged would have been utterly priceless (and could have set up the epilogue nicely, too). Bizarrely this undoubtedly interesting conversation is replaced by the “wrap things up quickly” scene from the TV series (where Lister has sudden and amazing insider-information on where the change took place). Ah, well, in another universe, perhaps.
Rimmer's personality is reset to “bastard mode”, which doesn't fit continuity from the warmer person he changed into when Lister grew older in the second book. That said, it's no surprise, as Rimmer generally works better as a character when he's at his most antagonistic, and it felt like the right starting off point for the book.
(As an aside; is it just me, or is that chapter featuring a teenage Cat and a young nubile woman in a gingham dress just a little bit weird/creepy/disturbing/wrong? Why is it in there?)
In all it was a great read, much better than even I remembered or expected. I ordered a copy of Last Human to see if it could impress as well.
—————————-
Last Human by Doug NaylorI made it 50 pages into Last Human, and I just couldn’t take any more… It’s very funny, don’t get me wrong, and there’s some brilliant lines, but it doesn't feel right. Reading it was like driving in a car in dire need of a mechanic; It looks OK and is driveable, but it keeps making such horrendous and unhealthy noises that you don't want go keep going.
For a start, Naylor clearly has no issue with messing with the entire Red Dwarf canon. Take for example, Rimmer's inferiority complex regarding his more successful brothers. Whereas Grant thoroughly explored these issues, and used them as the backbone to his entire story (turning them into something we could all relate to in process), Naylor says they're all down to the fact that Rimmer didn't get a memory implant when he was a boy. Not an inferiority complex as much as actually being inferior. Not only is the explanation completely unrelateable to the reader, but it's also completely illogical: Why doesn't he buy a memory implant now, as a grown man?
The fact that this character-changing line is tossed away in such an unemotional manner is unfortunately indicative of the care and thought seen elsewhere into the book. Another example is the amount of pseudo-science, that not only doesn’t hold up to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny, but also disregards everything we know about the Red Dwarf universe.
All over the place random scientific sounding bits and bobs that are tossed into the story and dialogue without explanation. All of a sudden even the Cat is an astrophysicist. Things like “unused time lines” (how can a parallel universe be considered "unused"? We can supposedly visit them, so do the people living in them consider their universe "unused"?) or the fact that Starbug has a “Hubble telescope” installed (I mean, come on) are just horrible.
I guess Doug would argue that it’s all about entertaining readers, and don't care about the science and technology (so long as it sounds ok), they just want a laugh, and while I can definitely agree that Last Human tries very hard to tickle your rib bones (and succeeds very often, too), I have to ask; if you're going to do the science-fiction without the science, why bother?
—————————
Reading both books gave me a very strong idea of who did what in the Red Dwarf universe. Doug Naylor was clearly the man with the funny one-liners but, unfortunately for his book, no grasp of characterisation and no exploration of ideas or concepts. Rob Grant’s book feels deeper and more satisfying, with the laughs tickling your brain more than your ribs, but it's also much heavier by comparison. The writers seem like two parts of the same brain.
When they merge they turn from two funny, talented guys into one hilarious, unique, sublime, gestalt entity. I hope they work together again at some point.
Grant Naylor, are you out there?
Saturday, 29 September 2007
Tarantino 'Death Proof' - London Q&A: Pt 3
This is the third and final part of my write up of the Death Proof Q&A Session with Quentin Tarantino and Zoe Bell. Thanks for all the kind comments on various forums, and the insistence from some that I finish this sooner rather than later. It has spurned me on to do this now, even when I can't be bothered!
Don't forget there's also Part One and Part Two, which are both probably worth reading.
Spoilers below.
So here it is, the last bit. This is where all the left over moments that I didn't mention get dumped. As with the last two posts, I'm writing this off the top of my head with very little in way of sensible editorial control and also, because this final part is actually little moments that didn't fit into parts one or two, it's not very well structured.
My lasting feeling from the events was that both Tarantino and Zoe Bell came across as very nice people (Zoe especially; I hope she continues to do more off the back of Death Proof). Tarantino may have been sniffing an awful lot during the beginning of the Q&A, but I can't possibly speculate as to why, so let's give him the benefit of doubt.
It was really the director's night and Zoe Bell, brimming with as much nervous, excitable energy as you might expect for a newcomer, was careful not to not step on his toes. While I would have been more than happy to hear more from the charming New Zealand star, I was glad she let Tarantino have his say... as he always has a lot!
One of the most interesting revelations of the night was his explanation of his feelings about Jackie Brown. If I recall correctly, someone asked him if he would be adapting anyone else's work again in the future, and Tarantino's answer was quite interesting.
As a sort of disclaimer, he made it clear that he loves Jackie Brown, and he by no means wanted to disrespect it in any way, but at the same time, he described how once it was made, he didn't get the same amount of buzz as when he has created something from scratch. For him the experience was apparently a bit of a let down.
He described how exciting it was to start off with a blank piece of paper, imagine a whole world of characters and situations, and ultimately turn it into an something that he then gets to see other people experience. (And looking around the crowd, the energy on the faces of people still buzzing from having just watched his latest creation was palpable.)
He claimed that this feeling that was missing when Jackie Brown was complete. It wasn't his world, they weren't his characters, and as such, there was something missing from the experience for him.
He then told an anecdote about discussing this particular feeling with another filmmaker who had just adapted something for the first time in their career (although he didn't say who, you got the feeling it was someone big), and they agreed with him; the experience was not as satisfying as seeing your own creation come to light, and as such, it just wasn't as exciting seeing it finished.
Again, he made it clear that that has now all this has passed, and it was just a feeling that was missing at that moment in time, and he's very proud of Jackie Brown, etc etc, but in the end, he said that the feeling he felt was strong enough to put him off wanting to adapt anything else in the future. So no more adaptations on the horizon for Tarantino!
Another question asked, in light of his feelings about adapting other people's work, was which of his own characters did he like the most. At this point Zoe Bell piped in with, "not including me, who is obviously your favourite, right?". Tarantino laughed and said, "of course", but then seemed to think about it and added, "actually, you're not my creation, you play yourself!" (which, judging her from the night, she most definitely does).
So, and I hope I'm remembering the full list (see why I left these questions to last?), he thought about it and said: Butterfly, Abernathy, The Bride, Mia Wallace, Mr Pink and Mr Blonde. I remember thinking, "no Mr. White?", but no, he wasn't there. (If anyone is out there going, "but what about Jules and Vincent?", um, well, they may have been there, but I can't remember for sure.)
Someone asked what he thought of Rob Zombie's new Halloween film and I was pleasantly surprised at how candid he was with his opinion, "I liked the first 40 minutes, but after that... I hated it". It's refreshing to hear someone just be honest for a change.
Tarantino was also very open about his general dissatisfaction working with Directors of Photography in general. Death Proof is the first film which Tarantino shot himself, without a DP, and he seemed to appreciate the freedom this gave him. Also, he joked that Death Proof was the perfect project to try it out on, "If it looked bad, I could just say, 'it's supposed to look bad, it's a 70's exploitation film!'".
He talked a little about his frustration of working with DPs, and how all they bring their own staff with them, who then, wanting to keep their working relationship with the DP in question, work for the DP instead of for Tarantino. You got the sense let it was a source of some considerable frustration for him, and that there must have been issues in his previous films, although he named no names.
Aside from Zoe Bell's sweet account of how Tarantino revealed to her just how big a role she had in his latest film (she at first thought it would be a one line cameo at most), which is also told on the Death Proof DVD for those who want to hear it, I'm sorry to say that think I'm out of material.
The whole experience was an incredible one, and one that changed my feelings about, not only Death Proof, but also Tarantino. It was nice to see the director "uncut" and clearly in an environment where he felt comfortable.
Thinking about Death Proof in a more critical light as a result of this evening, my girlfriend came up with a really interesting psychological profile for Stuntman Mike. In her mind, Mike was basically an average guy that got into stunts a little too much. The buzz from surviving car accidents made everything else pale in comparison and he got hooked on the extreme adrenalin rush. Even sex paled in comparison, it just couldn't compare to the life-threatening thrill of surviving a crazy accident. So he developed his own twisted version of sex, or the closest he can get to sex and still feel exhilaration, mixing these terrifying thrills with beautiful young women. I think that's rather a cool background story his character.
I hope you've enjoyed these three weeks of Death Proof madness! Thanks again to all those who have taken the time to tell me they enjoyed these little write ups. And thanks my girlfriend for getting us both tickets to the event (somehow miraculously stumbling across them just as they went on sale!). Cheerio!
Don't forget there's also Part One and Part Two, which are both probably worth reading.
Spoilers below.
So here it is, the last bit. This is where all the left over moments that I didn't mention get dumped. As with the last two posts, I'm writing this off the top of my head with very little in way of sensible editorial control and also, because this final part is actually little moments that didn't fit into parts one or two, it's not very well structured.
My lasting feeling from the events was that both Tarantino and Zoe Bell came across as very nice people (Zoe especially; I hope she continues to do more off the back of Death Proof). Tarantino may have been sniffing an awful lot during the beginning of the Q&A, but I can't possibly speculate as to why, so let's give him the benefit of doubt.
It was really the director's night and Zoe Bell, brimming with as much nervous, excitable energy as you might expect for a newcomer, was careful not to not step on his toes. While I would have been more than happy to hear more from the charming New Zealand star, I was glad she let Tarantino have his say... as he always has a lot!
One of the most interesting revelations of the night was his explanation of his feelings about Jackie Brown. If I recall correctly, someone asked him if he would be adapting anyone else's work again in the future, and Tarantino's answer was quite interesting.
As a sort of disclaimer, he made it clear that he loves Jackie Brown, and he by no means wanted to disrespect it in any way, but at the same time, he described how once it was made, he didn't get the same amount of buzz as when he has created something from scratch. For him the experience was apparently a bit of a let down.
He described how exciting it was to start off with a blank piece of paper, imagine a whole world of characters and situations, and ultimately turn it into an something that he then gets to see other people experience. (And looking around the crowd, the energy on the faces of people still buzzing from having just watched his latest creation was palpable.)
He claimed that this feeling that was missing when Jackie Brown was complete. It wasn't his world, they weren't his characters, and as such, there was something missing from the experience for him.
He then told an anecdote about discussing this particular feeling with another filmmaker who had just adapted something for the first time in their career (although he didn't say who, you got the feeling it was someone big), and they agreed with him; the experience was not as satisfying as seeing your own creation come to light, and as such, it just wasn't as exciting seeing it finished.
Again, he made it clear that that has now all this has passed, and it was just a feeling that was missing at that moment in time, and he's very proud of Jackie Brown, etc etc, but in the end, he said that the feeling he felt was strong enough to put him off wanting to adapt anything else in the future. So no more adaptations on the horizon for Tarantino!
Another question asked, in light of his feelings about adapting other people's work, was which of his own characters did he like the most. At this point Zoe Bell piped in with, "not including me, who is obviously your favourite, right?". Tarantino laughed and said, "of course", but then seemed to think about it and added, "actually, you're not my creation, you play yourself!" (which, judging her from the night, she most definitely does).
So, and I hope I'm remembering the full list (see why I left these questions to last?), he thought about it and said: Butterfly, Abernathy, The Bride, Mia Wallace, Mr Pink and Mr Blonde. I remember thinking, "no Mr. White?", but no, he wasn't there. (If anyone is out there going, "but what about Jules and Vincent?", um, well, they may have been there, but I can't remember for sure.)
Someone asked what he thought of Rob Zombie's new Halloween film and I was pleasantly surprised at how candid he was with his opinion, "I liked the first 40 minutes, but after that... I hated it". It's refreshing to hear someone just be honest for a change.
Tarantino was also very open about his general dissatisfaction working with Directors of Photography in general. Death Proof is the first film which Tarantino shot himself, without a DP, and he seemed to appreciate the freedom this gave him. Also, he joked that Death Proof was the perfect project to try it out on, "If it looked bad, I could just say, 'it's supposed to look bad, it's a 70's exploitation film!'".
He talked a little about his frustration of working with DPs, and how all they bring their own staff with them, who then, wanting to keep their working relationship with the DP in question, work for the DP instead of for Tarantino. You got the sense let it was a source of some considerable frustration for him, and that there must have been issues in his previous films, although he named no names.
Aside from Zoe Bell's sweet account of how Tarantino revealed to her just how big a role she had in his latest film (she at first thought it would be a one line cameo at most), which is also told on the Death Proof DVD for those who want to hear it, I'm sorry to say that think I'm out of material.
The whole experience was an incredible one, and one that changed my feelings about, not only Death Proof, but also Tarantino. It was nice to see the director "uncut" and clearly in an environment where he felt comfortable.
Thinking about Death Proof in a more critical light as a result of this evening, my girlfriend came up with a really interesting psychological profile for Stuntman Mike. In her mind, Mike was basically an average guy that got into stunts a little too much. The buzz from surviving car accidents made everything else pale in comparison and he got hooked on the extreme adrenalin rush. Even sex paled in comparison, it just couldn't compare to the life-threatening thrill of surviving a crazy accident. So he developed his own twisted version of sex, or the closest he can get to sex and still feel exhilaration, mixing these terrifying thrills with beautiful young women. I think that's rather a cool background story his character.
I hope you've enjoyed these three weeks of Death Proof madness! Thanks again to all those who have taken the time to tell me they enjoyed these little write ups. And thanks my girlfriend for getting us both tickets to the event (somehow miraculously stumbling across them just as they went on sale!). Cheerio!
Saturday, 15 September 2007
Tarantino 'Death Proof' - London Q&A: Pt 2
This is the second part of my write up of the Death Proof Q&A with Quentin Tarantino and Zoe Bell that I was luckily enough to attend. (The first part can be read here.) I've tried to address the most commonly talked about aspects of the film at the moment. Apologies if it's a bit rambling and not immediately compelling.
Other parts: Part One - Part Three
Spoilers below!
Death Proof vs Grindhouse
At the moment, wherever Death Proof is being discussed by movie fans, there seems to be someone complaining that they're being forced to 'double dip' on DVD because Death Proof and Grindhouse are "obviously" going to be released separately on DVD, and that the only reason they're not able to buy Grindhouse right away is because it flopped in US cinemas, and they're trying to get everyone to buy it twice: First as a stand-alone movie, then in a Grindhouse boxset. Now while there is some truth that UK and Australian cinema-goers were deprived of a theatrical release of Grindhouse because of its lack-lustre US box-office, it's not the case when it comes to any DVD releases. Nobody, believe it or not, is being forced to 'double dip'. (Remember the rumours about 'six different versions of Kill Bill to be released in a year'? Yep, we're still waiting...)
Death Proof 'Extended' on DVD (a confusing title) is actually just Death Proof. You see, as Tarantino explained at the Q&A, he made Death Proof, Rodriguez made Planet Terror and together they made Grindhouse. Three separate entities.
Tarantino revealed that the only way he would ever have agreed to edit his film down to 90 minutes for use in Grindhouse was simply because he knew that his longer cut would be the one that was going to be seen in most of the cinemas of the world (Grindhouse, it seems, was never set for a worldwide theatrical release) and the one that was going to be released everywhere on DVD. Quite simply, without those stipulations, he never would have agreed to it. He also added that while he was editing for Grindhouse he had to make sure that he was serving the experience of Grindhouse, and not his film.
So, to try and make this absolutely clear, and in contrast to the many misinformed reviewers and film commentators out there: The release of the longer, separate cut of Death Proof was not a 'studio' decision. It was nothing to do with Grindhouse being a failure in the US (except in the one or two countries that were originally set to get Grindhouse at their cinemas). It was planned from day one.
Tarantino talked about how proud he is of the film he's made, and how he cares about it (and how, realistically, could he not? It's something he spent years of his life creating, and this is the version he wanted people to consider his). The longer version of Death Proof is his film. Grindhouse was a film he made with Rodriguez.
In my mind at least, Grindhouse is a truly cinema experience, not a home theatre one and I really don't see the point in trying to recreate it on your sofa on your own. (I could be wrong.)
(It's worth noting that while Tarantino admitted Kill Bill was separated into two films under pressure from the Weinsteins, he discussed how he refused to buckle under the same pressure for Grindhouse. He also said that the reason the merged cut of Kill Bill has been so long coming was because he actually felt rather happy about it being two films. Whatever resistance he might have originally had to the idea of splitting The Bride's escapades into two parts were clearly long gone, and he happily shrugged and said that he felt that it had worked great as two films and was actually very glad he'd done it. He also made it clear that if he hadn't been able to release his version of Death Proof that he would have been very upset indeed.)
Leading on from this, he also went on to explain why the Grindhouse fake trailers (shot by people like Eli Roth and Rob Zombie and originally shown between Planet Terror and Death Proof as 'upcoming attractions') were not being included with the separate releases of the films.
Quite simply, as I've already said, the directors are very happy with Grindhouse and they don't want to see it die. Tarantino explained that one way to definitely kill it (and to disrespect it, really) would be to sell off its parts wholesale. If the trailers had been split and included with the separate releases of Death Proof and Planet Terror then it would have been one less reason to watch Grindhouse, and therefore one less reason for it to exist.
Tarantino told a funny story about when they received a polite letter from the distributors asking them to include the trailers in the international cinema showings of Death Proof and Planet Terror. It went something like this:
"We'd really like to to include the Grindhouse trailers for our audiences. We fully understand and support the 'grindhouse' aesthetic of these films and we believe that putting two trailers on each of the films would enhance this 'grindhouse' feeling for the audience. Also, we know that a lot of people want to see the trailers, so we feel it would be giving the audience what they want..." etc., etc.
Apparently before Tarantino could even think about replying, he turned the page to read Rodriguez's reply:
"If you're so keen to give the audience the 'grindhouse' experience, and understand and fully support the 'grindhouse' aesthetic, and you want to give the audience what they want... THEN FUCKING RELEASE GRINDHOUSE!"
So apparently Death Proof is Death Proof. Grindhouse is Grindhouse. And you probably shouldn't listen to the people who try to convince you otherwise.
Why They Didn't Just Stop the Car
Moving on from all this controversy (but which unfortunately seems to be dominating online discussion about the film - there must be a term somewhere for this ignorance generated, internet hyped, mass confusion that's become all too common to surf across), into something else entirely. There was inevitably and unfortunately at least one idiot in the audience who felt it was their right to argue with Tarantino. It's something about London, I swear. I've had most of my experiences with these people in Greenwich (no idea why, I'm sure there's lots of lovely people there) and they look like nice normal, ordinary people, except when they talk, it's clear that their brains have been re-wired so that they're incapable of being anything other than totally obnoxious.
Excuse me while I try to explain the type of person I'm referring to: In one such experience I remember standing at a bar, when the person next to me started to aggressively tell a taken-aback bartender that the film he's just seen was actually 'very good'.
It doesn't matter that this person was in the bar a few hours earlier and, unsure of what to go and watch, had asked the bartender his opinion was of a film. This bartender, making friendly banter, had said the film in question wasn't as good as the book, but that it was still quite good. Apparently this bartender had been horrifically misinformed and, although this other person hadn't actually read the original book, he'd decided to come back into the peaceful bar to threateningly tell the bartender what an idiot he was. It wasn't 'quite' good, he said through gritted teeth with finger pointed, it was 'very' good, and he should get his facts straight.
I apologise on behalf of the nicer side of London for these idiots. I also apologise to you for digressing so much, but hopefully it might give you an idea of what this person was like, which I'd have probably been unable to convey otherwise.
So, this person asked the following question: "Why do you set your films up to get the audience worked up, make it tense, believable and engaging, and then suddenly ruin it?".
Confusion and shock to this obviously aggressive question. The interviewer tries to move on quickly but Tarantino, quite surprisingly, calmly says, "No, no, I want to understand his question", and turning to the guy, "What do you mean?".
Now we get to the actual point of his statement, which is really what this guy should have asked, in a nicer tone, from the beginning: "Why didn't they just stop the car while Zoe was on the hood?".
Now, to be fair, this is a question that had drifted through my mind and had taken me out of the moment during the film's climax on at least one viewing, but it was asked in such a rude and inappropriate way that I, and others in the audience, couldn't help but squirm.
Thankfully, and surprisingly to me, Tarantino took it all in his stride and kept his cool. "One or two few people have asked me that", he replied, "but really, apart from two seconds, when they're in the ditch, they don't have time". The likeable Zoe Bell jumped in at this point and explained more fully. As being the person who was actually on the hood of the car, she pointed out, she was really in a unique position to explain what the character's options actually were.
She explained that it had taken literally half a mile of extremely gradual slowing down after each filmed take in order to stop her from flying off the hood of the car. Any slight increase over this, even if it was only a second, and she would literally feel as though she was about to be thrown off. There was no way that they could have slowed down without her being tossed in front of a moving vehicle.
Tarantino piped back in to ask the guy, jokingly and with bonhomie, if he had been chased by a homicidal maniac while Zoe was on the hood of his car, and really, until anyone had been in that situation, they couldn't honestly say how they'd react under the stress.
Zoe added that, if you think about it, when you're being chased by someone who's trying to kill you, that slowing down isn't really going to throw them off, especially when the homicidal maniac is right there. He's still going to try and kill you by any means necessary!
Both Zoe and Tarantino agreed that the character's aim was to get far enough ahead of Stuntman Mike for them then to slow down and get Zoe off the hood.
Although I was upset by the rudeness of the audience member, I was actually very glad the question was asked. The answer, once explained, does make a lot of sense, and it will certainly increase my enjoyment of future viewings. I suppose it might have been nice if Tracie Thoms had had a line that reminded the audience that Zoe didn't have anything to restrain her, or maybe those two seconds in the ditch trimmed from the movie, but at least now I know!
This is, inevitably, where the idiot pipes up again: "But they could have just stopped", he yells, sans microphone. Groans across the cinema.
Moving on, someone else asked Tarantino to name any films he'd be embarrassed to admit he'd not seen. Perhaps he was too embarrassed to list any specifically but he went on to talk about Fellini and European directors that he'd had difficulty enjoying. He made rather a interesting observation that he felt it was a mistake to go straight for films that are considered "classics" or the auteur's best.
He said that to really appreciate such films you have to have watched the director's earlier ones to fully understand what they were trying to capture. If you actually followed their career it would put their films into a context that most modern viewers miss (going straight for the "classics" listed on best movie lists, as they often do). He said he'd felt that he'd made a mistake doing this himself and had missed out on enjoying them fully, or perhaps even understanding why they were so revered.
I found this quite an interesting idea, as my girlfriend and I have been working out way through the IMDb's top 250 films list, with an eye on concentrating on the more obscure, older or foreign titles, and now I'm wondering if we're going about it all the wrong way.
There's still a few things that Tarantino talked about that I've not mentioned, so I'll probably put these in a Part Three at some point. Things I've not mentioned are Tarantino's favourite characters (out of the ones he's created), the reason why he has mixed feelings about Jackie Brown, what he thinks of Rob Zombie's new Halloween and other minor things. If you've got any questions, I'll try and answer them for you in the meantime.
Other parts: Part One - Part Three
Spoilers below!
Death Proof vs Grindhouse
At the moment, wherever Death Proof is being discussed by movie fans, there seems to be someone complaining that they're being forced to 'double dip' on DVD because Death Proof and Grindhouse are "obviously" going to be released separately on DVD, and that the only reason they're not able to buy Grindhouse right away is because it flopped in US cinemas, and they're trying to get everyone to buy it twice: First as a stand-alone movie, then in a Grindhouse boxset. Now while there is some truth that UK and Australian cinema-goers were deprived of a theatrical release of Grindhouse because of its lack-lustre US box-office, it's not the case when it comes to any DVD releases. Nobody, believe it or not, is being forced to 'double dip'. (Remember the rumours about 'six different versions of Kill Bill to be released in a year'? Yep, we're still waiting...)
Death Proof 'Extended' on DVD (a confusing title) is actually just Death Proof. You see, as Tarantino explained at the Q&A, he made Death Proof, Rodriguez made Planet Terror and together they made Grindhouse. Three separate entities.
Tarantino revealed that the only way he would ever have agreed to edit his film down to 90 minutes for use in Grindhouse was simply because he knew that his longer cut would be the one that was going to be seen in most of the cinemas of the world (Grindhouse, it seems, was never set for a worldwide theatrical release) and the one that was going to be released everywhere on DVD. Quite simply, without those stipulations, he never would have agreed to it. He also added that while he was editing for Grindhouse he had to make sure that he was serving the experience of Grindhouse, and not his film.
So, to try and make this absolutely clear, and in contrast to the many misinformed reviewers and film commentators out there: The release of the longer, separate cut of Death Proof was not a 'studio' decision. It was nothing to do with Grindhouse being a failure in the US (except in the one or two countries that were originally set to get Grindhouse at their cinemas). It was planned from day one.
Tarantino talked about how proud he is of the film he's made, and how he cares about it (and how, realistically, could he not? It's something he spent years of his life creating, and this is the version he wanted people to consider his). The longer version of Death Proof is his film. Grindhouse was a film he made with Rodriguez.
In my mind at least, Grindhouse is a truly cinema experience, not a home theatre one and I really don't see the point in trying to recreate it on your sofa on your own. (I could be wrong.)
(It's worth noting that while Tarantino admitted Kill Bill was separated into two films under pressure from the Weinsteins, he discussed how he refused to buckle under the same pressure for Grindhouse. He also said that the reason the merged cut of Kill Bill has been so long coming was because he actually felt rather happy about it being two films. Whatever resistance he might have originally had to the idea of splitting The Bride's escapades into two parts were clearly long gone, and he happily shrugged and said that he felt that it had worked great as two films and was actually very glad he'd done it. He also made it clear that if he hadn't been able to release his version of Death Proof that he would have been very upset indeed.)
Leading on from this, he also went on to explain why the Grindhouse fake trailers (shot by people like Eli Roth and Rob Zombie and originally shown between Planet Terror and Death Proof as 'upcoming attractions') were not being included with the separate releases of the films.
Quite simply, as I've already said, the directors are very happy with Grindhouse and they don't want to see it die. Tarantino explained that one way to definitely kill it (and to disrespect it, really) would be to sell off its parts wholesale. If the trailers had been split and included with the separate releases of Death Proof and Planet Terror then it would have been one less reason to watch Grindhouse, and therefore one less reason for it to exist.
Tarantino told a funny story about when they received a polite letter from the distributors asking them to include the trailers in the international cinema showings of Death Proof and Planet Terror. It went something like this:
"We'd really like to to include the Grindhouse trailers for our audiences. We fully understand and support the 'grindhouse' aesthetic of these films and we believe that putting two trailers on each of the films would enhance this 'grindhouse' feeling for the audience. Also, we know that a lot of people want to see the trailers, so we feel it would be giving the audience what they want..." etc., etc.
Apparently before Tarantino could even think about replying, he turned the page to read Rodriguez's reply:
"If you're so keen to give the audience the 'grindhouse' experience, and understand and fully support the 'grindhouse' aesthetic, and you want to give the audience what they want... THEN FUCKING RELEASE GRINDHOUSE!"
So apparently Death Proof is Death Proof. Grindhouse is Grindhouse. And you probably shouldn't listen to the people who try to convince you otherwise.
Why They Didn't Just Stop the Car
Moving on from all this controversy (but which unfortunately seems to be dominating online discussion about the film - there must be a term somewhere for this ignorance generated, internet hyped, mass confusion that's become all too common to surf across), into something else entirely. There was inevitably and unfortunately at least one idiot in the audience who felt it was their right to argue with Tarantino. It's something about London, I swear. I've had most of my experiences with these people in Greenwich (no idea why, I'm sure there's lots of lovely people there) and they look like nice normal, ordinary people, except when they talk, it's clear that their brains have been re-wired so that they're incapable of being anything other than totally obnoxious.
Excuse me while I try to explain the type of person I'm referring to: In one such experience I remember standing at a bar, when the person next to me started to aggressively tell a taken-aback bartender that the film he's just seen was actually 'very good'.
It doesn't matter that this person was in the bar a few hours earlier and, unsure of what to go and watch, had asked the bartender his opinion was of a film. This bartender, making friendly banter, had said the film in question wasn't as good as the book, but that it was still quite good. Apparently this bartender had been horrifically misinformed and, although this other person hadn't actually read the original book, he'd decided to come back into the peaceful bar to threateningly tell the bartender what an idiot he was. It wasn't 'quite' good, he said through gritted teeth with finger pointed, it was 'very' good, and he should get his facts straight.
I apologise on behalf of the nicer side of London for these idiots. I also apologise to you for digressing so much, but hopefully it might give you an idea of what this person was like, which I'd have probably been unable to convey otherwise.
So, this person asked the following question: "Why do you set your films up to get the audience worked up, make it tense, believable and engaging, and then suddenly ruin it?".
Confusion and shock to this obviously aggressive question. The interviewer tries to move on quickly but Tarantino, quite surprisingly, calmly says, "No, no, I want to understand his question", and turning to the guy, "What do you mean?".
Now we get to the actual point of his statement, which is really what this guy should have asked, in a nicer tone, from the beginning: "Why didn't they just stop the car while Zoe was on the hood?".
Now, to be fair, this is a question that had drifted through my mind and had taken me out of the moment during the film's climax on at least one viewing, but it was asked in such a rude and inappropriate way that I, and others in the audience, couldn't help but squirm.
Thankfully, and surprisingly to me, Tarantino took it all in his stride and kept his cool. "One or two few people have asked me that", he replied, "but really, apart from two seconds, when they're in the ditch, they don't have time". The likeable Zoe Bell jumped in at this point and explained more fully. As being the person who was actually on the hood of the car, she pointed out, she was really in a unique position to explain what the character's options actually were.
She explained that it had taken literally half a mile of extremely gradual slowing down after each filmed take in order to stop her from flying off the hood of the car. Any slight increase over this, even if it was only a second, and she would literally feel as though she was about to be thrown off. There was no way that they could have slowed down without her being tossed in front of a moving vehicle.
Tarantino piped back in to ask the guy, jokingly and with bonhomie, if he had been chased by a homicidal maniac while Zoe was on the hood of his car, and really, until anyone had been in that situation, they couldn't honestly say how they'd react under the stress.
Zoe added that, if you think about it, when you're being chased by someone who's trying to kill you, that slowing down isn't really going to throw them off, especially when the homicidal maniac is right there. He's still going to try and kill you by any means necessary!
Both Zoe and Tarantino agreed that the character's aim was to get far enough ahead of Stuntman Mike for them then to slow down and get Zoe off the hood.
Although I was upset by the rudeness of the audience member, I was actually very glad the question was asked. The answer, once explained, does make a lot of sense, and it will certainly increase my enjoyment of future viewings. I suppose it might have been nice if Tracie Thoms had had a line that reminded the audience that Zoe didn't have anything to restrain her, or maybe those two seconds in the ditch trimmed from the movie, but at least now I know!
This is, inevitably, where the idiot pipes up again: "But they could have just stopped", he yells, sans microphone. Groans across the cinema.
Moving on, someone else asked Tarantino to name any films he'd be embarrassed to admit he'd not seen. Perhaps he was too embarrassed to list any specifically but he went on to talk about Fellini and European directors that he'd had difficulty enjoying. He made rather a interesting observation that he felt it was a mistake to go straight for films that are considered "classics" or the auteur's best.
He said that to really appreciate such films you have to have watched the director's earlier ones to fully understand what they were trying to capture. If you actually followed their career it would put their films into a context that most modern viewers miss (going straight for the "classics" listed on best movie lists, as they often do). He said he'd felt that he'd made a mistake doing this himself and had missed out on enjoying them fully, or perhaps even understanding why they were so revered.
I found this quite an interesting idea, as my girlfriend and I have been working out way through the IMDb's top 250 films list, with an eye on concentrating on the more obscure, older or foreign titles, and now I'm wondering if we're going about it all the wrong way.
There's still a few things that Tarantino talked about that I've not mentioned, so I'll probably put these in a Part Three at some point. Things I've not mentioned are Tarantino's favourite characters (out of the ones he's created), the reason why he has mixed feelings about Jackie Brown, what he thinks of Rob Zombie's new Halloween and other minor things. If you've got any questions, I'll try and answer them for you in the meantime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)