A Natural Storyteller.

Preamble: Much as I hate going through these sorts of exercises, they are sometimes necessary, particularly when a thread has gotten large. People forget what they're responding to; what the topic really is at the time they're responding, leaps of logic, etc. One thing's certain about these summaries: they're always helpful. <- Yes, that's a boast.
1. I posted some quotes from Roger Ebert's review (and blog) that I thought captured my own feelings about The Raid, including a brash comparison to the joke movie Ass featured in Mike Judge's hilarious flick Idiocracy.

2. I get dressed down by Sarzy for said comparison. Sarzy also claims Ebert said there was no craft or artistry to The Raid (which he never actually said, but never mind) and that The Raid is a martial arts milestone.

3. ChaosEngine makes an amusing ad populum argument and later makes a strong case for the merit of terse storytelling and inference of story elements.

4. I ask Sarzy why The Raid is a milestone.

5. Sarzy responds with many heartfelt testimonials by sympathetic reviewers, personal opinions, and lauds its choreography and direction.

6. I excise all the subjective-slanted testimony and focus on what is demonstrably true about The Raid: it was choreographed and directed with great care. I point out that without context (story), conflict is without meaning.

7. ChaosEngine gives it one last try with another amusing post about inference of story elements on the part of the viewer and indirectly calls me a prick. Classy!

8. I respond to ChaosEngine by inferring a wonderful storyline to Ass, instantly making it one of the best joke movies I'd ever watched.

9. Sarzy points out that plenty of other genres of film are short on story. The best examples are the "meditative" styles featured in art houses and the like.

10. I respond to Sarzy's excellent point by citing other possible gains (transcendence) by watching these "meditative" style pictures, gains that are not possible (in my opinion) with martial arts pictures. I remind him that I am responding to his point with, and I quote, "...I am merely responding to your point about the role of story."

11. Despite my reminder, Sarzy erroneously concludes that every film I see must transcend me to another plane even though all I was doing was attempting to shoot a hole in Sarzy's point about other films that are loose on story.

And that pretty much brings us up to date.

But do you see how helpful these summaries can be? They're my little innovation. You internet kids and your short attention spans made its creation a necessity.

Yes, films can work for many different reasons. The number of reasons they can fail make the scales balance out nicely.

In case you haven't pinned it down yet, martial arts is not a favorite genre of mine. It's down there with animation and musicals. Despite this, I have seen films from each of these genres and enjoyed some of them.

I've never heard of the directors you mentioned but I can appreciate a meditative style. I didn't dislike Gus Van Sant's Gerry from years back, although I can't say I enjoyed it exactly. That was shot in the style you mentioned, I believe. So yes, I'm with you.

But if you expect me to meditate during the Raid, then I'm going to need more hard drugs. <- relax, this was a joke, I understand what you're saying about the role of story in the two kinds of films.
Jokes aside, however, I would respond to that point with this: which type of limited-story film allows for real-time reflection? The wall-to-wall actioner? Or an Andrey Tarkovskiy flick? Those slow-paced films can be downright transcendental if you're in the right frame of mind. I honestly can't ever see myself transcending anything while watching a martial arts flick. The story may be just as threadbare in each type of film but to my way of thinking, the meditative style brings more to the table by not only asking more of the audience but creating a setting where you can think about what you're watching while you watch. The Raid didn't involve me in that way. It didn't ask a thing of me. It just said, "here I am, no apologies, enjoy." Again, I am merely responding to your point about the role of story.

As far as my judgement of directors go, I wasn't really going there in my comments about The Raid. I was taking about the film only. If Bela Tarr or Apichatpong Weerasethakul (gesundheit!) made this film or that film, I'll only be able to say if the film was successful after I've watched it. If a director makes a film and it says what (s)he wants it to say and people see it and have a reaction...then that director is successful.

Despite what you may think, I do not have a checklist of things all good films must have before I declare them a success. Film is far too complex to attempt to codify all the things that make it good or bad.

>> ^Sarzy:

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.
Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.
Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.
I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.
I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)
>> ^shuac:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.

Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.

Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.

I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.

I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^shuac:
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
I was pointing out that the film has received plenty of critical acclaim. Ebert is welcome to his (increasingly irrelevant) opinion, but my opinion is that he's wrong and I stand by it. I'm not alone either.
My point about Hemingways story wasn't about terseness, it was about inference. There are aspects to The Raids storyline that aren't written down in the script. And even then it wasn't a direct rebuttal to anything Ebert (or you) said, merely a point about how I felt the movie was made. But go ahead and assume everything is related to you.
You don't have to like the Raid, and you're welcome to go watch some tedious pseudo-intellectual bullshit for a few hours if it strokes your ego, but comparing it to "Ass" in Idiocracy is, as @Sarzy pointed out (and somewhat ironically) idiocy.
Sorry for sounding like a condescending prick, but you work to your audience. At least I can actually form my own opinion rather than regurgitate someone else's.


Not directed at me? So you'd have posted what you did even if I never made that first post, is that right? Very good then. So long as we're free to infer what we like to any film bereft of story, I'd like to infer a compelling yarn into the multiple award-winning (and fictional) film called Ass.

In Ass, our protagonist is a subject in a medical trial testing an anti-flagellant. It's a closed study so all the test subjects are sequestered. Despite this, our hero smuggles in some chilli for supper the night before. The twist? He's in the placebo group.

Now wasn't Ass a great film? I see your point now. Well-done again!

Most impressive about this post is that I did it on an iPhone.

Enjoy your day!

>> ^shuac:

To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.

I was pointing out that the film has received plenty of critical acclaim. Ebert is welcome to his (increasingly irrelevant) opinion, but my opinion is that he's wrong and I stand by it. I'm not alone either.

My point about Hemingways story wasn't about terseness, it was about inference. There are aspects to The Raids storyline that aren't written down in the script. And even then it wasn't a direct rebuttal to anything Ebert (or you) said, merely a point about how I felt the movie was made. But go ahead and assume everything is related to you.

You don't have to like the Raid, and you're welcome to go watch some tedious pseudo-intellectual bullshit for a few hours if it strokes your ego, but comparing it to "Ass" in Idiocracy is, as @Sarzy pointed out (and somewhat ironically) idiocy.

Sorry for sounding like a condescending prick, but you work to your audience. At least I can actually form my own opinion rather than regurgitate someone else's.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.


(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.

Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.

Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.

Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.

Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.

To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.

Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

Great story and great storyteller.

sharing is caring. We've lost the storyteller, the verbal history, the family time. The least we can do is pirate all your stuff.

@ghark
It's that kind of attention to detail and storytelling that makes good games great.

I second @rottenseed's review.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

If anyone can pull off a good American remake, it's Fincher.


I saw it and although the movie did a LOT of things right. The fundamental thing it got wrong for me was the main reason why I like the books and the swedish movies. The relationship between Lisbeth and Mikael wasn't treated in the way it should've been, like it was the most important thing. They just worked together and then the sex. There wasn't any "storytelling" to do with the fact that this antisocial girl was letting her guard down and letting Mikael in...it just didn't work and I eventually walked out of the movie something I never ever do.

I really REALLY wanted to like it, and I enjoyed parts of it. But the soul of the story the two main characters anchoring the entire thing felt just wrong to me.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^ponceleon:
OMG Yes... I definitely hear where Dystopian is coming from, but frankly I loved the way that Jackson and crew improved upon the original books for the LOTR. Feel free to flame me, but I actually enjoyed the movies MORE than the books on a lot of levels. There are exchanges in the book that just aren't as natural or tight as they are in the movie and I know this is likely heresy, but I feel like there are some which were even improved. The perfect example is the exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf towards the beginning of the FOTR, particularly after the party when they are discussing Bilbo's departure and the leaving of the ring behind...

If you're going to be flamed, then let me get my asbestos jacket, 'cos I agree with you. LOTR is an undisputed classic, but it wasn't without it's problems. Tolkiens pacing was terrible and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story. The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.
Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured.

I'll go even farther...Tolkien was a top-notch world-builder, but he was a crappy storyteller. His stories were dry, boring, and flat-out hard to read (e.g. three names for every individual, all sounding so similar as to be virtually impossible to differentiate). Now, the world was so amazing that it took me nearly two decades of annual re-readings to come to this conclusion. But in the end, I see no other way to describe his work.

Jackson and Co. did a remarkable job of making it better while keeping the world mostly intact.

I'd say that's more an indictment of the schooling he's received than a statement of his abilities as a composer. (Symphony No. 5, to me at least, is more or less indistinguishable from some of the symphonies written by the "great" composers of the last century or so.)

Sadly, the classically harmonious qualities (including the "progression," the "building of emotion," the storytelling) that many of us appreciate in, say, Mozart or Beethoven or Chopin are no longer in vogue (and haven't been for quite some time). Contemporary composition—and the same could be said of most contemporary painting, sculpture, writing, et cetera—aims more for fragmentation, disruption, and discord. The audience isn't meant to feel harmony; we're meant to be dislodged.

This could become a pretty serious rant, I guess, but I'll hold back. I will say, though, that the brief clips of his early compositions (5:52–6:12) sounded quite pleasing to me, if a little imitative. And the part where he inverted the Beethoven sonata was pretty darn cool. (It reminded me, in a roundabout way, of the scene in Amadeus where Mozart plays the piano while lying upside down.)
>> ^TheFreak:
Try listening to Jay Greenbergs Symphony no 5. It's horrible.
It's an unorganized cacophany. One moment it sounds every bit like an action movie score then immediately it swings the other way and you'd think you were listening to the music from a 30's cartoon. There's no rhyme or reason behind any of the sounds you hear, no progression, no building of emotion, no story being told, no subtlety or purpose...just great big sloppy swipes of an oversized lyrical paintbrush.

Thanks for the promote! (NetRunner has been playing it since Tuesday, and he really likes it too!

In reply to this comment by Hybrid:
This game is a triumph in gameplay and storytelling. Superbly executed, so much fun, and most of all... I'M BATMAN.

Game of the Year contender. Easily.

*promote

This game is a triumph in gameplay and storytelling. Superbly executed, so much fun, and most of all... I'M BATMAN.

Game of the Year contender. Easily.

*promote