waking up
I just saw the movie WAKING LIFE for the first time the other day. (I usually put on a movie or book on tape while I work). I know this flick came out a few years ago, and unless it gets glowing reviews from people I trust, if I don’t watch a “new” movie roughly around when it was released, chances are I won’t, until it becomes and “old movie”. I’m sure that makes sense to some people out there.
My reasoning behind avoiding WAKING LIFE all these years is that I’m not a fan of rotoscoped animation, in film. And that’s putting it politely. The same way I’m not a fan of any art that’s traced. It’s an odd way of thinking, that I think stems from back in my younger years, when I was first learning to draw. I would never trace, because to me, that wasn’t drawing. I would always freehand, even if I was copying something. I had friends who would trace directly from a comic or picture, and say they draw better than me. So that soured me on the whole tracing thing, and since I loved cartoons, the loathing of tracing projected itself onto rotoscoped cartoons.
I’m conflicted on the whole issue though, as I love photography, photo-referenced and manipulated art, as long as the artist puts enough of his or her personal fingerprint on the art. I’m also respect artists who can depict reality perfectly on a canvas, or what have you. But for some reason, tracing still pisses me off. I suppose if someone was to trace images directly off a photo or something, and arrange the traced images in a collage, I would be cool with that… but whatever.
Back to WAKING LIFE. I feel sort of bad in a way, for waiting so long to watch this movie, just because I didn’t want to see the animation that was essentially copied from the film they shot, mainly because they did add some flair and interpreted the movie in some interesting ways. But aside from the animation, which on the hole I felt was a little distracting from the narrative itself, I loved the story. Yes, it’s for the most part pretentious philosophical-babble, and the dialogue is determined to make the average audience member feel terribly uneducated. I realize this may have been the point of the movie, but I found the storytelling too fragmented. I think the story that was being told was fantastic, and it was told in a compelling way, but I know a number of people who would just come out the movie confused.
OF course, as a creator of stories, I don’t think anyone should ever change their art, or dumb down their story for the sake of the mass media audience. I know I would never do that. I also feel WAKING LIFE was a success at what I perceive to be its intentions. But for the purposes of this review, I think some sort of abridged/mellowed-out version of the movie would have made a good film more accessible to a wider audience.
ADC
Leave comments at:
www.mydestroyer.com
All text (c) 2006 Arthur Dela Cruz
www.kissingchaos.com
My reasoning behind avoiding WAKING LIFE all these years is that I’m not a fan of rotoscoped animation, in film. And that’s putting it politely. The same way I’m not a fan of any art that’s traced. It’s an odd way of thinking, that I think stems from back in my younger years, when I was first learning to draw. I would never trace, because to me, that wasn’t drawing. I would always freehand, even if I was copying something. I had friends who would trace directly from a comic or picture, and say they draw better than me. So that soured me on the whole tracing thing, and since I loved cartoons, the loathing of tracing projected itself onto rotoscoped cartoons.
I’m conflicted on the whole issue though, as I love photography, photo-referenced and manipulated art, as long as the artist puts enough of his or her personal fingerprint on the art. I’m also respect artists who can depict reality perfectly on a canvas, or what have you. But for some reason, tracing still pisses me off. I suppose if someone was to trace images directly off a photo or something, and arrange the traced images in a collage, I would be cool with that… but whatever.
Back to WAKING LIFE. I feel sort of bad in a way, for waiting so long to watch this movie, just because I didn’t want to see the animation that was essentially copied from the film they shot, mainly because they did add some flair and interpreted the movie in some interesting ways. But aside from the animation, which on the hole I felt was a little distracting from the narrative itself, I loved the story. Yes, it’s for the most part pretentious philosophical-babble, and the dialogue is determined to make the average audience member feel terribly uneducated. I realize this may have been the point of the movie, but I found the storytelling too fragmented. I think the story that was being told was fantastic, and it was told in a compelling way, but I know a number of people who would just come out the movie confused.
OF course, as a creator of stories, I don’t think anyone should ever change their art, or dumb down their story for the sake of the mass media audience. I know I would never do that. I also feel WAKING LIFE was a success at what I perceive to be its intentions. But for the purposes of this review, I think some sort of abridged/mellowed-out version of the movie would have made a good film more accessible to a wider audience.
ADC
Leave comments at:
www.mydestroyer.com
All text (c) 2006 Arthur Dela Cruz
www.kissingchaos.com
posted by ADC at 6:55 AM
<< Home