Eye and Brain Candy* # 1

(*in reference to previous post 1/11/2007)

There are action flicks and there are action flicks.

There are graphic novels and there are Frank Miller's.



I know little of the guy's work and quite frankly (pun unintended), I don't think I'd go as far as being a die-hard fan. But when this guy's works (Sin City, for one)get translated to the big screen, I can only drop my jaw in awe of the visual spectacle that lies before me.

For a good 90 minutes or so, you are beholden to images that are both gory and glorious, macabre and majestic, bloody but beautiful. (My apologies if I got too carried away with alliterations.)

Some would say that it's a purely machismo flick and that the absence of a real plot speaks of the purely commercial intentions of the film's makers. I say, "Screw plots and intentions. The action and visuals rock and that's good enough for me!" and this comes from a person who's idea of a Friday night is to curl up at home and watch "When Harry Met Sally" for the nth time. (go figure...)

So apart from the decapitations and the disembowelment, why do I think this film rocks? Let me see if I can count the ways:

Reason # 1. Visuals

Reason # 2. Visuals

Reason # 3. Visuals

I think it's uber cool for them to use heavy treatment on the footage particularly in adapating strong palattes as themes to the scenes: gold, crimson and azure (that's yellow, red and blue for the chromatically-challenged). Of course it's nowhere near Jiang Yimou's "Hero" but who's complaining? Certainly not me.

In general, slow motion is a tired technique for action flicks. There is no action film in the entire history of motion pictures where there isn't at least one slow motion scene. 300 is no exception. I've been telling my friends that if you take all the slow motion scenes in 300 and ran them at normal speed, the movie's total running time would probably be shortened by about 40 percent.

But despite the several slow-mo scenes, it didn't feel tired and contrived at all. And here's my theory as to why: Graphic novels (comics - to the uninitiated) work on the basis of putting one still image after the other. The movie adaptation of 300 perhaps tried to be as true to its origination by preserving an image for as still as it can, thus the slow-mo scenes.

I suppose HD cinematography made this treatment not only possible, but economical as well. I can only imagine just how much film stock would be needed just so you could keep the same image resolution and maintain the rate of the slow motion. My guess is, they'd have to shoot those slow-mo scenes at (at least!) 168-190 fps (frames per second) whereas the normal motion rate for film is 24fps. That's a lotta film.... (miles and miles of it....)

Reason # 4. The soundtrack rocks - literally.
Call it overkill, indulgent, whatever you want. But another reason why I think this film rocks is because of its soundtrack. After all, what better way to say KICK ASS than having heavy metal incorporated into the film's music score? I thus tip my hat off to Tyler Bates (of Dawn of the Dead fame).

Reason # 5. "There's a reason why it's called classical."
The movie and the comic that it was based on draw their roots to classic literature. Strictly speaking, classical refers to anything related to the ancient Greeks and Romans (especially their art, architecture, and literature). Another definition of classical is of having lasting significance or worth. Case in point is the simple yet classic example of freedom's defiance against tyranny.

Yes, it may sound trite to some. But deep down, that story is an archetype built into every human being. And works that reflect and echo such themes (whether written by Homer or Frank Miller) will always touch people at some level.

So there you go... this is as far as I go short of gushing about it. In summary, all I can say is that my brain's sacharine and junk-food cravings have been satiated.

At least for now....