ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

David Byrne iznosi konzervativan ali zanimljiv pogled na stanje u muzičkoj industriji. http://gu.com/p/3jdag/tw

Okolnosti nastanka filma ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW Randy Moorea su mu zasluženo donele zapaženo mesto na indie sceni iako se ovaj film zapravo nalazi negde na pola puta između indie scene i undergrounda. Moore je naime tajno snimao ovaj film u Diznilendu, pretvarajući se sa svojom ekipom da je turista, i krajnji rezultat je izuzetno intrigantan. Naime, ishod je crno-beli film u kome se Moore povremeno lati green screena, ali bez sumnje puno je kadrova koji su zbilja snimljeni na lokaciji i deluju izuzetno bogato i vibrantno. Odluka da film bude crno-beli je mudra na više nivoa. Prvo, omogućuje Mooreu da se osloni na poetiku starih filmova, kako nekih nostalgičnih porodičnih ostvarenja tako i ekspresionizma na koji se mnogo oslanja.

Mooreov oslonac na ekspresionizam nije isključivo, pa čak ni dominantno vezan za filmski krak ovog pravce već više za pozorišni. Priča o čoveku koji silazi sa uma tokom porodične posete Diznilenda zbog gubitka posla i nekih drugih faktora traži puno oslonaca u dramama pisaca kao što su Bihner ili Strindberg (u pojedinim aspektima).

Štaviše, Moore kao reditelj ponikao u američkoj tradiciji želi oneobičenu priču, ima fokus na naraciju, pa otud čini mi se jači uticaj pozorišnog odnosno dramskog ekspresionizma nego filmskog. Mada, treba imati na umu da je ekspresionistički pozorišni tekst zapravo i bio mnogo više eksploatisan u Novom nemačkom filmu nego u nemačkom filmskom ekspresionizmu per se.

Mooreov rediteljski postupak je bez ikakve sumnje muzejski, ali nema nikakve veze sa evropskim filmom i više se nadovezuje na Soderbergha i njegove štićenike, filmove poput SUTURE.

Činjenica da je ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW smešten u Diznilend, a naročito sam čin tajnog snimanja u tom zabavnom parku automatski kvalifikuje ovo delo kao antikorporativnu satiru. U pojedinim deonicama Moore ne uspeva da odoli poigravanjem sa Disneyevim imaginarijumom. Ipak, iako ovaj film izrazitu kritičku crtu ne bih rekao da napada Disney ili Siemens per se već samo da se oslanja na njihovu ikonografsku potenciju.

Sam neobičan nastanak filma ne može da se izdvoji od ukupnog utiska i sigurno mu dodaje na ekskluzivnosti. Ipak, čini mi se da ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW ne bi bio nezapažen i bez kontroverzi sa Disneyem.

* * * / * * * *

Pogledao sam RUSH Rona Howarda po scenariju Petera Morgana, sportski film o dvobojima Jamesa Hunta i Nikija Laude koju Howard pretvara u visokooktanski takmičarski naboj a scenarista Peter Morgan u svojevrsnu meditaciju o prirodi sporta i epohi kada je Formula 1 još uvek bila prostor za avanturiste i dendije ali su ozbiljni takmičari polako počeli da zauzimaju svoje mesto. Lauda i Hunt su predstavnici dve ere - Lauda je racionalan i kompetitivan na duže staze a Hunt je iracionalan i željan dokazivanja. Naravno, u istoriji Formule 1 rezultat je da rivalstvo sa Huntom ostaje više kao fusnota u Laudinoj eri.

Međutim, Hunt je jedan od onih vozača koji je izgradio imidž Formule 1 kao prostora za mačo tipove i u trenutku kada se Lauda pojavio, on je bio tipičniji predstavnik sporta. U nekih četrdeset godina paradigma se potpuno preokrenula. Međutim, tu podvojenost prikazuje i sam film, RUSH je naizmenično film o junaku koji je ličnim zalaganjem i spremnošću na ludačke rizike postigao uspeh i film o čoveku koji je racionalnim, bezbednim pristupom reformisao sport i postigao vrhunske rezultate. Ova podvojenost u kojoj nema pravog pozitivca i negativca uspeva da profunkcioniše i ne smeta filmu. Gledaoci će navijati za obojicu.

Kada bi morali da se opredeljujemo, veliko je pitanje o kom bi vozaču trebalo snimiti pojedinačni film u kom bi se tretirao kao heroj. Hunt je svojom vatrenošću bez ikakve sumnje dao smisao suštinski dosadnom sportu u kome se voze desetine bolida u krug. Lauda je s druge strane izbacio neustrašivost iz jednačine i zamenio ih tehničkim znanjem i disciplinom. Zapravo, reklo bi se da se na izboru između Hunta i Laude "poznaje autor".

Howard je kao oslonac holivudskog mejnstrima izabrao obojicu za junake i to na neki način zvuči kao vic u kome se definiše njegova "neopredeljena" poetika. Međutim, Howard je reditelj koga nikada ne treba potceniti jer on u svom opusu ima filmove kao što su APOLLO 13 i RANSOM, vrhunske i vrlo provokativne predstavnike svog žanra.

RUSH je definitivno na toj liniji. Iz RANSOMA nastavlja temu istraživanju mačo narcizma, rekonstruiše epohu kroz prizmu profesija za hrabre muškarce kao u APOLLO 13 i sve to bazira na scenariju Petera Morgana sa kojim je već radio FROST/NIXON.

Morganova sklonost da u nekom trenutku potpuno obuzme junake i pretvori ih u svoje glasnogovornike je manje-više zauzdana mada ima u kritičnom trenutku jednu scenu u kojoj lobuje. Ipak, moglo je biti još problematičnije. RUSH je definitivno jedan od onih filmova u kojima je Morgan više prednost nego slabost.

U istorijskom pogledu, Morgan nije baš najprecizniji i prenebregava neke bitne elemente u odnosu Hunta i Laude koji su postojali mimo činjenice o rivalstvu. Ipak, ako imamo u vidu Morganov kontakt sa Laudom, pretpostavljam da je iza tih odstupanja stajala ideja da se podvuče tema njihovog dvoboja koja bi dobila drugačije konotacije da su sve činjenice uzete u obzir.

Sama istorijska rekonstrukcija u tehničkom i vizuelnom pogledu je izvanredna. Anthony Dod Mantle je napravio jednu od tehnički najzahtevnijih fotografija u svojoj inače izuzetno uzbudljivoj karijeri punoj izazova, pionirskih koraka u pogledu digitalnog snimanja itd. Howard je izvanredno spojio savremeni senzibilitet sa koloritom, dizajnom i vizuelnim prezentacijama epohe tako da RUSH istovremeno izgleda kao rekonstrukcija sedamdesetih ali i kao film iz tih vremena.

Sa ovim filmom Chris Hemsworth počinje da ozbiljno dovodi u pitanje da li je Hugh Jackman, uprkos velikoj prednosti, zaista izborio mesto naslednika Mela Gibsona među australijskim iseljenicima u Holivudu. Posle klimavog debija sa Thorom u ovom filmu Hemsworth pokazuje potpuno drugačije leading man lice, samouveren je i harizmatičan. Otud ne čudi da ga je Howard uzeo pod svoje i za sledeće filmove.

Daniel Bruhl s druge strane Laudu igra kao svojevrsnog Cyrana Formule 1 ali uprkos većem akcentu na "karakter" ne deluje kao da je u razlitičim filmovima u odnosu na Hemsworthov personality acting. U svakom slučaju, RUSH je odličan showcase i za dve zvezde.

Ako imamo na umu sve ovo, zanimljivo je da RUSH zapravo spada u domen internacionalnih koprodukcija, jeftinih po holivudskim standardima, uprkos tome što ga režira ugledan holivudski reditelj, sa zvezdama i vrlo komunikativnom pričom. U neka druga vremena, RUSH bi bio tretiran kao vrhunski mejnstrim i adut studija na blagajnama, a danas je to film koji će dobro proći ali je produkciono tako koncpirian da bi se i poraz na blagajnama mogao podneti. Očigledno je RUSH, koliko god da je harizme zarobljeno u junacima i na ekranu, koliko god se bavio automobilima, trkama i ostalim uzbuđenjima, ipak previše posvećen likovima da bi u savremenoj klimi dobio punu podršku studija. Srećom, postoje Working Title i slične kuće na margini globalnog filmskog biznisa koje takve stvari ipak zanimaju.

* * * 1/2 / * * * *

Čarobna knjiga prodaje 45 naslova za 100 dinara. Među njima Karerovog LIMONOVA i Balardov SUDAR.

http://www.carobnaknjiga.rs/u-susret-sajmu-knjiga-45-naslova-po-100-dinara

Stari iz svog ugla sagledava slučaj knjige INSAJDER, MOJA PRIČA Brankice Stanković.

http://starikadar.blogspot.com/2013/10/insajder.html

Pogledao sam PARKLAND Petera Landesmana, ekraniozaciju dokumentarne knjige o "sporednim" događajima u vezi sa atentatom na Kennedyja. Landesman se ne bavi nikakvim suštinskim pitanjima u vezi sa zaverom koja stoji iza ubistva već se fokusira na seriju zanimljivih "malih" događaja kao što su reakcija lekara u bolnici, doživljaji Abrahama Zaprudera, čoveka koji je snimio najznačajniji dokumentarni materijal atentata, priču agenata FBI kojima je Lee Harvey Oswald bio zabeležen kao neko ko preti a da nisu reagovali što je na kraju dovelo do velikih neprijatnosti i konačno najbliža pšorodica, brat i majka navodnog atentatora.

Landesman prikazuje ove događaje hronološki što daje filmu labavu dramaturšku strukturu i stvara utisak kao da se događaji gomilaju umesto da se priča razvija. Međutim, unutar svega toga postoji razvoj iako je PARKLAND uprkos brojnim dinamičnim situacijama koje prikazuje iznad svega ipak film stanja.

Ova produkcija Toma Hanksa je prvobitno bila planirana kao deo serijala za HBO, ali je umesto toga pružena prilika scenaristi Landesmanu da se oproba kao reditelj u formi bioskopskog filma.

Landesman se prilično dobro snašao i to ne samo u domenima gde se scenaristi kao reditelji tradicionalno dobro snalaze već upravo u pogledu vrlo vibrantnog vizuelnog prikaza i ubedljive atmosfere, sasvim sigurno ostvarene na skromnom budžetu. Međutim, budžet ne sprečava PARKLAND da ubedljivo oživi epohu.

Nisam siguran koliko PARKLAND može da iskorači van miljea onih koje zanima slučaj JFK, ali u svakom slučaju čak i onima koje ne zanima nudi zanimljiv pogled na ove prelomne događaje, pričajući deo "velike priče" kroz niz malih.

* * * / * * * *

Pogledao sam GREEN STREET 3: NEVER BACK DOWN Jamesa Nunna sa Scott Adkinsom u glavnoj ulozi. Ovaj film bi predstavljao odlično proširenje područja borbe za Adkinsa, u jednom stathamovskom ključu, da nije toliko loš. Statham naime i dalje najviše para pravi radeći filmovi u onim formama koje mu najviše odgovaraju a to su borilački i akcioni filmovi. Međutim, trudi se da iskorači iz toga i u nekakve krimi-drame.

Scott Adkins je akcioni heroj stare škole koji je samo u slučajevima prestižnih Avi Lernerovih recvija kao što je EXPENDABLES ili iznenađujućih epizoda kao što je ZERO DARK THIRTY uspevao uopšte da iskorači u bioskope. On pripada staroj školi po tome što spada u one akcione zvezde koje su ušle u žanr zahvaljujući fizičkoj predispoziciji i borilačkom backgroundu a to je vrsta koja izumire u bioskopskom formatu, naročito posle THE MATRIX kada su efekti dovoljno uzanpredogvali da svako može biti kung fu zvezda.

Od momenta kada je Keanu Reeves u MATRIXu rekao "I know kung fu", pravi borci su proterani na video. Adkins pripada generaciji koja nije ni imala priliku da overi bioskop.

Međutim, GREEN STREET 3 jeste nastavak bioskopskog filma GREEN STREET HOOLIGANS koji je svojevremeno preko Elijah Wooda pretendovao čak i na nekakav crossover preko okeana.

U svakom slučaju, ovde imamo dosta neprirodan spoj Adkinsa sa "boračkim stažom" i krimi-melodrame o navijačima koja usled njegovog angažmana degeneriše u seriju oktagonskih i poluoktagonskih borbi među predstavnicima klubova, svojevrsnih gladijatorskih obračuna, nažalst loše snimljenih i datih u formi montažne sekvence.

Navijačka melodrama koja sve uokviruje je šuplja a Adkins nije sramotan ali nije ni preterano dobar kao njen protagonista. Nunn slično filmu TOWER BLOCK koji je radio sa isom autorskom ekipom donosi površnu uglačanost u slici ali ukupni utisak je na fundamentalnim nivoima slabiji od DTV radova.

Adkinsov pokušaj da iskorači van onoga za šta je specijalizovan zaslužuje podršku, ali ovo definitivno nije pravi put i autori nižerazrednih britanskih žanrovskih filmova nisu ljudi koji mogu da mu pomognu.

Pogledao sam MOeBIUS Erica Rochanta, novi špijunski film koji je za Bessonov EuropaCorp snimio Jean Dujardin posle osvajanja oskara za ARTIST. Našoj publici ovaj film može biti zanimljiv po tome što epizodnu ulogu igra Branka Katić. Dujardin igra agenta FSB koji vešto vodi slučaj protiv ruskog Oligarha u Monaku, upliće se u ljubavnu vezu sa jednom od njegovih saradnica, kradom od svojih kolega i dovodi celu akciju u opasnost.

Eric Rochant se tokom devedesetih istakao sa izvanrednim špijunskim filmom LES PATRIOTES pa su očekivanja ovog filma bila jako velika. Nažlost, ovaj film je slabiji od prosečnih produkcija EuropaCorpa i sasvim sigurno nije projekat koji je Dujardin trebalo da snima po osvajanju "oskara". S druge strane, Rochant je veliko ime u ovom žanru tako da glumčeva ideja da igra u ovakvom filmu imadosta rezona.

Partnerka u filmu mu je Cecile De France koja uprkos koketiranju sa Holivudom, čak i nekim skupim produkcijama kao što je Eastwoodov HEREAFTER ostaje verna francuskom žanrovskom filmu koji ju je i lansirao.

Rochantov scenario je istovremeno neuverljiv, jednostavan i konfuzan a rediteljska egzekucija je bliža televiziji nego ambicioznom repertoarskom filmu. U svakom slučaju, ovo je dosta neočekivan ishod jednog projekta koji je sigurno nastajao sa velikim ambicijama.

Branka Katić ima epizodnu ulogu koja nije naročito upečatljiva.

* 1/2 / * * * *

I've already written a review of GRAVITY as a film in its own right.  In short, I loved it, and I think it will go down as a landmark film in cinema history.  But as promised in that review, now I want to go deeper into what GRAVITY got right and wrong about the reality of the space program.  While my initial review was spoiler-free, be warned -- this one is not and you should see the film before reading it

Regular readers of the site know that I'm not just a movie geek, I'm also an astrophysicist.  And from time to time I write articles about the science behind certain movies.  The purpose isn't to nitpick, but to broaden our whole geeking out experience, and to use the movie to talk about science.  My general principle is that it doesn't bother me when filmmakers have to bend reality to tell a great story.  But I can't stand it when they get the details wrong out of laziness, or produce films that make no sense.

Aside from astrophysics knowledge, what makes me qualified to talk about GRAVITY?  I've spent a lifetime of being a space geek, and growing up in Florida, I would travel to see Shuttle launches, read everything I could get my hands on, and even pore over every detail in the Space Shuttle Operator's Manual from the library.  That was all great preparation for an amazing gig I was lucky to get as the cohost of a TV show (with astronaut Mike Massimino and others), the third season of National Geographic's KNOWN UNIVERSE (now on DVD, Amazon) that was in equal parts about astronomy and space exploration.  In filming the show, I got to go to behind the scenes at several NASA facilities, watch astronauts train, and play with their toys.  I talked to many astronauts, but just as importantly got to interview the scientists and engineers who design the spacecraft, space suits, tools, and simulators that keep the astronauts safe.  I put on a space suit, ate the space food, and got in the simulators.  It was great fun, and though I didn't know it at the time, excellent background for understanding all kinds of things going on in GRAVITY from an insider's perspective.

In this article I'll mostly go in chronological order through the film, taking a look at what the filmmakers got right and wrong, but mostly using it as an excuse to talk about space exploration and physics.







Blue Marble

After the title card, the first shot we see is of the Earth from space.  It looks amazing, especially in IMAX 3D.  You can see how massive and yet fragile it is.  We all depend on that thin blue layer of atmosphere to survive.  As the film progresses, we see majestic shots of mountain ranges, hurricanes, and even night shots of city lights and cascades of aurorae.  These are based on real shots taken by astronauts over a half-century of space exploration.  Just check out some of this stunning time-lapse video:

Earth from Michael König on Vimeo.





Jet Packs

Continuing in the establish shot, we see George Clooney's character, Matt Kowalski, is zipping around in some kind of experimental jet pack.  This is based on a real thing!  In fact, there have been a whole series of space jet packs dating back to a prototype system that was sent up in the Gemini days, but never used.  In the 1980s, shuttle astronauts did use a system that looked and acted almost entirely like Clooney's system, the Manned Maneuvering Unit, or MMU.  It shoot out jets of compressed gas which let the astronauts maneuver in space, untethered.  Astronauts used them to capture satellites, and they were expected to be used in space construction, like building the ISS.  But after a few missions, their use was discontinued.  They worked fine, but if there was a malfunction the astronaut could shoot off into space, never to be seen again. 

In GRAVITY, the astronauts' motion is sped up from what it would be in real life.  Astronauts take slow, precise, deliberate actions in space, because speed is your enemy, both in terms of reaction time, energy of impact, fuel consumption, space suit constrictions, and our inherent unfamiliarity with microgravity.  But hey, that's a concession I'm willing to make -- I'd rather have a movie that moves along than a perfectly accurate, plodding one.  I've watched enough hours of NASA TV to know that real spacewalks aren't exactly your ideal suspense thrillers. 

Today, every astronaut on a spacewalk remains tethered or attached to an arm, but as a backup they also have a simplified version of the MMU called SAFER for Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue.  This is for precisely the kinds of situations Sandra Bullock's character, Ryan Stone, found herself in.  A real-life astronaut would have been able to use the thrusters on the SAFER module to right herself and return to the shuttle after being separated.  But there isn't much fuel, so she couldn't go much farther than that.  I can understand why this kind of thing was left out of GRAVITY -- it would just complicate the narrative.  Clearly in the universe of GRAVITY, they are so confident in the MMU that George Clooney uses in its ability to rescue stranded astronauts, that they don't require all astronauts to wear the comparatively weak SAFER modules.







Arm wrestling

GRAVITY mostly gets the details of the physics right.  I love the scene where Sandra Bullock's character, Ryan Stone, is spinning end-over end, unable to right herself, and we see it from her perspective.  That's what it would be like!  In microgravity you lose the sense of up or down that the Earth's gravitational field gives you.  So from her perspective, the Earth is just flying through her field of vision in loops.

But they did get some very big things about the physics wrong.  In the initial accident, she's goes flying while attached to the Canadarm.  Matt tells her to detach from it or it will carry her too far away.  That is exactly the wrong thing to do.  The rotating astronaut + arm has a certain amount of angular momentum.  Without getting into the equations, more spread out things rotate more slowly, and more compact things rotate faster.  That's why when ice skaters bring in their arms they speed up.  By detaching, Ryan switches from a long lever arm rotating around the common center of mass of her + Canadarm into a more compact configuration.  And a lot of that rotational momentum would be converted into linear momentum.  Plus, her mass gets lowered by losing the arm.  The result is that she'd be shot out at a much higher speed.  They still could have had her panic and do this in the film, but they should have captured the physics a bit better, and they shouldn't have had the more experience astronaut (who would have known this) to tell her to do something stupid like that.

This is parodied in this poster, which I think is by astrophysicist Katie Mack:

Gravity fan art

The next big physics gaffe is when George Clooney's character has to let go to let Sandra Bullock's character live.  The idea is that their joint momentum is too much for the parachute lines she's got her foot in.  The formula for (linear) momentum is just mass times velocity, so it is true that the two of them together have roughly twice the momentum that one of them would have.  But as shown in the film, she seems to have already pulled the parachute lines taut and stopped their joint forward velocity.  There is really no reason to let go at that point.  But this is a case where we can't get too nitpicky.  Clearly, you can imagine what they were going for, even if it wasn't perfectly achieved in the visuals.  And the characters have to have some time to say their goodbyes.  So we have to allow a little dramatic license. 







A bad case of Kessler Syndrome

The inciting incident in GRAVITY is that a cascade of space debris takes out the Space Shuttle.  This is based on a real phenomenon, or at least a plausible scenario, called the Kessler syndrome, identified by NASA scientist Donald Kessler in 1978.  The idea is that a few large collisions between objects in space could result in an ever-growing cloud of space debris that could render near-Earth orbit unpassable.

It is true that a big space collision can produce millions of pieces of space debris.  Those then set off other collisions, and they become a cascade.  And because of the large velocities of space debris, in excess of 20,000 miles per hour, even a tiny speck of debris could kill an unprotected astronaut.  That's because the formula for kinetic energy is E=1/2 mv2, where m is mass and v is velocity.  A bb moving at those speeds would tear through the Space Shuttle.  I saw this firsthand at NASA White Sands, where they have a 40 foot long "hypervelocity gun" that they use to shoot bb-sized projectiles at targets meant to represent the spacecraft.  That's where they test the shielding for the ISS.  A little bb can put what looks like a large caliber bullet hole through multiple layers of metal.  In the picture below I'm inspecting such a hole after we pulled it out of the test chamber.

hypervolicity

They put many layers of metal like this in front of the most sensitive parts of the ISS to absorb the kinetic energy of any space debris.  But that still wouldn't save it from larger debris, much less a full-on avalanche like we saw in GRAVITY.

The Kessler Syndrome is real in that we've seen the amount of space debris grow over time due to space collisions.  However, it isn't as large as Kessler predicted in the 70s, partially because we've been lucky and there haven't been many big collisions, but also because the Soviet Union collapsed, and their launched rate dropped as a result.  But big events still are a worry as a precipitating factor.  In 2007 the Chinese launched an anti-satellite weapon at one of their own satellites.  The US has done the same.  In the film the Russians are the bad guys. 

One thing that isn't accurate about the cascade we see in the film is that it would really take years to spread around the Earth and grow, not the minutes we see in the movie. Again, this would make for a pretty boring film, so I'm ok with the dramatic license. 

It wasn't just a coincidence that our heroes kept getting pounded by debris.  Matt tells Ryan to set her watch to 90 minutes, since that is when the debris will return.  He says something like, "Factoring in that it is going at 50,000 miles per hour..."  This part is nonsense.  Orbital debris moves at more like 20,000 miles per hour, and the time it takes to circle the Earth is fixed by the semimajor axis of the orbit (you can calculate this using Newton's form of Kepler's third law!).  Ninety minutes is a typical low Earth orbit -- the Hubble Space Telescope, the Space Shuttle, and the ISS all orbit the Earth with about that period.  (If you see HST or the ISS in the night sky, you can really tell that they are zooming along.) 

The fact that the debris returns every 90 minutes means that it isn't moving along with the astronauts, it is in an orbit somewhat perpendicular to the Space Shuttle and space station orbits.  It must be a big long cloud to increase the probability of hitting our heroes multiple times, because if it is small, the chance that you'll hit twice in two orbits is small.  But it can't be a full ring of debris encircling the globe, or else our heroes would have hit it every 45 minutes.

Another cool thing is that since the astronauts get hit with debris 3 times, we can tell that this film happens over 3+ hours, not just the 90 minutes we see on screen.  This is in some ways an acknowledgement that some scenes were sped up or edited from what we would have seen in "real life."







Ground Control to Major Tom

In the movie, the debris cloud apparently knocks out communications satellites, so that contact is lost with mission control.  It is true that since the 1980s, NASA has used a network (there are currently seven) of Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) to communicate with astronauts.  These allow more uninterrupted communication than the old series of ground stations used in the Apollo era.  Despite this redundancy, it is possible to lose contact with them as happened to the ISS earlier this year due to a computer glitch.  However, when that happens, NASA can still use the old ground station method -- when the ISS was out of contact with TDRS, they had sporadic communication with the astronauts as they passed over Russia.  For GRAVITY, ignoring ground stations doesn't bother me so much -- maybe in the film's chronology they have been eliminated due to budget cuts.

What really bugs me is the apparent destruction of the TDRS satellites.  They are in geosynchronous orbits.  This means that they stay over roughly the same spot on Earth, since they orbit with the same period as the Earth's rotation.  To do that, they have to be *way* up there, about 22,000 miles above the Earth's surface, or almost a tenth the distance to the Moon.  This is compared to to low-earth orbit, where our astronauts are.  HST is about 350 miles above Earth, while the ISS is only 230 miles up.  So TDRS satellites are roughly 100 times farther away than the Hubble Space Telescope or the ISS.  If the debris is moving at 50,000 miles per hour, as they state in the film, then it would take at least 26 minutes after the strike on the Shuttle to start taking out TDRS satellites.  But it gets worse than that.  The same debris from low Earth orbit would be spread out over a much larger volume at geosynchronous orbit, so would have a very low probability of taking out TDRS satellites.   And this is further compounded by the fact that this is an orbiting, somewhat isolated cloud of debris -- it seemingly hasn't affected all of low Earth orbit as the events of the film unfold.  And it is spread out to geosynchronous orbit, it too would become geosynchronous, so this Kessler effect would lessen greatly.  The Kessler Syndrome really only applies to low Earth orbit.

To be fair, I'm assuming that astronaut communication in the film works the same as it does in our universe.  But they never say it does. 







Orbituary

The largest suspension of disbelief necessary to enjoy GRAVITY is to embrace its total disregard for the amount of fuel it takes to change orbits.  In the film, our heroes go from an orbit where they are servicing the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) over to the International Space Station (ISS) with only an experimental jet pack.  In reality, you can't do this -- even the Space Shuttle can't get to the ISS after servicing HST.  This isn't just a pedantic point -- this had huge implications for space policy and all of astronomy, my research included.   

After the Columbia disaster, a policy was adopted where all Shuttle missions had to be able to reach the ISS in case of mishaps.  So, in 2004 NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe made the tough call to kill the final servicing mission to HST on the grounds that the Shuttle could not make it to the ISS.  Scientists, astronauts, Congress, and the public rebelled, and as a result, the servicing mission, arguably the most important thing the Shuttles did, was reinstated.  In 2009 a team including my friend Mike Massimino, risked their lives to give HST new life.  I directly benefitted, since I used the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph to observe the closest supernova in a generation soon after.  That's one reason I have such admiration for Mike -- he was a great cohost, but more than that, I owe some fraction of my career to his bravery and skill.  And that's one reason I consider the leap in GRAVITY from HST to the ISS no small thing. 

But that holds for the orbital transfer of the massive Space Shuttle.  Could two much lighter astronauts and a jet pack get to the ISS from HST's orbit?  We can calculate this!  Contrary to popular belief, rocket science isn't that hard.  We use the rocket equation, which tells you the mass of fuel you need to achieve a change in velocity of an object of a certain mass. 



The mass of fuel (mf) we need is:

mf = ma x (exp(dv/ve)-1)



Where ma is the mass of our astronauts and their gear, dv is delta-v, how much you need to change velocities by when switching orbits, ve is the velocity of the exhaust (how fast stuff shoots out of our jet pack), and exp is the exponential function.

First we need to know the mass of our two astronauts in space suits, plus jet pack.  Based on Wikipedia and what I was told at the NASA space suit lab when I visited, that is easily estimated -- it is about 550 kg.

Now for delta-v:  how much velocity do we have to add or subtract from our astronauts to get them to change orbits?  The ISS orbit is different from HST's in two ways:  it is at a different inclination (tilt with respect to the equator), and it is at a different altitude.  As detailed in this pdf, it turns out the first term dominates, so we basically need to change the velocity of our astronauts by about 3.1 km/s to have them transfer orbits.   That's about 10 times faster than a speeding bullet, so we are talking about a Superman-level feat here.

We really need a lot of thrust and a lot of fuel.  We need an exhaust velocity comparable to the change in velocity we need to transfer orbits we mentioned above:  3.1 km/s.  When you want a lot of motion in space you create a chemical reaction that releases energy.  For example, in the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are mixed to make fire and water when blasting off from Earth.   The SSMEs have exhaust velocities of 4.4 km/s, which is great!

But the problem is that they are massive, complicated, hot, and require a giant external tank of fuel.  Not so good for a jet pack.  For quick motions on a smaller scale, like in a jet pack, compressed air is shot out at high pressure.  That's what happens in GRAVITY -- they say so in the film.  It isn't a chemical reaction -- it is just like holding your finger on a water hose to shoot the water out at higher pressure.

Unfortunately, compressed air jets fall short of what we need by a factor of about 100 to 1000.  And it is even worse than that:  the delta-v term is inside the exponential in the equation.  Plugging this all in, using jet-pack jets, you'd need more fuel than exists in the universe.  In short, it can't be done.   

But what if George Cloony just trapped a space shuttle engine to his back?  Even then, he'd need a big tank with about 600 kg (1300 lbs) of fuel.

You may say:  so what?  They bent the rules.  Big deal.  But to astronomers, physicists, and astronauts who know these things, it is as crazy to us as two characters getting into a car and driving to the moon.  On a single tank of gas.  Even still, I'm willing to put up with it, because without it there is no movie, and GRAVITY is a great movie.  It is a suspension of disbelief, not much different with accepting that Superman can fly.   Having said that, there is a bit of an out, which I'll discuss later in the section on the Chinese space station.







Newton -- It's the Law

Newton's third law of motion says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  That's the one that makes rocketry possible.  Shoot some gas one direction, and it sends you in the other direction.  This happens on Earth too -- it is why shotguns have kick, for example.  But mostly we don't notice it because we are bound by gravity to the Earth, and friction keeps us there.  If you throw a ball, you don't fly backwards, because of the friction of your feet against the ground.  But try it on ice skates.

Newton's third law has interesting implications when you are in microgravity though.  When astronaut Gene Cernan went on one of the first spacewalks, almost everything went wrong.  He'd try to turn a latch handle one direction, and find that he would go flying in the other.  He explains it in this video:


Interestingly enough, Cernan was also testing out a "zip gun" that shoots out compressed gas as a way to get around in space.  This isn't too different from the fire extinguisher scene in GRAVITY.

In the movie Sandra Bullock rotates handles with wild abandon, and doesn't spin the other direction.  This is partly because they filmed these scenes on Earth.  But they do acknowledge Newton's Laws by having her always holding on to something while operating a handle.  You'd have to do that to get leverage anyway.  Similarly her hair doesn't fly up in the air, because she was really filming on Earth.  But at least they gave her a short haircut to make this less obvious.   

But those are ridiculous nitpicks.  My overwhelming feeling is that they did an amazing job on the weightless scenes.  I was continuously astounded.  How did they do that?  On Apollo 13 they filmed a few scenes in NASA's training aircraft that flies in parabolas to simulate weightlessness -- the "vomit comet."  But they didn't do that here -- the sets have to be tiny and you only get a few minutes of weightlessness in one go -- not Cuarón's style.  Here they did it with a combination of computer graphics, 12-point wire harnesses, and inventing new technology:  a giant rig with hundreds of LEDs that actors had to film their scenes in.   

For more on how it was done, see this excellent article by Alan Boyle over at NBC News.  They also talk about the process briefly at this Q&A after the Toronto premiere, where, interestingly enough Canadian Astronaut Cmdr. Chris Hadfield shows up.  If you haven't seen him singing SPACE ODDITY from the ISS watch it now!  It is the greatest music video ever made. 







At least she's not an oil driller, but...

Actually the biggest problem I had with Gravity was the way they treated astronauts.  Sandra Bullock's character is said to have had only six months of training!  In reality, NASA astronauts get many years of training before each mission.  I know they did it to make her seem more vulnerable, since she wouldn't know what to do.  But that was unnecessary.  I know real astronauts who have been scared shitless in space. 

I know the ostensible reason is that she has a "prototype" that she's installing in the Hubble Space Telescope.  This is also pure silliness.  NASA designs space hardware many years in advance, and all the components have to be vetted for space.  I've sat in on some of these committees designing space hardware and they are fascinating, but tedious.  Materials are carefully selected for their properties of thermal expansion and outgassing.  Every component has to be radiation hardened, which usually means using a decade or older computer processors.  Even the kind of glue you can use matters.  For example, instruments installed on HST servicing missions often were designed a decade before. 

Making matters worse, Sandra Bullock's character isn't even an astrophysicist (as I thought after seeing the movie once) -- she works at a hospital.  This really strains credulity.  I know they say it is hospital technology that has been adapted for HST, and yes, somehow that is remotely possible.  One of my colleagues has tried to adapt our supernova search algorithms to cancer screening, for example.  But medical doctors (if that's what she is), or even hospital equipment manufacturers, do not design telescope-worthy instruments.  I'm sure they were going for some thematic link between looking inside humans and looking into the universe (we are all starstuff and all that), but it wasn't worth the suspension of disbelief required for such a small point.

And it doesn't matter that she built the prototype.  Different people build and install the instruments.  You get awesome instrument builders to make great instruments, and awesome astronauts to do the installation, who train for that for years.  What's more, Sandra Bullock's character has some serious psychological issues.  She'd never pass the psychiatric evaluation. 

Another maddening detail is that in the film, George Clooney's character doesn't even know where Sandra Bullock's character is from, or many details about her life.  In reality, NASA selects crews for their compatibility in terms of personality, and has them spend lots of time together on Earth outside of training, even going on camping trips so that they better understand each other and their group dynamic.  You have to know how your fellow astronauts are gong to react in any situation, and trust them completely because your life may depend on it.  In fact, Mike said, when you get to the top hundred or so astronaut candidates, they are all outstanding, and a large part of the decision making process from then on involves personality and crew compatibility.







Great balls of fire

Fire burns differently in microgravity.  It is pretty awesome.  Instead of a teardrop-shaped flame that is blue at the bottom and orange at the top, like we get on Earth, in space you get a spherical, blue flame.  That's because in the absence of gravity the heated air doesn't rise, to be replaced by fresh air.  The flame looks feeble, but can in fact be hotter, and can reach temperatures where metal is melted.  We know this because astronauts have done experiments with fire on the international space station.



space fire



In GRAVITY they get this right -- when she first passed by the tiny fire on the ISS, it was burning with a spherical flame.  I geeked out.  I think they might have colored the flame a bit more orange and had it brighter than it would otherwise have been, but that's ok.  First and foremost, it has to register as fire to the audience.  They are showing the experts that they know the physics, but simultaneously showing the audience what they need to see.  That's perfect.

Astronauts do have experience with fires out of control in space too.  In 1997 a fire nearly destroyed Mir.  The Russian astronauts were so shaken that they basically said "fuck it" and had a party where they drank cognac in space.  That led to this great photo of slightly lit astronauts.  It is the only one you'll ever see, because it was never meant to see the light of day.



space party

Yes, Russians are officially are supplied with cognac, not vodka.  Who's to say that they don't also sneak a little vodka on board too?  Again, artistic license.  It works better as vodka.  Sadly, Americans are not allowed by NASA to drink alcohol in any form, as I learned on my trip to the NASA food science laboratory.  Beer is especially forbidden, since the gas bubbles don't work the same in microgravity and form some mass of gas in your stomach that will really screw you up.

Spherical flames also mean that fire extinguishers have to work slightly differently in space too.  In a normal CO2 based fire extinguisher, the carbon dioxide will sink because it is lighter than air.  But in microgravity it wont, so you just have to make sure you are really displacing the oxygen with CO2.  Still, space fire extinguishers are based on CO2, which is integral to the plot of GRAVITY.  Ryan bails out of her Soyuz capsule and uses a fire extinguisher to arrest her motion to the Chinese station.  I'm not even going to calculate whether that was possible, because that scene is just too awesome.

I've even used a fire extinguisher as a form of locomotion on Earth.  Every year in my introductory astronomy class I sit in a wagon and use a fire extinguisher to propel me across the lecture hall to illustrate Newton's Third Law.  You can achieve meters per second velocities, even on Earth!







A sharp dressed woman

The space suits in GRAVITY are pretty accurate.  From the sleeve mirror to the Vader-like environmental controls on the front, to the snoopy cap, they got all the externals right.  But the undergarments are all wrong.  Going from the inside-out, US astronauts wear a diaper, blue pajamas designed to wick away sweat, and tight fitting white outer garment covered with tubes through which water circulates to keep you cool.  That last bit is super-important -- I was about to overheat in my space suit until they turned on the water cooling system.  Here's me in the cooling suit, before I got in the space suit (that's Mike Massimino on the left):



spacesuit undergarment

As far as GRAVITY goes, I have to defer to artistic license.  Getting to see more of Sandra Bullock is an idea I'm 100% behind.  And the more minimal clothing was easier to CG and help hide that it was filmed on Earth.  Besides, it also works as a callback to ALIEN, makes her seem more vulnerable, and works better with that whole rebirth thing.

At the end of the movie she has to exit a waterlogged space suit in a hurry.  I can tell you it doesn't go that quickly, even with a team of experts in the best of conditions.  At least that is true for US suits, though she was wearing a Russian suit.  Going into and out of airlocks also can't be done quickly.  Here's a checklist of the things you need to do to put on or take off a suit.







Heavenly Palace

After the Soyuz escape is a bust, our protagonist tries for the Chinese space station.  Yes, there really is a Chinese space station, although it isn't what you see in the movie. In 2011, a sort of test station was launched, Tiangong-1.  It is a tiny thing -- not much bigger than a Soyuz spacecraft.  By 2015 there are plans to launch a larger station, Tiangong-2, and by 2022 or so, the even larger Tiangong-3.  I think it is something along the lines of Tiangong 3 we see in GRAVITY.

So now we have a timeline problem.  The last HST servicing mission happened in 2009.  The US Space Shuttle program ended in 2011.  And the Chinese station shown in the film won't be up for another decade or so.  The answer is obvious:  this isn't "our" reality shown in the film, it is an alternate reality set a few years to a decade in the future.  Further evidence comes from the name of the Space Shuttle:  Explorer.  It isn't one of the six that were in the US fleet (Enterprise, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Endeavour).  And each mission is given a number: STS-XXX where STS stands for Space Transportation System.  The last shuttle flight was STS-135.  But the mission in GRAVITY is STS-157.  That's 22 missions in the future.  We launched 130 Shuttle missions (the first 5 test flights of the Enterprise didn't go to space) over 30 years, or 4.3 missions per year.  So it would take about 5 years to get up to STS-157, longer if there were a disaster.

Could that give us an out?  Maybe in this reality the Hubble Space Telescope, the International Space Station, and the Chinese Space station are all in the same orbit.  In fact, they kind of have to be, given the events that transpire in the film.  Is this plausible?   

If you launch near the Earth's equator you get an extra boost from the Earth's rotation.  (Hence our launch site being in Florida, at +28 degrees latitude).  But the Soviets did not have an equatorial launch site, so they put their cosmodrome about as far south as they could, at Baikonur, Kazakhstan.  That is at +46 degrees latitude, meaning you can't launch things into orbits from there at inclinations (an angle measuring how tilted the orbit is with respect to the equator) less than that.  The ISS was always intended to be built with Russian cooperation, so it was launched into an orbit that the Russians could access, with an inclination of +52 degrees.  So the ISS has to be in that orbit.  And since the Tiangong-3 is yet to be launched, let's just say the Chinese will put it into the same orbit.  The current Tiangong-1, which will be deorbited and won't be a part of Tiangong-3, is in an orbit with an inclination of +43 degrees.  But what about HST?

Maybe in the GRAVITY universe, once it was decided that astronauts had to be able to make it to the ISS on any mission, maybe the decision was made to add a booster to HST and move it to the ISS orbit.  This isn't a crazy idea, as this pdf lays out in glorious detail.  There are design reasons to have HST in the orbit it is in, but I'd guess these aren't insurmountable.  After all, there are many spy satellites in polar orbits, and HST is very similar in design to the KH-11 class of spy satellites. 







Space hallucinations

When Ryan is stranded in the Soyuz and can't get the descent engine to work, she decides to just kill herself by cutting the amount of oxygen in the capsule.  This is not necessarily the smartest thing to do because she has no idea whether someone could be coming to rescue her from the Chinese station.  But she has only an intermittent will to live anyway.

It isn't clear exactly what she does, because just cutting off the oxygen supply would work very slowly (remember how long she was going on just the oxygen in her suit).  But to do anything that would work quickly she'd have to turn down the pressure in the cabin, and that ought to require venting some of the capsule's atmosphere to space.  At any rate, she does so, and starts to hallucinate.  I really like this scene, because it gives us both a fake-out, and an alternative ending to the movie. 

We are meant to think she wakes back up, figures out a solution, and rescues herself.  But another interpretation is that the rest of the movie is a hallucination, and she does die after she turns down the oxygen.  In fact, this is the more physically plausible interpretation, since you are unlikely to wake back up after you pass out from a lack of oxygen, if the oxygen level does not increase. 

I don't think the filmmakers meant that to be their intended ending, but it is interesting that it is there.  If you are a cold, hard realist who thinks the film has too many implausible scenes to be taken seriously, then you can still enjoy the film on its artistic merits and laugh at all those people who fooled themselves into thinking she lived. 

But not me.  This is a time when the human spirit triumphs over plausibility!







Chinese take-out

When our hero finally gets to the Chinese space station, it is losing altitude due to drag from the upper atmosphere.  It is true that all low earth orbit satellites experience some amount of drag, even from the unimaginably tenuous upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, and have to be boosted from time to time.  Every time astronauts service HST, they kick it up into a higher orbit using the Shuttle.

But the dragging-down process takes years.  In GRAVITY, the Chinese station is losing altitude at a furious clip.  Something must have happened to push it way down in the atmosphere.  The implication seems to be that the debris cloud that has been orbiting the Earth has somehow done it.  But this doesn't make much sense.  The momentum from being hit by the side, or from below, is going the wrong direction.  And even if some debris hit the station from above, it wouldn't just push it down, it would set it spinning too.  Maybe the spinning was stopped by the drag.  Or maybe some thruster system got damaged and malfunctioned, causing it to stick open.  Still, it was pretty weak not to give any reason for the improbably fast loss of altitude of the station.  But at least it made for very cool effects and a novel station destruction scenario.







The pilot has turned off the no smoking sign

In GRAVITY they say the Chinese spacecraft, Shenzhou, has the same landing protocol as the Russion Soyuz.  Indeed it was designed on Soyuz, but made bigger and newer. 

Ryan says she crashed the Soyuz simulator every time.  It seems obvious NASA would not send up such an incompetent astronaut.  But maybe if she was only going up to service HST, they wouldn't require her to learn all the Soyuz protocols.  After all, you are supposed to learn Russian, and that is a huge overhead.  But since in this universe the HST and ISS are in the same orbit, it seems logical that they'd require that and just send up a well-trained astronaut.  The movie would have been effectively unchanged if they'd have just left out that line about her crashing Soyuz (actually it would have made the movie better).

In the end, Dr. Stone has to make an unplanned entry into the atmosphere.  The Shenzhou, like Soyuz, comes in 3 parts -- the orbital, descent, and service modules.  They are designed to be detached before reentry, for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is that the heat shield is sandwiched between two of the components.  But Ryan starts coming in with all the parts attached, leading to the capsule starting to burn up and the cabin filling with smoke.   

It seems like one of the most implausible things in the movie, but remarkably, it is based on a real event.  In 1969, on Soyuz 5, the service module did not separate, because of the failure of an explosive bolt.  The spacecraft started reentry facing the wrong way, with the unshielded escape hatch facing forward.  Temperatures during reentry reach as high as the surface of the sun, and without a heat shield, you will die.  Boris Volynov's story is riveting.  He knew what was happening -- seeing the spacecraft starting to melt, the cabin filling with smoke, feeling the extreme heat.  He was sure he would die, but then the atmosphere burned through enough of the service module that it was torn off and the spacecraft righted itself.  But that still wasn't enough to guarantee survival. 

His thrusters had run out of fuel, so they couldn't stabilize the craft from spinning, resulting in tangled parachute lines.  His soft-landing thrusters (yes those are real) may have also failed.  He hit the ground so hard, he got flung out of his seat and knocked out his teeth.  He also landed far off course in the Ural mountains.  Temperatures were -40 degrees, and rescuers would be a long time coming, so he was in danger of freezing to death.  He set off on foot toward a plume of smoke in the distance.  When rescuers arrived, they found an empty capsule, but followed the trail of blood to find him in a peasant's cabin.

And this has happened more than once!  Soyuz TMA-11 also failed to separate properly, nearly burned through the hatch, and landed off-course.  One sexist Russian official blamed it on the predominantly female crew instead of the failed explosive bolt.

In GRAVITY, Ryan is facing a wrong-way entry and her capsule starts to burn through and fill with smoke.  She separates the Shenzhou components just in time through, and the descent module rights itself.  In the two real cases mentioned above the radio antenna has also burned through, but maybe in GRAVITY the damage wasn't as extensive.  That allows us to have a more fitting ending too, where we know she's going to be rescued, but we don't have to see it.







One if by land, two if by sea

Unlike Apollo capsules, the Soyuz capsules are designed to come down over land.  This can present problems if you land off course.  Allegedly in 1965, some wolves were spotted heading towards a Soyuz capsule landing site.  Since then, the Russians have been packing heat on space missions!  Until 2006 the Soyuz capsule was equipped with quite possibly the coolest gun ever made, the TP-82.  It was a combination pistol, shotgun, rifle, flare gun, machete, and shovel, and came with a utility belt of ammunition.  It was housed in a canister between two of the seats.  These days, due to a lack of ammunition for the TP-82, cosmonauts (and Americans flying Soyuz) just use a regular semiautomatic pistol.   

GRAVITY solves this landing problem by having our hero land in water, but just on the edge of land.  Soyuz and Shenzhou capsules can land in water, but only as a contingency.  This happened in 1976 on Soyuz 23, when they splashed down in a partially frozen Lake Tengiz.  Low on power, the cosmonauts could only afford to keep on a small light inside while they waited through the night, partially submerged, for a recovery that took nine hours. 

This is a neat solution for GRAVITY, because American audiences are more used to a splashdown.  And water is useful in all kinds of thematic ways.  It represents the unconscious, purity, and rebirth.  And it gave us another fit of drama as she struggled to get out of her suit.  The camera focusing on a frog was a nice juxtaposition -- frogs are perfectly adapted to their environment, but we have to use our intellect to take the environment we're adapted to with us.

A space capsule suddenly filling with water also has a precedent in the space program, as anyone who has seen THE RIGHT STUFF can attest.  When Gus Grissom returned to Earth in Mercury-Redstone 4, his hatch blew too soon and his capsule sank. 

In GRAVITY when the cabin was filling with smoke, why didn't Ryan just put on her helmet and pressurize her suit?  Or why didn't she do it when the cabin filed with water?  She'd have been able to breathe and float too.  Well, even Gus Grissom almost drowned when he forgot to close his suit inlet valve in the water and found himself sinking.

Thematically, and from an action perspective, getting rid of the suit makes for a much better movie.  At the end she's cast off all of the trappings of space and is standing nearly naked on she shore.  We are reminded of the title card.  "Life in space is impossible."  But life here on Earth?  We're made for it.







Final thoughts

People often get confused about the purpose of these articles.  There is no one-to-one correlation between getting every nitpicky detail right and a movie being good.  What I want is for filmmakers to know the details about the world they're exploring, and then chose to take some artistic license where they have to for the purpose of making a better film.  GRAVITY excels at this.  The technology is all based thoroughly on the real world of the space program.  Many of the things that happen to the characters are based on real-world events, or in the case of the Kessler Syndrome, real-world concerns.  The result is a staggering level of immersion that it feels like an IMAX documentary as much as it does an IMAX feature film.  Sure they sped some things up, ignored some safety protocols, cheated a bit on the physics, and screwed around with some orbital mechanics.  But they deliberately did it to improve the film, and gave us a little wink at the same time, without going into long pedantic scenes about it.   The result is something tight, lean, and dramatic:  cinema stripped down to its core, and reinvented.

I agree with James Cameron, a man who knows a little about both space and filmmaking.  Gravity is the best space film ever made.



- Copernicus (aka Andy Howell).  Email me or follow me on Twitter.

Preporučuješ li ovo?


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067778/


ne mogu da nađem ništa o filmu na forumu

POgledao sam NIGHTFLYERS Roberta Collectora, ekranizaciju novele George R.R. Martina o svemirskoj ekspediciji koja pođe po zlu kada se istraživači suoče sa HALolikim poludelim brodskim kompjuterom koji pretvara džinovski svemirski brod u svojevrsni Bates Motel.

Collectorov film želi da spoji SF i horor impulse sa opštom atmosferom psihološke studije u svemiru ali u svim pretencioznijim delovima ispada prilično neuspešan. Ako imamo u vidu koliki delovi filma otpadaju na neuspešnu psihologizaciju, postavlja se ozbiljno pitanje da li je ovaj film na kraju i mogao da profunckioniše kao exploi6ation što mu je sasvim sigurno bila delimična namera.

Kada krene "akcija", film nije sasvim nezanimljiv. DP je Shelly Johnson, u međuvremenu sa potpisima na Johnstonovom CAPTAIN AMERICA ili Westovom EXPENDABLES 2. Collector i Johnson, u spoju sa vrlo 80s skorom, uspevaju da naprave sporadično zanimljivu atmosferu, naročito kada se odmaknu od psihologiziranja.

Ipak, toga nije dovoljno da bi u potpunosti iskupilo Collectorov film.

* 1/2 / * * * *

Robert Zemeckis has attached himself to direct Universal's "Marwencol," a real-life drama based on the 2010 documentary.

Universal optioned Mark Hogancamp's life rights and the documentary based on Hogancamp's story.

ImageMovers will produce under its Universal-based banner. Director of the 2010 documentary Jeff Malmberg will executive produce.

Caroline Thompson is penning the script.

The documentary revolved around Hogancamp, who suffered severe head trauma from a beating outside a bar, decides to build a a one-sixth scale WWII-era town called Marwencol in his backyard. He does this in order to help build up his hand-eye coordination and therapeutically recover from the psychological demons he still has from the beating.

The docu was a critical hit and went on to win several awards including Boston Society of Film Critics and SXSW best documentary awards.

Vice president of production Maradith Frenkel and creative executive Chloe Yellin will oversee the project on behalf of Universal.

Zemeckis' 2012 drama "Flight" was also based on a real-life story.

Zemeckis is currently negotiating a deal to direct Lionsgate's "Chaos Walking," but this "Marwencol" may be more likely to be his next pic, given the effort to land a high-profile actor to play the lead. While no offers have been delivered, sources say Zemeckis' top choice to play Hogancamp is Leonardo DiCaprio.

But DiCaprio is currently weighing several offers that include Warner Bros. "The Brotherhoods" and an untitled "Napoleon" biopic and has not chosen his next pic, so that element is still far away from being a reality.

Quote from: Бата Животиња on 23-10-2013, 13:08:41

Preporučuješ li ovo?


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067778/


ne mogu da nađem ništa o filmu na forumu

Ја кад видим coming-of-age, бјежим главом без обзира.

vidiš da je i Krip pobjegao

U evidenciji mi piše da sam ga gledao i da sam mu dao * * *  ali se ničega ne sećam, pa nisam hteo da te dezinfomišem. To što se ne sećam nije dobar znak. Doduše gledao sam ga davnih dana...

Pogledao sam MACHETE KILLS Roberta Rodrigueza, nastavak dugometražne verzije vic-trejlera iz filma GRINDHOUSE. Kao što je prvi film pokazao kako taj vic nema dovoljno kapaciteta da se održi kao celovečernji film, to isto pokazuje i drugi film. Tolerancija gledalaca prema onome što može da vidi na ekranu u MACHETE KILLS u direktnoj je srazmeri sa odnosom koji ima prema ljudima koji se u njemu pojavljuju.

Meni je naravno od najvećeg značaja to što se u MACHETE KILLS pojavljuje Mel Gibson, i smatram da nije previše subjektivno ako naglasim da je on ne samo daleko najbolji deo filma već da u njegovim deonicama ovo delo dobija ozbiljnost koja mu je bila preko potrebna, jednim velikim delom i zato što Mel ima harizmu koja može da pokrije rupe u rediteljskom postupku.

Nažalost, MACHETE KILLS nema puno smisla u bilo kom drugom poglčedu tako da u širim okvirima Melove karijere ovaj film neće moći da preokrene negativni trend sa kojim se on suočio. Ipak, čini mi se da će kritika bez ikakve sumnje prepoznati koliki je gubitak što ga nema na ekranu, kao što je uostalom prepoznala i u slučaju filma HOW I SPENT MY SUMMER VACATION.

Druga faca od koje sam dosta očekivao u ovom filmu je Marko Zaror. Nažalost, MACHETE KILLS nije taj film sa kojim bi ovaj Čileanski zmaj mogao da se probije u mejnstrim, i moram priznati da me je razočarao Rodriguezov tretman njegovih predipozicija jer mi je spoj Rodrigueza i Zarora delovao jako potentno.

Ostalo je manje-više cirkus u kome Rodriguez pokušava da nasaže salatu od tarantionovskih dijaloških opersiflaža i namerno loših akcionih scena koje vremenom deluju samo bezveze, bez neke lucidne nadogradnje u parodiranju Grindhouse filma.

Sada već polako počinje da se postavlja pitanje šta je krajnji horizont Rodriguezovog insistiranja na ovom Grindhouse pravcu. Naime, pokazao je u nekoliko navrata kako želi da napravi posvetu B-filmovima, u međuvremenu se jako izmakao od svakog konteksta u kome bi to trebalo da ima smisla i sada je to već postalo jako zamorno.

Čini se da ovoga puta, za razliku od originalnog MACHETEa, nije naišao ni na strpljenje kritike ili festivala. Ipak, pošteno govoreći, teško je reći da je gori od prvog, samo je nešto manje interesantan za gledanje jer se svi aduti ali i sve greške ponavljaju.

* 1/2 / * * * *

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 25-10-2013, 20:32:23
U evidenciji mi piše da sam ga gledao i da sam mu dao * * *  ali se ničega ne sećam, pa nisam hteo da te dezinfomišem. To što se ne sećam nije dobar znak. Doduše gledao sam ga davnih dana...

sinopsis djeluje suludo, kao i Pretty Baby (1978) od istog reditelja, ali ipak su to Francuzi, oni mi rijetko legnu...

Кад смо код сулудих плотова...

There is a war in the world between the men and the women. A young girl tries to escape this reality and comes to a hidden place where a strange unicorn lives with a family: Sister, Brother, many children and an old woman that never leaves her bed but stays in contact with the world through her radio.

previše žabljih bataka je pojeo

Stari još nije znao da će Novak danas imati teškoće da uzleti...

http://starikadar.blogspot.com/2013/10/put-u-kosmos.html

Zahvaljujući najavama Zemeckisovog novog filma, pogledao sam dokumentarni film MARWENCOL Jeffa Malmberga. Reč je o vrlo dinamničnom i zanimljivo koncipiranom dokumentarcu o čoveku čija je sudbina krajnje bizarna, i po mnogo čemu ostaje nerasvetljena i posle ovog filma iako MARWENCOL otkriva jako mnogo.

MARWENCOL je priča o čoveku koji je posle skoro fatalnog prebijanja dožuiveo teško oštećenje mozga, izgubio sva sećanja i pošto nije imao zdravstveno osiguranje, otpušten je iz bolnice da se leči kako zna i ume. Kao mešavinu fizio i psiho terapije počeo je da gradi maketu grada u svom dvorištu, a potom je počeo i da osmišljava narative, projektujući ličnosti ljudi iz svoje okoline u likove lutaka u maketi.

Sama maketa i detalji koje je napravio u tom gradiću su impozantni i činjenica da je iako amater napravio neke izuzetne fotografije tog projekta što mu je kasnije omogućilo da se nađe na njujorškoj art sceni.

Međutim, osnovna dilema vezana za njegovu ličnost ostaje nerazrešena, i čini mi se da je to veliki prostor za nadgradnu u igranom filmu a to je koliko "narativi" koje osmišljava za svoje "junake" zapravo utiču terapeutski i koliko on svoju situaciju razrešava kroz njih.

Naročito jer Mark Hogancamp ima prilične probleme koji datiraju od pre amnezije, a to je težak alkoholizam, a zatim i nerazjašnjena trauma vezana za crossdressing koji je po svemu sudeći imao ulogu i u napada na njega.

MARWENCOL uspeva da odlično zarobi atmosferu varošice u kojoj Hogancamp živi i da vrlo vibrantno prikaže njegov rad i načine na koje mu podstiče maštu. U tom pogledu Malmbergove intervencije deluju visokoestetizovano ali skrupulozno u odnosu na temu.

* * * 1/2 / * * * *

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 26-10-2013, 13:54:53
Stari još nije znao da će Novak danas imati teškoće da uzleti...

http://starikadar.blogspot.com/2013/10/put-u-kosmos.html

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 18-10-2013, 13:47:28

Međutim, Hunt je jedan od onih vozača koji je izgradio imidž Formule 1 kao prostora za mačo tipove i u trenutku kada se Lauda pojavio, on je bio tipičniji predstavnik sporta. U nekih četrdeset godina paradigma se potpuno preokrenula. Međutim, tu podvojenost prikazuje i sam film, RUSH je naizmenično film o junaku koji je ličnim zalaganjem i spremnošću na ludačke rizike postigao uspeh i film o čoveku koji je racionalnim, bezbednim pristupom reformisao sport i postigao vrhunske rezultate. Ova podvojenost u kojoj nema pravog pozitivca i negativca uspeva da profunkcioniše i ne smeta filmu. Gledaoci će navijati za obojicu.

Kako koji. Ja sam navijala za Laudu.
Zbilja dobar film. Kombo blokbastera i jednog biopika sa sadrzajem, a dobra mera. Komercijalan, a nije glup. Nemam  vecih zamerki.
Odnos prema zenama je jako dobro prikazan. Kast je vrhunski, a to je pola posla. Iznenadila sam se.    
Malo vise usporava kadrove za moj ukus, narocito u bolnici, kadar na automobile, kadar na kisu ...
Muzika je takodje super - nabija tenziju. Bowie...
Duhovit deo sa Italijanima kad stopiraju... jako italijanski.

Eto, nisam nista otkrila, ali bas je  film za decake i bas je za bioskop.

Voleo bih da snimim ovakav film sa Dobricom.

Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy? Official Trailer (HD) Documentary, Michel Gondry

Pogledao sam drugu sezonu MORTAL KOMBAT: LEGACY web serije posle koje je Kevin Tancharoen uklonjen sa pozicije reditelja bioskopskog reboota ove ekranizacije. Moram priznati da mi je ono što je Tancharoen radio sa MORTAL KOMBATom bilo zanimljivo u oba izdanja i da je u drugoj sezoni web serije narativ postao nešto komplikovaniji i hermetičniji ali da je sve to i dalje bilo podjednako intrigantno kao i REBIRTH teaser sa kojim je i počela ova direkcija oživljavanja MORTAL KOMBATa. Rekao bih da tanchareon u određenom smislu radi onaj isti svež DTV kojim se bavio i John Hyams u poslednjem i najboljem UNIVERSAL SOLDIERu, naravno ne u tom formatu i na tom nivou. Zapravo, iako Tancharoen dolazi iz backgrounda koji uključuje plesne filmove, jedino što je u MORTAL KOMBAT web seriji sumnjivo jesu upravo koreografije i veština boraca dok je visoka estetizacija izvukla maksimum iz datih produkcionih okvira. Voleo bih da pogledam film koji prati ovu art direkciju, naravno pojačan adekvatnim glumcima za veliki ekran. Međutim, ko zna koji smer sve ovo uzima posle Tancharoenovog odlaska.

Pogledao sam klasik švedskog SFa SOMMARENS TOLV MANANDER, televizijski film poznatog reditelja Richarda Hoberta iz 1988. godine u kome se oseća eho sovjetskog SFa, radova kao što su SOLARIS i STALKER (pre svega filmske verzije). Hobert ne nudi estetizaciju kao Tarkovski, odnosi među likovima su vibrantniji i u jačem tempu, ali u osnovi postupak je sličan, naročito kada je reč o odnosu prema elementima fantastike. Uprkos kultnom statusu i preporukama da je ovo delo koje se ne propušta, i uprkos vrlo prijatnom utisku koji ostavlja gledanje ovog dvočasovnog TV filma, ipak nije reč o kapitalnom delu koje je bitno obogatilo žanr u internacionalnim okvirima. Mislim da je značaj ovog TV filma pre svega veliki u skadinavskom, regionalnom domenu, i svakako da ima svoje mesto u globalnim okvirima kada se izdvoje samo TV filmovi. Međutim, ukupni utisak da je ovo slično Kadijevićevim žanrovskim radovima za RTB, značajno ali u priličnoj meri zastarelo. Hobert se kasnije u produkciji švedske televizije vraćao SFu u jednoj mini-seriji koja po sinopsisu deluje još intrigatnije od ove priče o nusefektima projekta promene klime. U svakom slučaju, ovaj rad je sigurno zanimljiv hroničarima žanra i ljubiteljima SFa nastalog van glavnih centara.

Ima li šta lepše od državnog reditelja na kolenima...

http://www.standard.rs/fjodor-bondarcuk-jedna-srica-o-stvaranju-kulturnog-modela-ili-hvala-putinu-za-staljingrad.html

Knjiga za Mehmeta i Johna Reynoldsa, sa mojom velikom preporukom...

http://www.arhipelag.rs/knjige/globalna-afrika/

inače, Ćirjaković priprema doktorat za oblast sjeverne Afrike i čuveno proljeće, nedavno je odbranio nacrt teze...

Ćirjaković je zajeban hejter, ali slutim da bi ovo mogao da sa zadovoljstvom pročitam.

Pogledao sam ENDER`S GAME Gavina Hooda, ekranizaciju SF klasika Orson Scott Carda. Danas ova ekranizacija nastaje u potpuno drugačujem kontekstu od onoga što je bila izvorna ideja. Za početak ovo nije prestižni Warnerov film koji je trebalo da režira Wolfgang Petersen u kome se Cardov klasik tretira na prvoklasan A-način. Sada je to film sa kojim Summit i Lionsgate žele da započnu novu young adult franšizu posle velikog uspeha koji su imali sa TWILIGHTom i HUNGER GAMESima, a identitet Orsona Scott Carda se krije zbog njegove serije prvo homofobnih a zatim i vrlo neobičnih političkih istupa.

Međutim, iako je ENDER'S GAME daleko od onoga što su verovatno zanišljali Petersen i Warner, Gavin Hood je snimio izuzetno dobar film sa kojim je što se mene tiče i zauzdao svoje holivudsko lutanje. Uprkos tome što mi se čini da je Hod neke elemente u ovom filmu "ispustio" i da je u pojedinim aspektima sigurno mogao biti još kreativniji, kao reditelj i scenarista je za početak uspeo da očuva idejnu postavku Cardovog romana.

Cardov roman je ponudio jedan nov pogled na rat koji je bio originalan i u domenu žanrovske ali i umetnički vredne literature i koji je tek posle ovog romana zapravo etabliran u javnosti i na filmu, na primerima afričke dece ratnika pa u krajnjoj liniji i u pojedinim aspektima balkanskih sukoba. Ideja da samo dete, odnosno neko nezreo i nedovoljno upoznat sa životom i svetom može biti besprekorno efikasan ratnik je izuzetno potentna, i potvrđena je u stvarnosti.

Vanzemaljska pretnja i način na koji je koncipirana kroz pojavu insektolikih agresora, povezuje Carda sa Heinleinom, a samim tim i Hooda sa Verhoevenom. Naravno, STARSHIP TROOPERS je klasik satire koja formalno nije snimana kao takva već je uneta u visokooktanski blokbaster. ENDER'S GAME nimalo nije satiričan, štaviše on deluje kao vrlo hermetična fašistička fantazija koja se vremenom pervertira u vrlo konkretnu, rekao bih nepogrešivu kritiku savremenog militarizma.

STARSHIP TROOPERS je u tom pogledu mnogo opštija kritika od ENDER'S GAMEa koji tačno zna šta cilja i to se ispostavlja kao vrlo relevantna stvar u savremenim odnosima.

U ovom filmu mogu da se prepoznaju i postide svi, od Amerikanaca do Srba.

Hood je svakako mogao da u pojedinim aspektima snimi skladniji film, ima u nekoliko stvari prostora za napredak ali u osnovi ovaj film je dobar i ono što u njenmu nije najsavršenije nosi u sebi tu weird atmosferu 70s SFa i space opere koja ima nekakvu znakovitost. U određenom smislu, Hood nudi arhaiziranost sličnu JOHN CARTERu i toj liniji filmova koji se obraćaju fanboy publici.

Samim tim, nisam siguran kako će ENDER'S GAME proći u bioskopima i da li može da bude franchise starter kakav su producenti zamislili pošto ti fanboy filmovi obično slabo prolaze kada dođu u bioskope a ovaj (možda srećom?) čak nije ni imao nepodeljenu podršku u domenu fandoma.

Međutim, ako do franšize dođe, Gavin Hood je napravio sjajnu glumačku podelu koju među mladima predvode Asa Butterfield i Hailee Steinfeld i oni definitivno imaju dovolčjno klvaliteta i šarma da iznesu serijal. Asa je bez sumnje dorastao naslovnoj ulozi. Uostalom, do sada je već imao iskustava sa velikim rediteljima i projektima.

Ove godine sam gledao veštije sklopljene space opere od ENDER'S GAMEa, primera radi STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. Ipak, ENDER'S GAME se nameće kao jedan od najzanimljivijih filmova ove sezone, uprkos tome što stilski nije doveden do perfekcije.

* * * / * * * *

Pogledao sam vrlo simpatičan irski SF romcom EARTHBOUND Alana Brennana u kome jedna od kanonskih SF tema dobija tretman u kome se prepliću romantična komedija i pokušaj objašnjavanja SF konvencije kroz psihozu. U tom smislu, EARTHBOUND je neprikriveno oslonjen na zaostavštinu Brad Andersonovog remek-dela HAPPY ACCIDENTS. Isto tako, u domenu strukture ima značajnog uticaja Richarda Curtisa što je naročito zanimljivo ako imamo u vidu da se on sam ove sezone latio fantastike u vlastitom filmu ABOUT TIME.

Rafe Spall, glumac kog je Working Title pokušao da importuje u svoj romcom svet sa filmom I GIVE IT A YEAR (i u njemu Spall nije pokazao da jeste britanski Ryan Reynolds ali se još uvek ne može reći ni da nije) igra Engleza u Irskoj koji od detinjstva veruje da je vanzemaljac. Upoznaje devojku sa kojom procenjuje da bi mogao da nastavi svoju rasu, ali se u njihovom odnosu ispreči njegova deluzija ili pak neverovatna sudbina.

Sam zaplet o vanzemaljcu koji je pao na Zemlju i na njoj treba da prosuži svoju rasu aproprira Supermanovu mitologiju i to paradoksalno THE LAST SON liniju priče kojoj se vraća i ovogodišnji MAN OF STEEL. Otud bi se EARTHBOUND mogao gledati i kao simpatičan mali dodatak MAN OF STEELu.

Rafe Spall glumački dominira u filmu i sve mu je podređeno. Brennan se solidno snalazi na malom budžetu, film ima dobar tempo i sve što želi da plasira radi sa punim ubeđenjem što je važno jer je malo koji element ove priče zapravo originalan. Međutim, EATHBOUND je vešto sklopljen mehanizam koji ispunjava sve one ciljeve koje je postavio.

Mislim da pored ljubitelja britanskog romcoma, ovaj film svakako može biti zanimljiv i fanboyevima kao sporedna literatura.

* * * / * * * *

Pogledao sam CARRIE Kimberly Peirce. Ovaj film je mahom promovisan kao rimejk De Palminog filma iako je naravno reč o ekranizaciji Kingove proze. U ovom konkretnoms lučaju doduše, ne može se reći da je reč ni o jednom ni o drugom per se. Naime, De Palmin film, pored toga što je remek-delo kome Peirce ne može ni da priđe, nudi jedno drugo čitanje u kome pubertet donosi fatalnu transformaciju koja u spoju sa teškim porodičnim okolnostima i provokacija okoline dovodi do strave i užasa. De Palma je u svom filmu sve ove elemente priče o odrastanju, bajke i košmara realizovao u jednoj izuzetnoj visokoj estetizaciji, nudeči jedan fetišistički pogled na procese u sazrevanju jedne mlade žene i manifestujući ih kroz horor.

Kimberly Peirce je ipak žena, dakle moguće je da je De Palma ove osnovne teme prikazao zanimljivijim nego što one zapravo jesu, odnosno, moguće je da one njemu deluju uzbudljivije i intrigantnije nego njoj. Kod Kimberly, pubertet je više povod ali nikako nije u samom uzroku događaja koji se odvijaju. Osnovni problem je socijalni i vezan je za majku koja usled svog verskog fundamentalizma junakinju nije adekvatno socijalizovala, odnosno okoline. Nekog dubljeg problema kod Kimberly zapravo ni nema, Carrie ne reaguje naročito na samu mentruaciju samo joj je glupo što o njoj nije obaveštena.

Dakle, čitanje Kinga je drugačije nego kod De Palme. S druge strane u pogledu eksploatacijskih efekata, Kimberly definitivno želi da ponudi De Palmu na steroidima i Carrie prilično rano kreće da draži publiku sa svojim razornim moćima.

Kada ripper sekvence krenu, to je sve relativno energično ali i površno, tehnička veština ipak ne može da nadomesti neizgrađene karaktere i odnose, kako među likovima tako i između gledalaca i priče. Ako imamo u vidu da se ovaj film dešava u savremenom svetu, premreženom raznim vidovima komunikacije pojedine konvencije kao da recimo junaci mogu samo da komuniciraju u četiri oka deluju apsurdno.

Ali, sve to na stranu. U toj steroidskoj postavci najveći problem je gluma. Chloe Moretz je bila odlična u odličnom rimejku Afredsonovog LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, ali u CARRIE j evrlo agresivna i neubedljiva u ulozi isprepadane devojčice. Julianne Moore takođe nije nimalo suptilna u ulozi majke, ali ume mnogo bolje da iznese tu povećanu agresiju u likovima.

Epizodni glumci nisu dovoljno zanimljivi na nivou personality actinga ali su barem u interopretacijama odmereniji, naročito Portia Doubleday.

De Palmina CARRIE i dalje ostaje neprikosnoveni klasik. Međutim, Peirce ne uspeva da ugrozi ni naslove kao što je CHRONICLE koji su se na sličan način oslanjali na priču tog tipa. Sam property je već ranije defetišizovan slabim nastavkom THE RAGE: CARRIE 2. Međtuim, koliko god to suludo zvučalo, pokušaji da se priča nadoveže na prvi film praćeni pokušajima da se stvari kontekstualizuju detaljima iz savremene popularne kulture, čine taj film kudikamo vibrantnijim, iako je u ukupnom utisku ova nova ekranizacija ipak bolje gledalačko iskustvo.

* * / * * * * 

Šta posle Tijanića...

http://starikadar.blogspot.com/2013/11/sta-posle-tijanica.html

Domaćim serijskim programom sam zadovoljan, mada i ne tražim mnogo od domaćih serija, ali ono što je moglo da se vidi, sem Bele lađe, bilo je ok, program za opuštanje. Za dokumentarce valja zahvaliti samo entuzijastima koji bi to radili i bez Tijanića.

Filmski program je po meni promašaj, stvarno su to bili pretežno bezvezni izbori, sem nekih domaćih premijera ja ne pamtim dobar film u prime time-u. Možda u nekom konačnom zbiru to jeste izbalansirano, ali svaki put kad sam sjeo u fotelju i upalio TV film je bio očajan. U onim terminima kada su to možda balansirali ja nisam bio pred ekranom, dakle, o kakvim terminima je riječ? A čak volim van Dama, a ni njega nije bilo toliko koliko nekih drugih debila. Više Žan Kloda je bilo na B92 npr...

Ali uopšte se ne slažem oko informativnog programa, Dnevnik i nekako (mada nije teško biti bolji od prethodnika), ali ostale emisije su po meni totalna propast, sem Stanojevića, ali on je trebao biti najpitkiji od svih voditelja a ispostavilo se da je on maltene akademik među njima. Svi ostali, prije svega čuvene Kovačevićeve plavuše, su sramota za RTS. Iskreno sam mislio da ne može biti ništa gore od Nataše Miljković, a sad bih je od blata pravio kad su joj ukinuli emisiju. Ona je poprilično radila by the book, i teme su joj bile raznovrsnije nego u slučaju njenih nasljednica. Iako je to izgledalo nespretno ovo sada ne izgleda ni tako, izgleda prosto bezukusno, glupo, repetitorno.

Stoga, iako je Tijanić bio kralj kolumnista, i iako je čuda činio sa prethodnim televizijama koje je vodio, RTS je po meni bio preveliki zalogaj za njega. U samu organizaciju ne mogu da ulazim jer nisam siguran ni koliko su podaci o tome javno dostupni, možda je u tom pogledu bio odličan, ali programski dio je promašaj, a informativa potpuna bruka. Kao i Partizan, možda ne duguje desetine miliona evra, ali gubi derbi autogolom i očajnom igrom.

Ispostavilo se da nesvršeni student FPN ne može da izgradi RTS. Možda zato što se TV novinarstvo nalazi na godini studija koju on nije ni upisao. Iako mu ja to nikad nisam zamjerao, jer mi nije važna diploma, ipak se ispostavilo da su njegovi kritičari tu bili u pravu. Jedina, apsolutno jedina stvar koja se može reći u odbranu ovakve informative jeste eventualni politički pritisak i težnja da se obezglavi srpsko novinarstvo, ali čak ni to ne opravdava gotovo svakodnevne promašaje u strukturi TV priloga, takve da smatram da neke bosanske televizije više poštuju pravila novinarskog pisanja nego RTS u Dnevniku.

Ja npr. simpatišem Šotru, iako je jasno da čovjek ne poštuje najosnovnija pravila esnafa, ali isto tako je potrebno reći da to nije činio ni Tijanić u svom šotrijanskom Dnevniku, nakon kojeg je išla Šotrina TV serija.

Riječju, Šotrin šou je uvijek počinjao u 19:30, a ne kako su mnogi uvjereni 30-40 minuta kasnije.

Stanojević vrlo ozbiljno radi i on je okosnica informative van Dnevnika a Gorislav Papić je isto tako veliko otkriće i mislim da će OKO postati institucija. Emisija Olivere Kovačević je vremenom postala negledljiva i ne mogu da kažem da mi je to ikada bila simpatična njuška, no ne bih sporio da je u okvirima tog žanra bila reč o pristojnoj emisija.

Riha i posle Papić su dobro radili RASPAKIVANJE.

Ne zaboravi vrlo bitne emisije koje se masovno gledaju kao što su Jutarnji program i Beogradska hronika koje umeju da zablistaju i vrlo su jake na terenu. Za početak, uprkos ambicijama ni B92, ni Prva ni Pink onomad nisu dostigle "terensku" snagu RTSa u pogledu izveštača iako iz nekih mesta, nota bene, B92 ima bolje dopisnike...

Što se stranog filmskog i serijskog programa tiče, mislim da su Karlito i sada naš John Reynoklds uradivi vrhunski posao. Sa skromnijim budžetom su napravili program koji je gledan, pristojan, a povrh svega nije skup. Nemeček je naravno velemajstor za tu vrstu programa ali njegov program je po pravilu skup i eksperiment na TV Avala je pokazao kako ta vrsta programa naprosto više nema taj značaj koji je imala u zlatnim danima Pinka.

Shvatam da filmski program mora da pomiri zaradu od reklama sa brojem gledalaca, jer svakako ima kvalitetnih i maltene besplatnih filmova koje bi mali broj ljudi gledao. To je naravno problem keša, kako se iz šale kaže ''komercijalni javni servis'', taj krst nose. Strani serijski program je dobar, tu nema spora.

S druge strane, ne razumijem poentu emisije kao što je Raspakivanje, mene nije privuklo da gledam. Ne znam čemu to pripada, istraživačkom novinarstvu, analitičkom novinarstvu? Ne znam čemu služi, kome se obraća, da li je uopšte informativa. Kovačevićka, da se držalo do nekih standarda, nikad ne bi ni primirisala RTS-u.

Beogradska hronika je dobra, niko nije plavuša u toj emisiji, koliko se sjećam Ali to je obična emisija iz oblasti u kojoj svaki dnevni list ima istu rubriku, ni po čemu se Hronika ne izdvaja od tih dnevnih listova, sem što pripada drugom, popularnijem mediju. RTS bi trebalo da bude avangarda, da govori o temama koje su eksluzivne, a veliko je pitanje da li je Hronika primjer za to. Hronika je obična emisija a od RTS-a se mora očekivati nešto više od običnog.

Štaviše, TVBN ima Danas u Srpskoj, što je hronika svih gradova a ne samo prestonice, crnogorska državna televizija ima posebne izdvojene emisije u nedeljnom terminu o svakom gradu, običajima, praznicima, ratnim herojima, hrani, kulturi... RTRS ima emisiju koja je itekako kritična prema vlasti, bar ono malo što sam gledao imalo je takvu svježinu poslije korumpiranog zadaha RTS-a.

Dakle, ne postoji samo Beograd, iako bi čovjek pomislio gledajući RTS da postoji samo to. Nije problem samo u onome što vidimo u Beogradskoj hronici (koja je ok) već i u onome što ne vidimo, ili što ja ne vidim na RTS-u, da prosto saznamo kakve probleme imaju pojedini gradovi, ma kakvi to problemi bili.

Ne znam, možda ćeš me demantovati, možda postoji neka emisija na RTS-u koja izvještava o dešavanjima u Leskovcu npr? Koliko mi već organizam odbija da gleda RTS možda sam ja tako nešto i propustio. Dakle, postoji li redovna emisija koja pokriva čitavu Srbiju?  Npr. kanalizaciju u Novom Pazaru, školsku infrastrukturu u Zrenjaninu? Redovna emisija koja reportažno prikazuje neki grad u Srbiji i njegovu specifičnost? Redovna emisija koja prikazuje radničko nezadovoljstvo? Vjerovao ili ne, takve emisije postoje u susjednim zemljama, a u RTS su ili skrajnute tako da ih ja nikad ne primijetim, ili ih stvarno nema, mada je u oba slučaja rezultat isti - ja nemam pojma šta se dešava trenutno u Leskovcu.


Čime se bave ti, kako ih od ''milošte'' zovu u krugu dvojke, ''obični građani''.

Postoji i emisija o celoj Srbiji, zove se "Ovo je Srbija", ranije se zvala "Srbija danas"...

eto, ja sam mislio da su Šta radite bre i Ovo je Srbija jedna te ista emisija

http://www.rts.rs/page/tv/sr/story/20/RTS+1/1022172/Ovo+je+Srbija.html

ali ovdje samo 3. tema ima šta da traži u ovakvoj emisiji, pod uslovom da nisu ispatetisali tu priču, rasplakali neko dijete, što inače rade na BN televiziji

ali hajde, ne mogu da sudim o OjS, ali izgleda se uklapa u tezu da je izbor tema u informativi jednostavno čudan, iščašen, promašen

Zar je broj radnih dana u Ju-Es Stilu vijest? Koji god da su razlozi bili - vijest nije. Ima mnogo boljih (tj gorih) primjera šta se čini s radnicima u Srbiji. Carinska zona je vijest, ali za ekonomsku emisiju, ne za ovo. Dio sa Kikindom je smiješan.

I tako dalje... neću više da smaram, RTS jeste dosta ispred svojih konkurenata ali to generalno znači veoma malo kad se uporedi čak i sa hrvatskom informativom. Šta god ko mislio o ''Nedjeljom u 2'' RTS nema ni to (a to je problem izbora kadrova), čak i OBN je imao ok voditelja, ne sjećam mu se imena, RTS srednja žalost... o vijestima u 19:30 da ne pričamo. Hrvatski RTL kad sam pratio imao je vijesti uređene kao s druge planete. RTRS su takođe prilično dobre... već sam spomenuo reportažno-kolažnu emisiju u CG koja posjećuje različite gradove svake nedjelje, to je po meni fantastičan način da se upozna jedna zemlja...

čisto da zaokružim sa ovim i palim

http://uns.org.rs/sr/desk/media-news/10742/radojkovic-drag-mi-je-tijanic-ali-mi-je-istina-draza.html?print=true

Pogledao sam THE LAST DAYS ON MARS Ruairi Robinsona, adaptaciju kratke priče Sydney J. Boundsa, film koji spolja deluje kao indie prohjekat ali je iznutra reč o prilično klišetiziranom SF/hororu koji uprkos uglednoj glumačkoj piodlei i reditelju od kog se mnogo očekuje ne preza od potrošene priče o zlokobdnom marsovskom virusu koji zombifikuje istraživače na Marsu. Ove sezone su producenti stavili akcenat na priče u svemiru a GRAVITY je baš kao takav bio svojevrsni success story ove sezone. THE LAST DAYS ON MARS je dakle imao priliku da sa svojom odličnom podelom, relativno ambicioznom realizacijom i "serioznim" pristupom naiđe na raspoloženu publiku. Nažalost, sam rezultat je tehnički korektan ali pripovedački i idejno krajnje klimav. Jedini bizarni detalj koji barem Srbe može da zabavi jeste to što Goran Kostić igra astronauta koji je suedeći po nekim opaskama Srbin.

* 1/2 / * * * *

Kad treba da se gine za spas čovečanstva tu su Ameri, a kad se gine zbog gluposti tu su Srbi.

Tačno tako!

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 06-11-2013, 15:16:50
...   Jedini bizarni detalj koji barem Srbe može da zabavi jeste to što Goran Kostić igra astronauta koji je suedeći po nekim opaskama Srbin.

* 1/2 / * * * *

Лик у филму се зове Марко Петровић. Чак у једном тренутку тај Марко Петровић отпева део рефрена чувене "У раздељак те љубим" (бар мислим да је то та песма).

Tako je. Ali nisam uspeo da identifikujem koju zastavu nosi na šlemu. Dakle, da li je član Srpske svemirske komande ili je gastos.

Korean Film Industry: Censorship Rising?
November 5, 2013 | 03:06PM PT
With a conservative gov't in place, bizzers fear the return of the scissors \

The modern South Korean film industry was born in the mid-'90s when the Busan festival helped push back the cloud of censorship that had prevailed for 10 years after the end of military rule.

Since then, Korean directors have reveled in their freedom to shock, tantalize and blindside their audiences — whether coming from Kim Ki-duk's sado-masochistically bizarre "The Isle" and fairly explicit sex in Park Chul-soo's "The Green Chair," to hints of cannibalism in Kim Jee-woon's "I Saw the Devil," or the unremitting but always stylish ultra-violence of Na Hong-jin's "The Chaser" and "The Yellow Sea." Choi Min-sik eating a live octopus in Park Chan-wook's "Oldboy" is still a high point for some genre fans.

Yet there's growing concern that censorship is on the increase since the arrival in February of President Park Geun-hye's deeply conservative government.

Some see the Korea Media Ratings Board as having already become tougher. They cite the near-banning of Kim's "Moebius" as an example. The director, whose stock-in-trade is provocation, only had the film cleared for commercial release after two appeals and the removal of two minutes of footage.

Yet, a single problem film does not necessarily mark a trend. "The new government is less than one year old. Most current films were greenlighted before that," says "Late Autumn" producer Lee Joo-ick. "Maybe there will be more impact in the future. But we are not China."

Others fear that the government will not need to act explicitly and that self-censorship will do much of its work.

Some suggest that politically themed contemporary films are not going to be greenlit and that criticism of the government is becoming harder. For this they look no further than "Project Cheonan Ship," a documentary by Baek Seung-woo, which premiered in May's Jeonju festival. It offers alternative explanations for the 2010 sinking of warship Cheonan, in which 46 sailors died and which the South Korean government says was caused by a North Korean torpedo.

Bereaved families attempted to bar the film with court injunctions, but "Cheonan" made it into limited release in September, only to have the Megabox theater chain remove the film after two days. The exhibitor cited warnings that its cinemas were going to be picketed by conservative groups. Skeptics say with the heads of many big Korean conglomerates in jail, business is simply unwilling to stick its neck out.

Hrvati snimaju svoj BLACK HAWK DOWN...

http://novikadrovi.blogspot.com/2013/11/broj-55-novi-film-kristijana-milica.html

Još dokaza da su Amerikanci poluretardirani. Mislim, trebalo im je 16 godina da prepoznaju satirične elemente Staršip Trupers? Stvarno? Iako pola epizodista iz Bevery Hills 90210 igra u tom filmu?

Starship Troopers: One of the Most Misunderstood Movies Ever

Quote

When Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers hit theaters 16 years ago today, most American critics slammed it. In the New York Times, Janet Maslin panned the "crazed, lurid spectacle," as featuring "raunchiness tailor-made for teen-age boys." Jeff Vice, in the Deseret News, called it "a nonstop splatterfest so devoid of taste and logic that it makes even the most brainless summer blockbuster look intelligent." Roger Ebert, who had praised the "pointed social satire" of Verhoeven's Robocop, found the film "one-dimensional," a trivial nothing "pitched at 11-year-old science-fiction fans."

But those critics had missed the point. Starship Troopers is satire, a ruthlessly funny and keenly self-aware sendup of right-wing militarism. The fact that it was and continues to be taken at face value speaks to the very vapidity the movie skewers.

Starship Troopers is set in the distant future, when humankind has begun to colonize worlds beyond the borders of our galaxy. Earth has provoked an otherwise benign species of bug-like aliens to retaliate violently against our planet, which it suddenly and correctly perceives as hostile. Interpreting what are pretty obviously self-defense tactics as further gestures of aggression, humankind marshals its global forces and charges into a grossly outmatched interstellar war. The rhetoric throughout is unmistakably fascistic: Earth's disposable infantrymen, among whom our high-school-aged former-jock hero naturally ranks, are galvanized by insipid sloganeering, which they regurgitate on command with sincerity as they head to slaughter. ("The only good bug is a dead bug!" is the chant most favored—shades of Animal Farm abound.)

The resulting film critiques the military-industrial complex, the jingoism of American foreign policy, and a culture that privileges reactionary violence over sensitivity and reason. The screenplay, by Robocop writer Edward Neumeier, furnished the old-fashioned science-fiction framework of Robert A. Heinlein's notoriously militaristic novel with archetypes on loan from teen soaps and young adult-fiction, undermining the self-serious saber-rattling of the source text. Even the conclusion makes a point of deflating any residual sense of heroism and valor: We see our protagonists, having narrowly escaped death during a near-suicidal mission, marching back to battle in a glorified recruitment video—suggesting that in war the only reward for a battle well fought is the prospect of further battle.

Over the nearly two decades since the film's debut, the critical reputation of Starship Troopers hasn't especially improved. But you can feel the conversation beginning to shift; it rightfully has come to be appreciated by some as an unsung masterpiece. Coming in at number 20 on Slant Magazine's list of the 100 best films of the 1990s last year (a poll in which, full disclosure, I was among the voting critics), the site's Phil Coldiron described it as "one of the greatest of all anti-imperialist films," a parody of Hollywood form whose superficial "badness" is central to its critique. It fared well in The A.V. Club's '90s poll, too, appearing in the top 50, where it was praised as a "gonzo satire destined, even designed, to be misunderstood." Scott Tobias, former editor of the A.V. Club's film section, lauded Troopers a few years earlier as "the most subversive major studio film in recent memory," observing that it "seems absurd now to write it off as some silly piece of escapism, as its detractors complained."

But the original misperceptions still persist. On October 4th, RiffTrax—a series of downloadable comedy commentary tracks from the creators of Mystery Science Theater 3000—released an episode in which they mocked Starship Troopers, a movie their website describes as "dumb and loud" and a "goofy mess." Mike J. Nelson and his RiffTrax co-stars Kevin Murphy and Bill Corbett heckle the film with about as much insight and wit as they misperceive the film to have. Sample humor: At one point, a bomb destroys a giant bug, and the three of them yell "Oh no, Raid!" Later, Denise Richards smiles, and someone says, in a robotic voice, "Smile-o-tron 3000 engaged." It goes on like this. The tagline for RiffTrax is "Your favorite movies—made funny!" What they don't seem to understand is that Starship Troopers already is funny—and smart.

Troopers, of course, is far from the only instance of a film being popularly misinterpreted. Given enough distance even the most fervently reviled movie may one day find its legacy resuscitated, earning decades later its long overdue acclaim. Maybe that time is near for Troopers; hopefully, at least a few Rifftrax listeners newly introduced to the film picked up what was really going on. If you're open and attuned to it—if you're prepared for the rigor and intensity of Verhoeven's approach—you'll get the joke Starship Troopers is telling. And you'll laugh.

Шта ће тек бити кад открију потпуну генијалност потцијењеног ремек ђела СХОЊГИРЛС?

Mehmete, da nema linka, pomislio bih da si ti napisao ovo iz šale...