IC U2 3D B4 U

by Memo Salazar

It’s amazing how much there is to say about a U2 performance filmed in three dimensions. Concert films are usually painfully boring; even if you like the music, watching a video of a crowd of people and their favorite band just isn’t that interesting. The thing about live music is that it’s live; take that away and it’s usually a really long, dull music video. There are exceptions, of course. Jonathan Demme, who’s narrative films usually don’t do much for me, has directed three brilliant concert performances that stand the test of time. The Talking Heads’ Stop Making Sense is, of course, his most famous, having set a new standard of creativity in a rock band’s filmed performance. I actually like Neil Young’s Heart of Gold more; it’s not that I prefer Young over the Talking Heads (far from it), it’s just that this amazingly intimate film takes you into the performer’s world like no other concert film I’ve ever seen. Then there’s Spalding Gray’s Swimming to Cambodia, which takes the art of the staged monologue to new heights. Who knew a neurotic New Englander could be so riveting? I mention Demme because he’s pretty much the only guy that seems to get it; just filming an exciting event doesn’t make for an exciting film. You have to have a vision to what you’re doing, no differently than with any other work of art.

Which brings us to U2 3D, a movie which is part rock concert, part technological experiment. What was once a popular ballyhoo gimmick several decades ago has recently come around for a second round of audience rousing; “3D” usually means that if you can’t make a good movie, maybe you can, at least, make it jump off the screen. For U2 3D, we were told, several new techniques were employed that pushes the 3D concept to the next level: moving cameras (i.e. tracking shots) can finally be employed in the 3D realm, as well as lots of fancy layering (you know, compositing two or three shots on top of each other, like those cheesy “Reflection” school photos our parents made us take.) I hadn’t seen a 3D movie since Disney and Michael Jackson teamed up for Captain Eo, and I’m not one to be impressed by a lot of technical wizardry and gimmickry. It was with this skeptical attitude, you understand, that I sat down to watch Bono shove his face in my personal space.

First, a word about Bono and his boys. U2 was an obvious choice as a showcase for this new 3D technology; they are about as safe an act as there is, appealing to old and young, offending no one. This, in itself, speaks a lot about a once “edgy” band (edgy, at least, lyrically, though never musically) who used to have an axe to grind with the political leaders of our world. Though they’ve, for the most part, stuck to their overall message, it’s obvious that the world is paying more attention to their inoffensive, bland pop hooks than they are to any supposed words of wisdom coming out of Bono’s mouth. U2 has become an institution, trying anything to remain relevant in an age of distraction, embracing both techno music and ipods with open arms. This film, then, is already less a work of art than a piece of mass entertainment, not much different than the glitzy Broadway show you might find yourself at during your next Manhattan visit. In that sense, U2 did their job perfectly, hitting all their cues, playing their solos at the appropriate times, shifting from crowd-rearing anthems to quiet ballads as needed. If nothing else, U2 has always maintained a high level of craft, and U2 3D is no exception- the upshot being that the 85-minute long movie is never boring.

The 3D “gimmick”, too, turned out to be not so gimmicky. You can pay $100 to see a big-shot rock band play in a giant stadium where, unless you’re one of the lucky few up front, you must resign yourself to watching your heroes on giant tv screens floating above the stage- which probably explains why my last arena rock event was seeing Rush in high school many, many years ago (as embarrassing a fact as that might be.) From this point of view, the 3D concert film is an exciting new alternative; the clarity of the digital image combined with the depth of three dimensions creates a vivid and visceral experience. Of course, “visceral experience” is a relative thing that loses its value quickly; let’s not forget the famous Lumiére Brothers’ “Arrival of a Train” way back in 1895, which had audiences running out of the theater as they watched some film of a train arriving at a station (it wasn’t even coming straight at the camera!) I’m sure it won’t be long before this amazingly new, super-clear 3D technology starts to look old and dated; at the same time, this skeptical viewer found himself more impressed than he expected to be by a fancy-schmancy U2 concert. For a band that’s been around as long as it has, U2’s doing pretty well. They’re certainly faring better than other bands at their relative age (The Stones and The Who being two that come to mind.) There were times when those Irish guys actually rocked out!

Which isn’t to say it couldn’t have been better. For starters, while the film was very professionally made, it was also incredibly generic. Take away the 3D twist, and it was your usual assortment of wide shots and close ups; cue the sweeping crane shot that pans above the crowd and ends up on Bono’s face, blah blah blah. Co-directors Catherine Owens and Mark Pellington didn’t really have much of a vision in putting this together, ensuring the eventual fate of this concert film to be nothing more than a footnote in the technical advancement of the moving image. There were a few creative elements the 3D aspect added to the mix, but none that were used to any great effect. Wide establishing shots of the stadium and extreme close-ups of people were both incredibly impressive; the former gave you a sense of depth of the location which is impossible to convey with two dimensions, and the latter gave you an intimacy with the performer that was pretty jaw-dropping. Yes, you could see every wrinkle on Bono’s forehead, but more excitingly, for the first time ever, you could really observe the musicians’ playing of their instruments. Watching Adam Clayton and The Edge plunk away was a total treat, as I could see exactly what chords they were playing or simply appreciate their fingering techniques, something that has always frustrated me when watching concert films in a mere two dimensions- you never quite get a sense of what they do. Of course, the directors’ insecure need to stay on a shot for no longer than three seconds killed this wonderful new opportunity, which is why I’d like to see this technology in the hands of someone with more of a creative clue than these guys. Here and there, they did something interesting, like adding a little touch of animation to Bono’s hand gestures or cutting together an occasionally nice sequence of layered shots, but most of the creativity seems to have come out of the editing room, not the actual filming. Still, the whole thing was very well done and enjoyable, which is about all you can expect from a film that is clearly more of a technical calling card than an artistic statement. I’m sure National Geographic was not looking for awards in the “best experimental film” category.

If you can’t stand U2’s easy-to-digest music, you might hate the film. Otherwise, I can’t see why one would not enjoy such a fun treat. I happened to have watched the film with a very skeptical U2 fan who was expecting very little and found himself enjoying the film a lot more than his last live U2 show… which probably says more about this post-millenial U2 than it does about the film itself. The band’s performance started off somewhat lacklusterly, but as the band settled into their groove and pulled out their stronger (albeit predictable) older material, they definitely heated up, making the 3D feel less like a gimmick and more like an enhancement to their stage show. The set list was pretty much what you would expect it to be, with the exception of Miss Sarajevo, formerly a duet with Pavarotti, now sung solely by Bono, who proved he’s got some pretty powerful pipes by handling Pavarotti’s vocal with power and panache. No other risks were taken, but the strong material did what it needed to do.

Though I’m sure this new 3D technology will be used mostly to make shitty special effect films even shittier, there’s always a hope that someone with genuinely creative ideas will get their hands on this new toy and use it to make something new and unique. I know how I would have shot this concert, but National Geographic didn’t come to me for advice, so we can only hope that U2 3D is the first step towards something truly wonderful. In the meantime, it’s not a bad first try.

I”m giving myself bonus points for not using a single U2 song title as a pun throughout this article. Thank you.

Frank Darabont & Stephen King surprise us in a good way

by Memo Salazar

It’s been a pretty busy few months over here for us Cinemaspeak people, which has resulted, for me, at least, in the viewing of very few movies. The combination of my local theater’s “Super Tuesday” $4 movie ticket promotion and a recommendation from a friend, however, led me to watch an unlikely movie- The Mist, directed by Frank Darabont, a film that has been received with very lukewarm interest, both commercially and critically.

There wasn’t much interest from me, either- I don’t really care for Stephen King’s mainstream sensibilities, always pushing obvious buttons for silly effect; the only horror movies I can think of liking are usually tongue-in-cheek, such as Peter Jackson’s Dead Alive. Actual attempts at scaring me pretty much always fail, so I rarely bother trying to find one that does. For the most part, the Horror genre holds little interest to this guy… but The Mist was quite different in all these respects, and I found myself captivated and engaged like I haven’t been since… who knows. I don’t watch many horror movies.

The best thing about The Mist is the storytelling. Darabont keeps it simple and sincere, with an honest, hand-held style that stays far away from the gimmicky “guerilla hand-held” look found all over television, while maintaining the tension that you can’t get from static camera shots. Other than the opening nod to horror movies by way of a few famous movie posters (the main character paints movie posters for a living), there is nothing self-conscious about the film. It gives you some very simple, genuine characters from a small New England town (what else? It’s Stephen King, after all) who find themselves fending for their lives while trapped in a supermarket surrounded by fog and monsters. It’s a ridiculously clichéd horror movie premise, I know, but Darabont paces it so well, that, for the first time since who-knows-when, I was actually buying it, genuinely concerned for how the whole thing was going to be played out. Without giving any plot elements away, I can simply attest to the overall intelligence of the storytelling, right up to the end, where Darabont gives us a dramatic plot twist that is fitting and genuinely surprising. Compare that to the gimmicky, contrived and confusing plot twists of almost every thriller made today, and you’ll hopefully start to appreciate how refreshing The Mist is.

Which is not to say the film is perfect; every so often there are scenes where the dialogue or situation comes off a little too forced, as when the characters all tell us that when people are afraid, you can manipulate them to do almost anything. True enough, but the entire film is showing us that already- no need to hammer the point with some supplemental cliff notes. Here and there, characters do things that are more in keeping with “movie logic” rather than actual logic, but the film never strays too far off the path before it becomes believable again. There is also a classic Stephen-King-religious-nutcase right out of any 1970’s horror film, preaching fire and brimstone to those who will listen. This would be fine if this were a clever, ironic, self-conscious-reference type of film, but here, where the drama is actually played straight and sincerely, she’s just way too silly to buy into. I also wonder if it was the budget or Darabont’s lack of expertise that led them to give us some incredibly cheesy digital monsters, the film’s most obvious weak point. The scenes play out perfectly, until you actually see the creatures. They’re so obviously digital, they already seem dated, as if the film was made 10 years ago and is only being released now- not good when you’re trying for a legitimate horror film. Because everything else is well-crafted, those scenes still remain suspenseful, but it does pull you out of the moment a bit.

None of the little flaws, however, stop The Mist from becoming a solid piece of entertainment, and while the message is far from insightful or eye-opening, it is an intelligent piece of filmmaking that comes from the heart, rather than the wallet. It’s an old-fashioned horror film that stands out among the glut of overdone, over-sensitized gore-fests simply because it is simple. It deserves better than the attention it has received, so get off your ass and go check it out while you can. I think that’s all I have to say about that.