Gone Girl—no spoilers

Gone Girl movie poster via Wikipedia

Getting to the movies isn’t really realistic anymore now I’m a dad. I’ve let me Cineworld subscription lapse. That’s not to say there aren’t films I want to see right now: Interstellar, The Imitation Game, Gone Girl.

Of those, Interstellar is the only ‘better see it in the theatre’ movie, but I was anxious to see Gone Girl because I knew it’s a mystery drama and I didn’t want the mystery solved before I saw it, the solution blurted out by someone on the train. This is unusual for me, because I usually don’t give a damn about spoilers. Hell, if I get the chance to read the screenplay before I see the movie, I do. The Searchers, The Manchurian Candidate (the 1962 one), the last three Star Wars films—I read them before I saw them.

But I chanced upon this article (can’t find it now, sorry) which explained that Fincher and co. felt the need to do some nimble adaptation gymnastics because they believed that if you knew The Twist!!! (as the 8.5 million people who made the book a bestseller did, at least) there would be no point in seeing the film at all. Really? This twist, once known, would render the film worthless? That must be some special twist, and I wanted Fincher to deliver it to me the way he wanted.

Our pal, Lorna, is an inveterate cinema-goer, and I asked her if she’d seen it. Surprising, she hadn’t, and—lo and behold!—she didn’t seem that keen to because, yes, she’s read the book and already knew The Twist. “I didn’t see it coming,” she said, the platonic ideal of all plot twists. I told her about the article and how the filmmakers had worked overtime to throw a bone to those poor audience members who’d read the novel, presumably being dragged to the movie house by their illiterate friends, but I didn’t get the impression it appeared on her todo list.

As it became clear that I couldn’t catch the film, I made it 8.5 million and one and bought the book. And read it. I’ll now give you some thoughts without, hopefully, spoiling anything. But…

The thing is, I think it was already spoiled, to nearly the same extent that it would had been if someone had just flatly told me the secret. I couldn’t read the pre-Twist section all innocent and malleable, because of the simple fact that I knew The Twist was coming, and that it was a humdinger that could ruin movies. Accordingly, I couldn’t help but try to guess it, and I’m afraid I did.

That’s not to say I’m some Poirot genius. I guessed a lot of things, suspected everybody, believed nobody, and the Twist just turned out to be one of the bazillion things I’d considered. Thankfully, (spoiler alert!) it’s not a last-page thing, there’s still plenty of story to get through after it happens (and I saw none of that coming) so even if someone gives the main game away, it’s still worth reading, still a page-turner.

But was I really supposed to read the pre-Twist chapters in such a state of forensic scepticism? Wasn’t knowing there was a Twist at all just as bad as knowing what it was? Maybe not quite as bad, but the affect, that I wasn’t caught unawares, was pretty much the same.

This is why I find secret plot twists tiresome. Not big plot twists, secret ones, Hollywood ones, non-disclosure agreement ones.* Have them, enjoy them, but a well told story doesn’t require ignorance, otherwise you’d never see a movie more than once. I know from tickling my daughter: the first, surprise, tickle’s fun, but better is the next, the one she’s waiting for.

And now I’m interested in seeing the film without any of the needless anxiety. Instead, I’m looking forward to seeing how they land the punch. That alone will keep me on the edge of my seat. Basically, I’m glad I know.

 

*George Lucas has apparently frozen Darth Vader body, David Prowse, out of all official promotion and hasn’t spoken to him since 1983 because he gave away too much of Return of the Jedi’s plot in an interview. That must be why the film bombed at the box office and Lucas is broke.

Premiere Pro pain — necessary or not?

No one likes unnecessary pain.

It must’ve seemed like unnecessary pain to many editors, having to learn a new piece of software when the old one works just fine. And no, I’m not talking about Final Cut Pro X (yet), but Final Cut Pro 7. Years ago, I saw a lot of hostility towards it from Avid guys, and I always thought that, frankly, they were just too lazy to learn a new bit of software.

That sentiment, though, has come back to haunt me as I’m being forced into the world of Adobe’s Premiere Pro for the first time. In my one day’s work with it, it hasn’t impressed me, but is that its problem or mine?

Read more

Breaking News: Final Cut Pro 7 is still dead!

Gotta say, I agree with this post regarding Final Cut Pro 7. I just finished a job with it and, sadly, it wasn’t up to the task.

Admittedly, I’d over-estimated it, recommending against transcoding footage from a C300 (which poor old FCP7 insists is XDCAM HD422) when the client indicated that storage space was limited. I know we could’ve transcoded to proxies, but the initial tests with a few clips showed no performance hit and I figured it would preclude pernickety re-linking come Online Time. However, when trying to deal with an hour-long timeline and gazillions of clips, FCP7 continually freaked out.

And I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s not just dead, it’s bean dead for nearly two years (if you count from the FCPX announcement rather than the release). That’s a long time not to have replaced it. Sure, you can say it works as well as it ever did, but we’re not using the media we always did. We’re hiring the latest cameras, using the latest codecs, so, in real terms, Final Cut Pro 7 does not work as well as it always did.

There’s also the dead bug problem. All software has bugs, but I’ve always been able to live with them because you knew that somewhere, someone was working to fix them. There were enough examples of updates that addressed that specific bug that you’d been ranting about, and it was like letting out a piss that had been getting painful.

The instant Final Cut Pro X was announced, though, you knew that no one was lifting a finger for version 7. It would crash and you’d get the standard ‘Final Cut Pro quit unexpectedly. Do you want to send a report to Apple?’ and it seemed like a joke. Did these reports now go in a killfile? Maybe the best ones got read out at the Infinite Loop Christmas party. “Quieten down: this one’s a belter. ‘Crashed while dragging keyframes on a .png that was’ — get this! — ‘12,238 by 9,496!’ Ahahahahaha!”

Whatever. They certainly weren’t helping to improve the software. The problem you’re having? You’ll have it forever. That was the thing, for me, that really made Final Cut 7 really feel dead.

And yet I still hear people saying, “I suppose I’d better think about where to go next.” Mr. Ostertag is right though, the day’s getting late for that kind of talk.

For me, Avid’s been a constant throughout my career, so it’s there for the broadcast jobs. When I get the chance I use Final Cut Pro X because it’s already the best way cut shots together, in my opinion, and has the scope to go stratospheric with its new paradigm in the way that the track timelines can only tinker themselves better as far as I can see. I still mean to give Premiere a serious go, though. Hell, I’ve bought it, and a FCPX-shy director I work with is making noises about using it for a feature next year, so I’ll start mucking about as soon as I get a chance.

But I’d be happy to abandon Final Cut Pro 7 forever, frankly. I only relented and installed it on my iMac because the deadline for the job I mentioned at the start was bearing down and I needed to take it home if I was ever to see my wife. I had hoped to keep it just on my old MacbookPro, and only for those times I needed to convert an old project. I didn’t want it on a new machine.

That’s not that I didn’t love it. I did. I loved my father, but I don’t want him exhumed. He’s dead, and so is FCP7. Better face it.

Tip for logging with keywords

My favourite way of logging with keywords is to have ‘No Ratings or Keywords’ selected as the criteria for display in the Event Browser. Then, add a keyword and the clip vanishes. So you always know which clips have yet to be sorted. Ah, but what if you want to add more than one keyword? The clip disappears as soon as you add the first, no? Well…

If the keyword editor is open, the act of committing a keyword (or keywords) to a clip leaves the clip itself in that kind of half-selected limbo where its highlight is grey and not blue. Like it’s selected, but in an inactive window (which, I suppose, is what it is).

[pic of situation]

Here, type all the keywords you want to apply to the next clip (even if there’s a shortcut), select them all and cut them, leaving the field blank. Then click on the next clip and paste the keywords in.

The clip will vanish, but it’ll have all the keywords you wanted associated with it.

Bow to the Audience

My favourite living musician and recording artist is Prince. I’ll allow that if you don’t like him, you probably really don’t like him. That’s because he’s really good. Not a middle of the road, demographic-studying slave to shifting units. He is a businessman of remarkable savvy and boldness—he does know how to shift units—but he doesn’t pander. Ever. He is, truly, an artist.

If there’s one level-headed criticism levelled at him, though, by fans and haters alike, it’s that he can be self-indulgent. He can, and has, had moments where he’s seemed to go in a direction that’s hard to follow{{1}} [[1]]Could be too brilliant, could be too crap.[[1]] and appeared disdainful of anyone not up for it. But you don’t stay vital and successful in the creative arts by being unconcerned with the audience.

Read more

For the love of God, can we kill interlaced?

In my day, my young ’uns, faster frame rates than the usual 23.97, 24, 25 and 29.97 frame rates were only useful if you wanted smooth slow motion. With Peter Jackson boldly using 48 frames per second for The Hobbit, the idea that they could be used as a playback option has a good chance of taking hold. The effect is the smoother motion that TV viewers associate with news shows, talk shows, daytime soaps and certain multi-camera sitcoms. To the editor, that’s known as interlaced, and it’s a pain and a remnant of antiquated broadcast systems. Can we now consign it to the cutting room floor of history?

Read more

Serious Multicam problem in FCPX 10.0.4

Multicam may have been implemented in Final Cut Pro X, version 10.0.3, and improved in 10.0.4, but working on a show that’s destined to be broadcast to License payers, I found it’s led to a new problem that could mean the loss of an awful lot of work. Of course, back-ups were also introduced at some point, but restoring from back-up doesn’t help if the back-up is just as corrupted as the current version.

Read more

Dying formats, emergent workflow

The only problem I’ve encountered with Final Cut Pro X during my first edit for broadcast TV involves anamorphic QuickTimes, but in solving it I found a new friend in my editing life.

Read more

A tape project in Final Cut Pro X

The only major complaint about Final Cut Pro X, now it’s in 10.0.4, left over from the .0 release’s Big Four—no multicam, no broadcast monitoring, no XML, and limited support for tape formats—is the last.{{1}}[[1]]Along with the (slightly) lesser stuff like support for PSDs, etc.[[1]] The first three on that list were certainly deal-breakers as far as my TV work was concerned, but with them now present and (mostly) correct, I felt confident enough to use FCPX for a broadcast project, though it involved a ton of DigiBeta tape to which Final Cut is now profoundly indifferent.

Read more

Chuck Tells Us How

Never read any Chuck Palahniuk, but the sheer volume of writing advice he’s shared via his website is enough to endear him. I’m going to wade through these essays (which include some of his short fiction, so it’ll break my Palahniuk hymen) and emerge a wiser person.

(via litreactor.com)