Showing posts with label music video. Show all posts
Showing posts with label music video. Show all posts

Thursday, December 08, 2011

Quintessentials: Best Coast 'Our Deal'

Crazy For You

Dir. Drew Barrymore

United States, 2011 11 Minutes


The announcement of a Drew Barrymore-directed Best Coast video was greeted by the ‘greater indie blogosphere’ (or whatever) with sigh-inducing speculation and, in some cases, outright disgust. Bands such as Best Coast (who have oftentimes started out as blog-darlings and, upon receiving greater popularity, been rejected by trendier ‘authentic’ types), can come under more criticism than may be necessary simply because their image has become more co-opted by the more ‘mainstream audiences.’ That being said, they certainly aren’t helping themselves here with the extended cut of the video for the song ‘Our Deal’ (originally posted by Haley Schattner).


In a strange take on West Side Story (not really Romeo and Juliet; there’s a lot of references to ‘rumbling’), Chloe Moretz appropriately of 500 Days of Summer plays the ‘Juliet’ (Veronica) from the Night Creepers gang; Tyler Posey plays Romeo (Lucky) from the Day Trotters. The two gangs duke it out in typical Romeo & Juliet fashion, this time with strange up-dos and tacky denim jackets in an LA aqueduct. Predictably, the blossoming romance between Victoria and Lucky goes terribly wrong when he refuses to run away with her. And during the ensuing gang war, he attempts to hug her and she punches him over the side of the aqueduct, killing him. The end.

There are several glaringly obvious flaws with the video. Admittedly, it’s clear who the target demographic for the ‘Crazy For You’ short is, and I am not it. However, the cuteso dialogue that all takes place via middle-school-esque notes on scrawled on hands, when combined with the pseudo-dramatic acting and a playfully stereotypical cinematic style comes off much less as genre-bending and far more as genre-confused. And while only a minor annoyance, the casting of sensitive-teen-friendly actress Moretz and sensitive-teen-friendly rapper/actor Childish Gambino/Donald Glover comes off as gimmicky and manipulative. ‘Crazy For You’ is a strange hybrid of West Side Story, Grease, and the Step-Up movie franchise, featuring stylized dance-fighting, greaser-haircuts, and poor overdramatic acting that begs the question: how much of this is meant to be taken seriously?


Finally, the music rarely fits the mood or atmosphere of the video. I understand where the regular cut of the video is supposed to end, but even at that point it comes off as forced, as if it were simply an excuse for Barrymore to make this bizarre adaptation of West Side Story.


‘When I’m With You’ was a fairly perfect Best Coast video. The colors were grainy and over-saturated, the cuts were lazy and slow, there were the appropriate doses of California homages and sunshine, and it appropriately utilized Bethany Cosentino’s charm. And while I hate to be a music fan who disassociates a band not only because of a decline in the music (Best Coast’s debut was admittedly good but bland), but because of public image, I can’t help but wonder if Best Coast has begun to dig it’s own grave and embrace a demographic with the attention span and memory the size of a pin.

Thursday, December 01, 2011

Heartless Potpourri

HEARTLESS (Cover) by The Fray Official Music Video
Located on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE21NQckSmc&feature=related
Uploaded September 28, 2009

This music video is an excellent one for potpourri week, I think, because it so effectively blends multiple themes from this class. In a cover of Heartless, originally by Kanye West, this music video provides a glimpse into the life of a young boy in class (algebra, from the look of his notebook) who does not appear very pleased with the course of his love life, particularly as it pertains to one brunette student who looks way too old for him.

The reason I selected this video, besides being such an eclectic blend of animation, online-based media and music videos, is the way animation itself is used. The story line depicted in the animation contains one of the boys' drawings, a little anatomically-accurate heart, trudging along having terrible thing after terrible thing happen to him. I love the effect of what is essentially a short film within a short film, illustrating the sort of corny cliches that we would never accept if they were in live action. If, for instance, the boy were to walk under a cloud and have it rain only on him, we as the audience might be inclined to yell at the screen "OKAY, we get it, he's sad!" However, by using a child's doodles, it seems only fitting.

This also allows for other things that would be difficult on film, such as the 2 cameos by Kanye West where he is shown wearing those ridiculous glasses and bobbing his head, which add to the overall entertainment value of the film. They also, (although perhaps this just reflects how much I am the daughter of an English professor who never let me watch Barney because he plagiarized people's songs), seem to use those cameos as further acknowledgement of the songs' original artist. I appreciated the gesture, whether it was actually meant that way or not.

Ultimately, it's impressive that the secondary character line (the heart) is integrated it so fully that it never strikes a viewer as odd. I think it's important to note that whether for practical reasons, optimal entertainment value, the ability to provide animated in-text citations or just to provide variation and visual interest, the use of a short within a short is just plain cool.

Thursday, November 03, 2011

She and Him's "Why Do You Let Me Stay Here?"



Why Do You Let Me Stay Here (Version 2)
Directed by Marc Webb, United States, 2009, 4 Minutes.
Source: YouTube

This film is about a man (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who enters a bank with the intent to rob it. Little does he know, the female bank teller (Zooey Deschanel) behind the counter is bored and looking for a little adventure in her life. In the first few seconds of the video, we are following the man, but the minute he meets the woman, she becomes the dominate character and so does the song, which, if we did not already know, the actress/singer Deschanel sings. The video becomes the dream world of the bank teller, her desire to dance and interact with this mysterious and handsome male customer. In the end, the man leaves with the money, and we are not sure if he has experienced her fantasy too, or if he fears she will confront him and alert the bank of his thievery.

This music video is the second one made for this song, and the higher quality of the two. Directed by Marc Webb, this music video was released to promote his film (500) Days of Summer also starring Deschanel and Gordon-Levitt (G-L)--also, Deschanel wanted to promote her band and their latest song. I like this video because it is whimsical, well-stylized, and a stand-alone yet additive for the feature film. Though the characters are different between music video and feature, they have similar character attributes. For one, Deschanel always wears the color blue in (500) Days and that is carried on to her bank teller who wears blue vintage style clothing. As for G-L, he is able to show off his dance moves in a dream sequence similar to the scene in (500) Days where he dances to Hall and Oats' "You Make My Dreams Come True". This music video short successfully develops Webb's directing style, and She and Him's image. Also, I like that this video compliments the song, and does not do a lyric play-by-play.

G-L's character has so much mystery to him. Why is the man robbing a bank? Does he want to? I pose these questions because I had never seen the first few seconds of the man's development until I found this longer version of the video. Starting the film in a bar and watching the man swig back a little more than a shot appears to me that he is about to do something that he does not enjoy. I love how the bank teller's fantasy is interrupted with reality throughout the video. When she and the man are dancing on top of the desks, they take turns, him first, then her, and while she is dancing, we get a shot of the man checking his watch. We can take this gesture to mean two things: either he is being playful and gesturing that her solo dance is taking too long, or it is his non-fantasy character telling her to hurry with the money and stick it in the bag. Furthermore, fantasies follow a different time pattern than reality. In retrospect, this 4 minute video is really about 3 seconds long--the bank teller's fantasy is occurring while she and the man are looking at each other, and he, now exposed without sunglasses, is discerning whether or not she will tell the rest of the bank about the robbery.


Thursday, October 06, 2011

Crazy For You


CRAZY FOR YOU
Directed by Drew Barrymore, United States, 2011, 11 Minutes
Actors: Chloë Moretz, Tyler Posey, Alia Shawkat,Miranda Cosgrove, Shailene Woodley

This film is a modern day retailing of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet (R&J), or more specifically, its successor, West Side Story. This film follows two gangs. One is dressed in neon colors and called the Day Trotters, and one is dressed in black leather and called the Night Creepers. Within these two gangs, there is a boy, Lucky, from the Day Trotters and a girl, Veronica, from the Night Creepers who inevitably fall in love and want different peaceful lives. The two young lovers have a secret affair for a few days and only communicate through writing on their hands, and the tragic instance of graffiti on the wall. After a misunderstanding, their teen love affair comes to an end. When a gang fight erupts between the two gangs due to a brutal beating of the Night Creeper's
female leader's sister, Veronica pushes Lucky accidentally off the roof, and learns of his true answer to her palm question too late.

I have never been a fan of Romeo and Juliet, but this film does do a modern adaptation of the play--and amazingly does it without dialogue. The only dialogue we get is from Night Creeper's gang leader, played by Alia Shawkat, and it is one of anger and hate, a very important and sad emotion that is exists in R&J. In addition to Alia Shawkat, this film is full of young up-and-coming stars:
Chloë Moretz as Veronica, Tyler Posey as Lucky, Miranda Cosgrove as the beat up gang member, and many more. I am not sure this film would have been made if Drew Barrymore, a well-known actress herself, had not directed it. This film is characteristic of a Drew Barrymore piece. From Charlie's Angels to Whip It, Barrymore has a distinct 1980's clothing cut and colors styling. As far as quality, this film, partnered with MTV, is of high quality--high quality as both a short and a music video for the band Best Coast and their song "Our Deal". Also, I really enjoy how Lucky is a combination of both Tony and Bernardo from West Side Story, two males that greatly affect Maria and her view on society.

This film is a successful modern retelling of a classic play for the MTV/Reality TV age. It also follows the frustration of the play elegantly. In the play, you always want to yell at Romeo to stop taking the poison as Juliet awakes. This film evokes the same frustration when we watch Lucky, who is not lucky, write "I can't" and then disappear to the other side of the wall. Of course, Veronica does not notice the rest of the answer until Lucky is already on the pavement dying. Why does he have to be so dimwitted and write the two most disappointing and most misleading words to answer her question on the wall she is standing closest too? Also, playing on the similarities of its predecessor West Side Story, the fight at the end of the film is dance fighting, which also goes with the music. Furthermore, this film is effective because it promotes love, not violence--something every generation needs to remember. I think, though, that this film is ineffective because it deals with two gangs that control the same streets different times of day, so why is it necessary for them to fight? In West Side Story there is racial discrimination as well as youths trying to control the same streets the same time of day. Also, this is meant to be a music video. I did not realize this fact until I watched it for the second time. The film plays to the music, but the music gets lost in the film at the same time.

One last note: I am really happy to see Chloë Moretz in another film. She is great in both Kick-Ass and (500) Days of Summer. Also, without looking, does anyone recognize the actor who plays Lucky? That's right. He plays Jennifer Lopez's son in Maid in Manhattan. Crazy.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration


TOO LATE TO APOLOGIZE: A DECLARATION
Directed by Tim Grant, Written by Emilia Grant
United States, 2010, 3 minutes and 22 seconds

This short film fits not only the week's theme of online-based but it's also a music video and a satirical parody (something we've read quite a bit about for online-based videos). This music video is a parody of the video Apologize by Timbaland/One Republic which can be seen here. In the video I'm looking at, it takes the original lyrics and premise of the song and puts a historical spin on it. In this video by Soomo Publishing, the song is sung by Thomas Jefferson (backed by other famous Founding Fathers including John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Benjamin Franklin) and how colonial America will never forgive England.

Soomo Publishing is a group of people who create online videos, assignments, articles, etc. in order to promote learning and education. This music video was the first of its kind for Soomo, straying dramatically away from the documentaries and interviews they had been used to.

This film, in a word, is brilliant. At least for me. As a history major, with a particular fondness of this time period, and Thomas Jefferson being my favorite historical figure of all time, when I first saw this, it became one of my favorite internet videos. I have to admit that I don't even know the original song anymore! When I hear this music, these are the lyrics I immediately begin singing. This is one of those videos that I continually go back to and watch if I haven't seen it in a while or need some sort of pick-me-up. I think that's an important aspect about internet videos - for most of them, they're always there to go back to and people often do that. No matter how many times they've seen it, they watch it again and again either because they get so much enjoyment from it or they want to show it to all their friends. The word viral is constant in the internet world and it's typically how most internet videos gain their fame and acknowledgement. Indeed, I didn't just search Thomas Jefferson on YouTube (as I've done before) and stumble upon this, I had a friend link it to me, telling me I had to watch it because I would fall in love instantly (hint: she knows me well). It may not have kept up its viral life as long as other videos but there was a time I saw it everywhere and it certainly remains one of my favorites after all this time.

When looking at the original music video it's based on, it's incredible to see what a flawless parody this is. It follows the original almost to a tee while putting a new spin on it. It's a fun representation of history, appreciating it without coming off in any way condescending or ignorant. There is something extremely endearing about this video in its representation of our history. It's something people all over the world are going to have some knowledge of and be able to show appreciation for.

In terms of a short film, it is one I greatly admire. It was shot beautifully and with such respect for the original content that it drew upon. I love the use of focusing and re-focusing the camera, as well as the silhouette of Thomas Jefferson. One could perhaps argue that it's shot are not impressive because the shots are not original. I would argue, however, that they are just as impressive because they were able to be shot so seamlessly from the original and still work as their own pieces of film. The writing of this film is absolute genius. It's all at once entertaining and impressive since they could not adjust the music in any way and had to adapt brand new lyrics for the video and make them flow, which they absolutely did.

Overall, there were so many internet videos I had been considering writing about. When this one came into my thoughts, however, I knew I had to do it. This is the video I return to most often and has really brought me the most joy which is something I think is a staple in terms of internet videos.

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Pat Benatar- Love is a Battlefield



A semester of short film study, and the format that still leaves me with the most questions is music videos. For some reason, the commercial aspect of the concept of the music video keeps me from fully advocating music videos as short films, in a general sense. Now I know that almost every film, in any manner, is funded and is essentially, product (right Karl Marx? LOLZ).
But a film comes from a creative place (most of the time), while a music video comes from a song, usually a single, and wouldn't exist without that. I choose to use Pat Benatar's "Love is a Battlefield" music video as an example to reflect on this issue, not only because it's featured heavily in the modern classic 13 Going On 30, but because it's an early pioneer in the narrative school of music video-making.

I remember VH1 Pop-Up Video once stating that this was the first music video to feature recorded dialogue (when the father warns Pat Benatar that if she leaves the house, she can never come back.) In its fledgling format, this was actually a very experimental decision, far more innovative than Rod Stewart staring into a camera in a mirrored room and lip-synching his latest fuck jam. "Love is a Battlefield" was one of the first music videos to genuinely try to tell a story separate from the song, and there are moments where the images are arresting enough to make you forget that this is a derivative of a Pat Benatar song. The filmmaker maybe thought that the video could pass as a real film.

But really, they're not fooling anyone. When someone turned on MTV (in the Martha Quinn days when they actually played music videos) and saw a blind girl being stalked by Lionel Richie or the Jackson family sprinkling gold on a town, I would sincerely doubt that anyone thought that these images were from anything but a music video. If for some reason these were viewed on a movie screen before a feature, then wouldn't the music cue people in on what they were watching? Although many films are hyper-soundtracked and often have montages without anything but music supporting the image aurally, there are other facets to the film that surround these brief music video moments, which allows them to be viewed as part of a film. Music videos are still works of art that are undeniably linked to the songs that birthed their creation, and because they are meant to spread word of mouth for something that can be bought.

And that line of thinking seems to work, until one looks at the world of fan-made videos. Although in past one could take their dad's video camera and shoot their own music video of a song (like a young Drew Rosensweig did for Miami Sound Machine's "Conga"), that idea has gained a new forum with the advent of Youtube. Tying into our discussion of web videos, even if something is filmed only for personal reasons, if and once it ends up on the internet in some sort of viewing venue, I would argue that it becomes a new, separate entity. Whether done in a somewhat professional, ironic way by a comedian or in a low-budget, more abstract way, these music videos seem to be a celebration of the song, without any interest in selling records. Although a video directed by Mark Romanek or Jonathan Glazer may have more creative expression and cinematic traits than these fan-made videos, they are still inherently funded by someone in an effort to sell something.

There's also an aesthetic issue about music videos, and that's the music inherent to them. Christine's point that the idea of characters in a music video breaking into song is no different than a musical is well-made, and undoubtedly truthful. However, I do have to respectfully disagree with her argument that "the song supports the message, but the film does not rely on the song to exist." It exists wholly as music video, and although the song falls to the background at points, there is no point where the song is not played in some respect. If the video was stripped of its music throughout, there would be a story there: woman leaves family for big city, finds it tough there, liberates her fellow coworkers, and then leaves town. But it's not presented that way, so why even speak in hypotheticals? Maybe it's a structural understanding we, as an audience, have picked up in the past thirty years, and if so, perhaps it is tough to see outside of the box on an entity so well-defined.

Now could someone explain where the underworld of Sims music videos fits in?

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

SABOTAGE


Sabotage, dir. Spike Jonze, 1994, approx. 3 minutes.









In choosing a short to review as a quintessential, I knew I wanted to return to one of my favorite units of the course: music videos. With the exception of certain TV commercials that could arguably fulfill the criteria of short film (IKEA comes to mind), music videos were my first exposure to shorts. One of my most vivid childhood memories is of watching the video for Nine Inch Nails “The Perfect Drug” and being terrified out of my 8-year-old mind.

My memories of Spike Jonze’s video for “Sabotage” by the Beastie Boys are certainly more pleasant, which is why I chose to comment on Liz’s posting. As she describes, the video plays with the 1970s TV cop drama by parodying its moustaches, car chases, and melodrama. In this way, “Sabotage” is a particularly interesting case study: it’s a short film, but it’s a short film about television that also happens to be set to music. Jonze makes an effort to blend these three elements and achieves an equilibrium that makes “Sabotage” both brilliant and hilarious.

Stylistically, it is not immediately obvious that despite its faux-credits, “Sabotage” is not an actual television show a la Starsky and Hutch. As Liz mentions, the shots are typical of the genre, focusing on close-ups of sirens, hubcaps, and aviator glasses, all filmed on a handheld that makes the chase sequences reminiscent of an episode of Cops; the viewer feels like they are struggling to keep up with the band member’s exploits as their trigger-happy cop alter-egos. Thus, can “Sabotage” still be considered a short film if it’s so closely aligned with the conventions of television, and in addition, is produced for TV exhibition?

I would argue yes. One of the major debates of this course was whether or not intent and exhibition can alter the classification of a video as short film, television, or commercial. The Twilight Zone, though at first glance could be described as a series of short films, is still formatted for television; in contrast, most students gave a promotional video for Naomi Klein’s new book the privilege of being considered a short, due in large part to the fact that it was directed by Alfonso Cuaron. I don't think that it's constructive to use directors and style to classify a work, but rather the intent of its producers. So, even though "Sabotage" looks, feels, and behaves like an episode of a 70s cop drama on speed, the intent of both the artists and Spike Jonze was to create a music video that functions in the same manner as his other, equally groundbreaking videos.

Monday, December 01, 2008

All Is Full Of Love


All Is Full Of Love
Directed by Chris Cunningham
USA 1999 (4 minutes)
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjAoBKagWQA

Bjork's visual art has always been just as interesting as her music. Throughout her solo career she has teamed up with some of the more acclaimed music video directors of the time (Michel Gondry, Spike Jonze, Chris Cunningham among others) to deliver arresting short form cinematic expressions like this one. In Jihyun's original posting on this video she stated, "I do not really understand what relationship her music videos have with her song lyrics." I think that's a reasonable reaction, as there often isn't very much explicit thematic or narrative correlation between the two. Instead, I think she's more concerned with creating a mood and visual aesthetic that compliments the music. In such design, she often returns to a common theme regarding the marriage of technology and nature.

In the case of this particular short, Jihyun was apt to discuss the techniques used to create the video as Bjork's visual media work remains some of the most innovative in the industry. It remains difficult to separate the thematic content of the videos from their production. Here, we see Bjork herself being constructed in a sterile industrial facility in the form of an android. The film concerns itself with the sensuality of the human form within the context of a purely mechanical environment. The parallel can be clearly seen in her music as well. Her song writing frequently incorporates Earthy imagery and sexual or anatomical content, while her arrangements and functional music-making have become increasingly digital over the years (with the stark exception of Medulla, a nearly 100% vocal album). Personally, this balance proves refreshing and particularly compelling, in a time where much of the world feels divided between a sort of technological paranoia and environmentally-ignorant industrial mindset.

It stands to be determined exactly how these videos function within the wide realm of short films as a whole. I believe the very basis of this interplay between technology and nature drives the meaning of her videos. They exist as singular non-narrative expressions lauded for their visual inventiveness, supported by her similarly inventive song writing. Given the wide distribution of music videos as a predominantly advertising-focused format, Bjork's shorts probably have the greatest influence as examples of filmmaking innovation. There seem to be two distinct design schools in her work: a hyper-stylized "analog" form, and a sleek sterile digital form. The former, exemplified best by Michel Gondry's work, showcases a nature-rooted in-camera display of visual inventiveness (as seen in "Bachelorette" and "Army of Me"). The latter form often features Bjork herself subject to a variety of cutting-edge digital effects manipulation (such as "Hunter" where she morphs into a polar bear, and "Hidden Place" where a mystical amoebic ooze enters parts of her head).

Even within these two schools of thought that thematic dichotomy remains evident. However, she broke even another barrier recently with her video for "Wanderlust", one of the first internet-based 3D digital stereoscopic film productions. Viewing the movie in its proper 3D required acquisition of anaglyph glasses, or for the viewer to go to a designated music store where viewing stations were set-up upon release of the single. Sure to prove a landmark short once 3D has become a common and familiar format both in movie theaters and in the home, "Wanderlust" signals yet another breakthrough filmmaking experiment and perhaps the perfect amalgamation of modern technology and natural "analog" imagery.

For those interested, I'm going to post links to all the videos I referenced here, because I think they're all worth exploring to really identify this concept I've addressed.





Wanderlust (just the 2D version, but you can find the 3D take with little effort)

Friday, October 31, 2008

Sabotage




Sabotage by the Beastie Boys

Directed by Spike Jonze

1994


In an effort to keep this post festive, I considered writing about the Monster Mash until I realized the song was recorded long before music videos were even a thought in filmmakers’ imaginations. So instead, I’ll turn to my favorite music video of all time: the Beastie Boys’ 1994 hit song Sabotage.


Acclaimed music video director Spike Jonze does an amazing job matching the Beastie Boys’ sense of humor with an old school parody of 1970s crime drama television shows (Or perhaps it is a tribute…this is the Beastie Boys, after all). The video starts with dizzying, quick shots of typical images from crime dramas: police sirens, city streets, undercover cars. Any doubt of what the video is about is washed away once Mike D, Ad rock, and MCA appear on the screen. Once the music kicks in, we’re bombarded with close ups of their ridiculous wigs, moustaches, and aviator glasses. Soon, we’re introduced to the story: the hip hop trio play Alasondro Alegré, Vic Colfari, and Nathan Wind (Mike D., Adrock, and MCA, respectively characters on the fictional show “Sabotage”). Whether it be the low-angle shot at the landing of the stairwell or the multiple canted car shots, the video clearly immerses itself into the genre.


The video works as a short film in a similar way that George Lucas In Love does. Some may question the validity of calling a music video a short film, but I’d say they are 100% wrong. Sabotage is a fantastic example of a music video that works as a film independent of the music yet also enhances the song and represents the musician well.

Avalanches- "Frontier Psychiatrist"


The Avalanches

“Frontier Psychiatrist”

2001

The Avalanches’ Since I Left You was created from roughly 3,500 samples of other songs, a paramount achievement in the world of sampling. “Frontier Psychiatrist” is the song that utilizes the most “upfront” samples; that is, instead of it being a bassline or synth part in the background, the samples are snippets from films, commercials and other media. These voices shape the narrative of the song, and somehow create a story (an absurd one at that) from a multitude of different elements. The idea shouldn’t work in practice, as cutting and pasting sentences from an array of short stories isn’t like to produce a new, navigable story. But it does, and the music video for it speaks to this idea, where disparate elements coagulate to build a whole performance.

The roughly thirty or so samples are all given life, grouped together onstage for a theater production. Some of these are direct interpretations, such as a psychiatrist and his drooling patient, while others are much more lenient imaginings of where these samples came from. For instance, the repeated line of “what does that mean?” is asked by an old man whose head is on a turtle’s body. There’s no context for this image, nor any clue in the line that this is where the sample comes from, but it’s entirely possible that the director of the video had this image in his head when he first heard the song. These visual connections come out of nowhere when we hear a song, and like nouveau disco paired with the Muppets or European techno set to flying dogs, the music video forms these correlations. After the viewer sees them, their visualizations are skewed toward what has already been created for them.

In another example, the sample representations are subverted, such as the black cowboys, or the skeleton with a golden eyeball, representing the “man with the golden eyeball.” The only time the samples interact is when the bird, whose squawk is scratched by a DJ, is chased around by the monkey playing drums, before they end up dancing a jig with each other. Nothing about this last sentence makes sense on first or third glance, but this is the world created by the Avalanches, and the viewer is conditioned over the course of four minutes to not doubt what is seen. The samples are performing for the viewer, and the viewer’s imagination is subdued for the length of the video.

Most importantly, the video’s one of the funniest I’ve ever seen, from the ghost choir to the mariachi band that leads out the video. When I listen to a song, sometimes it is an array of images that juxtapose or complement each other, usually based on the lyrics. It seems impossible to ever put what is thought to film, because so often what I see in my head is such a wide arrangement of images, without any conceivable through-line. But in “Frontier Psychiatrist,” that central element that binds every piece together is the inherent absurdity of each of them, proving that illogicality can be the most logical reasoning.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Take Me Out

The embed was "disabled by request" from youtube so heres the URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_9GR9kdZ3o

Franz Ferdinand – Take Me Out
Directed by: Jonas Odell
About 4 mins

“Take Me Out” is a music video that embraces short film and uses it to take their music to new levels of creativity. They incorporate influences from art movements such as Dada and Russian constructivist design in this video.
This approach was successful for the band because they used these styles of design to define themselves and as a result people remember this video or their CD covers for their quirky looks. They branded themselves to make their music go with this styles and it stuck.

In “Take Me Out,” film is mixed with animation to create a montage of images that have no narrative but a strong experimental feel. The images relate to the sounds of the music, for example the bass pounding is seen through the punching men or the repeated circles, the tapping skeleton legs and the transition of images. It is fast paced but keeps the audiences attention. Jonas Odell, the director of this video, really takes their style to the next level by incorporating it into this video. In some sense, I feel he should be credited with much of their success because of this video. To my knowledge most people recognize this video and at least when I think of Franz Ferdinand, I think of this particular song and the visuals that go along with it. It entertains me more than most videos and I think that’s because of the inventiveness of it. The constant changing of images keeps me focused and interested.

I think this video is important in the short film world because of the clear influences from the design movements that it is referencing. The cutout images and constant movement give the montage effect while the repeated sequences of interlocking red, black and white squares screams Russian constructivist if nothing else in the video does. These elements are seen in both forms of art (montage for example) and this video brings them together. The animation of images looks like a design you would see on a Russian poster in the 1920s –early 30s. Using film to represent these elements makes the style more modern without taking away from the older quality of images. For me the video “Take Me Out” shows how these design movements and film can be incorporated together successfully into a cohesive piece.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The Replacements - Bastards of Young



Bastards of Young
USA, 1986, almost 4 minutes
Source: YouTube

The Replacements' music video, Bastards of Young, could be classified as an experimental film (a minimalist reminder of the aural art form driving the short film) but mostly exists as a kind of enduring anti-valentine to MTV.

The Replacements were one of the 1980's alternative rock comets (they were formed in 1979 and disbanded in 1991), and their Minnesota-brewed punk-alternative legacy and attitudes have influenced the Goo Goo Dolls and Green Day among other people. They also belong to a select group permanently banned from SNL.

We aren't given much to work with in the video, and that's just the way singer Paul Westerberg and crew want it. We focus in on a stereo speaker as the song begins and stay there throughout, pulling back slowly, to witness fleeting moments of things falling off the stereo, a man crossing back and forth and then smoking on the couch (Westerberg?), a casual sneaker in our face, and then a final stomping out of the speaker before the man exits out the door.

This is as far away as we can get from the carefully staged and montaged Girls on Film glitz of Duran Duran and the cartoon fan boy world of a-ha's Take on Me, and the overall effect I think is a real focusing in on Westerberg's vitriolic lyrics (Clean your baby womb, trash that baby boom ...) and the group's beating heart of anti-establishment angst.

I decided to write about Bastards of Young after reading about it in the Saul Austerlitz article (he mentions the video in passing twice in our reading in Money for Nothing) and finding it on YouTube. I loved the Replacements but oddly have no memory of watching this video. I wonder if MTV buried it back in the day in some off-hour slot as punishment, allowing artists like Madonna and Lionel Richie, who worshiped at the shrine of MTV, the prime time hours? Austerlitz, in the chapter on female artists, tagged Cyndi Lauper as the 1980's poetic and down-to-earth "killjoy" to Madonna's effervescent and image-conscious "Material Girl." I think the Replacements and this video fit nicely in that same mold, a band of iconoclastic "killjoys" in the "greed is good" decade.

Pat Benatar - Love is a Battlefield



The best way to support the idea that a music video is indeed a short film is to look at the typical structure of the video in correlation with the audio. While is seems form that most music videos include the artist singing their own song, many also include a parallel story that, while it may relate to the theme of the song, may have no direct connection to the words being sung.

An excellent example of this is in Pat Benatar’s “Love is a Battlefield.” The song is about the how hard love can be. The music video, however, is about a girl who leaves her family behind because of their close-mindedness (we are left to infer). This story has its own narrative structure. The girl leaves home. Then we see her living life the way she wants, but uneasy with her past. She writes letters to her brother who she left at home. We also see her father, who told her never to come back, seeming to regret his decision. The end is left inconclusive. As she walks away, we are left to believe that she is living with the decisions she has made.

The entire story we get simply from the visuals (and the few lines of dialogue added). It then becomes completely separate from the song itself. It is as if the film could stand on its own. The song supports the message, but the film does not rely on the song to exist.

We had talked about in class the sort of grammar that exists in film. For instance, we are okay with the voiceover in trailers because we come to expect this convention. I think that the singing artist in the music video is also a sort of grammar that we come to expect. Interestingly enough, when people watch musicals, many cannot get past the fact that a character bursts into song, and everyone around them magically knows the song as well and they all dance together in perfect accord. We hear this criticism all the time. However, when it comes to the music video, this phenomenon seems lost on people. You never hear anyone question, in a video such as this where there is a story happening, why this character (the artist has become a character in the film) breaks into song, and is part of a random group of dancing people. It seems that we have accustomed ourselves to the formula of the music video, and we can suspend our disbelief.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

All is Full of Love



Directed by Chris Cunningham, USA, 1999, 4 minutes
Source: http://www.youtube.com/

To be honest, I am not that familiar with experimental films, so I went through really a hard time deciding what films to write about. At first, I was thinking about writing my entry on Mongoloid by Bruce Conner, but it was really complicated, and had trouble understanding the film. I looked up some of Björk’s music videos, and chose the one that I like the most. That is All is Full of Love. Two robots are shown in the film, and the music video reminded me of a movie, I, Robot, which I enjoyed very much. The color of the film also attracted me. The contrast of the robot’s white color and the background’s black color appears beautifully in the music video.

Björk’s music videos are famous for being both experimental and surreal. Not one of her music videos is “normal” at all. I do not really understand what relationship her music videos have with her song lyrics. In this music video, All is Full of Love, Björk’s voice is mystic and dreamy, but it sometimes gives me creepy feeling when I listen to the music at night alone. The lyrics express that everything is full of love, and the two robots in the music video are matched well. The robots take place of Björk and sing as she sings, and their love reaches climax as the song reaches its climax.

One day Björk woke up in the morning and made the song all of a sudden as if she was possessed by something. Although it is made in such a short time, it certainly is a great song. The lyrics are really heart-warming, and the music video of the song is even more charming than the song itself. I like the delicacy of the robots that are used in the music video. They are really similar to humans. In fact, the robots in the film are hand-made out of clay. To show Björk’s figure better, Björk actually posed for the robot, and technicians added computer graphics on Björk’s body. The movement of the robots is not only computer-generated, but also the hand work of the staffs. The staffs had to move every single part of the robot in order to make the movement look real, just like the process to make a stop motion animation. In the end, I had trouble distinguishing what is computer graphic and what is the hand work. Thanks to the effort of the staffs, the music video won MTV 2000 Breakthrough Video and Best Special Effects. In addition, it won the best music video in 42nd Grammy in 2000 and many other awards.

When the director Chris Cunningham was offered to make the music video, the only thing Björk wanted to show in the film was the feeling of ‘the most pure whiteness.’ It is amazing that Cunningham came up with the idea of robots that look and act like humans. Their eyes add the liveliness of human in the cold body of a robot. Just like the lyrics of the music, the music video is symbolic, too. I believe the robot, which appears in the first place, is born at the beginning of the film, since it poses like an unborn child on the conveyor belt. Throughout the film, the robot goes through various processes and at the end the robot is completed. By showing the procedure of a new robot being born and making love, the music video gives a hint that there will be another new life born.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Scorpio Rising


Scorpio Rising
Directed by Kenneth Anger, USA, 1964, 28 minutes.
Source: Google Video

Kenneth Anger's very influential and enigmatic Scorpio Rising is a classic of the experimental genre, and it manages to combine leather clad bikers, early 60's music, homoerotic undertones, a James Dean and Marlon Brando obsession, Christ imagery, and Swastikas into a kind of documentary-like and music-filled bouillabaisse of both motorcycle culture and the early days of the culture-churning "Age of Aquarius."

It was experimental and taboo-breaking enough (according to an interview with Anger) that the film was cited for indecency and pulled from theaters by the Hollywood Vice Squad when it first ran on the underground circuit. The California Supreme Court later overruled objections on the grounds of redeeming social merit. Anger has crafted a career out of shocking people both in video and print. His Hollywood Babylon books, for example, chronicle the myriad scandals of early Hollywood.

Scorpio Rising uses no dialogue throughout, but instead relies on the guttural roar of motorcycle engines and an ongoing soundtrack of 13 songs, beginning with the jangly back beat of Ricky Nelson's "Fools Rush In (Where Angels Fear to Tread)" and ending with the Surfaris classic "Wipe Out." Viewers are led gently by the hand via Nelson's song into scenes of bikers cleaning and prepping their motorcycles, lulled almost into a false sense of security, before heading to the more controversial elements of a frat-like Halloween biker party, a biker taking over an empty church, various flashing Christ movie images, and Swastika checkers pieces, among other things.

One of the more iconic images in the film is a cartoon of a sun glass-wearing skull that appears near the end, with a cigarette dangling out of its mouth. Stenciled on the cigarette is the word "youth." Is this a foreshadowing of what would eventually befall the "What are you rebelling against? Whaddya Got?" generation, a metaphor for the young soldiers then heading to Vietnam, or just a general comment on how quickly youth flies by?

I found myself engaged from the start with the movie, and a lot of this has to do with the music, which flows from scene to scene and acts as its own kind of dialogue, and I hardly noticed the fact that this was 28 minutes (I found myself looking at my watch a lot more when I watched the longer non-musical experimental films in class). I think each viewer can draw their own conclusions from watching this montage; I found myself both fascinated and a bit disturbed, and contemplating the strange dichotomy of that turbulent time between the the Utopia of "Flower Power" and the murderous onslaught of Charles Manson.

Interestingly enough, the word "documentary" does appear often when researching this film. These are not professional actors. Anger found this group of bikers in Brooklyn, N.Y., and encouraged them to realize their full narcissistic selves in front of the camera.

The music and brazen attitude of Scorpio Rising, and other Anger-directed shorts, influenced some big names in Hollywood, including Martin Scorsese, David Lynch (who obviously took the song "Blue Velvet" and ran with it 20 years later), and Quentin Tarantino. Scorsese, in at least one article, stated the Scorpio Rising played a major influence in his thinking about how music could be used in film.

We spoke in class of how much the ideas and images of experimental film, with their often limited audience, can go on to become the basis for trailers and music videos. I think Scorpio Rising is a great example of this - an underground short-film vision that still reverberates in features and music videos 30 years after its premiere.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Are We Still Married? (1992)

Are We Still Married? (1992)
Dir: The Brothers Quay

View


Experimental short films have been made by a wide range of filmmakers, often as literal experiments or a test of a new technique, but few directors have devoted their careers to crafting a unique and singular vision appropriate almost exclusively to experimental shorts. Stan Brakhage, Kenneth Anger, and in the last quarter century identical twins The Brothers Quay are on the short list of such filmmakers. Over the course of nearly thirty experimental short films, the Quays have cultivated a haunting, surrealist style using painstaking stop-motion animation to portray unsettling visions of childhood angst and the isolation that accompanies artistic innovation.

"Are We Still Married?" is the Brothers' first commissioned "music video" and it contains the themes and style apparent in all of their work. Atmosphere is paramount in their films and "Are We Still Married?" exudes a peculiar and sinister feeling throughout. This is achieved in part by the chiaroscuro lighting and high contrast black and white film, and more directly by the use of distressed children's dolls and a bizarre, oblique narrative.
The film follows a swiftly roaming white ball and its interaction with a tattered stuffed rabbit, a little girl, and the decaying room they inhabit. The music that the film was made to accompany adds to the generally creepy vibe of the film, as it has a calming dreamlike ambience made nightmarish and confusing by the use of distortion, warbled lyrics, the occasional dissonant chord and the fact that the song seems to have nothing to do with the visuals it is set to.

I read the
short as primarily a depiction of the difficulty and confusion of maturation. The girl in stockings whose room the film presumably takes place in is seen literally expanding and contracting, growing and fighting that growth. The door out of the room shakes and pounds, the outside world attempting to get in but is forcibly kept shut by the actions of the mischevious, ever-moving ping pong ball and the stuffed rabbit which repesent "play". Few objects are more obviously or frequently used as representations of growing up than the discarded toy, which the detereorating bunny is an excellent example of. The dueling forces of adulthood and childhood are most literally expressed by the adult hand rapping at the door while the ball toys with the handle and keeps the intruder at bay. Just a moment later, the bunny observes the girl's expanding legs and, puzzled, tries in vain to mimic her growth. The necessity of leaving behind childish things captured in a rather beautiful visual metaphor. The short ends the way it began, on a fan being flipped by the roaming ball, this time on the side with withered, wrinkled eyes painted on it rather than the glowing heart side that was the short's opening image. Maturity has been achieved, but it doesn't look pretty.

Despite the thematic concept one can (very arguably) cull from the film, the picture is far from straightforward or narrative-based. It evokes a disturbing mood more than tells a story and relies solely on images (and seemingly unrelated music) to push the viewer to contemplate what possible meaning the short intends. The heavy influence of Jan Svankmajer is readily apparent (and the Quays recognize and pay respect to the Czech master of similarly bizarre stop motion in their film "The Cabinet of Jan Svankmajer) but they fortunately do not fall into the same trapping of over-repetition that renders much of Svankmajer's work tedious. Like all succesful experimental shorts, "Are We Still Married?" captures our interest, gives us a strong and graphic visual portrait of a single idea, and ends once it's made its impact, leaving us to consider the implications of the film and wallow in its unsettling tone.


Monday, September 15, 2008

Smack Dem Christians Down

Smack Dem Christians Down
Directed by Jay Spears

Here is a short film about those “whacked out Christian fools” that were the inspiration for this racy, tongue-in-cheek musical created by Jay Spears. Smack Dem Christians Down premiered this past weekend at the DC Shorts Film Festival and was received with roaring laughter. Spears constructs a piece of modern-day satire filled with humor, hypocrisy, and a few historical reminders which all contribute to answering the question presented at the beginning of the film: “Who baptized Uncle Sam?”

The film essentially functions as a huge joke and manages to sustain our interest by treating and presenting the joke in continually absurd ways. The introduction portrays a Christian preacher as a perverted, money-laundering ideologue blindly supported by members of his church. By the time we get to the end of the film, these same Christians have now turned on the preacher and are smacking him down. Included in the beat-down are also some Founding Fathers like Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin.

Spears presents a factual and compelling historical argument that should nevertheless be taken seriously. His primary argument is that the United States was never intended to be a Christian country, that it was not created by Christians, and that Christians cannot justify any sort of theocratic law in the face of the US Constitution.

To highlight the idea that the United States is not a theocracy, Spears uses the court case Loving vs. Virginia which outlawed interracial marriage. The case was overturned by the Supreme Court. What Spears is trying to say is that since the Founding Fathers introduced the idea of separation of church and state, and since the Supreme Court has upheld this notion more often than not, that there is no legal reasoning with which religious extremists can impose their beliefs into law. And this concept is expressed later in the film as Abraham Lincoln beats the preacher with the US Constitution. This can easily be interpreted as a metaphor for Spears’ desire for law to continue to triumph over religion.

What makes this film universal to Americans is that there are so many types of religions within the US that it is an alarming concept for any religion to be subjugated to laws which may blatantly compromise their own religion or represent something they do not believe in.

Now because this song is so political and its point so “preachy,” it is valuable to ponder why the film was chosen as the mode of expression. The reason this film is not exclusively a song is because it benefits from the medium of film. Spears presents the judge’s ruling in Loving vs. Virginia as draconian enough to liken the KKK or the Nazis. He successfully produces shock-humor as the bailiffs beside the judge are transformed into KKK members and then swastika-flaunting Nazis with each refrain. Spears weaves these images subtly so that they stick with us long after the film. Other images include a preacher supporting a sign which states, “How would Jesus vote?,” dancing Supreme Court Justices, and a few Founding Fathers beating a preacher with the Constitution. These are all powerful satirical devices wrapped neatly into an historical lesson to remind all Americans where their country came from and why it became.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

A Land Called Paradise



A Land Called Paradise (2008)
Director: Lena Khan
USA, 4 minutes

A Land Called Paradise put a big fat smile on my face. It isn't that it's adorable (it is) or beautifully shot. It's a simple music video, shot primarily in a studio with a plain red background, featuring several individuals or groups of Muslims with messages written on cards and posters.

It is humanity on display.

One could ask, "What's so great about writing something down on a sign? I can see that at a baseball game, a protest, or next to some panhandler on the street and I'll forget it in two minutes or less." That's okay. I forget those too. These cards had a lot more thought and care put into them than "J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS." They all stick out to me. They display the best of every individual in the video. If you challenged me, I could probably remember every single one without seeing the video again. I don't want to fill space with a list, so just take my word for it.

The film makes a great effort to encourage viewers to see themselves in those featured. The director could have gone super simple and just slotted in one message after another. It still would have been a very moving film. Instead, she created a quasi-narrative for some of the characters, revealing them in bits and pieces and bringing them back later in the film so you can see them again and feel attached. Two examples stand out: 1) The kid who is sitting at a desk staring at a Rubik's Cube comes back a few seconds later holding his sign ("I am a total idiot") upside-down. He comes back at least three more times. 2) The man who sort of flips his hair near the beginning... then isn't seen until the last third or so of the film, when his message is revealed: "I am not ashamed of my virginity." Quick pivot! The director wanted the ladies in the audience to see a hot guy, but then turned it on them and showed how much Islam means to him.

I'm glad I just chose that word: showed. That's another huge reason that the messages stuck out to me. Each person showed us their thoughts in their own handwriting, and the director helped out with that quasi-narrative. They showed us that the messages were genuine. Had each message been spoken, they would have been telling us something instead of showing it.

Everyone who has ever made a generalization should see this film. It should play in every house of worship in the world. This is the kind of film that crushes stereotypes and humanizes abstract concepts, and it does it in four minutes.

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

One




One
Metallica, ... And Justice For All (1988)
Directed by Bill Pope and Michael Salomon
Debut on January 20th, 1989, 7:45 minutes.
Based on the film & novel Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo
Taken from Metallica - The Videos: 1988 - 2004 DVD.



After seeing La Jetee and 12 Monkeys, I decided to further explore the relationship between shorts and features. From what I've seen, shorts usually develop into feature films. In the case of 12 Monkeys, Terry Gilliam took elements of La Jetee -- time travel, dreams of a woman, inevitable death -- and incorporated them into a longer interpretation of the short. But with this music video, the short condenses a feature film into a seven and a half minutes without (miraculously) losing the depth and poignancy of the original film.

Dalton Trumbo wrote an anti-war novel named Johnny Got His Gun in 1938, and was published a year later in 1939. Yes, an anti-war novel written during a pro-war period of World War II. He received some criticism for his work (and hate mail), but still received a National Book Award later that year. Consequently, in 1947, he was blacklisted along with other writers, directors, and screenwriters that created the infamous Hollywood Ten.

For those who have never had the pleasure (or horror) of reading the novel, it is about a man named Joe Bonham who becomes completely paralyzed after losing all his limbs and face when he steps into a landmine during World War I. Told in a jarring, disjointed first-person POV, we learn about Joe's past, his current situation, and how he tries to contact the outside world without any use of his mouth or arms: by bashing his head on his pillow in the rhythmic notations of Morse Code. And Metallica's music video conveys this story brilliantly well in a short amount of time.

The music video to Metallica's "One" from their critically acclaimed album ...And Justice For All (1998) tells the story of Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun in two ways: lyrically and visually. Penned by James Hetfield, lead singer and rhythm guitarist, the lyrics parallel Joe's thoughts from the novel, written in first-person and describe his feelings and thoughts of the situation. At times the songs blatantly take repeated phrases from Trumbo's 1938 novel, such as "I can't remember anything" and "nothing is real but pain now." To further connect the song with the story, the music video utilizes clips from the 1971 film adaptation that Trumbo directed himself.

Mixing band clips with film clips create a high risk of detracting from the power of the story itself. But with Metallica's One, this is not the case. The setting of an undisclosed warehouse does not distract from the film's images of a hospital, warfare, and soldiers. In addition, the band's black-and-white shots correlate well with the film's own B&W clips. When the band's shots either overlay or fade in/out of film clips, they work well together, like they are from the same movie. In addition, because the band is in black-and-white, the viewer pays much more attention to the color film clips, which consequently contain galvanizing lines of dialogue. What works so well with the movie clips are the shots made of the band's performance. Tight close-ups of them playing with precision and their expressions during their performance add to the intensity and depth of the story itself: the menacing growl James makes as he sings, the sorrowful look on Kirk's face, the wincing Lars does as he drums, the pursed lips Jason sports.

If anything, the main aspect that adds to this music video is, of course, the song itself. The machine-gun intro with the melodic rhythm opener followed by lead guitar's sorrowful overlay, twin harmonizing guitars, the power chords, the progression of tempo from slow to fast, the hold of an E chord while the drums double-kick foreshadowing what is to come-- and then the switch into the ratta-ta-ta later half, with chug-chug of the guitars in time with the double-bass drum kicks, the cry-whine of the guitar solo and the harmonized guitars into it's ungodly fast ending. Already from the novel and the movie I'm left speechless by the image of Joe slamming his head repeatedly into the pillow in the rhythm of Morse Code. But add onto that the song's chug-chug riff and double bass drums, the image of James' face screaming "darkness, imprisoning me" over Joe's bashing head while the nurse looks on -- and I'm pretty much beyond galvanized.

This music video I feel is a successful adaptation of a feature made into a short film. Even with music and band shots, they didn't detract from the story, but mixed well with it. Personally, this music video actually conveys Trumbo's novel much better than his own film adaptation did. The film itself is long and trying at times, with scenes that could have been cut to reduce filler. The video not only reflects the story Trumbo wrote but the messages and themes he conveyed. It actually leaves me more speechless at the end than the movie itself does.

But go see the movie once you're done watching the music video -- and read the book if you haven't! Best to try them out, then come back to this music video, and see what your thoughts are. Until then, I'm going to go watch this short film one more time... then go play it on my guitar. And Guitar Hero 3.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Shynola's Pyramid Song (Animated Music Video)


PYRAMID SONG (Animated Music Video to a Radiohead Song)
Directed by Shynola, U.S.A., 2001, 5 minutes




Source: http://www.nice-dream.com/videografia/pyramidsong.html (Gateway site is in Spanish; click "Aqui" at the bottom of page)

We open to a moving, aqua-green canvas speckled in white. Light piano chords play on the soundtrack, followed by a wailing human voice in song. As the canvas continues its fluid movements, the frame shifts upward and we gain perspective: it is the surface of an ocean that we are tracking across. As we continue our journey across the ocean, an elongated structure – what looks to be a large ship – becomes visible in the distance. Nearing the shape, and tracking over it, we see that it is a square structure – a building top, protruding from the ocean. In the next shot, a figure on the building top enters the frame – he is a light gray silhouette, with no specific features. He walks to the edge of the building top and places his hands on the ledge. He looks behind him, and sees an oxygen tank on the ground. In the next shot, framed from beneath the ocean’s surface, we see the figure penetrate the water, swimming downward; an oxygen line is attached to his back, and a beam of light, a searchlight, shines from the area of his face. He descends the structure of the skyscraper and reaches the ocean floor, which is comprised of a modern city’s ruins. We track forward, viewing the figure from behind, as he swims past street lights and other urban structures, as well as strange glowing configurations of light, his white oxygen line bending and zigzagging with his movements as bubbles ascend from his (implied) breathing apparatus. Tracking past the figure, but with his searchlight still visible, we pass submerged plants and see cars below. In a series of moving shots, with the figure’s searchlight guiding what we see, we track past an abandoned car; a two-laned street below; a wooden fence; a book and various scattered papers; and, most intriguingly, a cluster of human skeletons floating in front of a brick structure. We then see the figure’s flashlight beam shine across a row of suburban houses, as he swims alongside of them. His beam shines on the doorway of a house. From the perspective of the house’s front yard, we see the figure standing outside of the perimeter’s wooden fence. In the next shot, we see him enter the front door of the house from the perspective of the house’s interior; the door swings open and he flashes his light to and fro. He shines his searchlight across a table, then enters another room of the house, where a chair is floating upside down. We see him place the chair into place in its slot under a dining table, which is set with plates. In an ensuing shot, the figure, shown in side profile, slowly takes a seat in a recliner, his oxygen line still visible, his searchlight still shining from his facial apparatus; we track backward, away from him, as he settles into the chair. Next, we see the house’s exterior from above, the figure’s oxygen line visible from outside; as we track upward and away from the house, we see the figure’s oxygen line ascend, apparently cut free. In the final shot, a long take, we tilt upward from the surface of the water, where the top of the skycraper is still visible, to a view of the sky, which is now a dark orange-ish hue. A yellow dot of light circles the sky, followed by a red dot; the two dots circle one other, illuminating the clouds, before three other luminous dots join them. The dots form a diagonal line, and then extinguish, one by one, as the music dies down and we gradually fade out.

The animation here, namely, 3-D computer animation, is striking. The animators, a creative collective named Shynola, managed to capture the look and texture of ocean water – how it appears on, and beneath, the surface. The water is very much alive here, from the movement of the waves above the surface, to the bubbling of water below. Also remarkable is the play of light and shadows within the water, as in the shot before the protagonist dives in. In this shot, our perspective is from beneath the ocean’s surface, looking up; in a composition similar to the final image of “A Movie,” the animators manage to capture the appearance of sunlight penetrating the water, with its exquisite sparkling effect. Similarly, the rendering of the protagonist’s searchlight casting its water-drenched halo upon the dimly-lit submerged world has a remarkably authentic feel. While the latter elements are rendered in as photo-realistic a fashion as possible, the protagonist remains a somewhat “blocky” silhouette, with unconnected spaces between his head, torso, arms, and legs. Something about his design, I found appealing – there is something ethereal about him, as if his covering is just a shell (i.e., for a soul, etc., if you will, which will ultimately find its escape). The figure’s feature-less design also lends itself to a certain universality of human form. In all, there is a certain quality to the protagonist and his epic, otherworldly surroundings which I feel a live action rendition would struggle, both budget-wise and execution-wise, to capture equally well. The use of animation here is thus a conscious, rather than gratuitous, choice. The form has an element of exaggeration, a way of conveying the wondrous and the abstract, that is well-tailored to the depiction of this entirely different world.

Beyond the quality of the animation itself, the “shots” in the video are framed and designed in highly cinematic ways. We are constantly tracking along with the figure, following him from behind, or following his point of view in tracking shots across various objects when he is not in the frame, making for an active and adventurous, highly cinematic visual voyage. Even when the protagonist is out of the frame, we see his searchlight shining across the objects in our view, which is an extremely clever motif. The overall sense is one of mystery and wonder, as we shine a light along side of him upon the dark corners of a submerged world as if uncovering its ancient mysteries and memories. I also liked the transitions in the video between “shots,” primarily through the use of dissolves. The dissolves themselves suggest a “passing,” almost, a ghostly transition, if you will, from one shot to another, much in the same vein as the protagonist’s “passing” from life into another state, perhaps from his silhouette form into the form of one of those glowing dots swirling the sky (if you choose to interpret the end of the video in such a way).

Of course, beyond its classification as animation, the short is a music video in form, and succeeds extremely well as such. The lyrics of Radiohead’s “Pyramid Song” (which you can find at http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/radiohead/pyramid+song_20113227.html) narrate a surreal journey into the afterlife, whereby the speaker jumps into a river (perhaps the River Styx, according to some interpretations), where he sees “all the things [he] used to see” and is accompanied by those he used to know on a journey to “heaven in a little row boat.” Instead of fear, the speaker experiences a sense of comfort in death: “There was nothing to fear, nothing to doubt.” The narrative motif of the video conveys the essence of the song extremely well, while straying from a literal enactment of the lyrics (and, thankfully, straying from any depiction, animated or otherwise, of the band, which would prove intrusive to the narrative). In the video’s narrative, the figure is seemingly the last remaining person after a great catastrophe (i.e. a Flood), and dives into the submerged world to survey the wreckage while seeking out his home, which he straightens up a bit (i.e. the chair) before settling into a chair and letting go of his oxygen cord, thereby making his own peaceful end. While there is not a one-on-one correlation between the visuals of the video and the imagery of the lyrics, there are well-timed matches in many places. For instance, the motif of the lyric “Jumped in the river, what did I see?” is well-conveyed and well-timed with the figure’s entry into the ocean. Similarly, the lyric “All the things I used to see” is well-conveyed and well-timed with the figure’s exploration of all the things in the submerged world (i.e. streetlights, cars, etc.) he would have presumably seen before the catastrophe. Particularly well-timed and -conveyed is the final lyric, “There was nothing to fear, nothing to doubt,” which appears on the soundtrack a final time as the figure settles into the chair and releases the oxygen cord at the end; the sense of acceptance and peace in death is conveyed brilliantly through the figure’s gesture, resulting in a particularly poignant climax. The song’s swelling, instrumental finale kicks in after this point, and is matched particularly well to the image of the glowing, swirling dots in the sky, perhaps representative of spirits of the living that have been released. All in all, there is a wonderful catering of the visual to the rhythms and spirit of the song, resulting in a sublime and moving fusion of animation and music.