Spoilers herein.
Steve Jobs drags us all into higher awareness. He does so by grabbing our attention by conventional means but does his real work subliminally.
In the computer world, what we see is a coherent, accessible approach with appealing style. In the movie world we see the same, except the art of excellent character development and storytelling is substituted for sheer functionality and ease of creativity. In both, we all are pulled by this tractor into a more refined space.
And space is what it is all about, in particular a notion of location in space coupled with a higher degree of freedom within that space.
This has been a concern of intelligent filmmakers all along. Griffith merged the theatrical space with grand vistas of mass movement and did so from a spot no human would normally have. Welles and Kurosawa played with this, the first by working with architecture, the other by flattening in deep focus. But until the eighties we always had to deal with the reality of the ground -- and the horizon.
The real appeal of "Star Wars" wasn't the cowboy story or guns, nor the pseudo-religious trappings, though we all thought it was. It was the freedom from that hard bottom, the Earth which we interact with in as consistently as breath and blood. "Star Wars" -- and "2001" before -- gave a thrill because our visual vocabulary was now expanded spatially rather than ALWAYS being referenced to the floor.
Pixar's work has always been cognizant of this new frontier even when owned by Lucas. Under Jobs, every film has become more and more dimensional until now. We don't honk around with the camera as much as I would like, but we do set a new standard for interacting space. Naturally, all else is well crafted but serves this notion of space ? especially the fishtank business.
Ted?s Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
Steve Jobs drags us all into higher awareness. He does so by grabbing our attention by conventional means but does his real work subliminally.
In the computer world, what we see is a coherent, accessible approach with appealing style. In the movie world we see the same, except the art of excellent character development and storytelling is substituted for sheer functionality and ease of creativity. In both, we all are pulled by this tractor into a more refined space.
And space is what it is all about, in particular a notion of location in space coupled with a higher degree of freedom within that space.
This has been a concern of intelligent filmmakers all along. Griffith merged the theatrical space with grand vistas of mass movement and did so from a spot no human would normally have. Welles and Kurosawa played with this, the first by working with architecture, the other by flattening in deep focus. But until the eighties we always had to deal with the reality of the ground -- and the horizon.
The real appeal of "Star Wars" wasn't the cowboy story or guns, nor the pseudo-religious trappings, though we all thought it was. It was the freedom from that hard bottom, the Earth which we interact with in as consistently as breath and blood. "Star Wars" -- and "2001" before -- gave a thrill because our visual vocabulary was now expanded spatially rather than ALWAYS being referenced to the floor.
Pixar's work has always been cognizant of this new frontier even when owned by Lucas. Under Jobs, every film has become more and more dimensional until now. We don't honk around with the camera as much as I would like, but we do set a new standard for interacting space. Naturally, all else is well crafted but serves this notion of space ? especially the fishtank business.
Ted?s Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.