First off, watching Skyfall for the first time I must say I was very happy with how the movie turned out. It truly was a stand-out from other Bond movies which is definitely important at this point in the franchise. Other than the plot, the movie was built up through lots of fighting and action scenes.
Observing the lighting in this movie I noticed several things. First, there are many differently lit shots due to the vast range of areas this movie was shot. However, there are some key techniques that I noticed more frequently.
The first was the use of Cameo lighting in the first seen. We see Bond's silhouette step out into the end of a hallway. The vector from this causes him to walk slowly toward us until...
Hard directional light with low key lighting reveals his shadowed face. While shots outside during the day don't have low key, many of the indoor shots are low key. This makes the mood more dramatic and intense!
Concerning color in the movie, one thing really stood out to me. The villain in this Bond movie always wear a light tan jacket. Normally a villain would wear a dark color, and something with a prominent hue. I believe he is dressed in white to contrast Bond, not only to show they are good and evil though. In a way Bond and the villain are very similar, as they both were MI6 Agents. The warm hue also bring heavier energy/attention to Silva, the villain.
Bad guys. Everybody loves a good villain. Someone who can match, if not even over-power the hero can keep the story moving, and give the hero's journey some more meaning - beating this guy is important, and a challenge. Sometimes, if the villain is dastardly enough, he can almost become the selling point of the whole movie - The Dark Knight's Joker comes to mind, where Heath Ledgers performance became the main reason to see the movie, even earning him a posthumous Oscar award for best supporting actor. Of course, James Bond is no stranger to great villains. The new "Bond villain" is as highly anticipated as the new "Bond girl," or in some years, the new Bond. But how does this years main baddie compare to the evil doers of other recent summer blockbusters?
For this post, I'm going to compare Skyfall's villain to those from The Amazing Spider-Man, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Avengers - arguably three of the most anticipated "good vs. evil" movies of the year
Lets start with, in my opinion, the weakest of the bunch. The Amazing Spider Man's villain was The Lizard. He was a guy who turned into a big lizard and wanted to make everybody else into big lizards, and do so as chaotically as possible. Not much character, not much development, just a big lizard trying to make things bad in the city. Next!
Loki from The Avengers was a bit more developed. His main goal is to, of course, take over the world, and enslave the entire human race to do his bidding. Though it's as generic of a reason as you can get, his jealousy of brother Thor certainly adds some depth to it. He was always looked down upon in favor of his brother, so his ability to take over an entire planet would show his capabilities. Nothing deep or complicated, but a good enough comic book villain for a good comic book movie.
Bane definitely had a lot to live up to in The Dark Knight Rises after the incredible performance of The Joker in 2008. Unlike the other two baddies up above, Bane is a bit more relatable, especially in the wake of stuff like Occupy Wall Street. At his core, Bane is a revolutionary, and a showman. Rather than taking apart Gotham City, he invites the city to do it for him. "Take back your city," he cries, until the streets are filled with chaos and disorder, all by it's own hands. Of course along the way he doesn't mind blowing up a football stadium or two. Now towards the end (SPOILERS, of course), he does loose some credibility, as he is revealed to be the sidekick of Talia Al' Ghul, the red herring main villain of the movie, and especially when it's revealed he has an unstoppable nuke ready to wipe Gotham City off the map, no matter what it's citizens did. So, in the end, he gets a little flat, but overall Bane shows that villains don't always have to be motivated by nothing more than "evil"
Which brings us right back to Skyfall, and Raul Silva. This guy is fantastically interesting, a bit of a change from Bond villains who just want money or power. Silva's motive is simple, but firm - revenge on MI6's leader, M. Almost a picture of a future James Bond, Silva, a top agent in his prime, was given up by MI6 to the Chinese government in exchange for six hostages. Ever since then, he's made it his goal to get revenge on M, in as flamboyant and showboat-ey a manner as possible. Leading Bond and the gang on an insanely wild goose chase throughout London and then some, Silva's fascination stems from his simple desire - to watch the world burn. Much like The Joker, villains who are simply sadistic and narrow minded are incredibly fun to watch. They let us escape from well minded society to watch "true evil" do it's crazy, messed up work.
The new James Bond flick Skyfall is definitely one of the best films of the year. Skyfall contains all of the heart-pumping, hand clinching, adrenaline rushing action that viewers have been experiencing since the first James Bond film. Daniel Craig does an amazing job of playing Agent 007 yet again.
There have been many films that have came out in the past five years that portray a hero with an important agenda of being the good guy. Superheroes such as Captain America, The Hulk, Iron Man, Spiderman and Thor for example have taken the box office by storm recently. But what makes 007 think he can hang out with the big boys? James Bond has many characteristics and attributes of a hero. I came up with a few topics that compare Bond to other superheroes.
Weapons: Although we couldn't classify James Bond as a Superhero he still has an amazing selection of the most updated weapons. His weapon selection especially in Skyfall is mind-blowing. From Bond's bare knuckles to his new gun that can only be shot by him, his selection never seizes to amazing the viewer.
Athleticism: Another important topic when comparing heros is their athletic ability. James Bond is physically fit and shows great stamina when some fights come down to the wire. Due to his commitment at the gym Bond shows to be an extraordinary athlete. The most important is that his strength is all natural, no offense to the Hulk.
Fighting Skills: Skill sets that heros adapt to are very important. 007 never seizes to amaze us with his fighting scenes as bullets fly across his body. His finesse, acrobatic movement, and strength puts him up there with Captain America, without a suit and shield.
James Bond in Skyfall was a different Bond experience. James Bond and the heroism that he displays undoubtedly make him an important hero. His demeanor, attitude, leadership and bravery are like none that other heros have which makes him a unique figure.
This week my team decided to
critique the new James Bond movie: Skyfall. I found it interesting that the
people in charge of music had Adele do the introductory song into the movie. I
think this was a very good idea because it she is very popular and very talented
so this could potentially draw more viewers in.
I think that this drew more publicity to the movie because they could
play the song on the radio and then be like “Go see the movie!” and talk about
how good it is. I think that bringing in a big name artist was a great idea for
them because they could build the hype before the movie came out just by
playing the song on the radio. I think that in the long run this will help the
movie to continue to grow just because of the music. Also in the movie there
was a lot of great music, a lot of it was to build the suspense. I think that
they picked great music in the movie to describe each scene. Over all the movie
was great and they used their musical sources very well!
As mentioned in the previous blogs, heavy metal music with screaming in it is not highly favored by society. Most people consider this style of music to be painful to listen to, and why shouldn't it be? It's looked at as an angry style of music due to the history of metal, as well as the "Heavy" sound of the instruments and screaming.
However, I must say that Sky Eats Airplane is not at all your typical hardcore band. As opposed to syncopated, chugging 4/4 breakdowns and basic of use of the Minor Scale, Sky Eats Airplane branches out to the most obscure, complicated, and technical aspects of music.
They incorporate...
Odd Time Signatures (5/4, 7/4, 9/4)
Very Little Repetition
Use of all notes, not only one scale (Dorian, Phrygian, and use of Tritone/M7 particularly!)
Post-Song Techno Interlude/Transitions (Between nearly every song, some sort of electronic transition. This really adds a lot of depth when listening to the album through!)
Nearly Constant Vocals during songs, giving the listener a bank of lyrics.
Vocal Harmonies, Clean/Rough Vocals
A Variety of Genres in Every Song (Electronic, Metal, Hardcore, Nintendocore, Ambient, Alternative, and even Jazz Elements)
Heavy Transitioning throughout Songs (Song may be screaming one moment, calm the next)
Odd Rhythmic Beats (Which fit well to the time signature, but are very tricky to follow)
Powerful Leader Guitar (Sweeping, Tapping, Legato, Shred, and all with clever note choice)
A Versatile Drummer (While this guy can shred drums, he also knows when to pull back, which is very important, and emphasizes the song.)
If you couldn't tell, I am a HUGE fan, particularly of this album. The beauty of it is that when all of these elements come together, it creates more than a CD with 11 Tracks on it. It becomes a dynamic story, with twists and turns, and always an entirely new melody around the corner. To me it is clear that every moment of this album was precariously hand-crafted, and the final product personally hits me home. Even the lyrics touch me truly, and I've noticed that the music is very molded according to the emotion of the current word being spoken.
However, this complicated method of writing music often deters many listeners. I believe particularly those with an understanding of music/theory, or that play music are the people that can most enjoy and appreciate Sky Eats Airplane. The majority of the people though find music this technical to be random or chaotic. Melodies not in 4/4 or 3/4 become hard to follow, and what really guides the listener through these odd time signatures is the vocals, which for many people is something else difficult to listen to.
For some great examples of their different techniques, check out the following songs!
For a crazy time signature, listen to the intro of Disconnected, Numbers, or Long Walks on Short Bridges!
For crazy shredding guitar, listen to Machines!
For a soft, All singing song, listen to In Retrospect!
For great techno transitions, listen to the ending of The Artificial, Transparent, or Disconnected!
For VERY Odd Rhythmic Beats, listen to the picking pattern in the chorus of Numbers!
This week my group decided to turn our focus to albums of rather intriguing styles of music. Not just any music but music that has still been widely viewed as unacceptable and negative by a mainstream audience. What music do you ask? How about the genre of heavy metal. We are focusing our attention on Sky Eats Airplane- a heavy metal band that classifies themselves as an electronica, hardcore and metal mixture.
Im focusing on why this music seems to be personally more unacceptable than acceptable. While listening to a few of their songs on youtube the screams and loud banging on the drums were turning me away from a good experience. Personally I am not a fan of music like this but I also give it a chance.
I feel like when it comes to heavy metal you either like it or not. I never found an interest into this music because the very fast paced beat seems off to me and I can't understand the lyrics. While watching the bands music video named Numbers I was a little confused about what was going on. I had a very negative look to lyrics (when I could understand them) and the quick changing transitions within the music video. To me music is medicine for the soul. When I listen to a genre like this it seems like it has the total opposite effect. Like Chrissy pointed out in her post, this genre hasn't been apart of the mainstream. Maybe if it were more mainstream and appealed to a larger fan base, mine along with others perceptions may change for the better.
I've never been a fan of this kind of music, though I'm not completely sure why. There's a number of components to metal-core that I cite when discussing my dislike for it; the screamed vocals, the jarring transition between styles, the insane drumming - but as I think about it, those components exist in a lot of music that I do love, which leads me to wonder why I don't like them when they're together. So, in this post, I'm going to take each of those components and present some examples of their use in songs that I, personally, enjoy. Then hopefully I can start to understand why I enjoy them much more separated than together.
Screaming Vocals
Screaming vocals are weird for me.
I understand the desire, and sometimes need, to scream your lyrics in a song. What better way to express your anger, your frustration, or your absolute, undying passion than to scream them out? But, of course, there can always be too much of a good thing.
One of my favorite songs, with screaming in it or otherwise, is posted above; Beautiful Child, by Swans. The vocals are definitely screamed, but not in the same style as bands like Sky Eats Airplane. These screams are a lot more...decipherable, I suppose. They're more like furious shouts than high pitched screams. One thing that I love about this song is the change in intensity that singer Michael Gira gives these cries throughout the song. As the song progresses, he grunts through words about the things that he "holds on to," and the things he uses to "deceive [him]self." As the song continues on, he becomes louder and angrier, eventually screaming of his desire to "kill the child, the beautiful child" (the song itself is told from the point of view of some sort of pedophile murderer - but that's beside the point!), until his voice finally cracks under the immense pressure, and he ends, pleading, to "get out of my head."
This sort of build-up with the vocals impresses me much more than the constant, high pitched squeals of SEA and their peers. It's clear that the screaming is meant to add passion and fervor to the words, but when it all is communicated at the same level, that intense passion, to me, is lost.
Jarring Transitions
If you listen to the song from the intro post, I'm talking about the transition that can be heard around 0:35, when the music goes from intense, crunchy, non stop aggression directly to a softer, almost twinkly sung sound. For me, whenever I listen to a metal-core song, it's around the time of that transition that I decide to turn it off.
Now, not to say that intensely different styles of music can't coexist in one four minute song. In the song posted above, Sugar Pill by Indian Summer, the song starts off almost inaudibly quiet, with plucked guitar and whispered vocals in the background. Around 1:16, though, quick blasts of loudness are presented, more and more often, until around 1:55 where the whole song bursts into a frenzy of crashing drums and screaming guitars.
So, here's what I'm thinking. Clearly it's not the 'jarring transitions' themselves that I don't like. They can keep the song alive and constantly moving, which helps it be interesting to listen to. I think my issue with the SEA-esque transitions is their immediate-ness. The song can go from a wall of aggression straight to a pretty section with no context - I think that's what it is, really. Songs like Sugar Pill have some build to them - they aren't quick to jump from style to style on a whim, there's some sort of reasoning behind where the song goes.
Blast Beats
Oh, blast beats. How I loathe you.
Blast beats are the intense, repetitive, loud double bass hits you hear throughout lots of metal songs, and I think they're truly the biggest reason for my dislike of this genre, and many other genres like it (black metal comes to mind). The blast beats quickly become overwhelming, and can sort-of drown out the rest of the song in their constant thumping.
I honestly could only find one example of a song that I like with blast beats in it, and it's a pretty poor example in that regard. Around the 8:33 mark of The Antique by Kayo Dot, you can hear some blast beats come up. The thing is, though, they don't stick around. They play their part, and then they go away (transitioning into five minutes of seriously some of the most beautiful music I've ever heard - but, again, that's beside the point). Even these blast beats are somewhat subdued, and more buried in the mix, letting the multitude of other instruments ring through.
Hunter Hunt-Hendrix of the black metal band Liturgy wrote an interesting, though completely and utterly pretentious manifesto called Transcendental Black Metal, describing the blast beat (and, in turn, hyper blast beat) as the backbone of transcendental black metal, the sort-of vehicle that can take plain, old run of the mill black metal and make it transcendental. I'm with him, in a sense - I believe that music can truly be transcendental, and one method of achieving that is through large amounts of noise and dissonance. But, in the case of metal core and SEA, the blast beats are way too high in the mix, drowning out the rest of the essential sounds that the band puts forth.
Conclusions
So, lets put it all together. If I like each of these aspects on their own, why can't I like them as a whole? If I were to ignore the massive elephant in the room that is the blast beat, and at the risk of sounding as pretentious as Hunter Hunt-Hendrix, I think it might come down to some sense of authenticity. In music that I like to listen to with screams or jarring transitions, there seems to be some unspoken yet understood reasoning behind it. The screams represent the song's character and his increasing anger at himself. The transitions can be tracked, and while surprising, somehow they make perfect sense. To my ears, Sky Eats Airplane and bands like them seem to be following some sort of formula that says you should scream all of your lyrics in the same tone, and after a few bars switch over to a squeaky clean tone that should represent variety in the song, but ends up making it a bit more predictable. I think that might be the word I've been looking for: predictable. You know that the song is going to transition over to the clean tone, and once it does once, you know when they'll do it again. You expect the vocalist to be screaming the whole time, though there might not be an evident reason for it.
In the end, I think it's all part of the genre. There's obviously people who like to listen to that kind of music, and plenty of bands who want to play to that formula. Formulas aren't intrinsically bad, of course - I just don't seem to like what this formula churns out.
