|
Post by caucasoididiot on Nov 24, 2011 11:24:03 GMT -5
Just stumbled onto this trailer. A Russian film about Genghis Khan starring Asano Tadanobu? Now that catches my eye. Has anyone seen it?
I wish that didn't look quite so "hollywood," though. That shing! as the sword is drawn just sets my teeth on edge.
|
|
|
Post by BJ on Nov 24, 2011 13:22:50 GMT -5
This is a cheap Blu, and I find the Mongol Horde history interesting, so I've almost bought this a number of times. Unfortunately, I always put it back on the shelf.
|
|
|
Post by Satchmo on Nov 24, 2011 14:29:30 GMT -5
I own this one on DVD. Some of the history is a bit sketchy, but not that much; after all, my brother the history major didn't seem to complain too much. It's a very well made film with good acting, awesome action scenes, and gorgeous cinematography. Not a classic but still damn good. Definitely check it out.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on Nov 24, 2011 16:12:58 GMT -5
Thanks. Yeah, on historical accuracy in films I tend to wish in one hand and crap in the other, hoping to one day be surprised. But I'll definitely keep an eye out for it. It seems like a role that Asano could be really good in.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on Nov 24, 2011 22:23:11 GMT -5
Heh heh . . . Ijon spots yet another flimsy excuse for embedding a YouTube.
I actually disagree with some of Lloyd's specific arguments in this piece, and I do actually have one weapon (a rather long yataghan bayonet) that will sometimes make the "shing" sound on being drawn. The mechanism seems to be the flat of the tip sliding along a metal fitting as it leaves the scabbard, causing some kind of resonant vibration of the blade. However, even there it's so quiet you have to listen for it closely and doesn't justify the typical Hollywood sound effect.
But I mainly like this one for Lloyd ranting. Lloyd rants well.
|
|
|
Post by Satchmo on Nov 24, 2011 23:14:04 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this. As a recovering sword geek, that's been one of the most annoying sound effects in movies for me; I just never got how that idea started.
|
|
|
Post by afriendlychicken on Nov 25, 2011 0:21:43 GMT -5
I think it's the expectations of the audience that all images must be accompanied by a sound, otherwise they'll think something has gone wrong with the film. For example, all SF space operas have ships flying through the vacuum of space with rockets blaring. If they took the sound out and created what it's actually like in a vacuum, it would seem odd to the majority of viewers. Even Kubrick in "2001" has the sound of white noise, or breathing, during most of the shots outside the ship. Complete silence would just freak most people out.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Nov 25, 2011 0:32:32 GMT -5
Mongol? I've seen it, didn't care for it. I thought I wrote the reasons why on the forum, but a search came up empty. So don't ask me to remember why (I'm old after all)
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on Nov 25, 2011 0:38:25 GMT -5
At this point I'm afraid the shiing! has indeed become an international movie meme. Even Sono uses it with a katana in Love Exposure, but thankfully at a point where I'm so caught up in the story I just cringe momentarily and move on.
As to how it got started, I've wondered if modern dress swords with metal scabbards may make such a sound. If the thing is ceremonial rather than functional the sound might be a plus because it's neato. It might then be that foley artists picked up on that and used it in inappropriate situations and exaggerated it to boot. Not that that would make it any less annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Nov 25, 2011 0:40:51 GMT -5
I like the "shing" sound. It adds an intensity and drama over what you'd hear in real life (and movies are an art form afterall, and if the "shing" gives an little more drama and coolness I'm all for it)
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on Nov 25, 2011 0:46:38 GMT -5
Edit: And I like the "shing" sound. It adds an intensity and drama over what you'd hear in real life (and movies are an art form afterall, and if the "shing" gives an little more drama and coolness I'm all for it) Well, that kind of depends. SOme movies work for me with a sense of surreality, and there it's less of a big deal. That may be one reason why it doesn't bother me so much in Love Exposure. But if the movie is trying to be plausible it tends to destroy my suspension of disbelief. It may be dramatic and cool, but it's a bit less of a real sword and thus less menacing to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Nov 25, 2011 1:01:36 GMT -5
I get that, if something makes no sense it can take you out of the film. (You know, like if Oskar Schindler suddenly shot laser beams out of his eyes in Schindler's List) But with something like a shing... "eh". Even within something trying to be plausible, it's not an issue for me. Maybe because I tend to lean towards the "anything goes - explore and experiment" philosophy when it comes to the arts. I'm that way with music, film -- hell when comic book geeks start going off on the plausibility of a costume or whatever, my eyes glaze over. Does it look good? Then that's all I care about. With music or "shings" does it sound good? Fine, then I'm all for it. But again, I understand where your coming from.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on Nov 25, 2011 1:31:53 GMT -5
Oh, and I don't want to suggest that I can't see your side of it. Unless a movie is an actual documentary it's going to be making some concessions to reality. Partly it's a case of how broad a segment of the audience is going to notice any particular one. Your example of "Death Ray Oscar" is a good case of something obvious, and it's hard to imagine a director using it unless he was going for something on a surreal level. But I'm put in mind of watching L.A. Law with my mom, who was a California attorney. She liked the show, but about every third time someone went up to a jury box she'd suddenly burst out, "You can't do that in California!"
I suppose one thing that irks me is that Hollywood seems to want credit both ways. One of the extras on The Last Samurai has the director talking proudly about every sign in the background being copied from a period photo. And yet his movie is all about Americans who were actually Frenchman joining samurai in 16th century armor using 14th century tactics, when the slightest research shows the Satsuma rebels dressed and armed as up to date for 1877 as they were able. If the big stuff doesn't care a whit for the history, why should I congratulate him on his street signs?
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on Nov 25, 2011 23:28:14 GMT -5
Just caught the YouTube upload of Mongol. Wouldn't call it a classic, but I liked it overall. I find desolate spaces compelling and so loved a lot of the scenery. The story is straightforwardly linear and sort of stops rather than ending, but AFC heard that it's meant as a part 1, so no show-stopper. I would have liked to see the jump from raggedy-yurted disinherited vagabond to leader of an army fleshed out a tad more, but in some ways this is more the story of Temujin as a man than as a leader. I remember there was a similar Napoleon movie a few years back that was similar in that way.
Liked the performances and was wondering how Asano's Mongolian sounded to a native speaker. As an aside, I find interesting the idea of acting in another language and the challenge that must be. There's a German character in the Czech film Dark Blue World, and the commentary has the director mentioning that he showed up with all his lines memorized phonetically and said, "You can cut lines but please don't add." As a secondary aside, I've heard that Mongolian is one of Japanese's closer relatives and there did seem to be some echoes, so maybe that wasn't so bad. I really liked the character of Borte, his wife. Reminded me a little of my grandmother.
I don't know a lot of detail about Temujin's life and am sure compromises must have been made there. Still, I'd imagine the only real sources would be oral tradition, and if the character has a larger than life feel that would fit. Embellished, likely, but trying to de-embellish would mostly be a case of injecting one's own modern preconceptions. Then too, a man who went on to conquer the bulk of Eurasia shows just how large life can get, and I can imagine he might well not have been a typical child, whatever a "typical child" was in 12th century Mongolia. One nice feature is seeing all these things playing out in such a different cultural matrix.
The battle sequences were, for me, a mixture of some nice elements with some irritating ones and thus sort of cancelled. There was a lot less archery than I expected.
Where the heck was Subotai? Had he really not come along yet?
Anyway, glad I caught it and will catch the sequel if I get a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Nov 26, 2011 1:32:12 GMT -5
It was driving me nuts - I knew I'd seen and written something about the movie, so I just went back page by page until I found it (stupid search engine) These were my thoughts (which prove I can be nit-picky too Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan (2007)Beautiful looking, but ultimately superficial telling of the early life of Temudgin. The first half is mostly the young Khan running and being captured, running/capture... then he marries and they both run, and she gets captured. The getaways make no sense either. He just slips away in front of everyone? Big gaps in the second hour - suddenly he's proficient with a sword and suddenly he has an army and suddenly he's a master strategist. Ooookay... but how did all this happen. How did this former slave get the training, and amass a group of loyal followers? That might have been interesting to see. There are a couple of epic, bloody battles in this, the first of 3 proposed films on the subject. But I wont be back. It's pretty - but too shallow for my blood. Was nominated for best foreign film.
|
|