speed racer is far from revolutionary

Every time I hear someone talk about the Wachowskis’ “revolutionary” idea of shooting Speed Racer with everything in focus I want to smash them in the face with Gregg Toland’s skull. When people wonder why Citizen Kane still gets hailed as one of the greatest films of all time, there’s one reason why. That crazy idea of Toland and Orson Welles to shoot in deep focus 66 years ago is apparently still revolutionary. (Ignoring the fact too of course that a deep depth of field on film is so much harder to achieve than it is on digital.)

Oh and shooting on sets that are mainly greenscreen? I seem to remember someone else pioneering that about nine years ago. Someone who said that process would be the future and most people thinking he was crazy (of course if the script had been better or apparently had included a chimp instead of Jar Jar people might have paid more attention). Heck, even the idea of using cgi to blur the region between live action and source authentic animation has been done several times over (Sin City and 300 being the two most prominent examples). Granted neither was bright and colorful, but Dick Tracy certainly was.

None of which is to say they’re hacks, just that none of their ideas on this project are truly revolutionary.

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -George Santayana

one family to rule them all

I bet conspiracy nuts’ll have a field day with this revelation.

possibly spurious views on history, cycles, and the future

What we’re seeing in the Middle East can indeed be likened to birth pangs. Not leading to democracy necessarilly, but to a more general ascendency of politcal, economic, and cultural power. A similar stream of violence and instability coursed through the Far East in the last century leading us to that region’s current rise as demonstrated most acutely by China and India. A century before that we were the region beset by civil strife and war which lead to current reign (fading if these thoughts are not just spurious Sunday afternoon musings). Before us, Europe.

Of course this dawning century won’t be the first period when the Far East is dominant. Nor would the period after be the Middle East’s first time as standard bearer. Cycles. After them, perhaps Africa? Will we live long enough to see our return to prominence? Or by that time will we have finally slipped the bonds of Earth and spread to other worlds, thereby expanding the cycle?

Ok, back offline for me.