miscellanium (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
miscellanium) wrote2023-02-07 10:38 am
miscellanium) wrote2023-02-07 10:38 am
Entry tags:
february salutations
i changed my password after the announcement of livejournal password hacks and then promptly forgot it lmao. my stubborn ass didn't want to change it AGAIN but i finally caved because this was getting ridiculous. so i'm back!
anyway. my copy of ofic magazine arrived at the end of january so now that's all wrapped up, i'll write about my experience with them as promised. currently working on a dane review of it seemed like a good idea at the time (oof) so the ofic post will be after that.
got into a project i'm excited about, if a little nervous - not because of the content, though yeah i'd rather not get publicly cancelled again if i can help it lol. no, i'm just nervous because everyone else in it seems so talented! and i do have an idea for what i want to contribute, but it sounds pretty ambitious compared to some of the ideas i'm seeing kicked around and we don't have word count limits or anything yet which means i might need to change the scope of my story.... the beginning of the story came to me yesterday so i jotted that down but otherwise i'm mostly sitting on my hands and watching&waiting. my "homework" list for this project in the meantime is to re-read my favorite work of stalag fiction, go down aaron (freely available on archive.org!) and watch/re-watch a handful of movies like the night porter and so on.
speaking of watching things, i saw skinamarink because some italian buddies of mine wanted to see it and they don't have access to shudder. i went into it knowing the plot outline and that it was described as an experimental film, which likely affected my perception of it. a lot of the harshest criticism i've seen seems to be coming from people who didn't realize it was experimental? or the marketing campaign misrepresented it? not sure. but to me it is very obviously an arthouse film, and it does some intriguing things with camera angles - forcing a sense of unreality/disorientation, etc. i didn't look at the screen when the distorted faces were happening so i can't speak to that part of it lol. i was a little confused since the trailer i was shown said something about 1973 but the movie takes place in the 1990s? and i agree withpendulumscale that they could have done more interesting visual effects if they'd used actual physical film, like a vhs camcorder or something, since it is set in the 90s and all. there's a depth of color missing from skinamarink that would have been there if they'd used film rather than just editing the digital movie in post. watching the original amityville horror right afterwards really emphasized that.
i hadn't seen any of the amityville movies before, only heard the basic concept referenced, and the original is a fun enough movie. the way they shot the house to look like a skull was a nice touch. the pacing was good, practical effects were neat, music score was of course great (lalo schifrin!), and some very solid performances. i was scandalized by how much james brolin walked around half-naked, my goodness (not that i'm complaining lol). the youngest priest looked like jack black in his first couple scenes which was really immersion-breaking ljkhdsdsf but overall i enjoyed the movie! the priest played by murray hamilton reminded me of my oc so that was entertaining. the fact that it was based on a true story (the initial murders, not the haunting) and produced not even five years after the fact makes some interesting food for thought, especially with the aforementioned group project being predicated on an especially controversial genre of exploitation fiction - where does exploitation become tacky/disrespectful? obviously this can be a bit subjective, but it's still worth it for people to at least determine their personal boundaries on this matter.
anyway. my copy of ofic magazine arrived at the end of january so now that's all wrapped up, i'll write about my experience with them as promised. currently working on a dane review of it seemed like a good idea at the time (oof) so the ofic post will be after that.
got into a project i'm excited about, if a little nervous - not because of the content, though yeah i'd rather not get publicly cancelled again if i can help it lol. no, i'm just nervous because everyone else in it seems so talented! and i do have an idea for what i want to contribute, but it sounds pretty ambitious compared to some of the ideas i'm seeing kicked around and we don't have word count limits or anything yet which means i might need to change the scope of my story.... the beginning of the story came to me yesterday so i jotted that down but otherwise i'm mostly sitting on my hands and watching&waiting. my "homework" list for this project in the meantime is to re-read my favorite work of stalag fiction, go down aaron (freely available on archive.org!) and watch/re-watch a handful of movies like the night porter and so on.
speaking of watching things, i saw skinamarink because some italian buddies of mine wanted to see it and they don't have access to shudder. i went into it knowing the plot outline and that it was described as an experimental film, which likely affected my perception of it. a lot of the harshest criticism i've seen seems to be coming from people who didn't realize it was experimental? or the marketing campaign misrepresented it? not sure. but to me it is very obviously an arthouse film, and it does some intriguing things with camera angles - forcing a sense of unreality/disorientation, etc. i didn't look at the screen when the distorted faces were happening so i can't speak to that part of it lol. i was a little confused since the trailer i was shown said something about 1973 but the movie takes place in the 1990s? and i agree with
pendulumscale that they could have done more interesting visual effects if they'd used actual physical film, like a vhs camcorder or something, since it is set in the 90s and all. there's a depth of color missing from skinamarink that would have been there if they'd used film rather than just editing the digital movie in post. watching the original amityville horror right afterwards really emphasized that.i hadn't seen any of the amityville movies before, only heard the basic concept referenced, and the original is a fun enough movie. the way they shot the house to look like a skull was a nice touch. the pacing was good, practical effects were neat, music score was of course great (lalo schifrin!), and some very solid performances. i was scandalized by how much james brolin walked around half-naked, my goodness (not that i'm complaining lol). the youngest priest looked like jack black in his first couple scenes which was really immersion-breaking ljkhdsdsf but overall i enjoyed the movie! the priest played by murray hamilton reminded me of my oc so that was entertaining. the fact that it was based on a true story (the initial murders, not the haunting) and produced not even five years after the fact makes some interesting food for thought, especially with the aforementioned group project being predicated on an especially controversial genre of exploitation fiction - where does exploitation become tacky/disrespectful? obviously this can be a bit subjective, but it's still worth it for people to at least determine their personal boundaries on this matter.
no subject
no subject