2014 RANDOM TV THOUGHTS

[piranesi]

The thing about HANNIBAL that's freaking me out is the visuals, and I don't mean the grossness of some things.  It's the cinematography and I'm hoping some of you techie film nerds can explain it.  It's driving me crazy because it's kind of a thing now that I'm seeing a lot.  SHERLOCK does it.  TRUE DETECTIVE and now this.  Three shows I've binge-watched all in a row.

It's this intense shallow focus where one thing is super clear, hauntingly detailed, and everything else is a blur.  Sometimes on HANNIBAL, the foreground is blurry and someone, thing in the background is in focus..but the focus is so intense it feels like a closeup even though they are far away.

SHERLOCK does this ALL THE TIME.  Sometimes it looks a bit like London is a little model town filmed through, likd, a pinhole camera or something.  TRUE DETECTIVE did this a lot too, although I don't think the backgrounds were so blurry...maybe only occassionally.  But neither TD or SHERLOCK do it as consistently as HANNIBAL.  

Most disorienting are the shots when the focus switches.  Really dizzying.  But I was just watching Episode two, and the scene where the tabloid reporter is talking to HANNIBAL was just bizarre.  It looked like they were standing in front of a picture of a room instead of standing in a room...that's how fuzzy everything apart from them was.

Is this a camera thing?  A digital photography thing?  I know I've seen in a few other places as well.

I remember reading that HOUSE M.D. was kind of new at the time for being filmed entirely with relatively cheap, tiny portable digital cameras that were only maybe $2000 each. That show did this occasionally too but only as a special effect. Is this something that is made possible with this kind of camera?

 

and HOLYSHIT EPISODE 3 IS WRITTEN BY DAVID FURY!!!!!! He's still awesome, right?

[odessasteps]

Im just glad that Moffat gave that weird hypertime kaleidoscope spinning camera to Sherlock. They used it in the first matt smith episode of doctor who and never again (that i recall)', thankfully.

[EVA]

The thing about HANNIBAL that's freaking me out is the visuals, and I don't mean the grossness of some things.  It's the cinematography and I'm hoping some of you techie film nerds can explain it.  It's driving me crazy because it's kind of a thing now that I'm seeing a lot.  SHERLOCK does it.  TRUE DETECTIVE and now this.  Three shows I've binge-watched all in a row.

It's this intense shallow focus where one thing is super clear, hauntingly detailed, and everything else is a blur.  Sometimes on HANNIBAL, the foreground is blurry and someone, thing in the background is in focus..but the focus is so intense it feels like a closeup even though they are far away.SHERLOCK does this ALL THE TIME.  Sometimes it looks a bit like London is a little model town filmed through, likd, a pinhole camera or something.  TRUE DETECTIVE did this a lot too, although I don't think the backgrounds were so blurry...maybe only occassionally.  But neither TD or SHERLOCK do it as consistently as HANNIBAL.  

Most disorienting are the shots when the focus switches.  Really dizzying.  But I was just watching Episode two, and the scene where the tabloid reporter is talking to HANNIBAL was just bizarre.  It looked like they were standing in front of a picture of a room instead of standing in a room...that's how fuzzy everything apart from them was.

Is this a camera thing?  A digital photography thing?  I know I've seen in a few other places as well.

I remember reading that HOUSE M.D. was kind of new at the time for being filmed entirely with relatively cheap, tiny portable digital cameras that were only maybe $2000 each. That show did this occasionally too but only as a special effect. Is this something that is made possible with this kind of camera?

I don't know, but I'd wager it's a digital thing. I heard Fuller say once that most of the visual aesthetic of the show is accomplished through extensive post-production work, primarily because the show's budget is so small and it's necessary to dress up the physical production.

[Swift]

I believe you're thinking of a less extreme version of tilt shift, piranesi.

[piranesi]

That's totally it for SHERLOCK.

 

What about things like this though:

 

 

 

 

Like in that last shot, they are so much sharper that it almost looks like they're standing in front of an old fashioned rear-projection of a wall like in a driving scene instead of being in a room.  Has there ever been a show/movie for which that type of shot is the normal shot and not a special effect?  It is dizzying and claustrophobic at the same time to watch two or three hours of that!  Scene after scene.  Even shot-reverse-shot dialog scenes.

 

Some examples from SHERLOCK:

 

 

 

It's just so weird for such long stretches to have on thing so sharply in focus that you can see the little hairs on the back of his hands...and everything else is just a blur.

 

While looking for pictures I stumbled on a nice essay comparing SHERLOCK and HANNIBAL since both are "re-imaginings" and the audiences tend to overlap. 

 

http://mumpsimus.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-affect-effect-notes-on-sherlock-and.html

 

It makes some nice points especially about Moffat:

 

 

Moffat's writing has always been characterized by a desire to hit the big emotional payoff without doing any of the work of earning it,...

Such a way of evoking emotion in a receptive audience is a matter of training that audience and then employing the narrative patterns that lead to the response...

The results are absurd to the point of parody, chained to Moffat's apparent desire to make Twitter go beserk, and so the characters get stuck in a compulsive repetition of departure and return.

Sherlock's narrative moves train our expectations and program our emotions; Hannibal's narrative trains us to mistrust our expectations,
The ground of Hannibal grows less and less settled with every episode.

 

That absolutely nails my conflicted feelings about SHERLOCK.  I recognize the cheap, pandering character squeeeeee stuff they are doing, and usually I'm immune to it...disgusted by it even...but in the case of this one show I am absolutely seduced into it.  I'd like to know why my guard is so down.

 

Also interesting point about HANNIBAL...given how conventional and "by-the-numbers" it looks on paper, and began in its pilot episode.  It really does quickly turn into something expansive and unpredictable.

 

I'm five episodes in and I haven't found it clumsy as someone mentioned I might.  The "killer of the week" stuff is so tightly integrated into the them of the main story that it's all just a distraction really to give Hannibal time to unfold his little diorama. 

 

I also like the irony of Jack and Alana unknowingly feeding poor Wil to Hannibal.  Guy doesn't have a chance.  It's way more intriguing than the backstory of RED DRAGON which just comes across as accidental contact.  I like, too, how they've made Jack Crawford a more believable (and much less impressive) "Saul" form HOMELAND...someone who's forceful personality breeds loyalty and affection but also bursts of shallowness and destructiveness.  He's really a bad person, which makes him, for awhile at least, a great leader...until he's not...
 

[EVA]

But Molly Shannon's Murder Family. Come on.

[piranesi]

I cringed so much when I saw her name because if I had a choice where I either had to watch 15 mins. of her or I could intentionally stub my own big toe really hard against the sharp corner of my bed twice, I would go toe every time.  But they kept her quiet and only in 3 scenes.  Biohazard contained.

 

That story, and say the Angel maker story were so slight though...Apart from the opening setup and crime scene stuff...there were literally three scenes of her, and a few bits of talking in an office about it, but those also had other dialog...such a little side dish to the show, that I barely even noticed them.  Plus the visuals were so gruesome. I know someone mentioned this upthread (or in the Hannibal thread that I can't go into yet) but it really is amazing what Fuller gets away with for a network show.  Some of the most legit unsettling shots and ideas I've seen in anything.  Moreso than the original movies.

 

So with all of that to distract me, and usually the payoff of the "killer of the week" only pushing WIl thematically into a worse direction..I'm fine with it.  I was actually pleasantly surprised at how much of the first four episodes was taken up the aftermath of Hobbs, which makes the act of serial killing seem much more unique and profoundly horrible.

 

But, yeah, Killer of the week falls into the the same "sociopath mythology" that DEXTER relied on too much...this idea that certain things just automatically and predictably and mechancially turn someone into a killer...so there's dozens of them out there.  And that one killer can instantly recognize another...and there's so many of them it's like a little tribe or something.  It's just a little too...well whimsical isn't the right word...fairy tale-ish I guess.
 

[EVA]

I also like the irony of Jack and Alana unknowingly feeding poor Wil to Hannibal.  Guy doesn't have a chance.  It's way more intriguing than the backstory of RED DRAGON which just comes across as accidental contact.  I like, too, how they've made Jack Crawford a more believable (and much less impressive) "Saul" form HOMELAND...someone who's forceful personality breeds loyalty and affection but also bursts of shallowness and destructiveness.  He's really a bad person, which makes him, for awhile at least, a great leader...until he's not...

I like the way Jack's character develops over the course of the series. At first, you assume he's playing the same, straight mentor/authority figure role that Larry Fishburne has played dozens of times over, and then gradually you realize that he's actually kind of a shitty dude. He's a narcissist who will use up and destroy anybody to catch the bad guys, if that's what it takes.

[FluffSnackwell]

Wait; Molly Shannon was featured in an episode of Hannibal? I mean I put it on the backburner for a spell but what the flying handshake?

[Swift]

I'm not a camera nerd, but it appears that both Sherlock and Hannibal use the Arri Alexa Plus to shoot. Here's a decent twitter conversation from David Slade on it - https://twitter.com/DAVID_A_SLADE/status/318885557776314369

[Bustronaut]

For the record it's just a really shallow depth of field for the non-tilt shift shots Piranisi was talking about.  It's done digitally (as has been said) by shooting with a an incredibly DEEP depth of field and manipulating it digitally.  Like how O Brother Where Art Thou? was shot super saturated so that they could mess with the deaturation levels as much as they wanted to in post.

[Matt D]

We didn't make it through the "Finding its way" era of Hannibal. I really like Fuller, but i'm done with serial killer type shows for the near future unless they're comedies. I just got burnt out. I would have much rather Fuller's Munsters revival had gotten off the ground instead. Or, you know, that we were in season 9 of Pushing Daisies right now.

[Reed]

 

I also like the irony of Jack and Alana unknowingly feeding poor Wil to Hannibal.  Guy doesn't have a chance.  It's way more intriguing than the backstory of RED DRAGON which just comes across as accidental contact.  I like, too, how they've made Jack Crawford a more believable (and much less impressive) "Saul" form HOMELAND...someone who's forceful personality breeds loyalty and affection but also bursts of shallowness and destructiveness.  He's really a bad person, which makes him, for awhile at least, a great leader...until he's not...

I like the way Jack's character develops over the course of the series. At first, you assume he's playing the same, straight mentor/authority figure role that Larry Fishburne has played dozens of times over, and then gradually you realize that he's actually kind of a shitty dude. He's a narcissist who will use up and destroy anybody to catch the bad guys, if that's what it takes.

 

 

It is amazing how Jack has become more awful and unlikable than Dr Chilton and Freddie Lounds.

 

Not to mention, the viewer also has the hidden knowledge that, even after sacrificing Miriam and Will to Hannibal, he's still going to send Clarice to him in the future.

 

Maybe all this could be forgiven in the name of the "greater good" if he was remotely competent...but he's really not. So he just comes off as an inept jackass ruining life for life for no good reason.

[Reed]

RE: Sherlock. As much as I loved His Last Vow, the Bond villain-levels of foolishness of Magnussen at the end took it down a notch.

 

-OK, so you're one of the smartest men in the world and know almost everything about everyone thanks to a stunningly good memory.

-You also know Sherlock Holmes loves John Watson more than anyone in the world and would do anything for it. 

 

So why the hell do you openly admit to Sherlock you don't have any actual proof of Mary's past and it's all in your head? Thus pretty much setting yourself up to be murdered to keep the secret safe? Why don't you have either guy searched for weapons when you let them in your house? Sherlock saying to him "So you're confirming you're the only person who knows this and there's no evidence?" and him idiotically confirming it was just awful writing.

 

Moriarty would have never been so fucking dumb.

[piranesi]

Man, cinematography talk has gotten insanely impossible to understand.  I can remember listening to  Wim Wenders talk about about Henri Alakan and kind of being able to follow everything he said.

 

But all this stuff now is about processing and software and it seems like there's a hundred different ways to kind of do the same thing.

 

It's weird that at the same time that it would seem to be getting easier (for instance they filmed an entire episode of HOUSE using this):

 

 

It's also getting so complex on the software side...not because it's that difficult but just because there's so much you can do and you're expected to have it all in your head I guess.

[piranesi]

RE: Sherlock. As much as I loved His Last Vow, the Bond villain-levels of foolishness of Magnussen at the end took it down a notch.

 

-OK, so you're one of the smartest men in the world and know almost everything about everyone thanks to a stunningly good memory.

-You also know Sherlock Holmes loves John Watson more than anyone in the world and would do anything for it. 

 

So why the hell do you openly admit to Sherlock you don't have any actual proof of Mary's past and it's all in your head? Thus pretty much setting yourself up to be murdered to keep the secret safe? Why don't you have either guy searched for weapons when you let them in your house? Sherlock saying to him "So you're confirming you're the only person who knows this and there's no evidence?" and him idiotically confirming it was just awful writing.

 

Moriarty would have never been so fucking dumb.

 

The idea that Mycroft would carry around a Toshiba satellite, you know for when he pops 'round for Christmas dinner, with all his top secret information on it is also profoundly insulting.

 

Goddammit.  I haven't loved a show where the bad parts were this bad but the good parts were sooo good since I still liked TRUE BLOOD.

[Bustronaut]

The nice thing now is you don't really need it all in your head because you can mess around with it so much in post production that it can literally become almost anything.

[EVA]

I had to give up my Showtime recently, which means I'm out on MASTERS OF SEX for the time being, unfortunately.

So I guess that means I'm in on THE STRAIN tonight instead. I don't have high expectations, but hopefully it'll be fun and a little smarter than your average WALKING DEAD episode.

[Spritenaut 32]

Wait; Molly Shannon was featured in an episode of Hannibal? I mean I put it on the backburner for a spell but what the flying handshake?

 

She appeared in the episode that NBC pulled from the air after the Boston Marathon bombings.  You probably haven't seen it unless you have the season DVD set (though I assume it's online here and there).  In a nutshell, she played a psycho mother who kidnapped kids, raised them as their own, then sent them back to kill their original family (to bond more fully with her).  She was ok in the role.  It helped that she didn't have a lot of screen time.

[Chaos]

As far as depressing hours of television go, The Leftovers was a super depressing hour of television tonight. 

 

Also Hozier's "Take Me to Church" in the closing credits was awesome!

[EVA]

Oh, STRAIN. What a piece of shit you are going to be.

I wish Guillermo had better taste in writing partners. Just anybody who could write decent dialogue would be a good start. For instance, someone who wouldn't write an air traffic controller to remark of airplanes, "They're like buildings...with wings!"

[piranesi]

I finally know who Eva's avatar is...I had been wondering when Seth Rollins had starred in a Men's Warehouse ad.  But now I know what's what.

 

Up through the cellist episode.  So great.  Disappointed that the concert hall wasn't really the one in Baltimore.  My wife and I had our first date there and it would have been a giddy, gruesome, romantic little moment.  Even the establishing shots are from Toronto and not Baltimore.  And the accents are waaaaaay of the rails.

 

But the show continues to veer completely away from formula in fun ways.  It's like an sandbox game compared to most serial killer shows, which are rail shooters.  The potential world of the plot just keeps getting wider.

 

Dan Fogler was so great as Franklyn.  So killable...but also sort of dumbly likable.  I mean, five minutes with him and anyone would want to snap his neck.  But watching someone else have to talk with him is great fun.  Fogler sort of nailed that needy faux intellectual voice type where he was trying so hard to imitate some imagined upper crust accent but being way to ingratiating.  That scene where he was waiting to talk to Hannibal at a concert all fidgety and trying so hard to be droll.

 

I know I've been that dude.

 

I kind of loved BALLS OF FURY too, so it seems I'm a Dan Fogler guy.

[EVA]

I finally know who Eva's avatar is...

First name Greatest, last name Ever.

[Elsalvajeloco]

Oh, STRAIN. What a piece of shit you are going to be.

I wish Guillermo had better taste in writing partners. Just anybody who could write decent dialogue would be a good start. For instance, someone who wouldn't write an air traffic controller to remark of airplanes, "They're like buildings...with wings!"

 

It's like Mimic, but on a plane instead of subway tunnel. Can you sue yourself for plagiarism?

[Curt McGirt]

I just Wiki'd The Strain instead of watching it. Well, caught a couple minutes, but not interested. Might catch it a couple eps in to see how gross/weird it gets. 

 

Now Ray Donovan on the other hand, had to watch that mother. Looks to be another great season with plenty of wild shit happening. Hank Azaria as a hard-assed FBI head is gonna be a really fun new character as things progress, plus we got Wendell Pierce, Sherilyn Fenn and Ann Margret (!) waiting in the wings.