« Kar Komedy Klassics | Main | The Folly of MySpace »

Make It Good

Awhile back, I read an article that discussed loudness in music (specifically, the abuse of compression and limiting to make music — or, more noticeably, television commercials — appear louder). I am too lazy to dig it up, so I’m going to paraphrase one of the quotes from an engineer or producer or somebody, who said something like, “Making a song sound louder makes it seem more powerful. Music, in general, is getting louder, and we can turn back now.”

My immediate thought: why the fuck not? Isn’t it fair to say that if the music itself is good, listeners aren’t necessarily going to give a shit about it creating the illusion of extra loudness? Am I going to like “The Sweet Escape” more than 4 Non Blondes’ “What’s Up?” because one is recent and much, much, much more compressed and “loud”-sounding, even though the two songs were played on a daily basis on the stupid radio station I used to have to listen to? One of those songs is qualitatively better — click the link and take a guess which one. If you guessed “the louder one,” you didn’t click the link.

Loudness doesn’t matter. It’s not a fluke when certain indie acts whose albums are recorded in somebody’s parents’ basement eclipse some overproduced (and over-compressed) pop shit. Besides which, some would argue (and I’d agree) that bringing back the mystical idea of dynamics into music makes things more interesting. I know they can create the illusion of dynamic shifts while compressing sounds into oblivion, but it’s an illusion, just like the theory that songs being louder will make them better. Or that I’ll pay attention to a TV commercial because it’s 10 times louder than the show itself. (That one backfires big-time — nothing makes me hit MUTE faster than an obscenely loud commercial.)

The misguided notion of tossing all the wrong eggs into the basket can also apply to movies. There’s a “bigger is better” mentality that’s become increasingly counterproductive. On the plus side, box-office receipts are starting to reflect a rebellion among moviegoers who seem to realize that if one gag worked in the first Meet the Parents movie, repeating it isn’t quite going to work in all the sequels and knockoffs. Throwing enormous budgets at a movie won’t ensure quality (look at the Pirates of the Caribbean movies). For every movie hyped as the “most expensive movie ever made,” which barely means anything anymore, more of them are Waterworlds than Titanics.*

I watched a crime drama yesterday that couldn’t have been made for more than $5000. That’s not a misprint. It’s rough around the edges, clearly shot on DV (not even HD), but it’s professional enough and has the only three things it needs: decent acting, a good (enough) story, and squib effects that aren’t laughable. It’s not exactly The Godfather, but then, it’s not American Gangster**, either. I’m not saying it’s perfect. Like many of these low-budget movies, the leads are pretty solid, but nearly every supporting role is stilted and amateurish. To paraphrase Mike Nelson, “Thanks, director’s college buddies who brought their own suits to the shoot.” It also tried a little too hard for a crazy twist ending that kinda starts up too soon and doesn’t make enough sense to bother. It felt like there were some scenes deleted, but with an 81-minute movie, I can’t imagine the harm in putting them back.

But the bulk of its story — and its main character, who has to own the movie and does a pretty good job with a difficult role — is solid and depressing. And, actually, the budget restrictions give the movie a slight charm in some ways; it’s a gangster movie that was shot in rural Virginia, with a cast of almost entirely native accents. Believe it or not, hearing that Virginia drawl enhances the movie, differentiating it from gritty, urban crime films. I’m sure if the writer/director had a budget, it would have been set deep in the heart of a city, but having it set elsewhere makes it feel fresh instead of derivative.

The movie got distribution — the only reason I saw it is because the distributor sent me a review screener — which is a minor miracle, considering it has nothing associated with the post-Pulp Fiction Studio-Co-Opted-Independent New Wave, which requires at least one D-list sitcom or teen-soap star trying to avoid getting pigeonholed. This movie has nothing but a good story, told better than you might expect considering the opening shots look like something you might find in a porno movie.

People like movies for all sorts of different reasons, but I hear “I didn’t like the story” or “I couldn’t relate to the characters” more often than I hear “the action sucked” (which I do hear) or complaints about special effects. Even then, it depends on the mood. It’s like with music: sometimes, you want something that’ll speak to you on an emotional level; other times, you want some candy-coated bullshit. But in both movies and music, it seems like you get much, much, much more of the latter than the former. That can’t be healthy, can it?

*So people let me off the hook: I’m not saying Titanic is a good movie. James Cameron does some things well in the movie, but he does many, many, many things badly. Speaking purely in terms of big-studio “throw more money at the problem” mentalities — Titanic was expensive and it made a shitload of money and it won a shitload of awards. That’s all a studio wants, and they can even do without the money.
**Spoiler alert: it sucked.

Posted by Stan on May 16, 2008 6:11 PM  | Permalink | Career-Based Rambling, How Not to Write a Screenplay | Digg It