Blood, Sweat, and Ice Cream

I have been eyeing three films for my next review.  Well four technically, and while I have several on the docket these three are part of a trilogy.  The fourth, well it's not, but it comes from the same director and is a fantastic film in it's own right.  

Trilogies are tough.  I mean, its a hard business to take part in.  It seems that nowadays trilogies are being planned way out in advance.  This seems to have changed a bit since things were done in the early 80's and 90's.  If a film was popular, studios would try and find a way to create a story for a second installment, with varying levels of success.  Films like "Weekend at Bernie's" certainly did not need a sequel, but there was money to made.  The sequel to "Mannequin"  was so bad they stopped moving forward on a third one.  Or you'd have the odd case of an unexpected hit like "Back to the Future" where it took off in popularity after the original, that they negotiated a way to shoot the sequel and third installment at the same time.  Nobody cared about "The Hangover 3", yet "Iron Man 3" saved the franchise after an abysmal second putting.  Like I said, trilogies are tough.

So now, movie studios want to ensure a films success down the line before they start the first one.  "Harry Potter" was a sure fire hit after book sales exploded, and with 7 books to make movies from they cashed in!  The Hunger games could have been a gamble and after a shaky start (that was overlooked mainly because of the books popularity) the sequel righted the ship, and we have two more films to look forward to.  "Divergent" and the upcoming movie "The Maze Runner" are trying to cash in on similar success and have had luke-warm reactions.
My personal favorite, is the "it's been a long time since the second film in a series, here is a third one wayyyy tooooo laaaaate" scenario.  Do we really need a THIRD "Night at the Museum" movie FIVE years after the forced sequel? 

The answer to that by the way, was no. We don't.  The answer is no.

So this trilogy I was speaking of, isn't a trilogy in the traditional sense.  Same actors.  Same director.  Same brand of Ice Cream.  Different movies.

I of course am referring to what is referred to as "The Cornetto" Trilogy.   Films that are totally different, yet very similar in style.  Each is a take on a very specific genre of film.  Not a mock mind you, but a very loved acknowledgement.  For my next review, I'll start where all stories start.  At the "Beginning".

Shaun of the Dead
Director: Edgar Wright
Written by: Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright
Staring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Kate Ashfield, Lucy Davis, Bill Nighy
Released: September 24th, 2004
Rated: R

---

Genre bending isn't a term that's used lightly in Hollywood.  If it bends a genre it means one of two things.  It's going to be hard to market/advertise a movie if they can't clearly describe it in one word.  Action, drama, romance, horror, musical, period-peice, comedy, etc.  Or two, if it's not clearly defined as a specific genre the odds of it being a successful film are low (John Carter, Cowboys and Aliens being two quick examples.  There are others).  Obviously there have been bent genre's like romantic comedy, that have become a genre of it's own.  You might even argue movies like "The Avengers" is kind of an Action-comedy.  Shaun of the Dead tries to infuse its comedy with an unlikely pairing: Zombies.

Yes the Zombie-Comedy has not taken off as a genre of it's own.  And while you'd be hard pressed to argue that zombies haven't risen in popularity lately as a genre of their own, Shaun of the Dead added comedy to the mix almost 10 years ago.  And not expected comedy, smart comedy.

The movie is a homage to zombie films of the past, with small nods to Night of the Living Dead and so on, but that's not what I want to focus on.  I'll just say one last thing and then be on with it.  These filmmakers did their homework, respected the heck out of the guys who's films they are paying tribute to, and they are subtle in doing so.  That being said lets jog on shall we?

Director Edgar Wright is a man who is not afraid to move the camera.  At all.  Frequently.  Quickly.  He uses a technique called "smash-zooms" and "swish-pans".  A smash zoom is a very fast zoom (traditionally zooming in) on a subject to accentuate action, motion and intensity.  A swish pan, is a very fast pan to allow for either a cut (How I Met Your Mother uses swish pans all the time to go to flashbacks) or used comedically timing an action or line of dialogue.  Both are accentuated with an intensifying sound FX.  Here is a 24 second clip of a smash-zoom montage from Shaun of the Dead:

See what I mean?  This style is used frequently and keeps the film moving at such a brisk pace, that it feels like it's over before it even started.  The intent in this example, is to make the mundane tasks we do daily, like brushing our teeth, getting dressed, making breakfast, look and sound more interesting.  The style is very action oriented even though the actions aren't that dramatic.  He makes them seem more intense than they really are.  And as filmmakers, aren't we supposed to try and entertain in every frame we shoot?  

He also uses a technique called object wipes.  Object wipes combine two shots in what feels like one, by dollying  the camera from a subject until the shot is obstructed by a physical object, then making a cut in post production at a frame in the second shot that is similarly obstructed.  As long as the dolly is in the same direction, and the object you are using as an obstruction are the same, (or similar) then you will be fine.  I will try to cover this in TV2 classes this year.  

There are also a lot of recurring images and set pieces in the film.  Shaun's walk to the store pre zombie break out and post zombie break out are shot exactly the same, except for the obvious difference being the zombies.  The second one makes for one heck of a long take too!  

One of the best uses of Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now".
Hilarious.

---

Oh and if that wasn't enough. After watching now (for the hundredth time) I just realized that Chris Martin (lead singer of Coldplay), has a cameo as a zombie.  Go ahead and try and find him.

Stylistically Edgar Wright is a huge inspiration of mine.  His style, the way he works his characters, unafraid to use the close-up, PACING.  It's all very mush his own, and a style I would consider an honor to emulate.  So please, watch this very well done homage to zombie films, a fantastic comedy, and well made film soon. Then we can discuss at either The Winchester, or The Place That Does All The Fish.

Subtly goes a long way with Edgar Wright, and there are a lot of nods in the first half of the film that point to things that happen in the second half of the film.  Things so small that you would totally overlook had you not known the first time around.  I won't spoil it exactly, but right around the first plot point, one of the main characters actually describes (through clever metaphorical dialogue) the events that are going to happen throughout the rest of the movie!  It sounds absurd, but this becomes one of those films, where you pick up little things each and every time you watch it.  The nice thing is that it's so good, it bears multiple viewings on it's own merit.  But go ahead, and watch the film, and then lookup how that scene spells out the rest of the movie.  It'll make you go "no way...that's awesome."  

---

Ready for subtle?  This still from Shaun of the Dead which is only seen for maybe 2 seconds, shows Fulci's Restaurant.  Fulci's Resteraunt is named after Italian Director Lucio Fulci.  Known as "The Godfather of Gore" he was recognized for the 1979 cult-classic "Zombie", and for having excess amounts of graphic violence in his films.