Disney v. Burton

When I was little one of my favorite movies was Walt Disney’s Alice in Wonderland. I was too young to understand what that caterpillar may or may not have been smoking or why Alice got bigger and smaller when she took certain pills and ate certain foods, but I loved the characters in all their colorful glory. So, when I heard that Tim Burton would be remaking one of my childhood faves I was more than thrilled. Then I learned Johnny Depp was on board and I was practically over the moon. I was slightly disappointed to discover that many of my beloved characters had been remodeled… and not necessarily for good. The new movie was much darker, and less playful than Walt’s version, but I guess I should have anticipated that. This was Tim Burton after all.

My fun loving Mad Hatter has turned into….

a seriously scary creature! Johnny’s portrayal of the Mad Hatter was creepy at best, and in some cases downright maniacal!


At least the cheshire cat stayed fairly true to form… although it’s hard to mess up a somewhat off beat cat with an overly toothy grin. There’s no doubt that the costume design for Burton’s version of a childhood favorite was beautiful and elaborate, it just didn’t quite hit the nail on the head for me. My expectations were a little too high for the Burton flick, I was hoping for something a little closer to the original and got a movie that was entirely different than I anticipated.

Here at Basis we take a special interest in the annual Academy Awards. With the caveat that all awards shows are essentially meaningless and nominations truly are an honor, it’s fascinating to see how public acclaim, critical acclaim, and industry acclaim all merge into one glitzy explosion of self congratulation and, yes, acclaim.

We’re a design blog, and we’re addicted to the big show, so this week (the Academy Awards are on February 27th, a Sunday) we’ll be looking at a few of our favorite categories: Cinematography, Art Direction, and Costumes. Today is Cinematography. Here are the nominees for this year:

Black Swan (Matthew Libatique)

True Grit (Roger Deakins)

The Social Network (Jeff Cronenweth)

Inception (Wally Pfister)

The King’s Speech (Danny Cohen)

This is a very interesting list indeed. The King’s Speech is an exceptionally odd choice, as the camera work in that film is about as dull as dishwater. Nothing against the movie itself; but there is certainly no outstanding artistry in how it was shot. While Inception was a very good movie and the special effects were tremendous, one has doubts whether the actual lighting and camera work had much to do with the look of the cities folding in on themselves, impressive though those sights were. (This is why no pics of those films).

In the humble opinion of this humble blogger, only Black Swan, True Grit and Social Network are nominees worth considering in this category. And they’re all quite different.

Black Swan depends on changing colors, film stocks and focus depth. It’s a wild and inventive visual ride, and matches the movie itself thrill for thrill, intensity for intensity. It reflects the emotions of the movie, projects them for the audience. It’s definitely the most obvious, the most showy, of the nominees, and it’s a major achievement from Matthew Libatique.

True Grit is another outing from the Coen Brothers, Joel and Ethan, and their magnificent Director of Photography, Roger Deakins. Deakins, I am convinced, can do anything. The cinematographic style in Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou?,  The Big Lebowski and Intolerable Cruelty could hardly be more different. He’s a master of all looks, all genres and all techniques. In True Grit he goes for a natural look, but a hard one. He photographs vistas, battle, and most impressively, the flight and plight of a pure black horse on a pure black night, ridden to exhaustion and beyond.

The Social Network is diamond cut. Precision is a David Fincher trademark, and his DP, Jeff Cronenweth, makes it happen. He also shot Fight Club – The Social Network uses the same colors, the same subterranean lighting, but removes every bit of grime – precise as a computer. It’s extremely effective in the film.

In the end, while the choice was hard for us here at Basis, it had to be made.

Congratulations, Matthew Libatique – you are the winner of the first of our fake February Oscar Pre Game Awards! Black Swan is gorgeous, harrowing, and a major thrill. Next up: Art Direction!

Tagged with:
 

The Georgia State Flag

We mentioned in an earlier post that our homestate was Georgia. While driving through the northwest part of the state last weekend, I saw a large state flag, the new one, flying from the roof of a roadside fruit stand (watermelonohmygodohmygodohmygodsogoodgivemenow). We felt proud. The new flag looks like this:

A few miles later, predictably, we saw the old flag, the one that flew above the state house from 1956 to 2001. It looks like this:

The flag was controversial from the start. Many state groups lobbied for the Georgia legislature to keep the old design, a simple but attractive flag that had flown between 1920 and 1956:

Some even asked for the return of the flag flown until 1879:

The little fellow in the middle represents the defense of the constitution. But back to the ’56 flag. Instituted and voted in as part of a package of bills aimed at fighting federal attempts to integrate Georgia schools, and specifically targeting the effects of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision two years earlier, it incorporated into it’s design a carbon copy of the CSA flag – the Confederate States of America. For over a century, the flag represented to many treason, racial hatred, institutionalized slavery, and a war that killed more Americans than every other international fracas we’ve engaged in. A war capable of slaughtering more than 50,000 men in a single battle. For others, it represented nebulous notions of “culture,” “tradition,” and “history, not hate.”

The flag was a bitter point of contention for decades. When the Olympic Games came to Atlanta in 1996, many participant countries and American business owners and athletes complained about having to play under such a flag. At the time, Democratic Governor Zell Miller attempted to make a change but got soundly defeated in the legislature. It would not be until 2001, when another Democratic Governor occupied the mansion (Roy Barnes) that the flag finally got changed. And boy did it ever, to this monstrosity:

Several survey tagged this flag as the worst in the country, in terms of design and aesthetic appeal. It also gets bad marks for compromise, with a strange an nowhere-near appeasing inclusion of the ’56 flag under the “Georgia’s History” banner. Many Georgians were furious, and the new Governor, Republican Sonny Perdue, was elected in part due to a campaign promise to put the flag issue up for referendum; he would allow Georgians to to vote on which flag they wanted.

Of course, when Sonny won, he was put in a bit of a pickle; follow through on his campaign promise and reinstate a symbol of racism, shameful history and hatred on top of the state house, or keep the flag the way it was and be considered a liar, coward and same-old politician?

In the end, Perdue pulled off a pretty neat trick. He did hold the referendum, but the voters were given but two choices; the current flag, seen at the top of this post, or the hideous flag, seen at the bottom. Again, indignation and relief rose in equal manner.

As for now, the issue is settled. However, it’s interesting and revealing to note how much design can mean, even when (or especially when) divorced from aesthetic consideration. It’s not just furniture, color and clothes.

Tagged with:
 

Lady Gaga vs. Roisin Murphy

There’s been a hubub recently about the marked similarity between the “look” of Lady Gaga as compared to a performer who’s been around longer and done some of it before; Irish performer Roisin Murphy. Take a look:

Pretty, pretty, pret-ee similar. Eh. For me, it’s the music, and that’s pretty much unimpeachable. As for Roisin, she had this to say: “I respect Lady Gaga’s work as an artist and as a fellow fashion icon. She is a very talented performer, playing the piano, singing live and dancing too. I Don’t Care about Shoulder pads!”

Tagged with:
 

Welcome to a new series here at Basis, ________ vs. ________, in which we debate the value, design and, to borrow a phrase, the gorgeousness and gorgeousity of our respective combatants. This week: the Eames Lounge Chair, titan of the Eames empire, and the Womb Chair, birthed from the generous mind of Eero Saarinen, contemporary and friend to the Eameses. Let us begin:

Category 1: Looks

Classic, rich, elegant, luxurious. Word association is fun! Anyway, the Eames Lounge Chair obviously looks great. Charles Eames had always said the inspiration for the chair was a well used, well loved catchers mitt. We definitely see that in the chair. The various options for customizing the chair, like different kinds of wood and colors of leather, can be played with at Smart Furniture’s Eames Lounge Chair Smart Designer (we’ve posted about it before).

Original, playful, welcoming, vibrant. Still fun! The Womb Chair is the product of Eero Saarinen, a good friend of the Eameses and and influence on their work. This chair is a wire based product, fashioned after the beautiful sculptural designs pioneered by Harry Bertoia in Italy. Does it look like a womb, it’s namesake? We can certainly see it. Not as dark maybe.

Looks Final Score: ELC (8/10) WC (9/10) Womb Chair wins this category in a squeaker!

Category 2: Comfort

This is the child’s Womb Chair, made for little ones, and look how comfortable they are. The padding in the chair is soft and inviting, the backing perhaps leaves a little something to be desired (the “pillow” there is short, not coming all the way up your back). Overall, a very comfortable chair, but nothing to really knock you out.

Okay, let’s get real. If there’s a lounge chair more comfortable, more luxuriously soft and sinking, than the Eames Lounge Chair, then I haven’t sat in it, or even seen it. This is the absolute top of the line when it comes to comfort. If you’re even a little bit tired, you’ll be asleep in no time, just like the charming model seen above.

Comfort Final Score: ELC (10/10) WC (8/10) Eames wins, and it’s not as close as it looks; this one might go to eleven.

Category 3: Design

The design for this chair is stunning. The wired structure is closer to sculpture than furniture, and the clever curvature of the arms and backing form a beguiling image indeed. It’s comfortable, it looks amazing, and in it’s time it represented a major step forward in the design of common furniture for the common home. It makes the ordinary (a chair) extraordinary (the Womb Chair).

The Classic Eames Lounge Chair uses materials and processes every bit as impressive as the Womb Chair. The molded plywood that forms the structure of the chair was pioneered by the Eameses for use in the second World War, and became one of their design staples. The chair looks great, is unrivaled in terms of comfort. The design is attractive, understated, but radical all the same. Extremely impressive design.

Design Final Score: ELC (9/10) WC (9/10) A tie! Fie on both their houses!

We’ll settle this with Basis Design’s tried and true method for breaking design ties. Sophie’s choice. Imagine there is only one of each chair extant the world over, and both examples are arrayed before us. But, lo, they are suspended over a whirring pit of grinding knifes! We must choose only one! The other will be destroyed! Which one will we save!?

The Womb Chair.

Tagged with:
 

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...

Blog WebMastered by All in One Webmaster.