Website and all contents thereof property of Maren Wasser
Contact me - marensdasein@gmail.com
I've been writing a lot more in the past few weeks. My schedule has been successfully stuck to, and I drafted a new short story. Do not expect this one to wind up here, at least any time soon, and at best, not at all. I intend on submitting it to literary magazines to see if I can't get somthing published! the draft has got a long way to go yet. This first draft was only enough for me to get an idea of what the story actually is. It's even quite good, and, from a writing quality stand point, I would not be embarrassed to see it published. However, it's a bit too biographical. It reveals a bit too much about my personal life in a very thinly veiled "names changed to protect the innocent" sort of way. So, I need to change up some more details, and it could use some more surreal imagery.
Anyway, I saw Avatar: Fire and Ash last night. Don't expect a formal review it's not quite interesting enough for that. I enjoyed it. I paid for a breathtakingly realistic window into a fantastical sci-fi world and thats what I got. It's darker, hornier, and more self-indulgent than the prior movies, but nothing really new. Instead, I'd like to talk about HFR (high frame rate) cinema, or, at least, the discussion around it. So, most films since the genesis of the medium have been shot with the intention to be presented at 24 frames per second. This is a standard organically settled on from an intersection of art and economics. Film is expensive so you can't just shoot the highest FPS possible, and 24 generally looks nice. HFR is the presentation of a film (such as Avatar: Fire and Ash) at a higher FPS. This results in a smoother, clearer, image with more "temporal resolution" and reduced motion blur (due to the necessity for faster shutter speeds). I bring all this up, because the broader discussion around HFR disapponts me. The general "pro-HFR" arguments seem to boil down to a clearer image and more comfortable 3D viewing. The general "anti-HFR" arguments seem to boil down, partially, to the "soap-opera-effect" which is the impression that 24 FPS is inherently cinematic as higher frame rate video is more typically seen on cheap tv programs shot at 30 fps on digital video. "Anti-HFR" people also argue that the increased clarity exposes flaws in performances and physical set pieces making it more obvious we are watching actors wearing makeup in a studio. Heres the thing though, I agree with all of these arguments whole heartedly. The problem is the framing of the discussion. HFR is not a zero sum game. 24fps will always be dominant but we gain nothing by rejecting HFR out of hand. Artistic mediums are at their best when the tools available to artists are as diverse as possible. You might find HFR ugly and even uncomfortable to watch that's hella valid. Many people feel the same about black and white movies, or think all stop motion looks "creepy", but we shouldn't reject the tool because the affect it achieves isn't popular. Any call to mandate HFR or ban HFR actively damages cinema's artistic diveristy. I wish people who like the effect HFR cinema creates would focus less on it being "better", but, instead, focus on it being "different" and how that has inherent value.
Well thanks for reading another one of my soap box rants. I doubt I'm saying anything ground breaking, but it's a perspective I've not seen anyone else bring up so I thought I would. Stay tuned for updates on my journey to publishing. I think I got a solid foundation, so I think I have a shot at my work being accepted with some fine tuning.