Thoughts inspired by SAFE HOUSE

Not sure where this blog will go, but I will be dropping my thoughts as they jump around, going from tangent to disconnected tangent in my mind.  This week – “Safe House”.  Why, because I just saw it and it stirred memories for me.  Here goes:

I know that there are probably hundreds of blogs covering the new movie “Safe House” with Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds -    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1599348/

I won’t go on through the whole plot, or how great a movie it was.  What came to mind was how cinematography has changed since I was young.  I remember growing up in the in the 60’s and 70’s how movies “looked”, especially action movies.  Not to mention TV shows.  I know – for many of you that makes me old – but you know what – I’m not.  Anyone who knows me knows, that the kids inside lives long and prospers . . .

OK – back to Movies and TV.  One of the major changes is the fact that violence is shown in a truer light today.  Fist fights, shootings, stabbings had been limited - little or no blood, the camera panned away, or the actual action was artistically blocked.  Even Psycho’s shower scene tried to blunt the shocking violence.  You see the stabbing action and the black and white blood running down the drain (often it was chocolate sauce in the B&W days of film).  You never see the blade enter the body, or the blood spurt.  Yet you felt the terror – the horror.  That was the beauty of the art form at that time.  We still see some of that today, but more often the attempt for total realism is what directors shoot for. 

Where am I going with this you’re asking?  Chocolate sauce – really? 

It has to do with action scenes, and how they have evolved on film.  Being a photographer, films are far more than just the story to me.  The lighting, angle, the choices of shots and how they are laid out catch my eye.  As a young man, I loved movies, but could never understand why someone would want to go to a play.  After all, you can’t zoom in, have great backgrounds, and let’s face it, the special effects are limited. (I know – I know I was young, and that was well before “Phantom of the Opera”, or “Wicked”.  But that is a whole other blog for me to write about.) 

Action scenes that always stood out for me were the car chases.  That was where the pace picked up, the adrenalin got pumping, and things got smashed up (usually other cars, trash cans, and the unfortunate grocers cart or stand out from of their store).  Clichés now – right?   And they all started to look kind of the same.  But take “Bullitt” with Steve McQueen (yes yes “Gone in 60 Seconds” of that same era was pretty fantastic too).  “Bullitt” set the standard for all car chases that followed.  And frankly it took many years before any director was able to match, or supersede the infamous mustang chase scene that Peter Yates created.  It was the longest chase scene to date, lasting 10 minutes, 53 seconds.  I remember the green Mustang, and the fact that I forgot to breath several times as I watched Steve McQueen defy death.  There were actually two 1968 Mustangs used during the three weeks it took to complete the scenes.  Yates originally slated the cars to go between seventy to eighty miles an hour.  In reality the Mustangs, Chargers and filming vehicles all attained speeds of one hundred and ten miles an hour.  Yates rewrote the book on “the car chase”.

Next, fast forward to 1994 and the TV series “ER”; Hand held cameras that didn’t use any stabilization when shooting intense scenes.  I know that this technique was used in many films before, but “ER" stood out with a different “look” as it was pretty much shot all hand held.  Just as “Law and Order” had such a different look when it first aired.  Now there are those that complain profusely about the shaky cam (just Google it and you’ll see ton of complaints buy self proclaimed critics about how bad it is).  Just as with any tool, filter, or technique – it can be overused, or simply used poorly.  However, I have to say it truly gives a life like feel to a scene.  I can’t mention shaky cam  without giving a nod to Joss Whedon and Steve Schofield.  Any fan of “Firefly” or “Battlestar Galactic” will know what I mean.  They were not afraid of a shaky camera, out of focus zoom, or lens flair.  Granted – these are all done digitally for the space battles and in-flight shots.  But those techniques do make it feel very real.  Anyone who has tried to film an air show with an 8 mm movie camera, or a Sony video camera knows just how real those “shots” are.  Complain all you want, but anything that makes you feel like you are right there is great in my book. 

So what does this have to do with “Safe House”?  Again I must refer to another film I loved: “The Bourne Ultimatum”.  By far, this Bourne film took the foot chase up to a level we’ve only seen in car chases.  There is such a feel that you are RIGHT THERE.  You are running, jumping, your heart beating, just like Bourne’s is.  And the climax is where the sound goes dead – like when the blood is just pounding in your ears; Truly a work of art and technical excellence.  “Safe House” has taken what “Bourne” did, and expanded it throughout the movie.  I think the thing I loved most is how they suitably changed the pace between Denzel Washington’s character, the experienced and even jaded Tobin Frost, to that of the inexperience and even panic of Ryan Reynolds’ character Matt Weston.  If you watch closely the pace in how many seconds, or half seconds the chase scenes are broken up into when Reynolds’ character is on the screen.  There are much longer shots of Washington, creating a feeling of paced calm.  Reynolds’ shots are disjointed and quicker cut.  You get a rushed, unsure, almost panicky feeling as he desperately searches for Denzel in a crowd, or shoots his way though a fire fight. 

The affect is wonderful, and adds to both the excitement of the scene, but also the enormous differences between these two CIA operatives; one a jaded rogue, the other a determined but green field operative.  Juxtaposing their similarities and differences throughout the film, we get a great incite of what one looses when they have lived a life full of needed lies.