Let's see what happens.

Rabbit holes: ?Mad Max: Fury Яoad

· Alexander

I’m still primed by The Shining, and I still happen to develop understanding even though I don’t watch it. Latest ideas were about the (tree?) wooden composition and the ball in the removed scene.

I went through the Mad Max mostly through The Shining lens, where dynamics of action permits me doing such a thing by not being too hilarious. The thing is, the movie does not resist such a frame if one just catches details and does not try to overimpose the whole plot or bigger decisions.

So there is a bit of gaslighting in that I just took a random action movie available and added a layer on top of it of the most complex movie available. Anyway I’m not digging the rabbit hole, so I don’t talk the content and go abstract instead.

Three options why it works:

  1. Selective attention on my part (I’m primed by The Shining)
  2. This movie director made a range of decisions with The Shining in mind (or at least common source is there)
  3. Maybe some patterns are fundamental and they repeat in the medium/genre by necessity and they overlap in those movies (fundamental common source)

1. + 3. (primed attention + feeling of completeness of understanding being nearby)

This dopamine cocktail accounts for all the theories around The Shining. It’s like six handshakes theory - you can connect anything to anything.

On another hand, this mechanism asks for exploration of the medium. Because the only way to know that you are not in (1.) mode is to get more experience and understanding both within the genre and across. The creator position should be more involving, yet maybe there is this extra slack by the knowledge of what parts were more accidental, even if they are the compelling parts.

2. (directors share and reuse visual language across movies)

This is my bet. The Shining integrated different sources, now other movies integrate it as part of their bundle. This integration has significance for my context, it made me stop watching at one point. So I say it has an axe and it is conceptually thrown into the viewer badly.

This fast-paced genre fits well for doing such “shallow” painting on top of other movies.

3D

Initially I felt that the movie is under-delivering on use of 3D in dynamical action. So I assumed that they just try to be economical about puking bags and cleanup expenses.

I should say that cuts are more disruptive in 3D than in flat cinema. It is stronger felt that camera changes its angle, head sizes change, and horizon moves unexpectedly. So at the final action I started thinking that they saved vomiting packet moments for the later. Yet I expected another kind of 3D experience overall. I’d understood legit disorientation because of acrobatics of camera, but plain cuts noise disorientation is not what I was looking for. So the whole 3D technology may have own constrants to understand and develop around, and the movie contributes to the understanding.