Images »

I love image editors like Photoshop. They've allowed me to make boring pictures funky, wipe the years off old and worn memories, and even get rid of the errant hair or blemish to make that nice photo truly shine. But I would give it all up and wipe my hands of them if it meant that the programs would be pulled out of the hands of Hollywood and the image-fixing machine.

We're getting bombarded by all sides. It's bad enough that lazy frakking poster creators actually shovel out horse poop like the embarrassingly terrible poster for The Takers, one that doesn't even bother trying to match the skin tones of the stars' heads with the stunt bodies, or thinks Paul Walker has massive Science of Sleep-like hands.

But we're also getting a never-ending onslaught of body de-hancements. I really can think of no better word for the folks like Ralph Lauren who are Photoshopping their models into sick, skeletal bodies. Adding to the pack is W Magazine, as BoingBoing shares. They scored an interview with Demi Moore and threw her up on the cover. While she may have discussed her dislike of being called a cougar, methinks she'd have more of an issue with what they did to her body. She's already ridiculously thin, but still, they edit. It looks like they tried to give her an "hourglass" shape (I use that term begrudgingly because it really doesn't apply when we're talking about skinny women who are Photoshopped to look curvy.), but worst of all -- they wiped out part of her already pencil-thin legs and were too lazy to make sure it matched. You can see part in the image above, look at the hip on the right, or in its full glory after the jump.

New York's Museum of Modern Art is hosting a retrospective for Tim Burton that spans the artist's career so far, from doodles on paper, Polaroids, sketches, full-blown paintings, sculptures, and, of course, movies. The MoMA will be showing 14 of his films, and Burton himself curated a collection of films that inspired him, aptly titled "The Lurid Beauty of Monsters." Burton was on hand to talk to the press, comparing his joy at the show to "an out-of-body experience." He said, "In my life, I've had many surreal, great things happen -- meeting my idol, Vincent Price; being able to make movies; and this one, I think, tops it in the sense that it's the most amazing and surreal, and that's what you look for in life, is these great and incredible [experiences]."

The MoMA's Ron Magliozzi, Assistant Curator, and Jenny He, Curatorial Assistant, Department of Film, worked feverishly to uncover work from the artist's 27-year career, even touring his house to find art for the show. Burton also created seven new statues for the exhibit.

The show opens November 22nd and ends April 26th, 2010. You can see a selection of the art on display in the gallery below.

Cinematical: What's the most personal piece in the collection for you?

Tim Burton: Well, it could be any of a number because I noticed the ones that freaked me out so much that I can't look at, which is a lot of it, I think it's a lot of that early stuff. Stuff that I didn't even know I had. I don't even know where they found some of that really early stuff. 'Cause it's, as they [Ron Magliozzi and Jenny He] pointed out, it was all just kind of personal and private, so there's a lot of that in there. Mainly, the early stuff, I'd say. Stuff that – I don't know where you actually found stuff that I actually got decent grades on! Because I don't remember that at all! [Laughs]

Now that Pixar's Up has officially landed on DVD and Blu-ray, artist Paul Conrad has posted a bunch of the concept art from the film that he worked on, like the above image (which I pieced together) that includes the original digital photo that inspired "Paradise Falls" alongside the faux magazine article that Ellie first thumb-tacks in their living room. Some interesting tidbits we learn from Conrad's blog:

• According to one image, Paradise Falls was at one point called Angel Falls.
• Initially, 185 Wilderness Explorer Merit Badges were created for Russell, though they only used 47 in the film (see all 185 over at Conrad's site).
• The bird's name was originally Gary, and then later changed to Kevin.
• Additionally, several soda cap badges were also created eventually leading to the single Grape Soda cap that young Ellie pins on young Carl (see all the soda cap designs over at Conrad's site).

There's also tons more over on the site, including concept sketches for the airlines tickets, collectibles in Carl's living room, sketches for the map of South America, a jet stream image that Russell was to show Carl in the film, and a story about the mailbox hand prints. Check out a couple more below and the rest over at Conrad's site.

Jason Reitman, whose next film Up in the Air comes out on December 4th, posted a very funny image on Twitter recently – a pie chart detailing the different things that people have asked him in recent interviews. The top three were about George Clooney (111 people), the economy (96 people), and his next project (78 people). The fourth is a little more confusing, as it just reads "Real People," so apparently 77 people asked him about real people. Maybe they wanted to know if the people being laid off in the movie were real people? Who's to say what goes through the murky depths of the mind of a journalist?



I humbly ask Jason Reitman to make a pie chart of his answers. Here's what I picture it to look like.

111 people: "Clooney is such a prankster! But he's also a great serious actor. He's the Cary Grant of our times. Sometimes we have moustache contests."

96 people: "The economy sucks. Seriously though, I've never been laid off, but if I had to be laid off, I'd hope George Clooney would do it."

78 people: "My next project will be with George Clooney. Actually, it will be catching up on all the sleep I lost talking to you people and answering the same damn questions over and over again."

In one jpeg, Reitman manages to sum up the exhausting paces that filmmakers, actors, musicians, et al are put through to get their names and faces and projects out there, the laziness of some journalists, and the terror that faces every journalist that wants to be good at what they do and engender an interesting discussion that is hopefully pleasant and/or illuminating (but at the very least not boring) for everyone involved, including the reader.

If you could ask Jason Reitman anything, what would it be?

In the '90s, I adored exactly three parts of Hollywood: alternative music flicks like Pump Up the Volume and Empire Records, Gregg Araki, and David Lynch. The first always bled into the other two, Araki partaking in the musical joys of bands like The Jesus & Mary Chain and New Order, and Badalamenti creating his own unique world of music. But now the other two are combining. Sort of.

Remember how I posted a month ago about Araki's new film, Kaboom? Well, some images have finally popped up over at Quiet Earth, including the confused-faced Thomas Dekker above. There are also shots of Dekker in bed, and some looks of exasperation, but that's not the kicker -- it's the synopsis, which kicks off with "A hyper-stylized TWIN PEAKS for the Coachella Generation..." Yes, Araki's getting into a little small-town quirk.

Building on that whole all-too-brief sexual awakening description from last month, the movie is "a wild and sex-drenched horror-comedy thriller" about an ambisexual college freshman who trips on "some hallucinogenic cookies" and is "convinced he's witnessed the gruesome murder of an enigmatic Red Haired Girl who has been haunting his dreams." Is the girl in a room with a black and white floor and thick, red curtains?

What do you think about the idea of Araki getting a little Lynchian?

When one thinks of great art, there's often the expectation of carefully prepared canvasses, lush materials, and skilled, complex detail. But it doesn't always take a horde of materials to make something impressive -- sometimes all it takes is a little plastic and some brown packing tape. CNN reports that Philly artist Mark Khaisman is taking these seemingly mundane materials and turning them into a series of scenes from Hitchcock films (The 39 Steps and Spellbound) plus a number of glimpses into Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street. The image above -- that's Spellbound. (The rest are housed in a gallery at CNN.)

This is nothing more than clear plastic panels and brown, translucent tape. Looking at the shirt -- it's fathomable -- a series of strips that, when laid on top of each other, creates areas of light and shadow. But look at the faces, and most especially, the hair. This isn't just a stained glass-like mosaic -- the artist is a former stained glass designer -- there's tone and depth in each piece. Texture.

Props and posters might be cool, but imagine walking into a home theater with a piece like this glowing on the wall. Forget movie ads. I'll take some packing tape art any day.

Slugging through the cold Monday morning, I took a moment to read the latest xkcd (a huge image through the link), and they've managed to boil some major cinematic experiences down into line charts. The latest installment of the web comic tackles Movie Narrative Charts; most specifically, the movie character interactions in Lord of the Rings, Star Wars (original trilogy), Jurassic Park, 12 Angry Men, and Primer.

The charts are actually a pretty intricate set of lines showing how each character progresses through the movie -- who they meet, and the main events and conflicts that take place. However, the big wow for me is in the overall look -- how that mass of lines evokes the same memories of confusion, or lack thereof, watching the films. There's the rolling but easy-to-follow storyline of Star Wars, the pure simplicity and ease of 12 Angry Men, and best of all -- the confusion of Lord of the Rings and Primer.

I could never get into the books, so watching Rings was an exercise in intrigued confusion -- trying to keep the characters straight, waiting for a slow moment to whisper a question, and trying to make sense of a thick storyline funneled into a film. And on the other end of the confusion spectrum, there's Primer -- the film that spins around and evokes stunned, hard-to-define confusion, the spiraling lines also mimicking a lot of the wide eyes of "what the f...?!" I saw after the film's screening at TIFF.

Sometimes it's terrible storytelling, sometimes it's confusion as an art form, and sometimes it's just the mind trying to deal with mass amounts of information. Xkcd managed to lay out some of the main moments of my cinematic confusion, but what are yours? What films leave you trying to follow and make sense of the narrative?

Here's a different way of thinking about well-known movies: imagine each one is a stop on a subway line! Designed by David Honnorat and posted at Vodkaster, the cinematic subway map is based on the top 250 movies as voted by IMDb users on June 19 (which, I suppose, is why The Hangover made it). Honnorat created 16 different imaginary subway lines, including "Universally Acclaimed Masterpiece," "Political drama," "Drama about tolerance," "Dark and weird drama," and other, more traditional categories, and then placed each film on one of the lines. He asked: "How would you go from Alien to North by Northwest without crossing The Godfather: Part II? Which station have you not visited yet?"

The placement of movies on the map can be amusing (Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction side by side with Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America on the gangster line) as well as bizarre yet strangely fitting (Se7en sitting at the intersection of Vertigo, Rashomon, Nosferatu, and Let the Right One In). Click through to see the big map and roll around a bit. Like all subway maps, it's confusing at first but starts to make more sense as you follow the lines from station to station. What's your favorite cinematic subway line?

[ via Geek Tyrant ]

I find it amazing that there was never a Disney revolution. Just this week I wrote about how horror was reinvigorated when women were allowed to fight back. Thinking of the two together, it's a bit embarrassing that horror fiends could buy into strong women, but familial units could not. On one side, there's Laurie Strode and Sydney Prescott. On the other...

There's an image swirling around Digg, which you can see above (click on the image to get it full-sized). It's the classic Disney princesses roster -- Snow White*, Aurora, Jasmine, Ariel, Belle, and Cinderella. Above their smiling faces, however, are their basic characteristics and plot lines. When you boil it down to the basics, the story is enough to make anyone queasy. Snow White's hormones almost kill her, Aurora is married off in the crib for politics and saved years later with a kiss (or sex and slavery when Anne Rice has her say), Jasmine is a pretty girl saved by a street rat, Ariel gets to look pretty and say nothing, Belle works her sexuality, and Cinderella is saved because of her beauty.

The fact that Sleeping Beauty was lucky enough to fall for her prince, like the others, doesn't change much. It's just a necessary plot twist to make all the rest palatable. How is it that we've yet to get a super-smart, super-funny, super-likable Disney princess to add to the pack -- maybe one who Nancy Drews her way to saving the prince. Sure, it'd probably make all the other princesses pale in comparison, but you know young girls would love it.

[via Slashfilm]

*Typo corrected.