Hallucinations And Nicotine Withdrawal

Fifteen minutes with Jeffrey Katzenberg

The full name of Dreamworks - the mini-major founded by Spielberg more than a decade ago and, recently absorbed by Universal, is "Dreamworks SKG". In this acronym, Jeffrey Katzenberg is the "K" (the "S" is the director of Duel, of course, while the "G" is David Geffen, tycoon discography) e all'epoca della fondazione qualcuno aveva fatto notare che, dei tre soci fondatori, fosse l'unico che non portava in dote un capitale miliardario ma solo il talento dimostrato negli anni passati alla Disney, dove aveva avuto un ruolo determinante (sia pure, da qualcuno, ridimensionato rispetto a quel che si diceva in giro) nel rilancio del cinema d'animazione sul finire degli anni Ottanta. A Katzenberg si attribuisce in gran parte la responsabilità della doppia svolta avvenuta con La sirenetta - il film con cui la Disney uscì dalla crisi che ne attanagliava da tempo la produzione di lungometraggi animati, riaprendo il mercato, da tempo ridottosi a quello dei ragazzini, anche al pubblico degli adolescenti e degli adulti - And the cornerstone of Who Framed Roger Rabbit .

With "DreamWorks' Katzenberg has alternating high and low - nothing revolutionary, in fact, but at least two sets of overwhelming success as Shrek and Madagascar and average production is more than adequate. And now, with Monsters vs. Aliens , which appeared in our country on April 3rd (just a week after the U.S. release) is launched on the market with the decision of three-dimensional cinema, swears, is the future of cinema itself. Is it true? Of course, less than sixty years since its first mass-market debut in film (the film was Bwana Devil , 1952), 3D seems to have achieved thanks to digital quality can compensate for the discomfort of viewing with the infamous glasses - which, moreover, have become sophisticated enough to reduce almost to zero in the past complained of discomfort from some viewers.


In terms of history, Monsters vs. Aliens does not say much new, but the technical level of 3D certainly deserves a chance to see him - at the cost of chasing the rare film in which salt is proposed three-dimensional version, just 60 screens on 550 (and no one in Rome: what a shame). With Katzenberg, compared to the years that Disney claims to have reduced much of his creative efforts on films it produces, in favor of a more organizational and, say, the facilitation for authors who work for him, I spoke mainly of technological innovation and new perspectives. Below is the full transcription of the meeting.

is usually said that cinema is more than half based on the figure of the director while the TV is connected to the producer. At that point we can locate the animation? Halfway between one another, or anywhere else?

is different from both. The analogy that I have always done is ... I think that the films are driven by true mostly by one person. And all are in the service of that one person. Animation - In which every single thing you see is produced by the imagination of someone is more like a team effort. It's like football. Do you want us attackers, scorers, defenders - a whole group of very different talents. There is a team leader, of course, who is the director of the animation. The wonderful thing about animation is that we are almost the opposite of cinema from the truth. The live action film are made from a series of compromises. Each obstacle on the road, every practical matter force you to find a compromise. And the difference between a good movie and a bad film makes those who can anticipate compromised or circumvented. Spielberg: the shark and he stops working on moment, a sudden brilliant way [to evoke]. For us ... we do not compromise - for almost nothing. It is a process so long that we can see what we're doing and improve it constantly.



So, how far she has creative control of a film like Monsters vs. Aliens ? In this case one of the directors is also the author of the screenplay, which does not happen very often.

I believe in the mythology of what I do and the fact there is a big difference. (Laughs) Well

, Disney spoke of himself as a busy busy bee to pollinate the work of its employees - but his were mostly Disney films ...

My job is to put together a great creative team. And then support them, encourage them and give them the resources they need, challenges for the entire journey. It's a little 'what makes a good editor with a writer. I do not write anything but help them to realize the best version of what they want. But it is true that once was not. When I started I was an author, contributed to the film, I attended every day to achieve. But do not do it again some time - which is probably why the movies are better!


In over twenty years of his career, quanto è cambiata l’animazione? Lei ha avuto un ruolo fondamentale in due dei film che di fatto hanno rilanciato un genere che alla fine degli anni Ottanta sembrava in crisi - La sirenetta e Chi ha incastrato Roger Rabbit ...

Trovo che sia più interessante il fatto che fra tanti cambiamenti sia rimasto invariata l’importanza capitale del modo di raccontare. Gli strumenti e i mezzi sono passati attraverso una quantità incredibile di cambiamenti e innovazioni - ciò che la tecnologia offre continuamente di nuovo ai narratori è stupefacente, ci sono stati cambiamenti mozzafiato. E questo è vero nell’animazione molto più che nel cinema dal vero. Keep up with all this is a big investment but it also offers immense opportunity - every time someone sees one of our films there is always something that drives us to say "Wow, these people continue to raise" ... and it is so for fifteen years. And when I ask what can we expect for the future I say "more." The future is more .

Increasingly, a film is no longer just a movie but the center of a number of operations performed on different mediums - from animation has always been a vehicle for merchandising. With that advance studies the synergy between the film and possible parallel applications the characters?

Almost does not happen. The ideas are from the perspective of the film story - some have great potential for the merchandising, others do not have it at all, and this has no weight in our decision whether to make a film or not. For this film we have designed the monsters in a way that best serves the narrative purpose of the film - and then some people came and told us: "Oh, we could make toys ... but not vice versa. We have not called toy manufacturers asking them: "Describe the toys and then try to do a movie."


The 3-D exists in several versions, for quite some time - but this is perhaps the first time that many filmmakers series A show a real interest in this technology. What, in the past two or three years, pushing many directors to overcome the obstacles that until now had always stopped the spread of three-dimensional cinema?

The film saw him, no? Have you ever seen something like this? I do not want to do but to answer a rhetorical question. You can see today what we saw three years ago, something amazing, something that changes everything he knew of cinema. And all the best filmmakers - those who have always been pioneers in adapting and exploiting new technologies, Spielberg, Zemeckis, Jackson, Lucas, Cameron - sono quelli che sono sempre stati all’avanguardia della tecnologia. Tutti noi abbiamo capito nello stesso momento, tutti noi ci siamo detti: “Questo è il futuro”, e ci permette di raccontare meglio le nostre storie. Per cui siamo saltati tutti sul carro.


Quindi a fare la differenza è la maturazione della tecnologia? All’epoca del primo boom del 3D forse fu Hitchcock il solo regista di serie A a cimentarvisi, e in un film soltanto...

Non c’è dubbio che sia la tecnologia. Bob Zemeckis è la persona che si è lanciata per prima in questa avventura tre anni e mezzo fa, con Polar Express . E io posso parlare della mia esperienza. Ho visto Polar Express in 3D in una sala IMAX e ci sono rimasto secco: fu una esperienza sensazionale, eccezionale e ho capito che dovevo capire come fare qualcosa del genere nel mio settore. Sono tornato al mio studio e ho detto ai miei responsabili della tecnologia: “Questo è il futuro, dobbiamo farne parte”. E tutto si riassume in una parola sola: digitale. Digitale, digitale, digitale. Proiezione digitale, strumenti di authoring digitali, distribuzione digitale - è tutto questione di digitale. Cambia tutto. [impugna un Blackberry ] Pensi a cosa fa questo oggetto. Non esisteva nemmeno, dieci anni fa - non esisteva nemmeno cinque anni fa. Quando pensa all’iimpatto che questa rivoluzione digitale ha sulla qualità delle nostre vite, beh, adesso sta accadendo anche nel cinema.

Al di là dei film realizzati direttamente per il 3D, si parla anche di tridimensionalizzare film realizzati in precedenza con metodi tradizionali - da Guerre stellari ma risalendo anche a Casablanca . La cosa interessa anche il suo settore?


So che c’è chi ci sta lavorando ma non sono aggiornato su a che punto sia la ricerca in proposito e a che livello di qualità siano arrivati. Ma non è che ci tenga a vedere realizzata questa particolare iniziativa - così come non ci tenevo a vedere cosa sarebbe successo quando hanno cominciato a colorizzare i film in bianco e nero - qualcosa che non mi è mai piaciuta, perché non penso che fosse un miglioramento. Potrebbe essere una sfida vedere se sia possibile prendere un vecchio film in 2D e rielaborarlo in postprouzione ottenendo una versione in 3D con una qualità che giustifichi lo sforzo. Posso dire che se un film non è stato prodotto in 3D, a livello di progettazione delle inquadrature... beh, è come ai tempi in cui operatori e registi giravano film in bianco e nero, li studiavano sulle sfumature del grigio fra il nero e il bianco - non c’era proprio l’intenzione del colore. Penso che il discorso valga anche in questo caso: in un film in 2D non c’era l’intenzione della profondità e di come la camera will move. So I am curious to know how to do. I'm not skeptical, I'm just curious. I do not know. I know that give color to black and white film did not work.

Well, in the case of computer animated feature film produced by Dreamworks - in a sense are 3D, as any object or character, there is a three-dimensional model. It would be relatively easier to recover material for a possible three-dimensional version? And there are plans in this regard?

We could do it, but not now. Today, still costs too much. To do so, and maintain a quality to match our needs we should spend an excessive amount - but it is technically possible. We should go back and start again with a lot of render elements, drawings, models of things that work perfectly in 2D but also in 3D, and therefore should be redone. The cost of such an undertaking for a 90 minute film is still prohibitive.

Three out of four monster characters are virtually identical to the SF American cinema of the fifties - the monster from the Black Lagoon, the 50-foot tall woman and the blob - another is clearly inspired by the scientist of The Fly. The subject had characters like the originals or from the beginning the idea was to take inspiration from them without them directly?

the outset, the intention the authors was to pay tribute to those characters without having to use literally.

Monsters vs. Aliens has some scenes that use 3D so presumptuous as it was once - even the scene of the racket on the ball spring is a quotation of 'House of Wax André de Toth - but overall it seems to avoid the temptation to use 3D as a gimmick. How did you work to integrate technology in history?

Every single shot has been thought of in terms of 3D. I think that's why there is a quality and unique immersive experience that 3D had never given before. The script has worked for over a year and a half each from the first storyboard artist who worked on the film he thought everything in three dimensions.