Watch this preview for Werner Herzog's new 3D film of the Chauvet Caves in France, then listen to the NPR interview in the second link and post a comment.
What a great interview, I'm so glad I listened to it before I saw the movie!
I do not find the idea of a 3 Dimensional movie captivating but instead to be fruitless and wasteful in major Hollywood entertainment movies. However, I think Herzog’s choice of 3D for ‘Cave of Forgotten Dreams’ surpasses my previously formulate standards and is highly necessary in the production of his film. It makes complete sense. The remarkable Chauvet Caves in France are usually sealed and the Ministry of Culture as well as the French government does not allow tourist into the caves for fear of deterioration. It is also my understanding that archeologist, anthropologist and other scientist have probably had minimal access to these caves. In Herzog’s NPR interview he speaks of scientists who want to replicate the caves and its paintings in something Herzog calls the “Disney Land Cave.” “The Disney Land Caves enable tourist to experience the caves without actually experiencing the caves… if that makes sense. Replication is a great way of learning but there is nothing like learning from the original. Therefore, I believe Herzog’s 3D film is an attempt to let the audience experience the original Chauvet Caves by three dimensionally placing them in the authentic setting they may never be able venture to.
Now I understand that 3D cannot generate the smells and the emotions felt by Herzog’s crew in the actual Chauvet Caves, but that is not impossible. As the only film maker allowed in these caves it is his responsibility to let his viewers understand how remarkable these caves are, viscerally, visually and psychologically and I believe his proper 3D editing may just actually make more sense than a 3D Pirates of the Caribbean movie.
To me while 3-d movies may not be the worst idea in hollywood but the prices might be, i think though i'd make and exception to empty my wallet for those 3-d glasses to see this movie. This is really cool how the let Herzog in to film and capture all that he could in an old cave to capture the art and cave drawings.Jjust from what i already saw the paintings look amazing they look in fine condition which is really amazing because normally when you see ancient paintings like that they are destroyed which is why i think it is also a great idea that they are deciding to not allow people in there and have very strict rules. while art like this is so awesome it is also so precious because if they let people come in and they ruin it people can't learn from it or appreciate it like art is meant to do. there is so much that can be learned about the human race and the people from that time period from observing the paintings and from only watching the preview i am very interested in watching the movie; even though you only see a glimpse of one or two paintings you still see how interesting it all is. Definitely caught my attention.
I think it is pretty cool that they had the opportunity to video the cave paints and seeing the art 1st hand. However the 3-D movie idea might not have been the best considering theres no way to recreate something so precious and 3-D movies are a lot of hype, with very little reward. I enjoyed listening to the interview, especially explanations of the prints that are so well preserved. I think it is a good idea for people interested in seeing the movie to listen to the interview first for this detailed background information. He seemed really psyched about having it be 3D, saying it's imperative, but i think its more imperative that everyone can afford to see the first scribbles of mankind rather then creating a price barrier for only some to experience. Overall, this definitely made me interested in seeing the movie.
I do not think 3D can be justified in the case of this film. In my opinion it's just a niche to utilize that would perhaps make this film more appealing to the general public that might not want to see a documentary film about caves. Caves don't excite the masses. But 3D does. I'm sure I can experience the bulging limestone just fine in 2D.
I'm curious to see what anybody thinks about the artistic implications of these paintings. By today's standards, how much would they be regarded as art? Did the people that made them, make them with aesthetics in mind and because they feel compelled to make things? Or did it have more practical purposes? For example, were they part of some sort of ritual? Does practicality affect how these objects should be viewed? Are they any less artistic if they had a concrete purpose?
If they were meant to be part of some sort of ritual, then maybe these are just what is left behind that we can see. Just remnants perhaps, of the first ever performance art, in a way. -Daniel Edward Gerlach
I think making this a 3d movie is good because it will allow for you to be immersed into the world that Herzog described and will allow you to experience it closely like he did. What little of the paintings that were shown I thought were really interesting. Given what they used to create these images I find amazing because they were able to get the value changes and gradations like we would with pencil today.
While I respect and admire the cave painting to see how far we've advanced, I only respect them, while the stalactites on the other hand have far more beauty to me than everything else in that cave.
The film could be good, but I'm always a little skeptical when it comes to "3D" films and how well it will be able to render what was actually there. But at the same time it would be fairly good sense of space of the cave and it will be the closest any of us will come to seeing what's inside that cave.
3D is certainly a gimmick, but it’s also a tool. I think Herzog justifies its when he tells us that sometimes the artists used the contours of the cave as part of their drawings. If the painter used a hump in the stone to accentuate, say, the shoulder of a bison, that won’t show in regular film but I’m expecting it to show here. Jenn mentioned the interior of the cave itself and how powerful it is; I think 3D might enhance that, too. In “Avatar” there was a moment after that Tree of Life thing exploded when flecks of light rained down on the audience in the Cineplex and I was bowled over. It was much simpler than the flying dragons, but it was perfect.
I keep thinking about the people who discovered the caves. They’re in the same small class of people with the ones who found Tut’s tomb and the Chinese terracotta warriors. They weren’t there by accident, but still. . . . There’s that moment when they performed a single action, they thrust a lantern into a dark space and saw gold glinting back, or their digging implement hit stone, or our guys moved a few rocks. And suddenly art that’s been in the dark for thousands of years hits the light.
It’s tempting to think of the caves as a sacred space. But maybe there was this guy who liked to draw and the rest of the clan didn’t understand him so he’d sneak away to this cave. It was his sketchbook. (Was anyone else surprised to see rhinos in France?)
I am also not a fan of 3D, but it does make a lot of sense for this film. 3D in hollywood movies doesn't make sense because it just enhances how you see depth in a movie which really has no specific purpose for hollywood narratives. But in this film it does make sense because it allows us to get the feeling of the depths of the caves and the space, and gives us more of an experience, and it will be the closest experience that we will ever have with these caves.
I think it would be interesting to compare the paintings found here with the ones found in the Lascaux cave. Not just seeing which species that were painted are similar, but also looking at the similarities and differences between the style in which they were painted. In the Lascaux caves the animals, more specifically the bulls were painted in a profile view but their horns were painted frontal, the paintings in the Chauvet caves seem to be more advanced.
The fact that they were painting lions and rhinos was slightly surprising but then again it could be a species that is no longer in existence. It becomes less surprising when you think that today we actually have mountain lions living here in NJ.
The part in the interview when Herzog talks about the various footprints found in the caves is what interested me the most. The fact that a footprint of an 8 year old boy was undisturbed is amazing. Also the undisturbed footprints of the now extinct cave bear.
I too really hate 3-d. I even saw an article that stated the way our eyes are developed we are actually programmed to resist the way it works. Which ironically I believe this cave alone shows we rarely need additional-3-D- help in imagery. This cave may show that our eyes never needed a push to work better. The theory of evolution is unable to account for the development of such a complex organ. One argument is that our eyes as humans developed so counter-crossed to evolution that it provides a hole in the theory that people who believe in intelligent design embrace. Is this what beauty we are seeing in front of us.
The actual detail does not depict what we have all been accustomed to seeing our ancestors draw. As stated in the interview we have always been shown rudimentary child like drawings. These are a larger understanding of what the human eye could see, oppose-able thumbs may only be what separates us so much. It is clearly an impossibility for the eye to be the product of chance. Darwin also had a great difficulty in the face of this, he even admitted, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over. Is our ability to see in the way we as humans see the color, the depth, the light , the subtlety of tone changes when we are sick or happy, is this what makes us so different in how we perceive life it self. Does our conscience, pain, and everything in between come come from visualization how we and our complex eye make us so complicated. Why not draw stick figures if these we only messages from one tribe to another.
Seeing how long these lasted makes us as modern day man seem so small in comparison to what can last in the earth when man is not there. Knowing what they know now I can see why tourist are not allowed in and out and I can only say it is a god sent that they allowed Mr. Herzog in to the cave to tape these beautiful images. Man has shown that above all and maybe to our detriment sometimes humans have visions, we have ideas. We see like no other in our minds and in reality.
What a great interview, I'm so glad I listened to it before I saw the movie!
ReplyDeleteI do not find the idea of a 3 Dimensional movie captivating but instead to be fruitless and wasteful in major Hollywood entertainment movies. However, I think Herzog’s choice of 3D for ‘Cave of Forgotten Dreams’ surpasses my previously formulate standards and is highly necessary in the production of his film. It makes complete sense. The remarkable Chauvet Caves in France are usually sealed and the Ministry of Culture as well as the French government does not allow tourist into the caves for fear of deterioration. It is also my understanding that archeologist, anthropologist and other scientist have probably had minimal access to these caves. In Herzog’s NPR interview he speaks of scientists who want to replicate the caves and its paintings in something Herzog calls the “Disney Land Cave.” “The Disney Land Caves enable tourist to experience the caves without actually experiencing the caves… if that makes sense. Replication is a great way of learning but there is nothing like learning from the original. Therefore, I believe Herzog’s 3D film is an attempt to let the audience experience the original Chauvet Caves by three dimensionally placing them in the authentic setting they may never be able venture to.
Now I understand that 3D cannot generate the smells and the emotions felt by Herzog’s crew in the actual Chauvet Caves, but that is not impossible. As the only film maker allowed in these caves it is his responsibility to let his viewers understand how remarkable these caves are, viscerally, visually and psychologically and I believe his proper 3D editing may just actually make more sense than a 3D Pirates of the Caribbean movie.
Side note: Herzog’s voice is pretty kickass
To me while 3-d movies may not be the worst idea in hollywood but the prices might be, i think though i'd make and exception to empty my wallet for those 3-d glasses to see this movie. This is really cool how the let Herzog in to film and capture all that he could in an old cave to capture the art and cave drawings.Jjust from what i already saw the paintings look amazing they look in fine condition which is really amazing because normally when you see ancient paintings like that they are destroyed which is why i think it is also a great idea that they are deciding to not allow people in there and have very strict rules. while art like this is so awesome it is also so precious because if they let people come in and they ruin it people can't learn from it or appreciate it like art is meant to do. there is so much that can be learned about the human race and the people from that time period from observing the paintings and from only watching the preview i am very interested in watching the movie; even though you only see a glimpse of one or two paintings you still see how interesting it all is. Definitely caught my attention.
ReplyDeleteI think it is pretty cool that they had the opportunity to video the cave paints and seeing the art 1st hand. However the 3-D movie idea might not have been the best considering theres no way to recreate something so precious and 3-D movies are a lot of hype, with very little reward. I enjoyed listening to the interview, especially explanations of the prints that are so well preserved. I think it is a good idea for people interested in seeing the movie to listen to the interview first for this detailed background information. He seemed really psyched about having it be 3D, saying it's imperative, but i think its more imperative that everyone can afford to see the first scribbles of mankind rather then creating a price barrier for only some to experience. Overall, this definitely made me interested in seeing the movie.
ReplyDeleteI do not think 3D can be justified in the case of this film. In my opinion it's just a niche to utilize that would perhaps make this film more appealing to the general public that might not want to see a documentary film about caves. Caves don't excite the masses. But 3D does.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure I can experience the bulging limestone just fine in 2D.
I'm curious to see what anybody thinks about the artistic implications of these paintings. By today's standards, how much would they be regarded as art? Did the people that made them, make them with aesthetics in mind and because they feel compelled to make things? Or did it have more practical purposes? For example, were they part of some sort of ritual? Does practicality affect how these objects should be viewed? Are they any less artistic if they had a concrete purpose?
If they were meant to be part of some sort of ritual, then maybe these are just what is left behind that we can see. Just remnants perhaps, of the first ever performance art, in a way.
-Daniel Edward Gerlach
I think making this a 3d movie is good because it will allow for you to be immersed into the world that Herzog described and will allow you to experience it closely like he did. What little of the paintings that were shown I thought were really interesting. Given what they used to create these images I find amazing because they were able to get the value changes and gradations like we would with pencil today.
ReplyDeleteWhile I respect and admire the cave painting to see how far we've advanced, I only respect them, while the stalactites on the other hand have far more beauty to me than everything else in that cave.
ReplyDeleteThe film could be good, but I'm always a little skeptical when it comes to "3D" films and how well it will be able to render what was actually there. But at the same time it would be fairly good sense of space of the cave and it will be the closest any of us will come to seeing what's inside that cave.
-Jennifer Edgerton
3D is certainly a gimmick, but it’s also a tool. I think Herzog justifies its when he tells us that sometimes the artists used the contours of the cave as part of their drawings. If the painter used a hump in the stone to accentuate, say, the shoulder of a bison, that won’t show in regular film but I’m expecting it to show here. Jenn mentioned the interior of the cave itself and how powerful it is; I think 3D might enhance that, too. In “Avatar” there was a moment after that Tree of Life thing exploded when flecks of light rained down on the audience in the Cineplex and I was bowled over. It was much simpler than the flying dragons, but it was perfect.
ReplyDeleteI keep thinking about the people who discovered the caves. They’re in the same small class of people with the ones who found Tut’s tomb and the Chinese terracotta warriors. They weren’t there by accident, but still. . . . There’s that moment when they performed a single action, they thrust a lantern into a dark space and saw gold glinting back, or their digging implement hit stone, or our guys moved a few rocks. And suddenly art that’s been in the dark for thousands of years hits the light.
It’s tempting to think of the caves as a sacred space. But maybe there was this guy who liked to draw and the rest of the clan didn’t understand him so he’d sneak away to this cave. It was his sketchbook. (Was anyone else surprised to see rhinos in France?)
Barbara Bretcko
I am also not a fan of 3D, but it does make a lot of sense for this film. 3D in hollywood movies doesn't make sense because it just enhances how you see depth in a movie which really has no specific purpose for hollywood narratives. But in this film it does make sense because it allows us to get the feeling of the depths of the caves and the space, and gives us more of an experience, and it will be the closest experience that we will ever have with these caves.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be interesting to compare the paintings found here with the ones found in the Lascaux cave. Not just seeing which species that were painted are similar, but also looking at the similarities and differences between the style in which they were painted. In the Lascaux caves the animals, more specifically the bulls were painted in a profile view but their horns were painted frontal, the paintings in the Chauvet caves seem to be more advanced.
The fact that they were painting lions and rhinos was slightly surprising but then again it could be a species that is no longer in existence. It becomes less surprising when you think that today we actually have mountain lions living here in NJ.
The part in the interview when Herzog talks about the various footprints found in the caves is what interested me the most. The fact that a footprint of an 8 year old boy was undisturbed is amazing. Also the undisturbed footprints of the now extinct cave bear.
-Katie Woznick
I too really hate 3-d. I even saw an article that stated the way our eyes are developed we are actually programmed to resist the way it works. Which ironically I believe this cave alone shows we rarely need additional-3-D- help in imagery.
ReplyDeleteThis cave may show that our eyes never needed a push to work better. The theory of evolution is unable to account for the development of such a complex organ. One argument is that our eyes as humans developed so counter-crossed to evolution that it provides a hole in the theory that people who believe in intelligent design embrace. Is this what beauty we are seeing in front of us.
The actual detail does not depict what we have all been accustomed to seeing our ancestors draw. As stated in the interview we have always been shown rudimentary child like drawings. These are a larger understanding of what the human eye could see, oppose-able thumbs may only be what separates us so much. It is clearly an impossibility for the eye to be the product of chance. Darwin also had a great difficulty in the face of this, he even admitted, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over. Is our ability to see in the way we as humans see the color, the depth, the light , the subtlety of tone changes when we are sick or happy, is this what makes us so different in how we perceive life it self. Does our conscience, pain, and everything in between come come from visualization how we and our complex eye make us so complicated. Why not draw stick figures if these we only messages from one tribe to another.
Seeing how long these lasted makes us as modern day man seem so small in comparison to what can last in the earth when man is not there. Knowing what they know now I can see why tourist are not allowed in and out and I can only say it is a god sent that they allowed Mr. Herzog in to the cave to tape these beautiful images. Man has shown that above all and maybe to our detriment sometimes humans have visions, we have ideas. We see like no other in our minds and in reality.