michaelguyperry.com

My first published work! Check it out. Now.

Highvoltage.org.uk

Engineers - Three Fact Fader

The Blizzards - Buy It, Sell It

Viewmanchester.co.uk

 
Binary Bar

I’ve recently started writing for www.viewmanchester.co.uk; here’s a sample review…

(I think this may remain unpublished because they already have a review of Knott Bar, but keep checking back for new reviews! I will link to them from here as and when they go up.)

Knott Bar, 374 Deansgate, Manchester

A quirky CAMRA-award-winning pub that offers a near-perfect combination of a great location, well-kept (and frequently changing) beers and hearty home-cooked food.

The Venue

Nestled among the railway arches next to Deansgate station, Knott Bar sits overlooking the Rochdale Canal, in the shadow of the imposing Beetham Tower Hilton. Its unassuming façade and seemingly hand-drawn sign hint at its modest and charmingly make-shift interior, all faded leather easy chairs, mis-matched tables and torn Ramones posters. Its a million miles away from the more polished and neon-lit chain bars over the road at Deansgate Locks, but that’s by no means a bad thing.

The high ceilings give a false impression that the bar is rather cavernous, but on a busy night you’ll often be pushed for space, especially when attempting to get near the bar. For those eating, there is a semi-separate (but by no means exclusive) dining area, and for the smokers and optimistic sun-worshippers, there’s an upstairs patio which, considering its location next to the incredibly busy Deansgate/Whitworth St junction, is oddly quite relaxing to sit out on.

The People

Knott Bar has a very relaxed atmosphere, and that is, to an extent, reflected in the pub’s clientele. The place always draws an eclectic mix of people; for example, on the evening of the visit, there was a family (including little’uns) having a bite to eat, a couple of old boys sharing a bottle of red, and a group of twenty-something metalheads having a few beers upstairs.

The Drink

The Knott was recently voted Trafford and Hulme Pub of the Year by CAMRA, and as soon as you get to the bar to order, you understand why. They often have at least four or five guest ales on offer, including, in this instance, Shepherd Neame’s Canterbury Jack, Titanic Lifeboat and a couple from Manchester’s own ever-dependable Marble Brewery, all on offer for between £2.30 and £2.70. Aside from ales, the Knott offers a decent mix of lagers, including Tuborg on draft and the usual mix of bottles, an eclectic selection of Trappist beers and, for once, a decent cider on tap (Addlestone’s). For those with a more diverse palate, they also have on offer Timmerman’s strawberry beer, although at £4.10 for a pint, one is advised not to get too much of a taste for it…

The Food

Knott Bar is almost as well known for its food as it is for its beer selection. While the menu may seem to consist of fairly standard pub fare (apart from perhaps the Thai strips of beef or the three for £10 tapas offering), the home-made pies and burgers are certainly worth a try, even at the slightly more expensive prices of £8.95 and £7.95, respectively. Executive chef Oz has also taken to offering monthly ‘epicurean’ nights, where for £10 you can sample a variety of dishes from a chosen culinary destination, which in the past has included Greek, Thai and Mexican.

The Final Word

For those who haven’t yet ventured into Knott Bar, then it should most certainly be your next port of call. For those who have, well, I’m sure you don’t need any more convincing!

Searching through the depths of my old hard drive, I stumbled across this old gem from my uni days…

Discuss the problems in drawing a distinction in contemporary cinema between animated and CGI films

“…films such as Toy Story are produced in precisely the medium they are trying to replicate… whereas (part CGI films) aim for indistinguishabilty from photo-reality… a realism committed to the illusionistic representation of the impossible…”¹

The CGI film originated in the early 1980s with such films as Tron (1982, Steven Lisberger) and The Last Starfighter (1985, Nick Castle), with both films featuring special effects created on computer, without any indexical link to the real world. CGI allows filmmakers to create intricate special effects or even whole worlds in which to place live action footage. As technology develops and as more and more films become more heavily reliant on CGI, one has to ask, where is the point in which films such as the Star Wars prequels (1999/2002/2005, George Lucas) or The Matrix films (1999/2003, Wachowski Bros.) cease to be animated films and become classed as live action? Andrew Darley claims that CGI still functions within the “integrated battery”² of special effects, rather than being considered a new mode of filmmaking, whilst Wells states that “… it may be difficult to prevent certain ostensibly ‘live action’ films lobbying for an Animation Oscar…”³, so where does one draw the distinction?

The first and most obvious distinction between CGI and animated film is the use of live footage. There are, of course, examples of animation including live action, that are still categorised as animation, such as in the early American cartoons of Felix the Cat and Betty Boo, but the real distinction lies in the realism of the interaction between live action and CGI. This is in keeping with Comolli’s notion of realism⁴, in which he states that audiences consider things to be real when compared to the ‘unreal’ previous perception of reality e.g. when compared to the hoards of CGI warriors charging into battle in the Lord of the Rings films (2001/2002/2003, Peter Jackson), the stop-motion skeleton soldiers in Jason and the Argonauts (1963, Don Chaffey) seem very dated and ‘unrealistic’. This is not to say that the Felix cartoons were striving for any kind of realism, it is merely to point out that it is the ’realistic’ nature of the interaction between live action and CGI animation in these films that sets it apart from standard animation. To further Comolli’s argument, Alice Crawford goes on to state that realism in CGI is a “relative quality”, that what appears real now is subject to change as technology dictates⁵, and whilst one can accept a CGI film completely as live action now, when the effects are superseded by something more advanced, current CGI effects may well appear cartoon like, and perhaps have more of a reason to be considered an animated film. This is not to say that everything animated by CGI is made to look real to give the appearance of genuine reality. For example, the character of Donkey in Shrek (2001, Andrew Adamson) looks real in the ‘Comollian’ sense when compared to other animated animals, and Mr. Potato Head in Toy Story (1995, John Lasseter) looks exactly like the real toy of the same name, yet they both exist within the realms of the cartoon rather the CGI film; they are not designed to convince the audience of a real interaction taking place when Donkey talks to Princess Fiona, or when Andy plays with his toys.

Bazin’s notion of realism is also important in drawing a distinction between CGI films and animated films. He argues that realism in film requires verisimilitude, that things should be shown as they are in real life to assist in what he called an
“…active exploration of visual reality…”⁶In the case of pure CGI animated films, such as Toy Story or The Incredibles (2005, Brad Bird), the animators create a ‘hyper-reality’, in which lines, shading and textures appear too real, too perfect to actually recreate the photo-realism of the photographic image. In the case of a CGI film such as Jurassic Park (1993, Steven Spielberg), the CGI animation is taken a step further, however in this case it is to make the CGI dinosaurs appear less hyper-real and more photo-real i.e. as Bazin’s notion of realism requires. The edges are blurred to blend in with the surroundings more, and the definition of the dinosaurs’ skin is toned down so to appear more naturalistic. Creatures such as dinosaurs, as well as other visually fantastic CGI characters such as the Hulk (2003, Ang Lee), Spiderman (2002, Sam Raimi) (who is completely CGI when shown swinging between New York’s skyscrapers) or Gollum from the Lord of the Rings films, can be accepted as real when they are rendered to look more natural. In addition to this, films such as Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991, James Cameron) or Independence Day (1996, Ronald Emmerich) seamlessly blend futuristic looking effects with live action, and when they are in the correct context, such as the Sci-Fi or Fantasy film, one could possibly forget they are CGI creations altogether.

A good case study for this question would be the aforementioned Star Wars prequels, Episode I – The Phantom Menace and Episode II – Attack of the Clones (1999/2002, George Lucas). Both of the films rely heavily on CGI, with one statistic stating that 95% of the films were constructed on a computer⁷. Entire sets, sequences and even characters in the film are completely synthetic⁸ and have a very polished texture much in the same way as Pixar⁹ films do. So could they be considered animated films? If one were to take Comolli’s notion of realism into account, then one would accept them completely as a CGI film rather than animation, as the effects do appear more real than the original Star Wars trilogy, such as the stop-frame AT-AT walker vehicles at the beginning of The Empire Strikes Back (1980, Irvin Kershner) or the badly rendered matte lines surrounding the animatronic Rancor monster in Return of the Jedi (1983, Richard Marquand). Also, the futuristic setting of the films acts as a kind of ‘get out clause’, a pay off as to why the images, if ever they do, appear synthetic. However, as technology advances, the effects will undoubtedly appear dated, much like Crawford’s notion of ‘relative realism’ (however, in the instance of Star Wars, one is inclined to think that when this happens, George Lucas would simply update the effects in all of the films and then re-release them), and then one could possibly argue the case for the films being classed as animation. However, If one were to take Bazin’s notion of realism into account, then one may have a case to argue that they could be considered to be animation. The films use a largely non-photographic means of capturing footage, and as mentioned above, the films’ aesthetic shares many characteristics with pure CGI animation, especially when compared to the more ‘realistic’ CGI work found in films such as Jurassic Park which, whilst still showing something completely out of the ordinary on screen, has been rendered with a certain grain to match the texture of the rest of the film. The Star Wars prequels are so ”saturated in artifice…”¹⁰, that they have aesthetically more in common with the likes of Shrek than the original Star Wars films.

Another film that blurs the distinction between CGI and pure animation is The Mask (1994, Charles Russell). In this film Jim Carrey’s character is an unlucky loser whose life is transformed by a Viking mask he finds in the river. When he puts on the mask he becomes a whole new character, a larger than life cartoon character, only in this instance, played out in live action. The character and setting are reminiscent of the Wolf in Red Hot Riding Hood (1943, Tex Avery),and the action is played out as a pastiche of the American cartoons of the 1930s and 40s in general. Darley states that “…it is as if the bizarre characters and worlds of Tex Avery cartoons and the comic strip hero have, in some kind of grotesque transmutation, come to life…”¹¹ Despite being categorised largely as a live action CGI film, it could be argued that due to its ‘hyperbolic’ cartoon aesthetic, its slapstick narrative and for a large part, an animated lead protagonist, that The Mask is more akin to the cartoon, only in this instance played for real.

But is it possible for the difficulty in distinction come the other way? Can CGI become so convincing that it becomes indistinguishable from live action? We have seen in such films as Jurassic Park, Independence Day and Terminator 2: Judgement Day that CGI can be seamlessly blended with live action, and that it can create entire fantasy worlds such as the Star Wars universe, but attempts to recreate perfect live action have been less successful. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001, Hironobu Sakaguchi) is one the more recent attempt at “Post-Photographic filmmaking”¹², in which the entire film uses synthetic (human) actors who populate a completely CGI world. There are problems that arise when CGI attempts to recreate human life, such as the sheer difficulty in rendering such things as human flesh and hair, and despite the animators best efforts, they fall short of making the ‘actors’ movements entirely believable. The film was not a success, arguably down to the fact that it did not adhere to what makes CGI appealing to audiences, which is either the entertaining Toy Story or Shrek-like animation, or the “illusionist spectacle”¹³ of the CGI/live action film in which real actors interact with their artificial surroundings. CGI, as a technology, is made to blur the lines between artifice and reality, to make the impossible seem possible, a “perceptible but invisible trucage”¹⁴.

CGI is currently clearly distinguishable from live action, but as technology continues to progress, might we some day witness CGI that cannot be told apart from live action? The Al Pacino film S1m0ne (2002, Andrew Nicoll) hints towards such a possibility, as his character creates a completely synthetic actress so convincing she becomes the ‘next big thing’ and has the world’s media after her. However, this is a long time off. Despite even further advances in technology, apparent in films such as the forthcoming Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005), the exact recreation of photo-realism is the CGI film’s final frontier, and despite the “80 million polygons per second = Reality”¹⁵ benchmark being surpassed a long time ago, there is still some way to go. But in the case of animation, it could be argued that CGI is simply another way to animate, just a different type of cell, ink and brush.

Having risen from relative obscurity to being one of the most lauded metal band of recent times in the space of only a few years, Atlanta-based prog-metallers Mastodon returned to Manchester for the first time since their brief appearance over here in October, and more importantly, for the first time since the release of their recent critically-acclaimed fourth album, Crack the Skye. And, judging by the sheer number of people squeezed into Academy 2 on this hot Saturday night, a large portion of the Manchester music-buying public have clearly been taken by the band’s unique blend of crushing metal riffs and King Crimson-esque psychedelia.

Ably supported by Oxford rockers Winnebago Deal and ‘Venus-based’ stoners Valient Thorr, Mastodon kick off with a full rendition of the new album, from the ethereal opener ‘Oblivion’ to its schizophrenic finale, ‘The Last Baron’, complete with a video back-drop chronicling the happenings of the album’s story (astral projection, Russian cults, Rasputin; the usual). Not a lot of bands could pull off this kind of stunt, but the fact that a large percentage of the crowd sang along all the way through (or at the very least, air-guitared at the appropriate moments) stands as testament to the impact Crack the Skye has already had, especially on the ‘Don faithful at the Academy.

The band themselves seemed be enjoying proceedings too; their usually more subdued stage presence this time becoming more active and involved, as guitarists Bill Kelliher and Brent Hinds take turns in firing out solos that would make David Gilmour proud, while bassist-cum-vocalist Troy Sanders stomps around the stage with a manic grin on his face and drummer Brann Dailor somehow manages to sing while all the while drumming with the same longevity as the Duracell Bunny.

After a brief interlude, the band come back on for an encore that, apart from a few more glaring omissions (namely ‘Blood and Thunder’), would fulfil most Mastodon fans’ idea of a perfect set. The band start with the frenetic and quite frankly nuts ‘Bladecatcher’, moving swiftly on to several other tracks from previous album Blood Mountain, including the bombastic ‘Crystal Skull’ and more psychedelic stylings of ‘Colony of Birchmen’, before working their way back through their catalogue, throwing in a few gems from Leviathan before finishing with perennial fan favourite ‘March of the Fire Ants’, and as they hold their guitars aloft as they so customarily do during this closing number, the guys in the band, quite rightly, look pretty bloody chuffed with themselves.

With the new album giving the band its widest audience yet, one can’t help but think about where they can go from here. However, the same was said about their last album, and look where they are now…