Archive for the ‘Film’ Category
29th August 12
Posted in Film
To coincide with the ‘main course’ of the Paralympics, and after the Olympic warm-up, BBH creatives Kim and Mareka – with the great help of Chris Hyndman at Atomized - have made a mini documentary in their own time for charity TDF (The Disability Foundation) to celebrate the amazing feats of Paralympic athleticism and how TDF quietly helps make them happen. It features double amputee and great GB gold hope James O’Shea, who swims for 100m breaststroke glory on September 5th.
More information about the unique charity TDF and its complementary health services (which are available to the able-bodied too!) can be found here. And if you’d like to donate to help keep more stories like James’ coming, then text TDFV11 followed by the amount to 70070. It goes straight on your mobile bill and costs you nothing more.
Please share this film around and Tweet your support of @tdftweet with the hashtag #JamesOShea
16th September 11
Author: Lucia Komljen, Strategist, BBH London
This week saw the launch of ASOS Urban Tour – a shoppable, cultural experience in the form of an interactive platform promoting ASOS A/W 2011 menswear collection. It invites the audience to watch some of the world’s most skilled urban musicians, dancers, designers and artist in action across the world and to explore what – and where – inspires their craft and their style. The centerpiece is a dynamic, shoppable video set in London which can be paused and explored at any point, presenting the user with more information on the dancers and enabling the purchase of their looks.
Overall, we hope Urban Tour is an example of what can be achieved when you push technology and design in an attempt to seamlessly combine entertainment and service for e-commerce brands. Furthermore, it’s another demonstration of just how powerful it can be when technology enables ambitious creativity throughout the customer journey.
Here’s the story behind the work so far, we’d love to hear what you think. Read full post
14th June 11
Posted in Film
Author: Alice Bullimore, Integrated Producer, BBH London
What would happen if you asked everyone in the world to take a video of their life on the same day?
Well, it’s happened. The day was July 24th 2010 and people from 120 countries uploaded over 80,000 videos. Life, in a Day.
The raw footage itself is powerful. As Alexandra Coghlan comments in her great review, “what is perhaps most extraordinary and exciting about this project are its leftovers”, and on the ‘explore’ tab at youtube.com/lifeinaday the guys at Google have made all this footage available for us to filter and view, the many stories untold.
But then there’s the film.
Kevin MacDonald & Ridley Scott at RSA undertook the ambitious curatorial job of creating their story of the world, Joe Walker took on the crazily gargantaun mission of editing.
Over 4500 hours of footage reviewed, complied and cut into a coherent 90 minute film.
The film’s not bad either.
It was well received at Sundance, Berlin and SXSW film festivals, Total Film have given it 4 stars and it currently enjoys a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
But what was it like laying down this challenge?
What if no-one had entered anything?
What if most of the crowd sourced footage was unusable?
With so much footage to go through, how do you choose what story to tell? An individual’s? The world’s? The editors’? Just whose agenda is at work, and what are the implications of a film like this?
Well, we’re privileged to be able to get a bit closer to some of these answers with a preview screening & live Q&A with the editor, Joe Walker, at BBH in London this wednesday 15th June at 5.00pm.
If you would like to ask Will and the team a question of your own, we have a limited number of tickets available for you & a friend to join us.
Please email email@example.com to get a free pair of tickets. First come first served.
We look forward to seeing you.
You can also upload questions for Kevin MacDonald and Life in a Day contributors here, by 2pm UK time *today* in advance of the UK premiere. The film is on national release in Vue cinemas on Thursday.
2nd June 11
Last Saturday during coverage of the Champions League Final, BBH released our first 3D advert for Audi. Guest author Davud Karbasssioun, BBH Head of Film explains why this was the right technology for the right brand.
Over the last two years you would have had to be holed up on Pandora not to know that 3D was making a serious comeback. Some experts insist that film’s transition to 3D is as pivotal as the adoption of sound or the move to full colour. I’m not sure it really is that ‘black and white’…
More recently 3D has been used as a gimmick to add novelty to films rather than enhance their storytelling power, which hasn’t done the 3D brand any favours. Cynics would argue 3D is Hollywood’s answer to piracy, their way of ensuring bums on seats in an age of free sharing and piracy.
Either way the platform is here for all advertisers to embrace. Channels are desperately trying to get everyone to watch everything in 3D and all the electronics brands are falling over themselves to convince us that those brand new HD LCD’s we’d just invested in needed to be replaced with new 3D TVs.
But if brands are going to embrace 3D they must learn from the mistakes Hollywood is making and do it by respecting the technology. To me, Audi’s recent 2 ½ minute Le Mans film is a good example.
(The video above requires red/blue 3d glasses – for other options including plain old 2d, click on the 3D options button)
The ad features Audi Le Mans driver Allan McNish describing what it takes to win the legendary Le Mans 24-hour race. BBH Creative Directors Kevin Stark & Nick Kidney conceived the concept for the film after viewing a presentation by the charismatic McNish, describing the intensity, precision & endurance required to succeed in the race. From that moment on the brief was to dramatise that experience of the race as best they could using Allan’s own improvised narrative.
3D was never in the brief, in fact the guys specifically wanted to use 2D hand drawn art to give the film a simple, personal charm that matched the drivers personality. The idea of shooting Allan and making the film in 3D came later with Passion Pictures when it was clear that viewing the film though a stereoscopic lens would only further enhance the viewer’s engagement. Using both the Sky 3D broadcast of the Champions League final and the launch of the final Harry Potter installment in 3D are the perfect events to share it.
Anything that increases the creative spectrum is a great thing. 3D, if used appropriately and well, enhances the story. 3D, used badly, is terrible. Unfortunately, Hollywood is so desperate to generate hype to sell tickets that there is inevitably going to be overwhelming pressure from movie studios to push 3D in the hope that this will rescue the basic shortcoming of the film itself. That is the fundamental problem right now.
Wim Wenders’ film Pina is for me a rare example of 3D used beautifully. Here the 3D technology is used to open up a stage to give the Pina Bausch Dance Group the space to perform on, The results are as effective as they are beautiful (not sure it will challenge Hangover 2 at the Box office though).
Like Pina this Audi film is a rare example of helping dramatise an experience for the viewer that wouldn’t be as full an experience as in simple 2D. To me that’s how 3D technology should be used and how it will be most respected by the viewers, a win-win for brands.
Essentially the way I see it Audi are simply taking advantage of the 3D technology, or in German ‘Vorsprung durch 3D Technik.’
12th April 11
“Here’s to living forever. That’s not just a salutation in our family”
~ Sonya Kurzweil
“This is of mythical proportions. We have to deal with it, even if it turns out not to be true.”
~ Kevin Kelly
Regular readers of this blog will know we have an abiding fascination with what technology may bring in the far flung future (see our The Coming Age of Augmentation post and, most recently, Greg Anderson on Asimov’s First Law).
So it’ll be no surprise to hear we got *extremely* excited when an invite arrived, courtesy of Google, to attend a screening of Barry Ptolemy’s Transcendent Man at the Science Museum in London, followed by a Q&A with the director and the film’s subject, the futurist, author and engineer Ray Kurzweil. Read full post
4th March 11
Author: Alice Bullimore (@alicebmore), Producer, BBH London
Poor 3D. It’s been around forever yet we still don’t seem to be able to make up our minds on whether it’s any good or not.
It’s exactly one year since we partnered with Burberry to stream their show live in 3D to 5 VIP locations. Everyone was excited about Avatar. We wanted to give the fashion elite from Paris, Dubai, Tokyo, Los Angeles and New York a real-time experience of the show that trumped watching a standard webstream at your desk. It was the first ever global live simulcast in 3D.
However I doubt Roger Ebert would have bothered.
He argued recently that our brains just can’t handle 3D visuals and it gives us all a headache. ”It doesn’t work with our brains and it never will” he categorically states. He quotes a letter from Walter Murch who argues a fundamental convergence/focus issue when watching 3D that “requires us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before.” As far as Mr Ebert is concerned, that’s it. “3D doesn’t work and never will. Case closed.”
Except with 508 comments on his post and counting, it seems the case is not completely closed for the rest of us.
Now, these guys are clearly dons. Ebert is a Pulitzer prize winning film critic who’s written for the Sun Times forever and Murch, an award winning editor and sound designer who won an Oscar for his sound editing on Apocalypse Now and the English Patient.
But is it that black and white?
Does it have to be 2D versus 3D?
The main points leveled against 3D in this debate are worth digging a little deeper on.
1. 3D doesn’t work with our brains and gives us headaches
Look, I feel sorry for the dudes who get headaches, but that’s clearly not the case for everyone. Personally, Avatar and Tron at the IMAX were extraordinary to watch. Full feature length viewing, completely headache free. Sure, these films won’t win Oscars for their plots, but for the pure visual epic-ness of it all, they were stunning.
2. 3D doesn’t enhance the emotional experience of watching a film
Sure, there are films which have no reason to be in 3D. But studios are hard wired to make money and making a film like Yogi in 3D might just make the difference between box office success and failure. When watching Tron at the IMAX, billed as a 3D film, a lot of the scenes were actually in 2D. The 3D was used where it could create most impact. Similarly, for the VIP guests watching the Burberry show, the format suited the content. A long catwalk with models striding out towards you and the shortness of a show made it an ideal 3D viewing experience. 3D can still work well, when used well. The detractors seem to be in denial that there is emotional impact in the sheer wow factor of a great 3D experience.
3. Is 3D here to stay or is it today’s betamax?
Dramatic falls in DVD sales will require Hollywood and TV manufacturers to push whatever the next difficult-to-pirate camera technique is. Other than Cameron, few of the top Hollywood directors have gone for it though. 3D’s real home might be end up in gaming. I can’t wait to see the Nintendo 3DS (which looks amazing – you can even turn it ‘up’ from 2D to 3D just like turning up the volume).
Bring on the future I say.
Bring on different types of visual and sonic exploration.
Why not explore all the ways we can use the senses to give a heightened viewing experience (what did happen to smell-o-vision?). There may be some betamaxes along the way, but going to see a 3D film is still a special shared experience.
For a start, we get to laugh at each other looking goofy in the glasses (for the time being at least)…