All in the timing

There are a plethora of games— video and otherwise —that challenge players to work against time to achieve a goal. In our present society, people crave quickness, acceleration, and fast thrills. Not having to succumb to the burden of time is now second-nature to us. Gaming simply ups the ante a notch. In today's gaming world, hand-eye coordination is a thing of the past. Now we have to deal with a more BODY-eye coordination, and this all-too-commonly coupled with time-based challenges.

The quintessential time challenge is Tetris. Tetris gives one a limited amount of time to rotate and successfully placed a shape onto a pile of other shapes such that each horizontally completed square area disappears, allowing for more room to place more blocks. The amount of time allotted to place blocks decreases as the game progesses. Similarly, the Wii game WarioWare gives players a continually decreasing amount of time to perform random tasks with the WiiMote, a revolutionary controller with 360 degress of sensory input that allows for a variety of potential uses. The game is similar to Four Second Frenzy in that each task is given a very, very short amount of time to complete with no preceding instructions on what the task will involve.

Dance Dance Revolution is a bit different, as it uses predetermined rhythms (defined by popular dance music) that a player must abide by while performing tasks limited to placing one's foot (or both feet) on one of four squares. Time does not decrease as the game progresses; rather, the foot placements become increasingly difficult.

The Verisimilitude Problem

Timecode is one of the few films I can think of that truly attempts to tackle the problem of realistic representation. It does this in three ways, none of which are announced until the end of the film. First, it gives four different perspectives of the same basic space. The quandrants don't simply follow a single character around. They are slightly more dynamic-- a character can change quadrants or be in more than one at the same time. This gives the illusion of uncontrived observation; that is, in a fiction film, multiple dynamic perspectives are basically inconceivable. The second motif is that of a continuous shot. The cameras are more "natural" than those in most films because they are bound by the movements of the cameramen. They picture cannot cut from one character to another or from location to location. The camera has to visibly turn to each of its focuses, and it has to actively travel to each desired location. This is much more similar to the properties of human eyesight than the camerawork in most films. The third motif is that of improvisation. The actors aren't following a script, so the language is more real. They make mistakes, stutter, struggle with words, etc. Futhermore, they are more engaged with their environment and supporting characters. This type of acting simply requires more focus, and more focus leads to a better understanding of the diegesis.

With each motif comes commendable elements of verisimilitude; however, each has its problems. The four-quadrant approach is a complicated one, since there are more than four characters on whom to focus. The film gest around this issue in a few ways. First, it delegates specific properties to each quadrant. The upper-right screen, for example, has very little action and is highly auxiliary to the central plot of the film. It consists mostly of bland walking and unheard conversation, though it consistently focuses on a single character. The lower-left screen is in many ways the opposite. Much of the action takes place in this quadrant. Not only that, but it refuses to focus on one character for very long. Various characters use this quadrant to separate themselves from supporting characters in previous quadrants they occupied, such as Hayek's character separating herself from her spouse. The lower-right screen is the screen of the central plot, focusing mostly on Alex, the main character, and his interactions with nearly all of the supporting characters. The upper-left screen focuses on a single character in a single location, heightening the dramatic effect of the ending, in which said character finally gest out of the car and walks into the office.

The problem with improvisation is that it SOUNDS like improvisation. It's an extremely frustrating endeavor for the audience, as many conversations are repetitive or awkwardly paced. Sometimes there are long moments of silence in the middle of dialogue, testing the viewer's patience. Futhermore, 97 minutes of improvised action makes for very long periods of boring action. A good portion of the dialogue is useless and unnecessary, leaving one to wonder the point of it all.

The last problem is that of the single take. This problem is essentially of a practical nature. Having four cameras, which intersect at various points, doing a single take for 97 minutes is extraordinarily difficult. Apparently, the film had to be shot many, many times before they got it right. For the audience, this problem goes unnoticed and perhaps unappreciated. This film is a film that needs to be appreciated for its motifs, no matter how pretentious, frustrating, or unnecessary. It is the way the film is shot that encompasses the message of the film, not the action on-screen(s).

The Will of Humanity

H.G. Wells' The Time Machine is a curious text. It is very clearly a critique condemning the effects of industrialization on our society, but the story's criticism seems to span a bit wider than that. I see The Time Machine as a critique of human will and of the purpose and use of ANY technology. It is a reflection of social trends that humanity has set into motion long before the Industrial Revolution.

For example, let's examine the Eloi. They are said to be successors to an expansive race, a race that left behind massive building structures for which the Eloi have no use. The Eloi live in ignorant bliss, fragile and kind. What I think is most important about the Eloi race is the Time Traveler's description of them as "happy". Though they become fearful at night, their lives tend to be "happy". This is the first clue to Wells' critique of will. A race of technological ambition devolves into stupid, happy critters.

Next, we have The Time Traveler. He is the most important clue to Wells' intentions, mostly because of his own personal views regarding each race. He dislikes the Morlocks. In many respects, in fact, he empathizes with the Eloi. He sees the Morlocks as extremely dangerous, evil savages. In contrast, he adores the Eloi. In other words, he refuses to acknowledge the inherent flaws of Eloi society unless they directly affect him (eg. their inability to read), and he refuses to acknowledge the inherent virtues of the Morlocks unless they are stated from a wholly empirical standpoint (eg. their dominance over the Eloi). I would say, then, that the Time Traveler's affinity for the Eloi is a reflection of his own will and desires prior to his adventure.

Through the Eloi, Wells has conveyed the consequence of general human will. Humans want to be blissful. They do not want to work. They do not want to study. They do not want to have to defend themselves. They want to live lives of lazing luxury and simple freedom. Through The Time Travelever, Wells shows the connection between will and technology. The Time Traveler is a scientist who worships technology, and he empathizes with the Eloi. Completely oblivious to the connection, the Traveler does not understand why a race of such technological success has devolved into a race of fragile ignorami. The key is the technology, the reflection of the will of the race that ultimately leads to its demise.