Lord of War
Click to Watch
Click to Watch 720p HD Version
Reminiscent of the center-of-(wide)frame-focused opening to The Naked Gun, the knockout title sequence to “Lord of War” is a first-person narrative where the “I” happens to be a bullet. We bear witness to the life and death of the little guy. Sadly, the HDR-based CG imagery robs the piece of its realism; it’s obfuscatory where it might be stark. While well intentioned, the execution is incredibly clinical -there is too much message and not enough heart. You want a bulleted reality of war?
Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
Door Gunner: Easy! You just don’t lead ‘em so much!
The lensing is exquisite but calculated to a fault while the timeless music of Buffalo Springfield serves as a kind of mawkish plea, an unnecessary retread. And the child endgame plays as yet another manipulation; he wouldn’t be standing stiff in the midst of a firefight because he wouldn’t last with the given sight lines. As it -he- stands, the blocking of the actor contradicts a primal predilection towards self-preservation. As this doesn’t make sense, the slick stylization does not serve. The sniper duel in Saving Private Ryan succeeds because of a rooted context which subsumes an implausible end. That context is missing here.
We struggled for some time with this post. The first person POV reminds one of a first person shooter video game and never seemed suited to the subject matter. Now I wonder, was the gaming correlation part of the intent?
Direct Link | Format: QuickTime H.264, 800×336 | Size: 32 MB | Running Time: 3:01 | Year: 2005
720p HD Version | Format: QuickTime H.264, 1280×528 | Size: 66.4 MB | Running Time: 3:01 | Year: 2005
Related Extra: Title Sequence Breakdown with visual effects supervisor Yann Blondel
Related Movie Extra: The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! [1988] Opening Title Sequence
Direct Link | Format: QuickTime H.264, 720×386 | Size: 18 MB | Running Time: 2:07
Created by l’E.S.T.
Visual Effects Supervisor: Yann Blondel
Talk about overanalyzation. How would YOU film the life of a bullet? Maybe the music was cliche, but this POV treatment makes the weapons a character in the story as much as the actors.
The opening title sequence of “Lord of War” was a masterstroke, doing an incredible job of setting up the tone of the rest of the film. For all the CGI musings, it still packs a punch.
It gives the exact feeling of the movie. I really love the music in combination with the CG
I understand what you’re saying with regards to glamorous manipulations, but I agree that this particular example has been over analysed. For a start the credit sequence has to both tell a story and credit the makers of the film, so bumping up the abstraction allows for the narrative to be absorbed whilst not demanding so much concentration as to render the text invisible.
As for the child’s pose and sight lines… that’s wandering off into star trek fan territory.
I would also wager that the video game similarities were unintentional. All in all the arms trade is an extremely complicated and unpleasant issue. This sequence was, in my opinion, very competent and capable in it’s compression of that issue.
Referring to the child’s pose and sight lines-if you replay the few seconds when the bullet has left the barrel and is making its way to the child, you should notice that the boy is firing an assault rifle, therefore justifying the position the boy is standing in. Judging by his age, (8 maybe 9 years old, and not seen any war movies) its assumed he has no training, even when it comes to the basic aspect of fire and cover. Hence, his shooting from the waist, and standing in the middle of the street.
Digging deeper into this issue, (of self preservation), you have to keep in mind that this “war” presumably in a 3rd world country. This fact somewhat makes the generalization of self preservation somewhat flawed. However, you could always go for the RUF route where children are recruited against their will…..but unlike what you stated, he isn’t standing there in the middle of the street waiting for a man to shoot him, he has a gun in his hand, and is noticeably firing it.
Moving on to a further coherent point as stated by the above posts, the argument of “self preservation” is completely unnecessary and just pointless. Basing such a rooted literary aspect into a scene lasting less than 3 seconds, then even comparing it to a completely unrelated movie in a different setting, and further comparing to an actual scene in a movie rather than a title sequence, (and the single scene you happened to mention lasts just as long as the credits) and then calling it “contradicting” is somewhat, senseless. There is no other scene in the title sequence that even suggests the aspect of self preservation than the one you just mentioned. Overall the whole title sequence, in a nutshell, follows the same path as the protagonist in the film and summarizes his choice of work. The bullet is created, sold, and forgotten. It just happened to find itself in the back of a child’s head, much like the weapons Cage sells. Except, well you get the point.
Overall it is a wonderfully executed sequence, and it serves its purpose, creating an eye catching intro to a great movie.
When I first saw this opening title in the cinéma, I wept. I suppose at further analysis I allowed myself to be manipulated by the “mawkish plea”–however, at the time I felt I had seen an incredibly beautiful short film and could have left the theater satisfied. I still think the piece is both literally and figuratively from the bullet’s POV and thus the issues mentioned in the original post actually seem well-motivated. In short, I dig it.
William,
You’ve moved me to respond. My angry, critical eye towards the use of the music -in addition to your absolute acceptance and spiritual kinship with it- marks a fundamental difference between us, either in age or experience and perhaps both. I am in awe of what you took away from the sequence.
Earlier in these weighted posts someone asked how I would’ve filmed the sequence. It’s not how I would’ve done it as much as how I imagine Hal Ashby might’ve crafted the same storyboards. I hope you understand what that means. I hope everyone does. Check out a double bill of “Coming Home” and “Die Brücke” if you get the chance.
Anyone mentioning the concept of overanalyzation (surely this is a concept as it is not a word) need consider the space they are occupying here. We love doing this so hell yes we will analyze.
You are, each, correct. To continue a thought, the center-frame POV here calls attention to itself; a distraction where economy better serves. I’ll not underestimate the readership and stop here.
Alex
-
Team Art of the Title
Hey Alex, don’t try and take it the wrong way, we all love what you do here and we’re thankful for it, (at least I am) I’ve taken away a lot of inspiration from many of the high quality titles you have here.
However I guess you could see from the previous, most of us love to criticize as much as the next guy. Dare I say, “everyone is a critic.”
I think there is no subtle way of approaching this issue. Therefore the way the title is staged fits perfect with the film. I even think that the game like POV gives it even more character and a feeling of neglectance. Guns and bullets don’t kill people, people do. I would also like to add that the (dutch) DVD menu is also a marble that totally fits the subject of the film. My apologies for my pour way of expressing myself in the English language but I am a dutch guy.
in calling a critique of a given title over-analyzed, there is failure to recognize the amount of thought put into the creation of the sequence in the first place. if it had been thrown together at the last minute or been a mish-mosh of random images, then yes, perhaps “over-analysis” would suffice, however, titles — even the simplest ones — are conceptualized, storyboarded and go through multiple revisions, rewrites, etc. to make sure the intended message gets through to the viewer.
This is the 2nd first-person narrative title sequence I have seen to a Nic Cage film, the other being even more reminiscent of Naked Gun to the point I mocked it on YouTube! {http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wTd5nExHhvo} It’s my personal belief that Nicholas Cage is a poison to every part of a movie, to the point he even forces title designers to phone it in due to the severe apathy of working on his films! I know it’s harsh but seriously he does make seriously bad films these days and they are bad done to the finest details; poor acting, bad camera work, bad design, poor sound design, uninspiring titles. It’s a shame because the PIC Agency (who designed Ghost Riders titles) have done some excellent work - notably The Kingdom - but sunk deep when working on a Cage film. I’m not familiar with the work of L’Est but I’m sure they’ve done better than this.
The 3d parts in Lord of War are pretty unconvincing in my opinion, especially for a Hollywood movie. To sharp, with very poor reflections & no atmospheric details (dirt, grime, imperfections) - it actually looks like realtime graphics from Call of Duty on the PS3, not a fully rendered piece. The tone in general doesn’t appeal to me. The idea is good. We see the life of a bullet from birth to death, but I just think it’s executed (no pun intended) very weakly. In short I think it’s trying too hard. There are similar “life of a bullet” sequences in Wanted, but they work a) because they are way better made and b) the tone of the film is ridiculous/fantastical anyway.
As for the music, it’s typical of a Hollywood film; dry, dated and irrelevant. I like the song, but it’s an ill fit here.
I remember thinking the music was a questionable choice when I first saw it — “mawkish” gets it right — but someone a bit younger (anyone earlier than GenX, say) probably would not have registered it.
I don’t understand the complaints about the CGI or the clinical execution, though. I’m not sure I would want someone striving for realism, warmth and heart in recounting the life of a bullet from its POV; obviously the simple fact of choosing that viewpoint means there is a specific (and probably anti-war) point to be made, and that’s to the good. Portraying the bullet’s life, its very existence, as a cold and clinical fact is a big part of what gives the sequence its force.
The child endgame complaint doesn’t make much sense either, I’m afraid. We’re seeing it in extreme slow-mo because the bullet’s moving incredibly fast, right? Whence, then, the assumption that he’s “standing stiff in the midst of a firefight”? That’s poor analysis.
Love the site, incidentally, I came here via a link from Grow-a-Brain. Keep up the good work.
The thing is that even thinking the same bad things than you about it, I like it anyway (but it could have been better). About the heart… I think it would have been better as some king of response to an employed. Some ‘Michael Moore’ interviewer says him: “Don’t you know what are you working for?”, so he says “Man, I only make bullets”, and the full title sequence starts.
It would be good too applied to the tobacco work, a cigarette “life” were we could see how it’s done (and the shit they put on them that is not tobacco) until it modify some cell inside the lung so the cancer starts…
It’s a good answer for people that deny their responsability in things that have a clear and obvious end, that means we are all part of a chain, and the last link of it is not the only important oe.
Over all, the worst part of this title sequence is the technical, and the song. But the concept itself, I think it’s great.
i’ve never seen the film and only seen this opening sequence once, but by my recollection of it, you’re spot on alex. i felt the same way. i’ll have to re-watch it now and see how i feel.
although those commenting here may be right about what the child is doing, i too remembering being a bit taken out of the sequence by that part. it certainly didn’t have the impact it should have because i couldn’t figure out why anyone would be standing still out in the open.
however, i’ve also seen youtube footage of actual firefights in iraq by untrained, barefooted young men who almost got their heads taken off because they’re doing the most idiotic stuff - like standing out in the open firing randomly.
If I hear that Buffalo Springfield song one more time in a war movie, I’m going to start killing children. So cliche, I can’t take anything seriously with that song behind it. Also the fixed POV is kind of maddening, good concept though, it almost works.
It’s too bad that the intellect of the crowd keeps one from enjoying a perfectly represented emotion. The mechanical POV CGI is ridged and dauntless to show the inevitability of the bullets purpose. Obviously, the child was standing, looking, wondering why the man was aiming at him. A judgement that the soldier decided to kill. War is the painful key that unlocks freedom. Let’s not forget who we are. Intellect does not erase the primal gene.