2019=Nice February 14, 2008
Posted by ghostof82 in : Film General , trackbackMy friend Andy, who has shared a love for BLADE RUNNER ever since we first saw it back in the golden summer of 1982, lent someone his copy of the recent BLADE RUNNER:FINAL CUT dvd a few days ago. This friend of his is in her early 30s, and had never seen BR before, no doubt often bemused by Andy’s frequent adulatory comments about it. Anyway, Andy reported to me the other day her comment having finally seen the film- she had said the film was “nice”.
Well I have to say that word has bugged me ever since. I might have expected her not to have liked it, to have thought it was dated, slow, boring, or on the other hand thought it a revelation, to finally understand why it’s been such a big deal for Andy. But nice? What’s all that about? Of all the things I have heard said of BR, the word nice has never been one of them. Perhaps it was her conciliatory attempt to say something positive about a film that she hated, if only to not upset Andy’s feelings.
Andy and I spoke about it the other day, both of us bemused at what his freind actually meant. We finally decided that it was simply that his freind is watching it for the first time in 2008, and that in the years between 1982 and 2008, there has been a lot of celluloid under the bridge since then, so to speak. Does BR look dated now, seen through fresh modern eyes? Has its thunder been stolen by all the pretenders that have stolen ideas/images/styles in the years since? I’ll be the first to admit, that whenever I watch BR, it’s always with nostalgic eyes from 1982, recalling its impact, how new it was back then. We simply can’t imagine what BR looks like now to someone watching it for the first time.
The same must be true of other films. What does a 10-year old lad think of the original STAR WARS watching it now? Is it horribly dated, even with Lucas’ ill-judged cgi special edition tinkering? Can cinema-goers of today possibly understand the impact of that film back in 1977? How astonished everyone was when that Imperial Star Destroyer endlessly crawled into the screen from overhead in that startling first shot? Cgi has made everything so easy, hardly anything impresses in the same way anymore. I remember the cgi dinosaurs in JURASSIC PARK, how everyone marvelled at them. Well, the quality may not be exactly the same, but how many times have we seen such cgi creatures on tv programmes now that it leaves us bored and jaded?
Perhaps this is the conundrum for Hollywood today- is cgi a Pandora’s Box? A revelation and spectacle at first, has it done more damage in the long-term? Films like THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy would not have been possible without cgi, but look at all the films ruined by it. Hollywood, for the last ten years, has seemed hell-bent every year to produce bigger films with bigger stunts, explosions, effects, and they have become emptier, shallower experiences every year. What’s the shelf-life for these new films? Do any of us actualy have any interest in going back and re-watching them years later, like we do the old 70s and 80s classics? I have no interest in ever watching TWISTER again (cgi Tornadoes) or PERFECT STORM (cgi storms) or any other of the films whose prime reason for being seemed to be a new and novel use of cgi. Even a film like TERMINATOR 2 seems dated now due to its cgi effects, and yet I would love to see the original 1977 version of STAR WARS, and still enjoy CLOSE ENCOUNTERS.
I would like to see cgi have its day, that Hollywood would cease its pre-occupation with all this cgi spectacle and go back to old-fashioned storytelling. BLADE RUNNER has a lesson in this, in that for a film so visual and famous for its visual effects, there are actually very few effects shots in the film. Due to budget restrictions, the film-makers had to be prudent with the effects, spending money on shots they only really needed. They total less than 100 shots, whereas in so many contemporary films effects shots number in the thousands. Are films any better for this blitzkrieg of cgi spectacle? X-MEN 3 just bored me senseless, and SPIDERMAN 3 hurt my eyes, there was just too much too fast. Compare the space battle finale of RETURN OF THE JEDI to the cgi opening space battle in REVENGE OF THE SITH. SITH is woefully inferior, in my opinion, to the more restrained battle of JEDI (limited by the optical printing processes of its day). But why could Lucas not see that? Why couldn’t any of the guys putting that sequence together for SITH not see it, and say hold on, guys, we’re missing something here? The asteroid sequence in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is far more thrilling than that of ATTACK OF THE CLONES. What’s going on? Is it just me?
Alas the cgi bandwagon seems to be unstoppable, even to the extent of cgi actors and a progressive pre-occupation with going 3-D. 3-D for goodness sake. Would 3-D make any previously-made traditionally 2-D movie any better? It’s just a gimick, like cgi dinosaurs were a decade or so ago. 3-D doesn’t improve the storytelling, the scripts or the actors performance.
Perhaps movies are paying the price of decades of increasingly sophisticated commercials on tv, and mtv, and increasingly frenzied cutting on avid editing machines. Perhaps its just a generation thing, I’m getting too old. But consider this- if genuine bona-fide classics like THE GODFATHER and JAWS were being put together now, would they be any better for the way films are made now? How would someone like Stanley Kubrick or Alfred Hitchcock fit in now, were they still alive and trying to make their movies? Would Hitchcock only get the funds for PSYCHO now if he agreed to shoot it in 3D and cast it with horny teenagers?
Comments»
The old mantra of ‘less-is-more’ applies to all artforms I think. CGi has it’s place - it’s use in the Lord of The Rings films you mention, is nigh-on perfect - it’s used to realise otherwise impossible shots and monsters. Jackson was canny enough to otherwise bring Middle Earth to work with traditional sets, props, prosthetics and traditional effects.
Lucas, on the other hand, has never had a shred of self-restraint and, as you rightly point out - his hand was only ever held back by restrictions imposed by the time and cost of producing optical effects. I’d have been much happier if the only CGi elements in Star Wars: A New Hope were to remove matte lines, fix Obi-Wan’s light-sabre and replace those ugly, dated bulbous CRT displays with flat screens….!
3D is a somewhat seperate issue in my mind, and I think I understand exactly why film studios are pushing it so hard: bums on seats.
The new 3D is much more convincing than the old red eye / blue eye style, and cannot, at present, by replicated at home which means decent films should see a good ticket return.* It’s a similar ploy to that which the studios adopted to counter the rise in popularity of the tv set by adopting cinemascope and panoramic widescreen ratios.
Beowulf was very entertaining in 3D (concerns regarding the somewhat ‘lifeless’ facial animation aside) and some scenes really did immerse you further into the action - although some shots break all composition rules just to add in a 3D effect here and there!
With artists such as James Cameron waxing lyrical over the possibilities of 3D I do not necessarily believe this format will be bereft of any real artistry. And, by all accounts, the 3D U2 concert is meant to be stunning - so the technology may well lend itself to film genres outwith the brainless popcorn flick.
*Yep, that does means no ‘3D money shots’ on home dvd’s, Vivid Entertainment fans! ;p
“What’s going on? Is it just me?”
Well, no…
It’s the old analogue v digital argument that vinyl made against CD; your brain, they said, discerns that it’s mere binary code and get’s tired of it quite quickly. Maybe something like that is happening here; it’s not just the man v machine argument (’real’ stunts, as opposed to cartoons created by computers). I find myself drooling over beautiful matte paintings, whereas similar digitally created landscapes make me scoff and want to throw things at the screen. Similarly, I’m fascinated by miniatures, obvious though they are - the craftsmanship leaves me shaking my head in wonder (think Hitchcock’s tracking shot in ‘The Lady Vanishes’)
CGI as padding to substitute for script (or in a bid to make the story ‘epic’) is lousy, lazy film-making (how quickly did I get bored of the CGI during ‘King Kong’? Quite quickly…) but I’m not wholly against it per se; I find it hard to see the join in ‘Master & Commander’ which is a cracking combination of script, acting, ‘real’ and ’special’ effects.
Regarding the RotJ battle, I believe this sequence set a record for the most number of objects onscreen (and hence passes) in an optically printed shot. Obviously it was a complete nightmare to do, with objects being printed over other objects all over the place, so if you went and asked Muren, Ralston and co. if they’d want to go back to those days, I imagine you might get an optical printer shoved up your wotsit.
Yeah, the space battles in the prequels are vile, but that’s mostly because Lucas has no concept (now) of a focal point of action, hence you have horribly busy shots with no focal centre, and end up with a huge mess of movement that hurts your eyes. That’s not (necessarily) bad CGI, it’s just bad direction.
I think you’re becoming almost guilty of the very thing you’re accusing Hollywood of, Gizmo: you’re ranting about ‘CGI’ this and ‘CGI’ that while some studios/film-makers are admittedly on occasions utilising computer generated imagery gratuitously, and therein lies a common thread - despite your admiration for Blade Runner among other things, you’re both forgetting about the value of the film itself in my opinion. It seems you (and many others) are more likely to complain about the use of CGI than simply accepting it as a tool to help create a film (just like lights and booms are), which is effectively what it is. Similarly there are instances where makers of films have allowed it to overshadow other elements that can make or break a film, e.g. script, verisimilitude, etc.
Computers can be used effectively or badly just like any other tool and I know there are instances of their use which will have been completely transparent to most viewers - generally viewers will know when they’ve been used to create images when it’s something that physically isn’t known to exist or is impossible to film (e.g. dinosaurs, aliens, planetary explosions). That’s when the complaints tend to arise - because they ‘know’ it’s CGI. Geez, there are no flies on people these days are there?
To suggest you’d like to see CGI have its day suggests using stop motion models to create many effects or other techniques, most of which wouldn’t stand up to the overly critical audiences of today. As much as I love stop motion personally I can see this wouldn’t do. The problem is people have seen so many DVD extras they ‘know’ (or think they know) how all of this is put together and have thus lost appreciation for it. I’d like to see how far many people who persistently knock use of ‘CGI’ would get if they tried to sit down and do it for themselves - to learn an industry standard package you’re talking about sitting behind a PC for a year or so before you can do anything barely respectable and that’s not accounting for creativity, perseverance, patience, understanding of colour, timing, three-dimensional form, etc.
What I’d suggest for people who have little respect for CGI is to go try it for themselves - give it at least a year or so - and see what rubbish they come up with. They may find their opinions altered somewhat and a sudden arising of appreciation for that which they currently have little real understanding of.
By the way, this is no attack on you - there are some really good parts to your article and some relevant points but I felt there were some misconceptions in there that needed to be highlighted and you’re certainly not the only guilty party of that.
P.S. I love Blade Runner too!
You’re not the only one. Only, I’m 21 and so didn’t have the good fortune to see Blade Runner when it first came out in the cinema. Despite my age, I’ve really come to despise how CGI is applied so excessively in film now. Some CGI I think works well and the reason why is because it’s so good you can’t even see it. Other times it used so poorly that I think it actually ruins the atmosphere in the film as it comes across as really jarring. That’s not what a really hate about CGI, the worse thing is how soul-less the special effects come across knowing it was all done on a computer. WIth model work and the like you could see the level of craftsmanship in the SFX and when you saw it on screen, while it probably looked a little fake sometimes, you at least knew that it was there! Traditional SFX had a kind of quality to it where you feel you could potentially reach out and touch what was being shown in screen.
This is why I also believe that current CGI is going to look incredibly dated even 5 years down the line. Films like the King Kong remake are going to look kind of silly in comparison and maybe they sort of deserve to be. At the end of the day, while a CGI extravaganza may put bums on seats its films like Casablanca, Blade Runner, The Godfather etc… that people remember and quote endlessly.
Thanks for your comments guys- very interesting. You have some very well thought out arguments. We seem to agree on one thing, CGI isn’t the villain, the villain is the guy misusing it.