Is it me?
by rasalvatore on Nov.06, 2009, under R. A. Salvatore
As I sit here thiinking about those moments in science-fiction/fantasy movies that really caught me (”Close Encounters of the Third Kind” had about 50 of them, by the way), I notice that almost all of them are far back in time. Most of that is probably me - you see thiings differently in your teens and twenties than you do in your forties and fifties, i expect.
But I think there’s something else going on here. I just did an interview with Newsweek Radio where we talked about whether or not the “arts” could inspire manned space flight again, as happened the first time around. As I thought about it, I realized…probably not. Here’s why: with computer graphics, we’ve outstripped reality so completely that anything “real” will be boring by contrast. In the Marshall McLuhan vernacular, we’ve numbed ourselves to all but the extremes. I find this very evident in horror movies, other than the occasional gem, and so to with science-fiction and fantasy.
I loved “The Fellowship of the Rings,” liked “The Two Towers” and moderately enjoyed “The Return of the King.” As Jackson got more extreme on the CG in each film, I found myself moving further from them, emotionally.
Thoughts?
Bob
November 6th, 2009 on 2:04 pm
I think you’re right that, when it comes to movies, that sense of wonder is growing harder and harder to evoke in viewers. Novels, I think, will always and forever hold the advantage in that regard, because they require a degree of active participation on the part of reader that movies do not. For example, take reading LOTR, as opposed to watching it: because each act of reader participation is informed by that particular reader’s unique world view and experience, it allows each reader to take ownership of Tolkien’s Middle Earth in a way that movies can’t, because movies are all about someone else’s vision. The way in which my Gondor is emotionally resonant to me as opposed to the way in which your Gondor is emotionally resonant to you is no doubt different, and both are all the more powerful for it. At any rate, that’s where I think the potential for evoking wonder still lies.
Just my two cents.
November 6th, 2009 on 3:46 pm
I think it’s an easy argument to make, honestly, that the “arts” are becoming sterile and distancing, but I don’t think it’s an argument that carries a whole lot of weight. Any time a technical breakthrough arrives, people overuse it, depend on it way too much, and generally make their movies look shockingly “good” in the age they come out, but when you look back it looks terrible. And there are prime examples of that everywhere. Look what happened to the new star wars films - the entire goddamn thing was basically filmed in a green box, and even after what, 5 years? It looks awful. Sure, the CG is -good- but it still looks like CG. Lord of The Rings is a bit different - much of the effects work was done with amazing costuming and wonderful miniature sets (Minas Tirith, Mount Doom, Osgiliath and Isengard were all built as miniature sets with full-size components - I honestly think WETA Workshop is one of the finest special effects studios working today).
But I hardly think that shoving everything in a computer-generated box can’t inspire. The problem is, we have no frame of reference anymore. When I was growing up, I knew Jim Henson for a master special effects artist (unconsciously, of course, as I was still in swaddling clothes for much of my life when Hensen was still big - well honestly I was born in his wane - Jurassic Park is probably the first BIG SPECIAL EFFECTS movie I remember), and so when I saw, say, Clash of the Titans, with the ridiculously awkward moving skeletons and clay-facade Medusa I thought it looked funny. But Hensen, man! I remember watching Labyrinth and being frightened - genuinely frightened - of some of the PUPPETS in that movie.
But if I showed a kid Labyrinth today he’s laugh in my face and probably talk about how much better Transformers looks, which will hurt me in the soul.
Problem is, our frame of reference is off. We all grew up in a different era when different things were prominent, and so our frame of reference for “Good Old special effects/animatronics/puppets/what have you” is skewed. I look at Jim Hensen and Jurassic Park as “man, I wish people still DID that”, but kids today, they’ve got other stuff. So I don’t think it’s the art suffering, I really just think it’s us.
That being said? There are some goddamn excellent movies out there who mix CGI with good old fashioned techniques to make truly unique, vivid and interesting movies. Lord of the Rings managed, but was still pretty computer heavy, but who can argue with the surreal beauty of Pan’s Labyrinth? Who can sit down and watch a movie as gorgeously realized as Pan’s Labyrinth and think “Man, too many special effects?” The fact is, there are tons of movies out there that are worthy of respect and admiration, even inspiration, that some of us can’t appreciate because we’re wishing they didn’t replace the Yoda puppet.
November 6th, 2009 on 3:50 pm
The overall point here - I got a little carried away - is that in 20 years when they’ve replaced actors with cyborgs or computer programs, kids of today will be like “Man, I wish they still used ACTORS.” And then they’ll try to indoctrinate their own kids to the classics, which will then be consequently ignored.
November 6th, 2009 on 5:40 pm
I suppose it is *mostly* the patina of nostalgia, but I LOVE the awkward Harryhausen monsters from Clash of the Titans (and the cheesball Sinbad movies). And I don’t think it’s *strictly* nostalgic distortion that makes film of actual physical objects scarier to the human eye than digital video of CGI. I wonder if there is some part of our brains — especially those of us whose brains developed before CGI got huge — that recognizes we are looking at a THING rather than an image w/ no substance. Perhaps the original Jabba is scarier than the CGI one because our minds put us in the room with an 800-lb. muppet instead of in a green room…
November 6th, 2009 on 7:29 pm
That all makes it sound like it’s a sort of “us vs. them” sort of approach extended over film techniques. I don’t see it that way. A good technique is a good technique, and in my mind, using computers to animate -anything you can imagine- is a damn fine technique. In the hands of a skilled filmmaker, the effect can be spectacular (aside from what opinions may be about the quality of the film as a whole, Davy Jones in the Pirates of the Caribbean series looked absolutely amazing, as did the animated-by-computer faces of the beasts in Where the Wild Things Are). In the hands of a bad filmmaker, like Michael Bay, the effect can be nauseating and ruinous.
But the same can be said for -any- technique. Compare the old Dracula with Bela Lugosi with Frankenstein, two movies made in the exact same year by the same production company - Dracula is a classic, sure, but compared to Frankenstein it’s a plodding, overacted mess that suffers from lazy editing and generally ineffectual effects, whereas Frankenstein comes off as a generally clean, well-made and effective film, even to a modern audience. An comparing both to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (also made in 1931), BOTH look simplistic and under-done. The same techniques were used, though - Frankenstein and Dracula, for instance (and even Bors Karloff’s The Mummy, as well - made only a year later) both have the same shot of light hitting the eyes of the main actors. Where in The Mummy it makes a strangely alluring gleam in Karloff’s eye, in Dracula is looks like someone flashed a narrow-beam flashlight in Lugosi’s eyes.
I tend to think that everyone glorifies the past because, especially when they look at classic movies, they tend to forget that those films were made amidst a quagmire of schlocky, mediocre movies - much like today. For every potential classic there’s about 120 run of the mill, lazy, ineffectual movies that will either be forgotten or become cult hits. It was the same 20 years ago, and 30 and 50, and it will most likely be the same 50 years from now.
November 8th, 2010 on 9:33 pm
I understand what you’re getting at, but I think my focus is a bit different. Less than the quality of CGI vs. muppets or such (and I agree that CGI has a hollow feel to me - I liked each Jackson movie less than the previous because the CGI seemed larger with each subsequent movie), what I]m talking about are the sensibilities of the ideas presented with those unlimited science fiction “tools.”
How exciting does a probe to an asteroid sound to a kid who just watched “Armageddon”? The reality created by movies now is so far beyond what science and real tech can accomplish that manned space flight becomes a mundane experience to many.