2008-Feb-11 - CGI Know!
Movies have come a long way since the Lumieres. Not only has there has been inclusion of both sound and color, but the story-telling aspect of film-making has evolved a tremendous amount. Special effects have come quiet a long way, as well. Gun fights are no longer as silly as they used to be and the moon looks less like a cardboard cut out. Computers have stood up tall and lent their hand to help, providing the ability to easily hide wires when a character really needs to fly and to arousement appropriate (see: Donnie Darko). Though once used sparingly, computers now have quite a heavy place in film-making today, much like in everything else. From aliens to gorillas to sets, computer generated images aren't hard to come by in modern cinema. This, however, is not necessarily a good thing.
In 1993, Steven Spielberg unleashed his next blockbuster to the public. Jurassic Park told a story in which dinosaurs existed in today's world. There was much work put into the dinosaurs, and they were mostly represented by animatronics, robots not unlike the ones seen at big theme parks. To aid them, a small amount of computer graphics were added to make the whole project better. This combination and small use of computers made it very believable, people bought it, and Jurassic Park was a success.
This small use of CGI is hardly noticeable. In today's industry, however, that is not the case. Brought to the public are CGI-ridden films such as The Matrix series, the prequel Star Wars, and King Kong. These are films with an over abundance of CGI, and instead of things looking believable, they just look phony. It takes away from the enjoyment of a film when everything looks like it's completely mocked-up. Although these are all science-fiction movies, that doesn't give them an excuse for looking silly.
There is no need to completely devote an entire film to include both live action and CGI. The prequel Star Wars have their moments, but are often criticized for having wooden performances. This could be true, and the only reason would be a director deciding to place actors in front of a green screen for the entire duration of a shoot. The original Star Wars trilogy's actors aren't always on the dot for every scene, but at least the characters believe what they're saying and doing and react to their real surroundings. In turn, the audience buys it. If we are shown Luke Skywalker in a space-craft shaped like an X but are shown it to be a real vehicle, with a believable inside and wear and tear on it, it works. If we are shown Obi Wan Kenobi in an almost cartoony space vehicle, it doesn't. Film is a visual medium and the audience is meant to believe what they are seeing on the screen, and they should be treated to not only something that looks good but also to something they can find somewhat plausible given the film's context.
The film King Kong tried in spending much time perfecting the king himself, however, all it amounted to was having the best, believable CGI creature in any film in completely corny surroundings fighting things that clearly look like they're made from a computer. Spending time making one thing look amazing is, ultimately, a waste of time if less time is spent on the rest of the world that also, incidentally, happens to be CGI.
Picking on science fiction films is easy, though, because they will obviously be riddled with CGI. Be that as it may, CGI in science fiction movies are still more passable than CGI in any other film. Andrea Arnold, director of the very awful Red Road, made a promising short called Wasp before her feature. In it, an unfit mother raises four daughters on her own. We are taken along with the family as the mother takes her children to a date, and leaves them outside to fend for themselves. Without money for them to eat, the children take it upon themselves to grab a plate of half-eaten barbecue wings from the ground. The film remains very interesting, and watching the kids outside is nerve-wracking because it goes back and forth between them outside and alone at night and the trashy Mother trying to get in some guy's pants. The film takes a turn for the worse when the baby of the four is given a bone to lick on. The baby gets the mess around it's mouth, and a wasp lands on her face. The wasp ends up in her mouth, the children scream and the Mother runs to them to see what is going on. It could have been gripping, but, unfortunately, the wasp they use happens to be CGI. The wasp, looking like Robo-Bee out of Richie Rich, lands on the girl in a close-up and then crawls into her mouth. This inclusion destroys any of the realism the film was going for, and it makes one wonder why a close-up of the wasp was even needed if it wasn't even going to be handled appropriately.
Not to completely knock CGI, though, it does have it's value. CGI is definitely an improvement over what the industry mainly used to use, such as stop-motion. Films like Ghostbusters have very silly stop-motion moments. The one that comes to mind is the demon dog-like creature that emerges from a statue. When stationary, an elaborate puppet/animatronic is used which looks convincing (aside from the fact that it looks like it's coming from the floor). When moving, the creature clearly looks like something out of Gumby. These scenes, however, are forgiveable because they are few and far between. Ghostbusters manages to use special effects, models, animatronics and the whole bag a lot more effectively than most films use their excessive amount of CGI.
Recently, the film Cloverfield had the right idea. The monster in the film was CGI'd, but because of the shooting style, it is barely seen until the end. The monster is constructed very well, and because it is only looked at briefly (in passing!), it is very believable within the context of the film. Of course, the camera stays on it for a good minute in the end and everything good about the CGI usage is thrown out the door, but at least it was used sparingly to begin with. The film-makers had the right idea, for the most part.
By using CGI in films, it has to be inserted and handled in a way that it doesn't look like the result is made using a computer. It can't be as excessive as it usually is. CGI has not progressed as much as film-makers think it has, it is not the answer to their greatest fantasies. Animatronics, robots, puppets, etc. done well don't look like the aforementioned things. They look like whatever they were created to look like. CGI still has a long way to go, and unless the same amount of time is put into everything CGI that was put into the King Kong creature, it should be used much less in films.
|
|
Post A Comment!
|
|
About Me
Includes film essays and reviews written by Chris Bell.
« December 2008 »
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Friends
|
