3000 Word Essay

With reference to specific examples, to what extent can it be argued that, with ever improving technologies, visual style is more important than narrative substance in contemporary film making?

There is a clear distinction in that with computer generated imagery now at a photo realistic level, films have started to abuse to power of technology creating poor narratives with an increased ‘wow’ factor to blind the audience of lack of plot.

For example, James Cameron’s Terminator 2, realised in 1992 and Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park, (1993) have a quality of CGI still impressive by today’s standards, (this is two decades of technological improvements) that still required narrative to create a movie still enjoyed by a modern audience. However, to say through this time, Cameron worked on Avatar, released in 2009, which used fourteen years worth of development and technological advances and yet still used a narrative almost identical to one used in Disney’s Pocahontas (1995).

From a critical perspective contemporary films do not require CGI to be successful. For example this year’s Oscars saw Argo win best picture, which used no special effects. In fact out of every nominee, including Amour, The Silver Linings Playbook, Lincon, Life of Pi, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, and Dark Zero Thirty; only Life of Pi used heavy CGI, but while the film centred around a boy spending over a year on a boat with a tiger in the middle of the ocean, it could be argued this was a necessary, required use of CGI.

But from a commercial perspective, the film that made the most money this year was Marvel’s The Avengers. In fact, in the worldwide box office grosses, the top 5 successful films are Avatar, Titanic (2D and 3D), The Avengers, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon. All of which used a lot of computer generated imagery, arguably to make the film believable, but in the example of Transformers there was little to no plot, and yet it’s still made more money than Argo.

So in order to answer this question, it needs to be said what the target audience is for the movie. Dose it aim to win an Oscar? Stand the test of time? Or just make a lot of money?

For this question  it would be stronger to answer it from a certain genres perspective; such as Superhero movies. This would allow the consideration of the necessity of CGI and when and how it is required.

While arguably these films need CGI to be made, it could be said to be a key component to make the film believable, but some used it at minimal levels, while others use it as the core basis for the film. This is would reveal, in a stronger sense if CGI is becoming more important than the films narrative.

The first Superhero to reach our screens was Batman, in 1943 directed by Lambert Hillyer. This was a 15 part serial that was shown in theaters. The serials were very popular, although due to time of release very racist towards the Japanese. For example, the main villain (specifically created for the series) was a white man in makeup and a poor accent to appear Japanese.

Batman later appeared in the camp 1966 Television show starring Adam West which aired until 1968. Inspired from the serials, the corny, cheesy style of the series only used CGI in the ‘KA-POW’’s that would appear when a character would kick or punch another. Although it tended to use repetitive and predictable storylines also.

Superhero’s first got a shot at the big screen after the success of Star wars, were the interest for science fiction grew phenomenally, the first of which was Superman (1978). Impressive visual effects for its day, Superman was a big success, with the narrative being decent and relative for the first Superhero movie. Spawning 2 sequels and a Supergirl movie, more super hero films were inevitable, most notably in these releases, Batman.

Tim Burton was hired to direct Batman (1989), starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson. The film did very well, and continued with three more movies, (Batman Returns (1992), and Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever (1995) and Batman and Robin (1997). With Batman and Robin commercially doing well but critically appalling, after many idea developments a fifth instalment was decided against. This Batman franchise needn’t use too many visual effects, as Batman and the chosen villains used didn’t have super powers, so the action sequences were manageable and believable.

"I think there's a vague sense out there that movies are becoming more and more unreal, I know I've felt it. The demand we put on ourselves was to be as spectacular as possible, but not depend on computer graphics to do it".  - (Nolan, C. 2013)

In 2003 Christopher Nolan’s Trilogy started with Batman Begins. Now CGI had reached a stage of photorealism, it could be used more effectively, which during hallucinations from a plot-required poison, it was. Although the film still tried not to used CGI, where a miniature ‘Narrows’ (part of Gotham City) was built, and even a miniature Batmobile and several life size Batmobiles (one for turning, one for jumping, one for shooting rockets, e.c.t). Double Negative created Gotham  City, the Monorail and the League of Shadows mountain house and even many elements  that aren’t  even noticeably computer generated, (such as creating more mountains or buildings in the background)  that are in no doubt also present in most mainstream films.

This pattern continued for its sequel the Dark Knight, where the only major, obvious CGI element was on Two-Face. The film’s highlights was through narrative, character, screenplay and acting, where the late Heath Ledger won a best supporting actor posthumous Oscar.

The third instalment, however, needed much more special effects, for the plane hijacking sequence, destruction of the football field, and bridges scene. It also required the ‘Bat’ (jet) to look like it was flying, and again needed more buildings and explosive scenes. The narrative however, was merely a repeat of the first film.

There is no doubt the Batman franchise has been incredibly successful and is the most successful, on screen superhero. This could possibly be because, broadly speaking, his films have usually had good, strong narratives, in depth characters that have been well acted. Another reason could be that Batman films haven’t needed too much CGI, this could be argued that he has no powers, and therefore requires much less effects than other, super-powered characters, such as The Incredible Hulk.

Looking at The Incredible Hulk, who first appeared in the 1978 television show, used actor/body builder Lou Ferrigno (painted green) as The Hulk. During the transformation scenes, the clever editing would cross images of Ferrigno and Bill Bixby (who played Banner) together to make it appear like he’s transforming, or Banner would simply go off shot and the Hulk would come back on. The show was a huge success, ran for 5 seasons from 1978 to 1982, with three straight to TV movies made after NBS bought the rights from CBS (which aired the series).

­Successful as it was, the show hasn’t dated well. Some flaws are even so noticeable that when the Hulk was fighting bear the bear can be clearly seen to have green paint on it.

In 2003 HULK made it to the big screen. Directed by Ang Lee, Hulk was very poorly received. The narrative was weak, acted poorly (and with a cast of Eric Bana, Jenifer Conelly and Sam Elliott, hopes were higher), and tended to bore audiences. Even the Hulk scenes lacked engagement and excitement, with the Hulk being far too big and not even looking realistic enough. This is because his skin was too bright and vibrant green, and the texturing was virtually non-existent.

The film was quick to get a rebooted sequel, with Edward Norton in the title role. The film also starred Liv Tyler and Tim Roth and was directed by Louis Leterrier. The Incredible Hulk (2008) was considered a success, although still not quite as successful as Marvel’s Iron Man released the same year. The films story was better, although still similar to its predecessor. The Hulk however, was greatly improved. He looked more intimidating, and during his first transformation he could barely be seen, giving his introduction to that more of a horror film. Although it was well done, there was still with room for improvement, and so his appearance was changed yet again for his next on screen appearance.

With The Avengers in production, Edward Norton had dropped out of the project due to conflicts with Marvel, so the Hulk was open for re-casting again. Mark Ruffalo was chosen, due to his naturally calm nature. This was because the studio wanted Banner to be played calmly, so that when he transformed into the Hulk the rage would seem more extreme.

“For Hulk, we were looking at a lot of the early comic designs. From the early (Jack) Kirby designs up until around the 80’s, the Hulk was sort of a combination of Frankenstein, a gorilla and a turn-of-the-century strongman. We were defiantly trying to get the tone of that Hulk and not the more modern version’s where he is more classically heroic and honestly looks like a body builder. I was very interested in exploring the Hulk as a monster and less of a hero.”  - (Meinerding, R. 2012, p171)

This Hulk was extremely well received, with fans claiming it was exactly how the Hulk should be. This may be due to the humour in the character, and how he was portrayed, but also his computer visual effects were perfect.

“This was achieved by studying Ruffalo down to the pore level, they did a cast of his teeth, shot the corners of his eyeballs, took images of his gums, space between fingers, even every hair, mole or scar, his actual skin was scanned and cast on The Hulk.” – (Reinoso, D. 2013)

So that for the first time, the Hulk looked like Bruce Banner. He was also acted in motion capture by Ruffalo, with Ruffalo saying he is now the first actor to play both Banner and the Hulk.

So with Hulk now at his potential, the narrative of the Avengers was not centred around Hulk, but more about how a team of such extraordinary, eccentric individuals could work together as a team. Hulks story consisted of S.H.I.E.L.D (a government branch) requiring Banners scientific knowledge on gamma radiation to track an unparalleled weapon. Although the Hulk also worked well in this, with the ever posing threat that he could turn putting a strain on the team and the question of if S.H.E.I.L.D were really after Banner or the Hulk. This narrative satisfied the requirements for one interesting character of a very large team..

"Bruce Banner is a guy struggling with two sides of himself, the dark and the light; everything he does in his life is filtered through issues of control." He furthermore describes Banner's alter ego the Hulk as "a loose cannon - he's the teammate none of them are sure they want, it's like throwing a grenade into the middle of the group and hoping it turns out well!" – (Ruffalo, M. 2012)

But also with his visual effects being worthy of an Oscar nomination, the Hulk finally had a balance where he could work. His narratives can be interesting, and the character unique, however, he is a character that requires CGI to work. Since Lou Ferrigno’s performance in 1978, although it worked for its time, the development in technology has got to a stage where he can be made to look real, and more monstrous, although with the first two films this appeared to affect the films story. He is a character that requires both elements to work equally effectively for a successful, enjoyable movie.

A Super hero movie that uses the best of computer generated imagery could be said to be the Hellboy franchise. Spectral Motion created the suits worn by the lead characters Hellboy and Abe, with Hellboys (Ron Pearlman) taking up to four hours to apply, whereas Abe’s ( Doug Jones) took from five to seven hours, and a further three to take it off. This however, provided and extremely believable look for the characters where they wouldn’t look fake in a decade’s time. The Hellboy suit required muscle tone suit, a latex mask, fake teeth, fake hair, contact lenses, a larger prosthetic stone hand, a tail and then usually leather trousers, a top, heavy leather belt, trench coat and think leather boots. The combination of so many different elements, overlapping in several detailed layers created a very believable character arguably better than anything CGI could’ve created.

Although the first movie’s plot was based on the Hellboy Comic Book Seed of Destruction, where during World War two the Nazi’s open a portal to another world to try and gain a paranormal advantage in the war. Intervened by American forces, a small devil like creature is gets through and is adopted and brought up to fight paranormal threats in the world. His fate, however, doomed to bring destruction to the earth. This plot is out-shadowed however by the second instalments plot.

An Elven prince breaks and ancient truce and wages war between the mythological creatures who dwell hidden in our world and the humans, who’s pollution and self destructive nature are slowly destroying the world. His plan is to unleash the Golden Army; an unstoppable force of clockwork machinery. Hellboy must choose whether he wants to live among people who hate and fear him, or join the mythical race, where he belongs in society, and could live as a king. This captured a modern problem of global warming and made it a relevant part of a fictional story, making it more relatable for the audience.

“As fun as the movie is, as extraordinary as the visual effects are, and as impressive as the action is, at the end of the day the story and the characters are just as entertaining.” – (Levin. L. 2004, p10)

The Hellboy films use much more costumes and prosthetics to create their monsters as opposed to CGI, although sometimes creatures, such as the large monsters (a 20ft forest god) and Golden Army are required to use CGI. However, monsters like Mr. Wink, (an eight and a half foot troll) was made using a actor in a suit, with another man operating mechanical hands and another operating the mechanical face. So why these extreme lengths to create such unique monsters when CGI could so easily replace them? It was decided by director Guillermero del Toro.

“I think films should be handmade, because I love that there are still tangible things,” he explains. “We say that an audience doesn't care whether it's real or CGI, but they do. The average eye of a regular Joe, although they cannot maybe verbalize things, is trained by thousands of hours of TV and visual effects, media hitting you all the time. So your eye knows.” – (Del Toro, G. 2008)

Given that its half personal preference working this way, Toro argues that CGI won’t look as real as puppeteering and costumes do, and using Special effects rather than Practical effects for more noticeable characters and scenes blinds the eyes to other forms of CGI.  “For example, an important landscape sequence late in Hellboy II was shot next to a freeway. “Instead of the sea, we had the most horrible freeway with red trucks passing,” recalls del Toro. “But what we did was shoot high-definition plates in Ireland and composite them together”. So using this technique of blending various kinds of effects in different visual styles to highlight the best of all versions of effects can clearly create a film where it is difficult to tell what has been created in which way, leaving the audience in awe of some of the movies most fantastical creatures.

To state that visual style is more important than narrative can be true for some films, not because they are contemporary but because they have the technology in contemporary times to do so. Yes, these films, such as Transformers, make money but is not necessary for all contemporary films.  The Hellboy films have used major elements of visual style but not always through computer generated imagery, but through a combination of effects, with a relatable, relevant narrative. It is a balance of using visual style, well, when necessary, but not allowing it to completely out-shadow or replace narrative.

Martian Campbell’s Green Lantern used a very predictable, obvious, poor storyline and narrative that under achieved at the box office and gained largely negative critical reviews, (26% - Rotten Tomatoes.)

“Faced with over-blown effects, characters look flat and disappear into the background without a whimper, thanks to an insipid script and the film-makers' unwillingness to flesh out anyone but Hal Jordan.” – (Gallagher , S. 2012)

This does display that simply impressive visual style, cannot make a film successful. Lack of narrative and poor scripting can not only ruin a film, but even if the film manages to scrape at success it fails to be the greater success it could have been.

“I think that 50 percent of the narrative is in the audio/visual storytelling. I happened to think the screenplay is the basis of it all, but definitely doesn't tell the movie. It tells the story, but doesn't tell the whole movie. A lot of the narrative is in the details.” – (Del Toro, G. 2008)

This quote from Guillermo Del Toro exemplifies perfectly the correlation.  A film may have a good screenplay, that may tell the story, but it is sometimes the visual style that can absorb the audience in the world, the characters, in which the story is taking place. It is often the case that if you do not care for the characters, the story seems less important. It doesn’t matter as much if they achieve their goals, or succeed in their mission if you don’t believe that they are real.

“If you could make (people) believe in the reality of what they're seeing, then the story has unbelievable power” – (Nolan, C. 2011)

But at the same time, a character, who may be visually stunning, may be completely unlikable or un-enjoyable to watch because of their character and story. A good example of this is Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars episode 1: the Phantom Menace. This is stated in T.J Barnards list of ‘8 Movie sidekicks more annoying than Jar Jar Binks.’

“Binks is, after all, loud, stupid, distracting, rude, racially offensive, and – as a narrative element –  lacks practical usage of any kind…But you know what? At least Jar Jar is a good ‘creature’.” – (Barnard, T.J. 2013)

Barnard here states a very popular opinion amongst critics, and especially within the Star Wars fanbase. Jar Jar is now so infamous for ruining Star Wars, and has become symbolic as  ridiculing his franchise. For example in Lisa Olsen’s review of the Hobbit; “It’s not just bad, its Jar Jar bad.” – (Olsen, L. 2013)

So in conclusion to the question, studying CGI, and if and how it’s necessary in film the answer would be that narrative is equally as important as visual style depending on the film. A film that requires believable visuals would flop without them, (Such as Oley Sassone’s Fantastic Four 1994) whilst a film with impressive visuals can lack excitement without an engaging narrative (Green Lantern) However, a film that doesn’t require an impressive visual style, can still become hugely enjoyable (Such as Mathew Vaughn’s Kick Ass). Where as a film with impressive visuals should never not require a good narrative.

Bibliography

 ‘Widge,’ (2008)  Avatar (2009) [ONLINE]  James Cameron’s  ‘Avatar’ fourteen years in the making. Available at: http://www.needcoffee.com/2008/08/07/james-cameron-avatar/ (Accessed on 29^th January 2013)

(2013) Oscar Nominations, [ONLINE] Available at:  http://oscar.go.com/nominees  (Accessed on 26th February 2013)

(2013) Worldwide Box Office Grosses [ONLINE] Available at:  http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ (Accessed on 4^th   March 2013)

Nolan, C (2013) Christopher Nolan Personal Quotes [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0634240/bio#quotes  (Accessed on 4^th March  2013)

Ruffalo, M, (2012) Avengers Assemble Trivia, [ONLINE] Available at: Ahttp://www.imdb.co.uk/title/tt0848228/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv  (Accessed on 6^th March 2013)

Rienoso, D (2013) A Look at the 85th Academy Awards for Best VFX Nominated Films [ONLINE] Available at: http://ae.tutsplus.com/articles/in-depth/a-look-at-the-85th-academy-awards-for-best-vfx-nominated-films/ (Accessed on 6^th March  2013)

Meinerding, R. (2012) The Art of Marvel’s Avengers. New York: Marvel Worldwide INC.

Del Toro, G. (2008) Guillermo Del Toro Talks Hellboy II [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.reelz.com/article/635/guillermo-del-toro-talks-hellboy-ii/(Accessed on 9th March 2013)

Simon, B. (2008) Guillermo Del Toro Talks Hellboy II [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.reelz.com/article/635/guillermo-del-toro-talks-hellboy-ii/ (Accessed on 9^th March 2013)

Levin, L. Hellboy DVD, 3 Disc Directors Cut. (2005) Inside leaflet. London: Revolution Studios Distribution Company.

Gallager, S. (2012) Green Lantern 2011 [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/770677993/  (Accessed on 11^th March 2013)

Nolan, C. (2011) Christopher Nolan And Christian Bale Comment Briefly On Filming TDKR In New York [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=51454 (Accessed on 12^th March  2013)

Barnard, T.J.(2013) 8 Movie Sidekicks More Annoying Than Jar Jar Bink [ONLINE] Available at: http://whatculture.com/film/8-movie-sidekicks-more-annoying-than-jar-jar-binks.php (Accessed on March 12th)

Olson, L. (2012) “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” Is Not Just Bad, It’s Jar Jar Bad [ONLINE] Available at: http://thetangential.com/2012/12/14/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-is-not-just-bad-its-jar-jar-bad/ (Accessed on 12^th March 2013)

At The Edge of Art

-->
The New Life Blood. 
 

The invention of the internet had opened art to a whole new audience, and the creation of which offers new tools for a wide range of artists to use, producing new emerging forms of art.

“The stars of this extraordinary new constellation tend to be biologists, engineers, designers and hackers… and the internet is in a strongly metaphorical way the lifeblood of this new creativity.” – (Blais, J. and Ippolito, J. 2006, page 8)

Art as an antibody

The world today is ever present with new technologies, with technology sometimes replacing traditional art.  So art, being the antibody, must defend from its new threat, or invader. The kind of art needed is one which will both last and intrigue society. Allowing its place to be kept in our society, as “society needs art to survive”. -  Blais, J. and Ippolito, J. (2006) page 8.  Extraordinary similarities also lie between Art and Virus’ as Olivero Toscani said, “A virus doesn’t have to defend itself, art doesn’t have to defend itself, It attacks, and if necessary it kills..” However, art dose not try to destroy society (that which it aims at), so this statement is ‘misleading’.

Technology is a Virus

A better comparison, would be to offer that technology is a virus, in that ;

“the earliest human technology may have been the arrow head, and some of the most recent ones require only the pressing of a few buttons to pound the world’s cities into radioactive rubble.” -   (Blais, J. and Ippolito, J. 2006,  page 9).

 Clearly, technology can be more harmful to humanity than art, and like a virus, digital technologies are always evolving.

But Art is Accountable

As art functions as an antibody, and technology functions as a virus. It is, although, a fact that all these function similarly to each other, as the best defence is a good offence. It is natural for a defence system to counteract a threat by acting similar to it.

“The only way antibodies can keep up with the incredibly creative power of viruses is to act like them.” – (Blais, J. and Ippolito, J. 2006, page 10).  

This is shown in the form that art has taken many digital forms, and although the line between ‘Art’ and ‘Technology’ is still unclear, what is art, is something that challenges, is thought provoking, and displays meaning through obscure forms.

Conclusion

To say art and technology mirrors biology, personally I feel is a poor comparison. Viewing the points made in the text I feel art is not like an antibody, it doesn’t protect anything, and is not essential to societies survival. It is a luxury, an interest, and a form of entertainment. To compare a virus to technology is a better comparison, as both can be lethal, life threatening, and sometimes just an annoyance, depending on the advancement of the attacker. However, technology is controlled, it can be aimed, a virus is contagious, and much harder to contain. On the threat of technology against art, and the differences between them, the answer is simple, they can overlap. Technology, must be made by man, an invention designed for purpose, and art is something that demands attention, asks questions, and expresses an opinion or statement, it matters not what media it is made from. These two elements, will inevitably collide and combine, to create new interesting  hybrids, fit for both purposes.

Bibliography

-       Blais, J. and Ippolito, J. (2006) At the Edge of Art, London, Thames and Hudson, introduction, Pages 7 - 13

BAF 2012 ParaNorman and LAIKA studios.

-->

Paranorman is the latest stop motion animation from LAIKA Studios. During a talk at Bradford animation film festival (BAF) LAIKA's Mark Shapiro Explained the making of this feature.

Each puppet is handcrafted, starting with a metal mechanical wire frame armature that allows the characters to move. The body is then sculpted out of clay, with the faces being the most difficult part to create. There were two processes to the heads; the heads that are mechanical, and the exchangeable faces added later. 

"Norman’s head is made up of 78 individually engineered and designed pieces, including an eye rig, which is a little mechanical functioning eyeball and eyelids. At any point in time you see three of those, basically his ears and his face, but it’s all designed to give the animators as much performance as possible." – (Brian McLean, B. 2012).- Director of rapid prototype at LAIKA. 

Replacement animation involves the process where twenty four different mouths, would make one second of animation, as the film is filmed at twenty four frames per second. Thousands of faces are created using a powder printer and Colored using a color Z-Core 3D printer. This baked the colour identically into each face, allowing extra details such as freckles into the faces, giving each character a unique look. These faces are then set in super glue. Norman, for example, required over eight thousand facial expressions.

The environment was a very different process. Designed to look like illustrations that could be found in a children’s book, 

“Paranorman never uses straight lines. This means the houses walls are slightly bent, lamposts are skewered, and even Norman’s bike is uneven. Nothing is parallel. This created a very hand-crafted feel to the film, which allowed all our care, devotion, and love for stop motion to be visible in the film.” – (Shapiro, M. 2012).

It is clear that the team in LIAKA studios doesn’t work with stop motion because it’s the easiest way to work, or because they think it makes the film more enjoyable. It’s because they enjoy the process, they all share a very strong passion for stop motion and hand crafting the characters and sets. The dedication and adoration is clearly seen in the movie, but is more greatly appreciated when the behind the scenes features reveals just how much work and time is put in to every tiny detail, and the enormous fun the crew have on such an ambitious project.

“It’s extraordinarily rewarding. There’s this kind of love and care that’s gone into every single little piece of prop, or piece of lighting, that all adds up to this fantastic whole. You take something, that is an inanimate object, and by the end of this process you have something that has truly come alive. For me, that’s the closest thing to magic that I can imagine.” – (Knight, T. and Fell, S. 2012).

Bibliography 

Mclean, B (2012) ParaNorman, Powered by 3D Printing - Popular Mechanics [ONLINE] (Updated 16^th August 2012) Available at: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/visual-effects/paranorman-powered-by-3d-printing-11744926 (Accessed on 29th November 2012 )

Shapiro, M. (2012) The Making of Paranorman. Bradford Animation Film Festival. Panel Talk.

Knight,T and Fell, S. Hand Making Paranorman Featurette. [ONLINE] (Updated 10 August 2012) Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxSEpYyt6I (Accessed on November 2012)

Tested for the Unexpected vs Atmosphere

-->

Tony Kaye’s commercial for Dunlop ‘Tested for the Unexpected’ uses many forms of contrast. The collision of warm and cold colours, the light and dark, the rich and poor, innocence and sin. The film displays men as wealthy, fat, rich, powerful and devious through costume, harsh lighting and colour. However, women could be seen to be strange, fanatical, pretty creatures, with an element of twisted, broken minds shown through vacant expressions (perhaps warped by men).

The film can be interpreted to expel a certain degree of dark, intimidating, sexual tension given these aspects designed, and its choice of soundtrack, Venus in Furs by Velvet Underground. The lyrics describe BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Dominance, Submission and Sado-Masochism) witch have clear reference to the film when a man can be seen in a strange spiked costume with Gimp mask over his face, towards the end of the film.

The car however, could be seen to be an immovable object, moving as it pleases, resistant and impervious to its daunting and dangerous surroundings, or an argument can be made that it symbolises the mistress, desired by all.

To conclude, this advertisement may not seek to sell you its product, but rather remember the brand through its different, surreal and memorable commercial. Or some may say its shots of the car turning sharp, unforeseen corners display the tires strong grip.

Anton Corbijn’s music video for Atmosphere, by Joy Division, seems to have used a low budget for its production. Using black and white to somewhat dampen the mood, the song dedicates it video to the loss of the bands lead singer Ian Curtis who committed suicide.

Stills of Ian Curtis can be seen carried by Monks during the video, perhaps symbolising how people will forever carry him in their hearts and memory. ­­

 The positives and negatives seem to be a profound element in the videos construction, whites and blacks often being placed upon each other in composition and shot framing, and are perhaps a metaphor for remembering good in things during bad times. Conversely many could argue the use of black and white demonstrates a ‘black and white outlook’ and that either life is good or bad, and it won’t change, which would be ironic and unfaithful to the songs lyrics, much like the singers suicide. Again, an argument can be made for which the film appears to be more greyscale than black and white, allowing room for smaller details and complications than a simple black and white outlook upon life. But this is an unending discussion, and sometimes if you’re looking for something, you’ll find it no matter what you’re looking at.

In comparing the two videos, atmosphere clearly has a much more real, affecting aspect to the film once the viewer knows about the lead singers death. Previous to this, the meaning to the film is somewhat unclear, so one would assume the target audience would be fans of the band or an older generation who have this knowledge. However, the Tested for the unexpected film seems to apply to a much larger target audience: adults, since it is a televised commercial and aims it at people who drive. This film also uses dark, seemingly depressive themes, but uses colour, sound and strange characters and costumes to create an engaging piece of film.

Media, Technology and Society.

“Electromagnetic technologies require utter human docility and quiescence of meditation such as befits an organism that now wears its brain outside its skull and its nerves outside its hide. Man must serve his electric technology with the same servo-mechanistic fidelity with which he served his choracle, his canoe, his typography, and all other extensions of his physical organs.” – (McLuhan, M. 2011, p86).

McLuhan’s view can have some truth in the sense of man becoming dependent on technology, this much is clear despite opinion. If tomorrow all electricity disappeared, permanently switch off mankind would be at something of a standstill, obnoxiously arrogant in its need for technology. But it state that man must be a slave to it, and treat it with the care we would a part of our physical form is sceptical. It wouldn’t be an understatement to say man has become a slave to technology, but that doesn’t mean we “must” be.  Man survived without it, and although it can be argued that it is an essential part of modern life man doesn’t need it to survive. Modern society might, but man in his physical form does not.

Williams argues that this point that technology is not vital to man, nor is it in control of our lives, but that it is a luxurious product to be enjoyed by society.

 “Technology is not autonomous, nor is it ‘symptomatic’....technological devices or systems are not the inevitable cause result of either clear consumer demand or their own inherent logic... Television did not supersede cinema because it improved picture quality, but rather because it chimed with the broader economic and cultural move towards a more domesticated and privatised everyday life.”  - (Williams, R. 2011, p92).

This shows his opinion differs from McLuhan’s in that developments in technology are not always due to a social requirement, and certainly not because they choose, demand or are destined too, but because they make everyday life for the consumer and society more leisured. Although it wouldn’t be farce to say its inquisitive, curious and greedy human nature that wants new technological products, and often describes it as ‘need’.

McLuhan however defends his point by using examples of human dependence on materials to the point that man is reliant on certain resources to sustain society.

“For society configured by reliance on a few commodities accepts them as social bond quite as much as the metropolis does the press. Cotton and Oil, like radio and TV, become ‘fixed charges’ on the entire psychic life of the community. ” – (McLuhan, M. 2011,  p85).

This is a fair statement. Without these resources’ society would struggle to adapt to survive, this much is undeniable. And because of our reliance on them they must be bought, paid for constantly, like a ‘fixed charge’ such as petrol, clothes, and obviously TV licensing.  McLuhan later states however that the advances technology is creating a change. A change that in this age provides society with greater means to interact and communicate. This change however, may not be positive.

“Every culture and every age has its favourite model of perception and knowledge that is inclined to prescribe for everybody and everything. The mark of our time is its revulsion against patterns. We  are suddenly eager to have things and people declare their beings totally. There is deep faith to be found in this new attitude – a faith that concerns the ultimate harmony of all being.” – (McLuhan, M. 2011,  p84).

Williams however, states that this thought process is a very optimistic and over exaggerated outlook. With McLuhan’s views that the introduction and substitution of these materials for the same resources would be the cause of force of change, and that this change provides a greater expansion of freedom upon man are a very ideological view.

“For Williams, McLuhan’s ideas are idealist and ideological: Substituting the technological products of social and economic forces for those forces themselves as the motor of historical change.” – (Williams, R. 2011,  p92).

Williams dose note that the invention and development of technology is an imperative part of history, but even if the world had not seen the inventions of technologies such as the television or computer, we would probably have seen different means of technological entertainment.

“If television had not been invented, certain social and cultural events would not have occurred...(but) this argument runs, we would still be manipulated or mindlessly entertained, but in some other and perhaps less powerfully....The effects of the technologies, wether direct or indirect, foreseen or unforeseen , are as it were the rest of history. The steam engine, the automobile, television, the atomic bomb, have made modern man and the modern condition.” (Williams, R. 2011,  p94-95).

In conclusion, with both Williams and McLuhan making fair points and examples of their arguments, the truth would lie in-between both views. Man dose no need technology like he needs organs, and technology is not an McLuhan says, an  physical ‘extension of man.’ It is however, essential to modern life and society, and therefore a very profitable business. Also, it has, for better or worse, opened many doors to the way society works and change is inevitable with these ever increasing inventions.

Biblography

Williams, R. The Technology and the Society, in Giddings, S. and Lister, M. (eds.) (2011) The New Media and Technocultures reader, London and New York, Routledge.

McLuhan, M. Selected material from Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, in Giddings, S. and Lister, M. (eds.) (2011) The New Media and Technocultures reader, London and New York, Routledge.

The Creature From Hell! /Evaluation

For this project I am extremely proud of the result. There are very few things I dislike about it, however there are a few mistakes that would note. There are a few scenes (such as the CGI on his horns as they grow, and his fire crown) that would never be seen in a 1930's trailer, and too much panning shots. Also the resolution is very poor, I do however argue that this does add to the old, dated effect. There are also scenes were technology can be seen that would be far too advanced, (such as the modern television). I could also say that the screen is not at the exact size it should be and the music is a bit too well composed, and played to often in the trailer than it would actually have been, but I feel that this made the trailer much more enjoyable. There are also some differences to the initial visualization, as Hellboy 2 footage could not be processed in Final Cut. My working process found solutions to these very few scenes, and i think that the piece is better for it.

On the plus side, I think the text and fonts worked very well, and the voice over work I did is believable. I also think that the old film grain (dust and scratches filter) worked well with out looking too over used and tacky, (this did take several tests). I also think the choice in Hellboy as my creature was a wise decision, as I think he lends himself to the genre very well.

Over all I am very proud of this video, and all mistakes induced I feel it is has a very 1930's/ classic horror vibe which I have captured, and that it works well. If I had more time I would perhaps create it in a higher resolution and try to select scenes with less CGI. I do
however feel that every scene did look good and worked in the trailer well.

The film can be viewed below, although I would recommend the you tube link. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1fMgDRdavs&feature=youtu.be

Music: War of the Monsters

After searching different examples of classic horror music on various free music sites, nothing sounded quite like what I whished. So I searched youtube for some music, and although these proved more similar to what I whished for, my research proved unsuccessful. However, while playing an old Playstation 2 game, called 'War of the Monsters" (A fighting game where two players fight each other as giant, rip-off monsters, such as King Kong, Godzilla and a Transformer in a destructable 3D city). I found exactly what I had been searching for. The theme worked perfectly for what I had in mind, with a very 1930's-40's horror atmosphere. Although I had whished to find copyright free music I only needed small samples of this music and I feel this would work perfectly.

Tests

Here I have experimented and displayed two fonts, (Oh the horror, left and Feast of flesh, right) that I selected to use that I feel relate to  that of the fonts used to advertise classical horror. I also used screenshots of scenes from Hellboy I selected earlier to expeirement with contrast and levels. Here I have discovered the hightening of whites should increase, and the over all tone of black and grey should also be lightened to represent the same look of these trailers. I've also used different types of old film grain and effects, some larger and thicker and diferent amont of break lines. I think the best use of these is to use small thin, subtle ones, unlike the one in the image on the bottom right, and most like the ones used in the image top left.

Visulising the piece

This is my plan for my video. In the 'voice' coloumn, is where voice over will read the lines. the 'Text' coloumn displays what will be written on the screen at this time, and the 'Video' coloumn shows what footage will be playing. I understand this is somewhat unclear, but it is a list I understand and helps me visualise my final piece.

Voice     Text       Video

 The most horrifying monster cinema has ever seen!

                                Crowds scared.

The creature from hell 

                                Shadow footage of Hellboy.

Bought to this world from another, it lives amoung us!

Shadowy footage of Hellboy, Hellboy on liz’s house.

Hidden from humanity,

Hellboy on bridge.

                                two men disscuss video footage found of Hellboy: ‘and these are the horns’

                                Hellboy nose bleed and looks at the camera, "I’m running out of lies"

The Creature dwells in secrec

                                Big metal door that locks Hellboy in his room.

But is this hideous beast as villainous as he looks?

                               Hellboy stands holding a christain cross.

Find out in this year’s most thrilling film;

The Creature from Hell!
                   Footage of 'Anung un Ramma' (Hellboy extreme devil look)

See Perlman in the role he was born to play!

       Hellboy in chains.

And discover the true meaning of terror!

        Hellboy (Anung un Ramma) in hell.

+ In, The creature from Hell!