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 29th 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 4th March 2013)
Nolan, C (2013) Christopher
Nolan Personal Quotes [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0634240/bio#quotes (Accessed
on 4th 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 6th 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 6th 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 9th
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 11th 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 12th 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 12th March 2013)
No comments:
Post a Comment