My recent concern over the look of Indy 4 (I’m working on the review, I promise) got me thinking about the digital effects revolution, and thinking about it got me writing about it, which gets us just about up to speed.

The rise of digital effects has led to a visual revolution that would have stunned audiences in the ’80s and led to heart attacks for those of the ’30s. So, why is it so common for critics and audiences today to dismiss the effects of this revolution as fake? (a rare double pun, successfully executed)

I still remember the hype surrounding the debut of the Jurassic Park dinosaurs. All the details of how the effects were achieved with state of the art animatronics and magic computers were exuberantly (Ultimate Fighter reference!) shared by Spielberg and the ILM crew, and the audience (myself included) ate it up like raptors feasting on Samuel L. Jackson. A decade and a half later, Jurassic Park level CGI is being rendered on laptops in the time it takes to watch the T-Rex take over Isla Nublar. Also during that time, though, we’ve seen the rise of DVD special features that detail every step of the filmmaking process, from storyboarding and shooting to costume design and extras herding. This has led to audiences feeling more and more like they’re ‘in the know.’ To quote Edward Norton (pictured here, calmly explaining his position):

It has always been my firm conviction that films should speak for themselves and that knowing too much about how they are made diminishes the magic of watching them.

Imagine a magician performing to and audience of magicians. That seems to be the boat that the modern director is finding itself (gender neutral!) in.

What’s interesting, though, is that directors, if they’re like most artists, are less concerned with how real an effect looks as they are its contribution to the overall story being told and in turn, how that story makes the audience feel. After all, that seems to
be the point of artistic expression.

But wait (you say) how can you (me) worry about the use of CGI in IJKCS (I thought it would save space and reading time to use an acronym instead of typing out ‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.’ I think it worked out well.), yet lecture us for not being impressed by the aftermath of the digital effects revolution? The simple answer is because I’m your father, and I said so. The complex answer is that certain films and genres have their own baggage and suspension of disbelief requirements. The Indy movies, for example, are a throwback to the early Saturday morning serials. The acting, story, characterizations and effects all served as an homage to another era, and the filmmakers took pride in their use of practical special effects techniques that were in some case intentionally behind the times. To suddenly (if 19 years can be considered sudden) take this known and loved character out of his vintage environment and drop him into a decidedly digital world is ‘kind of a big deal.’

Although the cat may already be out of Pandora’s bag (that’s the saying, right?), it might be time for directors to close the set again or at least reseal the cave where they keep the effects programmers locked up for weeks at a time while their brilliant but
nerdish hive mind slaves away over the dust code for the wood panel that’s in frame for approximately 2 seconds. It has to be just right, or it’s back to the mines.

As for the nitpickers in the audience, instead of analyzing the fractal patterns of an individual tree, maybe it would be better to let ourselves enjoy the forest in the context of the story being told, especially if that forest is totally owning Eisengard.

Popularity: 2% [?]

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 31st, 2008 at 3:34 pm and is filed under Film.