Visual effects and bad writing: how to make bad movies (Adorno 94)
Films use visual effects to enhance the motion picture. They entice the viewer into an enjoyable outing. The view is pleasing and comfort sinks in. The preoccupation with the spectacle undercuts the prose, turning the plot into a mockery.
CGI is at the centre of debate. Some people like it others hate it. Some wish to go back to old Star Wars others like the new models. It has its moments for better and for worse. Interstellar, Edge of Tomorrow and Wolf of Wall Street. Nolan’s use for Interstellar was marvellous. The Planet of the Apes remakes were well CGI-ed. There have been complete blunders as well. The 2003 Hulk comes to mind and Green Lantern oh and can’t forget the CGI Dwayne Johnson Scorpion King from the second Mummy movie. Yet neither of the latter moves were heavily regarded. On the other hand Interstellar was a masterpiece. Avatar is the highest grossing film ever (though The Force Awakens is number five and people cringed) and Toby Maguire Spiderman was well received. For all the antagonism it has done well in recent years to make amazing movies but also to wash over really horrendous movies.
It can be used for good or for evil; used properly or improperly. With a bad director it will go horribly wrong and with a good director it will go over well. Nolan used it well not so much Ang Lee. It is in the utility. The visual is the core of film storytelling. Screenplay must engage the audience. The audience is not a reader but a viewer. An observer who sits back and relaxes. Allows the images to encounter him. Some theatres even have recliner seats. Heightening comfort for a dazzling narrative explored visually. There is a staunch difference between watching a play and watching a film. Sitting up at a play is partaking in the actor’s roles. There is a distance but it is not far. Reclining would sour the mood. The play is lively and conducive to the arena that engulfed both the actor and audience. An observer who like a sport fans is engaged in the prose while for a film the distance is awarded as the actors are behind a screen. A screen previously recorded with no relation to the audience. There is no need to engage but rest against the headrest and enjoy.
This comforting passivity centres on the motion picture. How the narrative is strung like watching a recording playback. Does the sequence fit in the visual is a lot more alarming to one who isn’t focused on the present actors on stage. Perfection is expected having so much time to rehearse and to film. The screen possesses a charm for the surreal. Stage performance is human and imperfect but the screen turns actors into superheroes. The actor is foreign with no linkage to the audience. A metamorphosis that diminishes an equal footing. An encounter in bewilderment and suspense. The experiential point is breathtaking as it forces itself on the viewer. Its purity breeching through the screen. Enjoying the fluid transition from scene to scene. The observer is passive but he demands perfection. The superior actor must put on a good show. If the acting is off it will startle the mind’s focus. Disturbing his experience. The motion of the spectacle is arousing insofar as it engulfs the audience in the moment. Yet with distorted CGI the image is tainted and the experience ruined.
Discrepancies piercing the beautiful sunset. A plane blocking the nostalgic view. An expectation muddled by overcompensation. Using the visualisation to hound the storyline. Bombs bursting explosions persisting. Enjoy the spectacle. Sucked into the visual theatre. By the end of the film restlessness creeps up. Unfulfilled from the visual prowess. A synoptic den of effects that distracted the plot. Discarding the prose for eyeball candy. The plot is only secondary to the lustful visual. The prostitution of explosions. It looks cool do it more. In the present it is enamouring but at the end it is lamenting. A desire that is haunted. Retroactive peril in the nonsense of anti-text mania. No jargon, no conversation just boom boom boom. The action orientation is hassled in the dear mantle of class. Just sword fight or shoot bullets the slow motion and acrobatic moves will follow. The clashing of blades and the passing of ammunition is of single intent. The livelihood of guts and glory is spindled in an array of hodgepodge murky misdirection. Clueless over the storyline just screaming for some blood.
Fighting is necessary to enjoy the visual. No longer is meaning tied to the event. No longer does the adventure link. The fight is unique and independent. It requires its own plethora of effects. The second the battle starts all effects go into disarray. The prose has halted at a climax of sorts. A deepening articulation of disoriented prose. A whole lot of coordination dismembers the realistic portrayal. The actor is a shell of his superhuman capability. The movie is a hoax. The characters shoot into oblivion. A marshalling of firepower to the abyss. It is a matrix. The actors have wandered into a simulated space with creatures dressed in humanoid frenzy. The adventure is halted by such dubious extras fawning the symbolic. The viewer is turned off by the effect bombing production. Horrid to stare at. Harming the eyes and disgracing its integrity. A film void of meaning and storytelling. A bunch of witchcraft chanted into being. A con artist seducing the audience with overwhelming imagery yet denying the contextual prose to accompany the story. Muttered words inaudible and unfulfilling.
Prose is a corollary for the blatant imagery. The in your face visualisation. Promising the audience a story but just playing pictures for them to grapple with. James’ fear came true on the big screen. Illustration has replaced the text. The novella and film are distinct categories: one solely text, one solely illustration. Yet unlike Dickens’ synthesis, film has eradicated the prose. The narration is obsolete. Words are uttered but without sequence and without fluidity. No syntax just sounds. The greatness of 12 Angry Men was the simplicity of the film. The dialogue led the entire movie. It was visual but it was aural as well. The strong conversational motor blessed the audience with a masterpiece. Kenobi’s fight with Darth Vader lacked the fast paced blade crashing of the eventual Kenobi-Skywalker duel in the third movie but it had meaning. The original duel wasn’t about strength and velocity but about respect and ingenuity. The Indiana Jones trilogy matched its unbelievable effects with storytelling while the fourth overcompensated for a worrisome plot. The enjoyable Ben-Hur chariot race was dismantled with advanced techniques in its rebooted take.
CGI distorts the image. Tron Legacy's Jeff Bridges is distasteful. Yet this reliance on CGI is only parcel of the issue. CGI is an acceptance of visual deformity over prose. The prose is lost in the visual arena. Kick-ass battles are predicated on the ball-busting jaw-dropping slow motion ninja manoeuvres. A spectacle that takes the place of the storyline. CGI in its own right has been quite the success. The issue is the intermingling of the two. Jurassic Park’s t-rex was cgi-ed and was a big hit. Davy Jones, Rocket and Caesar were CGI. Avatar the highest grossing film ever was CGI. There is a way to place CGI into live-action films. It has to be executed to perfection. A chemical compound that must interact smoothly with the ions of the live-action production. Films that are fully CGI like Toy Story are intended to be the case. The visual doesn’t bother the viewer because the entire corpus visually is CGI. The issue with films is not the use of CGI. Yes the Scorpion King manifestation was horrid but it is more the overt focus on special effects than storytelling. Toy Story is an incredible tale. There are CGI mistakes but the overloaded visualisation is to blame not the erroneous presentation. Wishing to present a seductive visual to engulf the audience in protracted hypnosis.
Many movies have lost their edge. Grossing numbers will increase and the spectacle has been accepted. Some of the John Wick storytelling is mind numbing. Yet the interest is watching Keanu kick butt. The visual is astounding. It is engaging and enjoyable. As a niche market this is great. Movies can be rendered to the visual lust but for an entire industry to shift in this direction is to lose narration entirely. Special effects are to enhance the audience’s experience in the film. Jurassic Park is the perfect example of inviting the audience into the experience by terrifying them with a real life dinosaur. Executed to perfection the audience is more immersed feeling the terror of the dinosaur as it wreaks havoc. The illustration though ought not to steal the spotlight from dialogical transition. For the visual to carry the weight of enjoyable storytelling. Forrest Gump was an incredible story using special effects. The Matrix and Lord of the Rings were a corridor of visual effects with epic storytelling. Inception's special effects were engrossing yet its story so compelling. It is the director’s script that supports the visual application. Nolan’s slew of special effects has landed him some of the greatest films from Inception to Interstellar. A good director will successfully tell an engaging story alongside the visual adornment.
Technological advancements have placed more intrigue in the visual department. At times preferring the visual blasphemy than the plot. Oppenheimer went over well because the story was well told. The special effects only enhanced the experience. Nolan is a wizard from the pulpit. Bay blowing up the entire screen to captivate audiences gets old quite quickly. The visual is gratifying but at the same time its preoccupation lends to irritable narration and dubious plot lines.
No comments:
Post a Comment