Simon West

 

Sylvester Stallone reunites all the old action heroes once again for the testosterone fuelled action epic sequel to The Expendables, while the narrative is little and action sequences are high, with a cast of Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Chuck Norris, Jason Statham, Jet Li and Dolph Lundren you cant really be surprised, they offer you everything you would expect from such a Action Packed Cast.

Stan Lee

Spiderman follows the same rules as most superhero movies except it has one major difference, the main character is an unpopular teenage boy, who has most of the usual problems teenagers have (apart from the spider bite scenario of course) which makes him very relatable to the target audience.

Joss Wehdon

2012 saw The Avengers hit the silver screen for the first time, and with a build-up spreading over five movies and five years, starting with 2008’s Iron Man, it was always going to be a huge success. It was an adaption from comics books that were created back in the 1940’s to 1960’s.

 

John McTiernan

What makes the Die Hard franchise so successful is taking the ‘Action Hero’ and humanizing him, he’s funny, he’s brave, but he feels fear, he feels pain, its that relating to the character in the situation which makes it so successful, its how the audience can relate to the character for the first time in a ‘Action flick’.

Tobe Hooper

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is not only one of the most frightening films of its time, but of all time, having been based on a true story of a group of friends who slowly get murdered by the psycho killer with a chainsaw and his family of grave robbing cannibals, this movie horrifies audiences to this day.

Frank Miller

Frank Millers Sin City is a strange combination of genres, being a cross between Film Noir, Neo Noir, Super hero and crime thriller, however this combination strangely works, starting out a hugely successful graphic novel series it stars a huge cast including Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen, Michael Clarke Duncan, Elijah Wood, Brittany Murphy, Jessica Alba, Michael Madsen and Benicio Del Toro.

George Lucas

Star Wars in one of the most successful movies of all time, and for good reasons, not only did it have ground breaking CGI moments but it had a great narrative, costumes and props, it remains most peoples favourite despite recent prequels that can hardly even be considered as prequels and are not worthy of the title in most peoples opinion.

Neill Blomkamp

District 9 is very different kind of science fiction movie, releases before James Cameron's Avatar, the Aliens are portrayed as the heroes of the story, giving a fresh new take on the genre, the aliens have a interesting design as well, looking like a cross between an insect, a prawn and a human.

Rockstar

Probably the most successful western in recent years, Rockstars video game Red Dead Redemption allows you to enter the world of a western, following the story of ex-outlaw turned deputy John Marston, whom is forced to hunt down his old gang in order to save his family. Every detail is accounted for, with seemingly endless side missions to emerge you in the world.

Sergio Leone

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is the third in Sergio Leone's spaghetti western trilogy, the movie see's Clint Eastwoods iconic character endure a journey for riches, and concentrates on what lengths different kinds of characters would go through to obtain it. With some of the best music in cinema history, this movie is truly a classic.

3000 word essay

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

 ‘Since 3D computer images became prominent in popular culture a mere two decades ago, the art of the computer generated image (CGI) has become one of the most astounding and transformative applications of digital technology, famously making possible the creation of fictitious  words and make believe characters that are so realistic that they fool the eye and the mind.’ (Weishar, 2004, p. 1).

This quote celebrates the use of CGI, addressing that CGI is now so realistic, due to immense advances in technology it can now fool the audience and critics into complete immersion into the film without thinking about the technology used to create it, making it just as effective as a live action movie, but with CGI becoming ever more popular, are films such as ‘Transformers’ and ‘Avatar’ (three of the highest grossing films in cinematic history) proving that narrative is less important than CGI due to popular demand? Over recent years it is becoming more and more prominent in cinema, especially in ‘Hollywood Blockbusters’ which seem to be raking in the money, which, is all the studios really care about. Does this mean the end of intellectual storytelling? One thing is for certain that CGI is more popular than ever and isn’t going anywhere soon.

‘After fueling the most exciting revolution in film since the introduction of colour, CGI is here to stay. Just as live action movies blossomed a hundred years ago, to become the characteristic art form of the twentieth century, CGI will be the art that speaks for the twenty-first century.’  (Weishar, 2004, p.1).

Whilst the things CGI can do are undoubtedly incredible, but does the audience have to choose between narrative and Special Effects? Or can CGI just be and extra delight contained in an interesting story? Looking into the highest grossing movie of all time should give them the answer they seek, James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’. This film is so heavy in CGI the Director had to firstly invest in the creation of the technology in order to make it. This ambitious project certainly paid off money-wise, but how was the story line? Surely one of the most successful films of all time must have had a narrative so gripping it was full of edge-of-your-seats-moments? Most critics would argue otherwise.

‘This is one movie that is best seen on the big screen in 3D vs a pirated copy. The hype about the visuals is well deserved, with the CGI seamlessly blending into a believable yet alien landscape of flying natives on dragon like creatures. It is visually stunning, although as some sites have reported, the massive overdose of 3D can make you a little queasy; at one stage I nearly felt sick, although the box of Maltesers I’d eaten at that stage probably wasn’t helpful. Where Avatar falls down and doesn’t deserve 100% praise is the Dances with Pocahontas story line, or as others have suggested, yet another white man colonial guilt film.’ (The Inquisitor, 2010).

The plot-line for this film had been seen time and time again, in films like ‘Pocahontas’ and ‘Dances with Wolves’ the stories are almost identical, it was certainly not an original script. So why would a studio invest so much money in it? Due to the highly successful Director whom had supposedly been working on the idea for 14 years, if this idea was so long in the making (supposedly a script was made a year before Pocahontas was released.) Should the narrative not have been stronger? Or was Cameron banking on the technology and reputation to sell the movie alone?

‘Don’t go and see Avatar if you’re expecting something original or interesting when it comes to storytelling. They say this is the beginning of Cameron’s own Star Wars like trilogy, and although elements of Star Wars were borrowed, Star Wars was truly a monumental movie that in the whole bought something new to the screen in both visuals and storytelling. Avatar is just CGI porn in 3D, but it can be appreciated on those grounds alone.’ (The Inquisitor, 2010.)

This CGI fueled epic was visually stunning, and some of the design work was incredible, and maybe that is enough to make a good movie, but the highest grossing in cinematic history? The ‘Real3D’ technology must have helped sell it aswell, supposedly being 3D seen like never before, in personal opinion, it looks more like a pop-up book, worked in layers with the occasional 3D which is very similar to what could be seen 10 years previous in Disney-world. Perhaps James Cameron thought film needed action to display emotion, rather than relatable and likeable characters with an in depth meaningful story? And Cameron couldn’t be blamed for thinking so, after its obvious success and from extracts from pioneers of narrative theory that say these very words. ‘Aristotle was thinking in absolute terms. He could conceive of a tragedy without much character study (ethos) but not of one without action (praxis).’ (Kellogg,  Scholes, and Phelan, 2006, p. 207). So exactly how does one create a good story? Narrative pioneers such as Tzvetan Todorov had theories explaining how all stories follow the same basic plots, and all have the same structure. Does this mean contemporary films need visual style to keep them fresh? Is CGI so successful because it brings something new the screen after decades of the same narratives?

 ‘He had likewise projected, but at what part of his life is not known, a work to show how small a quantity of real fiction there is in the world; and that the same images, with very little variation, have served all the authors who have ever written.’ (Booker, 2005, p. 1).

Could it be true that because all these narratives have the same structure, the audience is bored, and CGI brings new life to cinema? Perhaps with all the incredible things CGI can do, it makes it hard on films that just rely on narrative to succeed in the modern film industry. Before the time of realistic CGI, directors used only narrative and props to create interesting and exiting stories, looking back not so long ago we had major successes’ like ‘Jaws’ which had little to no CGI and relied on props, characters and narrative to tell the story of a monster menace, but even the plot of ‘Jaws’ has been seen many times before.

 ‘In terms of the bare outlines of their plots, the resemblances between the twentieth-century horror film and the eightieth-century epic are so striking that they may almost be regarded as telling the same story. Are we to assume that the author of Jaws, Peter Benchley, had in some way been influenced by Beowulf? Of course not. Even if he had read Beowulf, it is most unlikely that he could have conceived a story with the power of Jaws unless it has emerged spontaneously into his own imagination. Yet the fact remains that the two stories share a remarkably similar pattern – one which moreover has formed the basis for countless other stories in the literature of mankind, at many different times and all over the world.’ (Booker, 2005, p. 2).

Maybe it’s not the narrative that made the film so successful, could it be the characters? And their interactions? And how each one is so different, the conversations are always interesting? ‘Spielberg fashioned an instant classic whose success owes as much to his superb orchestration as to the substantial jolts and knockout performances by Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw and Richard Dreyfuss.’ (Brunsen, 2012). Perhaps with more attention to the soundtrack and characters to tell the story, CGI is not so necessary. However pioneers theories such as Vladimir Propp also covered characters. Propp ‘finds that all the tales are built out of a small number of underlying character roles (Hero, Helper, Donor, Villain, and so on) that are themselves elements in 31 basic events (e.g, The Hero discovers a lack; The Hero is tested). (Kellogg, Scholes, and Phelan, 2006, p. 288.) This therefore means the structure for not only all narratives but also characters are unbelievably similar,  which brings us back to the argument, is CGI necessary in order to bring new life to cinema after struggling with the same narratives and characters for so long?

 ‘The classical Hollywood film presents psychologically defined individuals who struggle to solve a clear-cut problem or to attain specific goals. In the course of this struggle, the characters enter into conflict with others or with external circumstances. The story ends with a decisive victory or defeat, a resolution of the problem and a clear achievement or nonachievement of the goals.’ (Rosen, 1986, p. 18).

After seeing how a movie with little narrative and heavy CGI can become a huge success, and how most stories are all structured on a similar narrative, and how they follow the theories of narrative pioneers such as such as Vladimir Propp and Tzvetan Todorov.  Are films which have little to no CGI and still unbelievable true life stories still a major success in contemporary film making? Such as the most recent best picture Oscar winner and best Director Oscar winner ‘Argo’. ‘The movie is, in effect, based on Mendez's own testimony; as with all spies' tales, we're entitled to our pinch of salt, but his story is just so incredible it compels belief: a startling piece of declassified secret history about a CIA-sponsored bogus film.’ (Bradshaw, 2012). This film completely relies on story, a true story, whilst obviously fictionalized for Hollywood purposes, for example playing up the Americans efforts rather than the Canadians, until the feedback from Toronto film festival when Director Ben Affleck decided to add the post- script sequence at the end which emphasized the Canadians role. However this does show that even without much CGI a film can still hold its own in modern cinema with good Direction, and expertly building up tension, even for a film based on true events, where you already know the ending, this film still has a lot more tension than James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’. 

‘Do not brush up on the history of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 before going to see “Argo.” It deals with a thrilling CIA effort to rescue six Americans who escaped the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. And it’s best to have a fuzzy memory, mainly because “Argo” expertly builds tension and makes you wonder whether the mission will succeed.’ (Ealy, 2012.)

This shows that while there is a huge popular demand for CGI heavy blockbusters in the contemporary cinema industry, a film with a strong script and good direction can still be hugely successful. Whilst a strong narrative is what a good film needs, CGI can deliver something very different, and can complement and even be a necessary asset to some films, especially in specific genres, (e,g. Science fiction, superhero, and fantasy movies). CGI is a great new device to entertain an audience and used to its full potential, and can clearly hold a movie on its own in films such as Avatar.

‘Animation was traditionally a hidden special effect in live action cinema, added in post-production; in the contemporary era it seems to be a major part of every feature film. A number of animation and new media critics have now suggested, therefore, that all cinema is animation, and not merely a subset of it.’ (Chong, 2008, p. 37.)

This saying that so much CGI is masked by its context, (such as crowd scenes) that all cinema is basically already animation, this does not mean that narrative is dead, just that CGI can be seen in almost every film. So perhaps neither is more important? Maybe depending on the type of film in production should determine how much CGI is needed and not the other way around. Some films need to work with a good blend of both, an equal balance for a successful movie in modern cinema, as for some movies, they were first created as a book, poem or comic, as an adventure that is so amazing and impossible, it had to be done on paper, because at the time, it could not be filmed, as Walt Disney explains ‘animation can explain whatever the mind of man can conceive. This facility makes it the most versatile and explicit means of communication yet devised for quick mass appreciation.’ (Chong, 2008, p. 22). But now with CGI we can bring these extraordinary tales to life, e.g. The Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter and Marvel films such as the recent Avengers Assemble.

‘This might not match the pyrotechnic power or CG clout of, say, the Transformers films. Yet there is something much more valuable — real human interaction and more of a brain on display. Whedon opens up the canvas and offers something that, with so many characters in play, feels epic and yet never loses sight of the real reason we’ve come to enjoy this particular dysfunctional super-family forced to play nicely together for the first time.’ (Empire online, 2012).

2012 saw The Avengers hit the silver screen for the first time, and with a build-up spreading over five movies and five years, starting with 2008’s Iron Man, it was always going to be a huge success. Already we see critics and audiences relieved to see a blockbuster with a little more narrative, displaying the concept that neither is more important, but that you need both to sustain a good movie in modern cinema. The narrative in this film existed well before the screenplay was created, being an adaption from comics books that were created back in the 1940’s to 1960’s the creators of both the characters and the story praised CGI for allowing them to be delivered to the silver screen.

‘While a lot of credit goes to me and Jack for creating these characters, some should also go to the guys who do all the CGI, because they do a wonderful job of bringing them to life, now you can go to the cinema and actually see spider-man swinging around new York, and it looks completely real, so I think they should get a lot more credit for what they do, because without them, these movies wouldn’t be getting made.’ (Lee, S. 2012).

This example shows that sometimes CGI is a completely necessary component of films, films based around super-natural beings or worlds, science fiction and super hero films need CGI to exist, Avengers Assemble relies on a lot of CGI a good story, daring heroics, interesting incidents with likeable and relatable characters. ‘Plot is only the indispensable skeleton which, fleshed out with character and incident, provides the necessary clay into which life may be breathed’. (Kellogg, Scholes, and Phelan, 2006, p. 302.) This proves that with a collaboration of strong narrative and CGI a marvellous film can be the output. Films relying only on CGI can obviously still be hugely successful, but also films with very little CGI can sweep the Oscars, this shows that CGI and visual style is not more important than narrative, but it can be a necessary part of some films, and they couldn’t be made without it. The films mentioned previously as examples, show that the answer is mostly down to the audiences’ personal preference and the studio’s aim, if they are looking to get the best picture/Director Oscar, it would probably be best to stick with an interesting narrative, but if a studio is simply looking to make money, a CGI fueled summer blockbuster is probably the answer, the cinema industry is not in danger of losing out good plot-lines to CGI just like how piracy is not killing the cinema industry, in 2009 Avatar became the highest grossing film ever. In 2012, Avengers Assemble became the third highest grossing film ever, so in actual fact, the cinema industry is doing better than ever, is this down to CGI? Possibly but there are still fantastic narrative driven films like last year’s Argo and Lincoln showing us that amazing stories, sometimes inspired by true events, are still as popular as ever. The audience is simply growing; more people are becoming interested in cinema. However if you’re asking for personal preference, my perfect picture would be a mix of the two.

 

Bibliography

Boswell, J. (2008) The Life of Samuel Johnson In: Booker, C. ed. The Seven Basic Plots, London and New York, Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.

Bradshaw, P. (2012) Argo – Review. [ONLINE] available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/nov/08/argo-review [accessed 14/03/2013]

Bruson, M. (2012) Jaws (1975) [ONLINE] available at: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jaws/ [accessed 14/03/13]

Chong, A. (2008) Digital Animation. Singapore: AVA Book Production Pte. Ltd.

Ealy, C. (2012) 'Argo' offers thrilling look at CIA plot to rescue hostages in Iran. [ONLINE] available at: http://events.austin360.com/reviews/show/14324905-argo-offers-thrilling-look-at-cia-plot-to-rescue-hostages-in-iran-our-grade-b [accessed 14/03/2013]

Empire online, (2012) Avengers Assemble, [ONLINE] available at: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=136194  [accessed 13/03/2013]

Kellogg, R. and Scholes, R. and Phelan, J. (2006) ‘The Nature of Narrative’, New York: Oxford University Press.

Lee, S. (2012) London Super Comic-Con (Panel Talk) (Public Talk 26/02/2012)

The Inquisitor. (2010) Avatar Review: Damn Pretty, Shame About The Dances With Pocahontas Story Line. [ONLINE] available at: http://www.inquisitr.com/55070/avatar-review/ [accessed 13/03/2013]

Rosen, P. (1986) Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology. New York: Columbia University press.

Weishar, P. (2004) ‘Moving Pixels, Blockbuster animation, Digital Art and 3D modelling today’ London: Thames & Hudson.

At the Edge of Art

The creation of the internet has opened art and design to a new audience and generation; enabling creatives to access a pool of resources for artists to use, which has resulted in the surfacing of new forms of art. ‘The internet is in a strongly metaphorical way the lifeblood of this new creativity.’ (Blais and Ippolito, 2006, p.8.) But the internet expands at the expense of the gallery and the author. ‘The online art community has developed almost entirely outside the purview of Galleries.’ (Blais and Ippolito, 2006, p.8.)

The modern world is continuously expanding with new technologies, and the Internet is responsible for blurring the lines between art and non-art, so art must respond to this new threat acting as an antibody. ‘A virus doesn’t have to defend itself, art doesn’t have to defend itself, it attacks, and if necessary it kills.’ (Blais and Ippolito, 2006, p.9.)

Technology  can easily be compared to a virus through its lack of response to culture. ‘Unlike art but like a virus, technologies often seem indifferent to culture rather than engaged with it.’ (Blais and Ippolito, 2006, p.9.) Technology is always changing and evolving new software, like a virus might evolve into a new strain. ‘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 and Ippolito, 2006, p.9.)

Art differs from technology in the fact that it’s responsible to society as antibodies are responsible to the biological form, neither a virus or technology is responsible to the bodies to which they operate. ‘Viruses originate outside a host organism and are interested in that organisms surviving only long enough to enable it to infect other hosts.’ (Blais and Ippolito, 2006, p.10-11.) Art must emulate the antibody in the way that it counteracts a threat by acting similar to it.

In order to survive the best art challenges aspects of society through a range of approaches, much like antibodies ‘the edge of art traces a fine line between life and death.’ (Blais and Ippolito, 2006, p.13.)

To compare art and technology to antibodies and viruses in literal terms is a bad example. Art is not a vital piece of society, it is a luxury we enjoy, and to go into depth about it like this is just inquisitive human behaviour. The only thing art has to protect is itself. Interpreting the text to mean art is protecting itself and not society is more realistic, art is there to ask questions, to make the audience think. However technologies and viruses have similar attributes, as both can be as little as an annoyance to as dangerous as life threatening, however a virus is a contagious disease, and technology is controlled by an operator. To the question of technology being a threat to art, and where the line is that divides the two, there is not an answer. They can stand alone as technology is a man-made tool designed for a purpose and art is something that engages the audience and provokes. These two distinct bodies can however coincide, and when they do combine, they do create an interesting piece which is a hybrid of the two.

Bibliography

Blais, J. and Ippolity, J. (2006), At the Edge of Art, London: Thames and Hudson.

Media, Technology and Society

Williams’ argues that the development of program content of colour television was altered because programmers wished to make the most of their ability to use colour and so they ‘looked for particularly ‘colourful’ subjects and ideas to exploit this technical development’ (Giddings and Lister, 2011, p. 92). However, the invention of colour television did not simply create new television series, as there are other factors involved such as audience opinion and different budget allowances. Although Williams (2011, p. 93) also argues that ‘in a significant way this technology did have an effect in its facilitation, suggestion even, of new programme content, aesthetics and modes of presentation.’ Therefore it can be seen that the introduction of new technologies was a significant factor in the development of new shows.

McLuhan’s view of ‘media as constituting an environment’ (Giddings and Lister, 2011, p. 83) is supported by contemporary media theories such as the idea of media ecologies. McLuhan also argues that we have become inherently reliant on this ‘media environment’ for our everyday survival. ‘These technologies surround us. They become naturalised as an environment that we inhabit or, in McLuhan’s phrase, they become like water to fish, imperceptible but essential to survival.’ This quote shows how in today’s society we have become dependent on technology to survive. He goes on to say ‘we have extended our central nervous system itself in a global embrace’ (Giddings and Lister, 2011, p. 83). This view directly contrasts Williams’ argument who believes that there are other factors involved.

Williams’ main argument is that there are other factors which influence the relationship between technology, society and culture such as economic, historical and social factors. The invention of television itself depended on the development new technologies ‘in electricity, telegraphy, photography and motion pictures, and radio’ (Giddings and Lister, 2011, p. 96). After many years of technological development in 1925 John Logie Baird showed the first operational television. It was due to new technologies developed during the creation of the television, such as advances in electric power that were also useful to other industries such as ‘city and house lighting’ (Giddings and Lister, 2011, p. 96).

However Williams’ makes the point that sometimes society’s need for a certain technology can be held back by the lack of ‘appropriate technology...partly because some real needs, in any particular period are beyond the scope of existing or foreseeable scientific and technical knowledge’ (Giddings and Lister, 2011, p. 98). Although society wants, technology won’t always give.

McLuhan’s main argument is that medium is the message ‘this is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium —that is, of any extension of ourselves —result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology’ (Giddings and Lister, 2011, p. 84). He explains his point using the railway.  

‘For the “message” of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs. The railway did not introduce movement or transportation or wheel or road into human society, but it accelerated and enlarged the scale of previous human functions, creating totally new kinds of cities and new kinds of leisure.’ (Giddings and Lister, 2011, p. 85)

‘The new technologies are invented as it were in an independent sphere, and then create new societies or new human conditions’ (Giddings and Lister, 2011, p. 95). This shows that society is not fully dependent on technology but that it can alter how society and mankind function. Whereas Mcluhan argues that we need technology to survive.

 ‘Previous technologies were partially and fragmentary, and the electric is total and inclusive. An external consensus of conscience is now as necessary as private consciousness.’ (Giddings and Lister, 2011, p. 86) Because electricity is all encompassing, and we need it as a necessity, it is almost impossible for us to escape its grasp.

McLuhan’s main argument is invalid, we do not need technology to survive, it’s a fantastic invention, and it certainly makes life easier, but people do survive without it in low economically developed countries and technology did not always exist, so if we really could not survive without it how did we come to be? Williams’ argument however is more relevant, in the fact that it enhances our society and our living becomes easier, but is not an essential need.

Bibliography

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.

Mchluhan, 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.

Tony Kaye vs Joy Division

During the first viewing of Tony Kaye’s 1993 commercial for Dunlop tyres the audience may find it more intriguing than weird, It clearly can provoke a reaction from certain viewers but simply as advertisement it serves its purpose as it sticks in your mind from its surreal imagery, but what is important to understand is that the films provocative use of fetishism relates to a sense of impulse and control that symbolizes the product, portraying the women like goddesses in a sexual nature, beautiful and desirable which symbolises the car and tyres, as the men are fat, rich and exited by the desired subject, consumed by their uncontrollable lust and/or greed for the subject. These uses of fetishism can be seen by the use of clothing worn by both sexes in the film such as leather corsets and gimp masks. The marbles that are thrown down in front of the car by the characters is an symbolic reference, the characters are asking how can they control their lust and greed, much as what the audience may be asking towards the product, and as the tyres run straight over these marbles expressions of realisation appear on the characters faces as they see their answer is to just go for it, also symbolizing the answer to the audiences question, ‘buy the product’. The soundtrack also completes this theory with Venus in Furs by Velvet Underground. Which when you look up the lyrics is about BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Dominance, Submission and Sado-Masochism).

After Joy Division's video to their song ‘atmosphere’ without knowing what it is about you may consider it boring, confusing, and a strange combination of different imagery that doesn’t fit together and make a whole lot of sense, however once learning it is mostly a tribute to Ian Curtis after his death it has a completely different effect, the stills of him throughout the film are deliberately used rather than video of him is an attempt to make the video even more emotional,  which may also explain why it is all in black and white, or perhaps that and the use of grain is an attempt to try and date the video. The uses of contrast in plus and minus signs, and the monks in either all black or all white could be symbols of life and death, and how things never stay the same, or maybe the monks are there to add religion and make the video seem like a funeral, and the contrast displays different aspects of his life.

In comparing the two pieces atmosphere is more emotional and somewhat depressing with a fixed target audience to their fans, this is proved by the fact that if you did not know of the lead singers death the video is not half as powerful. However Tony Kaye’s commercial for Dunlop has a wider audience and can be understood by anyone whom is willing to think deeply about the symbolizations. There is a huge difference in the films as the commercial is in high saturated colour, with fast edits, whereas the music video is slow and entirely in black and white.

Double Negative - Vanessa Boyce's talk at Bradford Animation Film Festival

I am not into stop motion animation; however, I am very interested in animation, filmmaking and concept art and design, which is why Vanessa Boyce’s talk was what I most enjoyed at Bradford Animation Film Festival.

Double Negative is a British visual effects and computer animation company located in Soho, London. The company was created in 1998 with a team of about 30 staff and has since grown to over 1000 staff, making it Europe's largest provider of visual effects for film. They have worked on major blockbuster film such and the dark Knight franchise, the Harry Potter franchise, Inception, Captain America, Iron man, Sherlock Holmes, Skyfall and many more, they are currently working on Zack Snyder’s new Superman movie ‘ Man of Steel’. However their biggest challenge to date is their work on the new adaption of Total Recall. Len Wiseman (the director) had asked them to create two very different yet both very futuristic cities completely in CG. In order to create these cities they mainly used a program called ‘CityEngine’ which is an architectural computer program that allows you to create individual building components and then define rules for how those pieces fit together. Double Negative had to not only create both these cities, but they both had to have specific atmospheres about them, The United Federation of Britain had to look rich and organized, almost like a cross between a futuristic London and New York but hugely overpopulated, with houses and apartments leaching everywhere in the city like a bacteria spreading. And the other being the Colony, which whilst is wildly overpopulated in the same way it is more of the suffering city, where people struggle to make a living. Not only did they show this through architecture but also through colour scheme, for example the Federation of Britain is mostly made up of grayscale with hints of blue, white and browns, these colours represent London quite well, especially the richer areas and signature pieces of architecture such as Buckingham palace and the houses of parliament, whereas the Colony is visually much more decaying, with browns and beige with sparks of musty grey clouding the city.

This was the first time Double Negative created an entire city, and their next big release is Man of Steel, and they are using CityEngine once again in order to create a completely CG Metropolis, since their biggest task to date was a huge success, you could expect them to stick with a winning formula. After hearing Vanessa Boyce’s talk I felt compelled to watch Total Recall, and so I did, and when viewing the piece it really makes you realize how important and crucial their work was to the films narrative and overall success.

James Cameron

James Cameron is responsible for creating many of the C.G.I landmarks in recent cinema, In the movie Terminator 2, he hired Stan Winston Studio's to create the C.G.I and they became the first to create realistic human movements, they also were the first to use home computers rather than specialist computers to create major movie 3D effects. they managed to morph human performance to C.G.I in the T1000 character, this was another major landmark and proved to be hugely successful.

Aardman

Wallace and Gromit is a great example of stop-motion animation, a hugely successful franchise because of a carefully and beautifully series of photographs crafted into a film. Aardman still use their old style of stop motion to this day but with some slightly new modeling techniques which you can see in films like Paranorman.

Stan Winston Studio

Whilst the C.G.I in this film doesn't look quite as real now as it did when it was originally release, it is still a major landmark in C.G.I history as it featured the first photo-realistic creatures on film, they use full C.G.I  when alot of the creatures are showing in camera but use puppetry for close ups to create as much realism as possible.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone

The first episode of South park was done using cut animation, as a fan of the show I decided to blog this as I thought the animation was very clean and smooth, you can't tell the difference between the first episode which was cut animation compared to the rest which are not.