‘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.
No comments:
Post a Comment