Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Bambi B (A) on June 30, 2008 at 09:10:40

In Reply to: RE: Pan´s Labyrinth or the damage of LoTR ´s made on the decades of films to come... posted by patrickU on June 29, 2008 at 01:40:24

Mr. Patrick,

There has certainly been a trend from the very beginning of movies towards special effects fantasies. One of the earliest movies with a complete story, "Le Voyage dans la lune" of 1902 has a delightfully artificial and humourous quality to the special effects. And the trend for more and more relaistic effects never abated. Compare the effects of the 1902 "Voyage" to "First Men on the Moon of 1964- amazing to think that's 62 years later and still 44 years ago!- and Harryhausens' work in "Jason and the Argonauts" (1963).

The trend towards movies increasing the proportion of special effects is simply a matter of the demands of the fantasy genre to more sensational sequences, and computer technology has made everything possible. I personally find LotR to be beautifully made, with craftsmanship of the highest order, but can not connect emotionally to that kind of fantasy characters in a fantasy world. Somone commented on the LotR trilogy as "suburban" fantasy. I find other movies like earlier "Batman" and especially "Van Helsing" objectionable as the effects seem tossed in, and the editing just seems like panic to alter point of view the maximum number of times the eye can follow. There are many movies that make the effects lamost invisible and/or that use effects in a perfect proprortion as a natural part of the action- one of the best being "La Belle et la bête", Cocteau (1946), which really does seem quietly magical. There was, by the way, a version of this story from 1899 for comparison- I've never seen it. I was disappointed in "The Illusionist" as the magic depicted was all easy effects that could not have been achieved on a stage at the time of the movie's setting- something like 1900-1910. The movie suggests that the illusions presented were be devices contrived by the illusionist, but the efect was spoiled as the "ghosts" were perfect 3-D colour holograms that couldn't be achieved even now. Compare the "Illusionist" projections of characters to the "Star Wars" projected message by R2D2 of Princess Leia "Help us Obi Wan", which was a 3D projection , but with a clear projection beam, image noise with dropouts and desaturated colour- much more believable and less distracting than the perfection of the Illusionist "ghosts".

In my view, one has to accept the fantasy genre as a lineage of more plus more intense effects. In terms of "damage" to movie-making, one should keep in mind this 100 year plus trend- at least since 1902 - and ask whether Harryhausen's work on the Argonaut's "damaged" movie-making with it's innovations- or advanced the genre. I believe that, like every technology, CG can be a wonderful enhancement, but it's a question of degree that depends on the taste of the director and editor, and I must be falling ourt of the demographics for action/fantasy to a degree as it can be distracting and annoying. If CG fantasy offends in general, it will be better to avoid any fantasy in the future!

And if you don't care for CG-laden movies, you may want to plan your avoidance now of James Cameron's "Avatar"- due Decemeber, 2009 as all but fabout five characters are CG as are virtually all the backgrounds- it will the most intensely CG movie ever made- and at least 6 years in the making.


Cheers,

Bambi B