Friday, November 23, 2007
Film Wulf bane
Posted by Pat Graham on Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:41 PM
There's cinematic feel to it because I do move the camera the way I would in a normal two-dimensional movie. —Robert Zemeckis on Beowulf at emanuellevy.com
So, what happens is that we design the movie very much like we would a traditional film and then it gets built in the computer at Imageworks. —Beowulf producer Steve Starkey at same site
Maybe that's the problem ... because for the life of me I can't figure out how to watch Zemeckis's new film and make any visual sense of it. But only in the 3-D version, since when you take off the correcting glasses (unless the problem's only mine), the 2-D almost seems manageable. Aside from the doubling of images, of course—though notice that conventional 2-D focus in the middle ground of every 3-D frame is like a knife ... or in this case sword. What more can you ask of your ten bucks plus?
On the other hand, if this is a foretaste of what the visual future holds in store, then a lot of us will have to relearn the ways we watch our films. Since for one thing there's no coherence: the pictorial surface (aka window) seems primarily an occasion for helter-skelter effects. Not that it's a question of Zemeckis's doing this well or badly, it's simply the nature of the 3-D beast, what filmmakers automatically assume you'll be wanting to see—since why else do 3-D at all? Things flying out of the frame at indiscriminate angles, figures interacting (or not) at varying depths of the visual field: can't put all these elements in the same conceptual package, the mind-eye coordination isn't made for it. Not to mention the myriad irrelevant distractions: ceiling candelabras and whatnot floating seductively by you when the actual point of the scene lies elsewhere. It's hard to know which visual data to pay attention to, and by the time you've figured it out the critical dramatic moment's already come and gone.
But why should you figure it out—is it some kind of sadistic test? Because if you've been weaned on Renaissance expectation—that pictorial space has unity, that you take it all in with a kind of "global" awareness, all perspectival elements smooshed into one coordinating surface, the idea of what a fresco does, conventional portraiture or landscape (not to mention the "normal two-dimensional" filmmaking strategies Zemeckis purportedly employs)—this brave new visual paradigm can only seem jarring ... and probably disappointing. But yes, there's lots of random "reality"—details you can't help noticing whether they make any sense or not. Precious simulacra, the last refuge of boredom ...
Rudolf Arnheim once argued that pictorial flatness makes cinema art possible. We'll find out soon enough whether he was right.
Comments (13)
Showing 1-13 of 13
Good post-- don't forget that the push for 3D has come largely from within an ailing industry trying to figure out whether public exhibition has any place in a home-theater-&-DVD world. I have never heard of fans clamoring for it, but reading trade magazines makes it sound like 3D is the Second Coming, which I could admit it may resemble, did I not believe it's actually good movies that get people in theaters, not rollercoaster tech gimmicks. On top of that, the pictorial space created by mocap seems to me to become a sort of puppet animation. Pixar and its imitators recall Trnka and Zeman, but with much more expensive puppets covered in fetishy detail. Watching CGI porno doll Angelina Jolie gives me the creeps. Maybe if I played video games I'd feel differently, but I think we're to the point that movies are playing catchup to the consoles, not the other way around.
like
dislike
for the record, dave kehr supports a very different view ... http://davekehr.com/?p=259 though i do agree with him about CONTACT--my own first zemeckis association too
Zemeckis is becoming like Woody Allen to me, in the sense of "I like your earlier, funnier work." I haven't seen "Beowulf" or "The Polar Express," but I wish he'd reunite with Bob Gale for something along the lines of "Back to the Future" (which didn't have that many special effects) or "I Wanna Hold Your Hand." Those guys' sense of structure in their comedic storytelling was unbeatable.
I'm just saying that after Zemeckis won Best Director for "Forrest Gump," he seemed to decide comedy wasn't for him anymore. Of course, people also say that about his frequent collaborator, Tom Hanks, but Hanks still does comedies, just not the "Bachelor Party" variety. Up next for Zemeckis: another "motion capture" animated Christas movie, this time another version of "A Christmas Carol."
ROBERT--yo, BACHELOR PARTY! ... my own favorite tom hanks movie after JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO: "it's fake--i like it" ...
I don't think I could sit and watch a whole film which all CGI. I love CGI but it has it's place in movies and if done right it can really add to a film. Some movie makers over use and feel they must have some computer graphics in a film otherwise it's not a 'real' film. Just my opinion :o) http://wickedfx.blogspot.com/
PADDY--thing is, when they finally get their act together, you won't know the difference * at least i THINK that's the idea: frankenstein, the golem, the "universal" homuncular urge toward replicated life--"in our own image," as it were ...
off topic, but i thought the most interesting thing about the movie were the condensations of the script--ie unifying the monsters' bloodline--which struck me as probably appealing to reactionary bob and mr. gaiman for very different reasons. the fairly frank distaste for christianity another intriguing facet here. also struck by the related, undeniable debt to our ol fave "the thirteenth warrior" ps no love for the watery effects? the saving grace of the 3Dness, i thought.
FORMER--believe me, THE 13TH WARRIOR did occupy my thoughts ... only there, auteur-wise, the hide 'n' seek's fully intended so how're things? ... still that craftsman's appreciation for infinitesimal flaws--like riding a bicycle, i guess: "help, help, i wanna get off!"
incidentally, on 3-D generally and BEOWULF specifically, there's this from david bordwell's film site: "It would take a perceptual psychologist to explain why 3-D looks fake. Whatever the cause, I’d speculate that good old 2-D cinema is better at suggesting volumes exactly because the cues to depth are less specific and so we can fill in the somewhat ambiguous array." more at ... http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1669 also--here's bordwell on ROBERT's point above: "I think that on the whole Zemeckis’ films have become weaker since Bob Gale stopped working with him."
Latest in Bleader
-
I saw you respond to an I Saw You
Here's your chance to respond to an I Saw You. Go nuts.
- Feb 8, 2012
-
The Asparamancer
A British augur reads the future with asparagus stalks, possibly Chilean
- Feb 8, 2012
-
Memo to Mayor Rahm: You won!
Mayor Emanuel takes a page from the Right—pretending that everyone's against him
- Feb 8, 2012
- More »
