(Ugly Betty - they're not really on the streets of New York)
Yeah we all know about computer assisted imagery – it’s everywhere in moving pictures – heck, some folks even go to the movies just for the effects alone.
But I don’t know if peoples out there really know how much the new technology has invaded the cinema system – and this invasion I would argue doesn’t just make it easier to transport the viewer to other worlds, or save a production cash money on a location shoot – it’s actually a retreat from the great advances of cinema in the 70′s.
Let me explain – first of all take a look at this ‘Virtual Backlot’ reel from effects house Stargate Studios, (via Metafilter):
Pretty amazing huh? And how great for the folks working on a show = ya don’t have to go outside, freeze your ass, suffer bad food, etc. So what’s the problem?
Well, think about US films from the 70′s for a moment. If you watch a lot of films from the period one thing becomes very clear. Even mediocre films from that decade are more interesting than the corporate product being pumped out today. Why? Because in many of the films the production actually went somewhere. You get a sense of real-life in these pics – even the crappy ones – you see streets, airports, people, dirt – ’cause on location something can happen. The camera can get bumped, an avenue won’t be cordoned off like it’s supposed to, the light’s bad – whatever. You’re forced to improvise and one result of this is that the film can feel alive – there’s a heartbeat present that’s just not in mainstream film today.
This ‘real life in film’ revolution all started of course with the availability of light-weight cameras and faster film stocks. Heck, in the late-60′s George Lucas was even gonna go shoot Apocalypse Now in 16mm with small cameras in person on location in Vietnam, (the irony here is just too much to contemplate – the would-be acrobat turned mortician).
(1973′s The Last Detail – Try to watch this scene without feeling the cold and the feeble warmth of the cooking franks)And it’s not just the films of the 70′s – this sense of the real makes even average pics of the 80′s far more invigorating. Starman for example – not the best John Carpenter movie by a long shot – yet watch it today and it’s shocking simply because it’s clear that the actors are actually in a real car traveling across the US – and not just sitting in front of a large green sheet.
Now sure movies back in the ‘golden age’ of US cinema were all shot in a studio – but I sense that returning to that world of Hollywood fantasy, (dictated by technology – you don’t make realistic pictures if you’re hidebound in a studio back-lot – you make Meet Me in St. Louis), is not what we need right now.
‘Hollywood’ is retreating from the advances brought about by the lightweight cameras and in tandem by the desire to depict and explore real life. Shooting in front a green screen reminds me of folks so terrified by the ideas of terrorism, of crime, of other peoples, of the whole damn world, that they don’t go anywhere – not even to the movies themselves – they just stay at home in front of the screen. It’s as if, confronted as we are with glowing global problems like climate change, massive wealth inequality and permawar, cinema is retreating to the purest fantasy.
The result is that filmmaking is being split into two camps – the high budget broad spectacular, (think Avatar), and the small picture shot outside of the studio and made for a $1.95. And while it’s fantastic that we can all make movies now on a Motorola Clutch the fact is these small films, (with some exceptions – see: Paranormal Activity), are not a dominant part of our culture – the Transfomers pics are – and that’s the problem – mass culture, (what’s left of it), is degrading into an anti-culture of the stupid, the scared and the just plain ignorant.
- – -
Whew. Rant over. I feel better now. How are you doing today?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jinni, Daran Stebbing. Daran Stebbing said: RT @JinniDotCom: RT @thefilmtalk Cinema Splits in Two – The Real vs. The Unreal: http://bit.ly/622e4Q [...]
I was actually blown away by that video of all the shows that are using Green-screen – amazingly enough, I don't recall any of the clips I saw as being from shows that I watch, and I'm happy to think that the shows that I actually do enjoy are the ones that use more physical location, and less reliant on digital sets. (Though, I do know that the likes of Mad Men, use green screen to fill in the backdrops outside the windows of Sterling Cooper – partially because of the difference in New York's landscape since the 60's, and also because the show is filmed in LA.)
I do have to disagree though, on Hollywood retreating from using actual locations. I think that it is mostly budgetary and logistical issues that necessitate the use of these digital backdrops. You don't have to deal with getting permits – and you can really only shoot someplace “guerilla style” so long before you're noticed – you don't have to deal with gathering crowds, and paparazzi getting spoilers; but you also now are able to much more easily incorporate the backdrops into the image – and not have that obvious “green-screen look”, like in past eras. In that demo, it's really only obvious that they're being digitally inserted in what are the grand shots. But, I was shocked to see how some of that stuff was all not there – especially the moments where all the people in the foreground aren't actually being filmed live with the “stars”.
But, I'm not arguing against using real locations. I just don't know that it's the death-knell that it might be being called. And the sad thing about Transformers 2 is that they actually did travel to all of their locations. (Well, the China sequence at the beginning, I guess was filmed somewhere in Pennsylvania.)
movies back in the ‘golden age’ of US cinema were all shot in a studio
Except of course for the ones that weren't :) Naked City, for example.
I hear what you're saying James :) but the vast majority of pics during that time were shot in a studio – for more info on this i suggest the absurdly comprehensive 'The Classical Hollywood Cinema – Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960' http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Hollywood-Cinem…
and now i'm off to get a copy of Naked City – it's got Howard Duff!! :)
Thanks for taking the time to read my rant muth :) and yeah it is for budgetary/logistical reasons as i refer to in the post – but i'd argue that regardless of the reason for doing it the reality of retreating back into the studio is the draining of a lot of the vigor that we saw injected into cinema when technology made it possible to leave the studio and head out to the streets.
As for Transformers 2 – well, i just don't wanna talk about it – it just makes me angry. Though friend of the show Armond White has a different take on it here:
http://www.nypress.com/article-20003-bad-boys-a…
I was/am in awe at the digital shenanigans in Zodiac (Fincher) after watching the Making Of documentary + excellent commentaries on the DVD, but the amount of it in use above is, I agree, quite… sadness inducing.
I agree with muthmedia that it has a lot to do with paperwork, logistics, etc. for location shots, but also Jett is right that so much is lost.
The more digital screening of this sort pervades the more 'bothered' the brain becomes by extraneous detail in the shot. Suddenly, someone finds themselves in a real location, but the telegraph pole in the background with a messy sticker hanging off it needs to be cleaned up later because it 'serves no purpose in the frame'.
Then less shots are done “for real” because they jolt against the fake reality established in the digital scenes (like the female guests on Friends who allegedly couldn't be larger than stick-insects because they'd be-lie the ridiculously thin frames of the stars).
Soon, everything in the shot is as clean and plastic as the “stars” have been for years.
Here's another clip of a 'clean in a messy way' background (King of Comedy). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oLdPSjfnMQ
They just couldn't recreate that uncomplicated-but-authentic background digitally -even if it is a set.
Also, Maury from Goodfellas in the background quietly mugging to the camera is less distracting (until you see it) because of this 'lack of plasticity'. Imagine this shot in the digital-era… the first and possibly only thing you'd see is the guy behind, and the once-amusing question of “what is he doing and why?” is immediately removed because now clearly he doesn't belong there and is ruining the shot -we'll edit him out later!
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by JinniDotCom: RT @thefilmtalk Cinema Splits in Two – The Real vs. The Unreal: http://bit.ly/622e4Q…
I had been considering why my favorite action flicks are all from the 80's and 90's. That was after SFX tech had gotten really top notch, and before everything started looking too smooth. I love the old Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, and Beverly Hills Cop movies. They just have that touch of reality that is sorely lacking in overproduced, over polished hollywood flicks today.
It is too bad that these Transformer style movies are the ones that are the most popular. The reality is, in today's media people will like what they are told to like. While the ole interwebs is giving us low-budget folk unprecedented access to audiences, the big studios and networks still hold sway with the vast majority of people. If they just blast out enough ads for the newest cop drama or action sequel, people will go.
I am not sure if this is something that filmmakers can (or should) change. There will always be a few people out there going the extra mile to make innovative, gritty films. As a film maker and a fan of films, I am just counting on folks like TFT to find the good stuff for me.
You guys know more about film history than me. That said, it seems that there is a significant difference in the feel created by shooting on a set and shooting in front of a green screen and digitally creating the scene. It seems odd to lump these two into the same category, especially considering the deep theatrical roots of the craft of set construction.
I think for me the split is between shooting inside in a controlled environment, (whether green screen or traditional set), and going out into the real world – on location fraught as it is with complications. I think there was a genuine advance in faster stocks/lighter cameras/mics etc = allowing for a genuine sense of the real/more adult situations in cinema – this advance seems to be in retreat, (and I say this as someone who loves films shot in the old traditional manner – but i'd like to see both = the craftsmanship and economy of the old studio system combined with the bravery of addressing the real seen in location shooting).
I think this is great technology for television. If it makes the production of a good TV show cheaper, the better, as they are now threatening to eliminate all “free” TV due to what they claim are rising costs of producing “quality” shows.
I'm with you, in films it should be limited to what's absolutely necessary. Some of my favorite films are set in New York City, and I think it is for the very reason that it is actually set in New York City – if anything can happen on a set, then definitely something can happen in NYC….one of the most famous lines “hey, I'm walkin' here!” would have never been uttered if not for filming on location.
[...] Cinema Splits In Two: the Real vs. the Unreal [...]
Одессе, Днепре недвижимость недвижимость киев …
Авто в…