What's good people? Well, I must say, I'm in damn fine spirits today as I met a girl at the dog park today and she was FIIIIINE! I wish I could show you a picture of her, but I don't have one, so there you have it. God bless the dog park.
Anyway, funny business aside, I've got a couple things on my mind today. First things first, I got into a great discussion this past weekend with my good buddy Petti of the band Calico Horse, who, I must add are one of the best bands in indieville at the moment, and his buddy Justin of the band Augustana about how Hollywood and big studio films these days are obsessed with producing films with CGI shit all over the place. It's maddening.
I mean, I realize that with the advent of digital media and the desire to advance this new format into uncharted waters, that there are advantages and incredible new techniques that are applied to simple analogue film making that can take a simple shot of, whatever--a desert--and turn it into some Salem's Lot freak-out carnival full of shooting flames and weird vaudevillian dwarfs swallowing swords (which actually happened in the real world in the 1920's without the help of CGI graphics, it's called Las Vegas). But what happened to spending some time building incredible sets, getting creative with the lighting, going through painful audition after audition until you find the right actors and actresses who can pull off a dead-defying 173ft fall off the peak of Niagara? And even if that actor or actress can't pull that fall off and actually dies, it's alright, actors are a dime a dozen! Alfred Hitchcock once said that 'actors are like cattle'. Are you really going to argue with Hitchcock? I think not.
Anyway, as our late night, smokey discussion jumped from the old school 8-bit Nintendo and it's glorious games, or "the golden age" as I like to call it (my favorite was River City Ransom), to film making, I really started to think about what a fucking cop out CGI filmmaking really is, and how it's hooked it's nasty little claws into so many formats from film making to television to video game play. Hypothetically, a person could go out, shoot some establishing location shots, and create everything from there using no human chemistry, no accidental breaking of the lead actress' high heeled shoes as she storms off that becomes a moment you can't recreate, no nothing. And if someone else is into that CGI bullshit, that's fine, but I'm just going to declare right now, I hate it. And we pretty much all agreed as I shotgunned my 12th Budweiser of the evening.
What I really don't understand about CGI films is where the hell does all the money go? How can a film that is nearly entirely shot in a studio behind a f*cking green screen and later loaded with digital effects in post production consistently run up a tab of over 100 million dollars? I don't get it. For example, this year's CGI debacle and by far most poorly written screenplay of the past century, 300, had a final closing budget of over 65 million. 65 million! For that piece of cinematic bile? Give me 65 million dollars, I'll write the screenplay, hire Robert Yeoman or Roger Deakins to shoot it, get my boy Warren Berkey to direct it, tack on a few new faces to act it out, and we'll deliver 1 canister of the most incredible film making to your door and give the producer back his change of 61 million dollars. No CGI necessary. 65 million....I spit upon thee!
So as a perfect, all encompassing follow up to our discussion, I got an e-mail from Petti today with a quote from Jean Baudrillard's book, The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact who articulated the point of our discussion much better than three well-drunk film philosophists with a soft spot for all things analogue:
"the computer-generated image is like this too, a digital image which is entirely fabricated, has no real referent and from which, by contrast with analogue images, the negative itself has disappeared - not just the film negative, but the negative moment that lies in the heart of the image, that absence that causes the image to resonate. The technical fine-tuning here is perfect. There is no room for fuzziness, tremor or chance. Is there still an image?"
Anyway, funny business aside, I've got a couple things on my mind today. First things first, I got into a great discussion this past weekend with my good buddy Petti of the band Calico Horse, who, I must add are one of the best bands in indieville at the moment, and his buddy Justin of the band Augustana about how Hollywood and big studio films these days are obsessed with producing films with CGI shit all over the place. It's maddening.
I mean, I realize that with the advent of digital media and the desire to advance this new format into uncharted waters, that there are advantages and incredible new techniques that are applied to simple analogue film making that can take a simple shot of, whatever--a desert--and turn it into some Salem's Lot freak-out carnival full of shooting flames and weird vaudevillian dwarfs swallowing swords (which actually happened in the real world in the 1920's without the help of CGI graphics, it's called Las Vegas). But what happened to spending some time building incredible sets, getting creative with the lighting, going through painful audition after audition until you find the right actors and actresses who can pull off a dead-defying 173ft fall off the peak of Niagara? And even if that actor or actress can't pull that fall off and actually dies, it's alright, actors are a dime a dozen! Alfred Hitchcock once said that 'actors are like cattle'. Are you really going to argue with Hitchcock? I think not.
Anyway, as our late night, smokey discussion jumped from the old school 8-bit Nintendo and it's glorious games, or "the golden age" as I like to call it (my favorite was River City Ransom), to film making, I really started to think about what a fucking cop out CGI filmmaking really is, and how it's hooked it's nasty little claws into so many formats from film making to television to video game play. Hypothetically, a person could go out, shoot some establishing location shots, and create everything from there using no human chemistry, no accidental breaking of the lead actress' high heeled shoes as she storms off that becomes a moment you can't recreate, no nothing. And if someone else is into that CGI bullshit, that's fine, but I'm just going to declare right now, I hate it. And we pretty much all agreed as I shotgunned my 12th Budweiser of the evening.
What I really don't understand about CGI films is where the hell does all the money go? How can a film that is nearly entirely shot in a studio behind a f*cking green screen and later loaded with digital effects in post production consistently run up a tab of over 100 million dollars? I don't get it. For example, this year's CGI debacle and by far most poorly written screenplay of the past century, 300, had a final closing budget of over 65 million. 65 million! For that piece of cinematic bile? Give me 65 million dollars, I'll write the screenplay, hire Robert Yeoman or Roger Deakins to shoot it, get my boy Warren Berkey to direct it, tack on a few new faces to act it out, and we'll deliver 1 canister of the most incredible film making to your door and give the producer back his change of 61 million dollars. No CGI necessary. 65 million....I spit upon thee!
So as a perfect, all encompassing follow up to our discussion, I got an e-mail from Petti today with a quote from Jean Baudrillard's book, The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact who articulated the point of our discussion much better than three well-drunk film philosophists with a soft spot for all things analogue:
"the computer-generated image is like this too, a digital image which is entirely fabricated, has no real referent and from which, by contrast with analogue images, the negative itself has disappeared - not just the film negative, but the negative moment that lies in the heart of the image, that absence that causes the image to resonate. The technical fine-tuning here is perfect. There is no room for fuzziness, tremor or chance. Is there still an image?"
Perfect! The point Baudrillard makes is that the CGI film is manipulated to perfection, and the reason we go to see a film is to see the humanity in situations. Situations that we can relate to. Situations that evoke real emotion. And human beings are not perfect and that is mainly why I have no interest in seeing a "perfect" film. I want to see burnt celluloid with the image of two brothers embracing for the first time since their father died, or a gangster blasting his way out of a deal gone wrong. I want to see real human beings in real situations, and if they're not real situations, they better involve some crazy prosthetic slug named "Jaba" or a wookie named "Chewbaca"
And that's that. Thanks Petti.
Finally, I'm reading an incredible good book right now that I think everyone should get into. It's called Detour by Lizzie Simon and it's about her life living with bi-polar disorder. It's equal parts inspiring and heartbreaking. Chemical imbalance is quite a bitch and its made me realize how easy I have it and how I complain on a day-to-day basis about the most asinine things when there are folks out there who really suffer. It really helps you to appreciate what you've got and take heed the oldest cliche in the book: "it could always be worse." So true. Check out her website here. She also has some great insight as to why she thinks Barak Obama would make a pretty great leader, which I couldn't agree with her more.
So there you have it. Hope your day was as good as mine was and come back soon.
And that's that. Thanks Petti.
Finally, I'm reading an incredible good book right now that I think everyone should get into. It's called Detour by Lizzie Simon and it's about her life living with bi-polar disorder. It's equal parts inspiring and heartbreaking. Chemical imbalance is quite a bitch and its made me realize how easy I have it and how I complain on a day-to-day basis about the most asinine things when there are folks out there who really suffer. It really helps you to appreciate what you've got and take heed the oldest cliche in the book: "it could always be worse." So true. Check out her website here. She also has some great insight as to why she thinks Barak Obama would make a pretty great leader, which I couldn't agree with her more.
So there you have it. Hope your day was as good as mine was and come back soon.
Now I'm off to the dog park. Sike!! My new favorite word.
1 comments:
1)I completely agree. I also hate what computers have done to Saturday morning cartoons. What is that 3-D and shadows BS? I like my cartoons 2-D with solid colors.
2) I <3 Baudrillard.
3) I forgot what three was. Good luck with dog park girl!
Post a Comment