Bohemian Cinema By Jonathan Pacheco

Let’s Not Impugn A Technology Here

Tags: Technology, CG, Visual Effects, Indian Jones

                    ELAINE
So, because of a few bad apples you're gonna 
impugn an entire continent?

                    JERRY
Yes, I'm impugning a continent.

Seinfeld
Season 5, Episode 4
"The Sniffing Accountant"

---

Everyone knows that the most vocal people are the dissatisfied. It’s not always good to gage any sort of success by these types of reactions because it’s just accepted that the satisfied don’t speak out nearly as much as the disgruntled.

After this past weekend, if I were to believe the more vocal reactions to the pre-screenings of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I’d think it was the biggest flop of the year. Yet, looking at the good ol’ Tomatometer, it seems that Indy’s getting an 80% approval rating. Hardly the debacle that many in the blogosphere are claiming it is.

So as it opens today, what does someone make of some of this backlash?

Well, let’s get some things out of the way. First, why was anyone delusional enough to believe that another sequel to a beloved trilogy, made nearly 20 years after the third film, would actually live up to the predecessors? Did we learn nothing from the expectations of the Star Wars Prequilogy?

Steven Spielberg has changed. George Lucas has changed. Harrison Ford has changed. Technology has changed. Cinema has changed! Did anyone honestly believe that the 4th film could actually live up to the hype? Not to mention the dozens of scripts and rewrites that were thrown out the window, keeping this film in “Development Hell” for so long. Considering the history and circumstances, I think it’s remarkable that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull seems to be as decent as it is.

Out of those who were disappointed by Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, one complaint seems to be universal: CG. They don’t like it, they think there’s too much, and they think it has no place in an Indiana Jones film.

Going back to that opening Seinfeld quote, I find it funny how, based on a few perceived “bad apples,” or after seeing a film from a cherished franchise “ruined,” there are people that seem to be ready to write-off CG almost entirely! “Yes, I’m impugning a technology.” They treat it as an epidemic, and then you read phrases such as “the impact is lost in these days of visual effects” or “digital effects have made filmmakers lazy.” While there’s validity to these statements, is it fair to put the blame on the technology instead of the user?

Hate the Sinner, Love the Sin

Something that’s always bothered me is the phrase, “Money is the root of all evil.” It’s a misquote, and a gross one at that. The true phrase is, “The love of money is the root of all evil” —two completely different concepts. One says that money itself is what’s wrong, the other says that there’s nothing wrong with money; people’s love for it is what can corrupt.

Despite what purists may say, CG is not evil. It’s not the root of all evil, it doesn’t corrupt, and a part of me wants to go as far as to say that too much CG is not a bad thing. Sticking with the money comparison: there are a lot of church-going people who believe that, because “money corrupts,” a truly spiritual person cannot be insanely wealthy. Another misconception. There are many examples in the Good Book of ridiculously wealthy men who were Men of God, who kept level heads, and who didn’t lose sight of what really mattered. This is not meant to be a sermonette, but you can see where I’m going with this.

Computer-generated images didn’t corrupt the Lord of the Rings trilogy, did it? And those films were definitely “wealthy” with it, the character of Gollum being a prime example. When we saw the joint performance of Andy Serkis and the geniuses at WETA, we sat in amazement. But when George Lucas puts out Jar Jar Binks, people point to it as “the problem with CG.” It’s the same general technology, and just as excessive.

The difference was that with Gollum, and all the other green-screened inhabitants of Middle Earth, Peter Jackson never lost sight of what was important. Just like those wealthy men of the Bible—like Abraham or Job—a lot of CG didn’t corrupt the Lord of the Rings trilogy because more important things were not neglected.

Moderation, Shmoderation

People will try to tell you, “CG is good in moderation. But without that moderation, CG just ruins things. Look at the Star Wars prequels!” But that’s focusing on the wrong thing. It’s not necessarily that CG must be used only for certain types of films and only used so much. Where were these people when Peter Jackson and his fantasy trilogy were the toast of the town? Is the Battle of Helms Deep “CG in moderation?” Did many people tell Jackson to take it down a notch when he chose to make a major supporting character entirely computer-generated? No, they wanted to nominate Gollum for an Oscar! Moderation is not the key here.

One of the greatest uses of computer-generated effects that I’ve seen in a long time is in Zodiac, and the best part is that most people can’t even tell that the effects are there. Fincher chose to use the aid of computers for some obvious shots, such as the long aerial shot that follows a taxi cab, or the time lapsed construction of the Transamerica Pyramid, but many people don’t realize that Zodiac is littered with blue-screened visual effects.

A simple street scene in a domestic neighborhood may actually be shot in a sound studio with the neighborhood digitally added. A lot of the stab wounds, gunshot wounds, or blood spatters are added in post on a computer. Physical locations and blood squibs could have been used, but Fincher wanted such a specific look that he infused his film with digital effects, and the result is something that’s more affective.

And yet, I’m positive that if you were to tell someone that you wanted to use CG to create a seemingly normal suburban neighborhood, or to add all of the blood in your death scenes, you’d be told not to. It’s not “in moderation,” and the technology should only be used for big budget sci-fi or fantasy epics. But that’s just not the case.

I Need Something More Real

I’ve heard Lucas say that he finds it funny when people claim that they don’t like CG because it is “less real.” He says, less real than what? Than a rubber mask? Than a 3 foot model of a city? How are any of those more “real” than CG? I think he has a point. The CG environment in Zodiac sure seemed pretty real to me.

And lot of it comes down to interaction; with some uses of CG, audiences do not feel that the digital object is truly “part” of the physical scene (or vice versa). Part of it is that actors aren’t sure how to act with a ping-pong ball that tells him where to look. At this point in the development of the technology, we shouldn’t be pointing the finger at CG, should we? There are countless examples of CG objects seamlessly integrated into scenes, with great performances from actors. If things don’t feel like they’re “interacting,” the problem is most likely with the director, the writer, or the actor. ^[1]

The Crutch of the Situation

It’s not the technology, people; eventually, it’s what’s being done with it. And that’s what people are complaining about, isn’t it? “They’re using it too much” or “it’s being used unnecessarily.” But when people say this, most of them are getting ahead of themselves. You need to ask the question, “Why?” Why is it “too much?” Why is it “unnecessary?”

You’ve heard that Indy 4 relies too heavily on CG; there’s just too much. Therefore Kingdom of the Crystal Skull would have been vastly better had it used more practical sets or special effects. Right?

But how short-sighted is that? Again, you must ask, “Why?” Why does it feel like Spielberg and Lucas are using too much CG? Why is it relying so heavily on it? If the film is as bad as some say, could it be that it’s relying on CG for a reason? “Relying” indicates a sort of crutch, meaning that something elsewhere is wounded or insufficient. If Indy “relies” on CG, that shouldn’t be a knock on the CG should it? Sure, you can say that the filmmakers noticed their flaws and merely overcompensated with more effects. But if Indy fixed its real flaws—the ones that cause it to rely on CG in the first place—couldn’t it hypothetically retain all of that CG? However, then, since it no longer requires “reliance” on CG, the same effects that were once “too much” are all of a sudden “spectacular!” If you think about it, that notion is what makes the difference between Transformers and Return of the King!

Have you ever seen a friend with a broken hand? Oftentimes to compensate for their disabled hand, they use their mouth as help. You’ve seen them: tearing open a bag of chips with their good hand and their mouth, or clamping their teeth on a piece of string as they try to tie a knot…. For your friend to be healthy again, what would you say needs to happen? Could you say, “Stop using your mouth as a ‘crutch’?” Yes and No. Not using their mouth as a crutch means that they have to learn to heal and rely on that broken hand once again. But the mouth wasn’t the problem, the broken hand was! When you say that a film needs to stop using CG as a crutch, you are speaking the truth, but you’re just aiming it in the wrong direction. It goes much deeper than that.

Practically Nothing

There’s a notion floating around that keeping Indiana Jones “grounded” in practical effects would make the film better, or more “pure.” It’s the “only way” to do an Indiana Jones-type movie. I can see the preference if you wanted to have a consistent “look” between all 4 of the Indy films, but we’re living in different times. In the 80’s, practical effects with a little bit of green-screening was what was available and widely used.

But in 2008, there’s much more at the filmmaker’s disposal. Spielberg has used CG to great effect (no pun) in A.I., Minority Report, and War of the Worlds; I’m comfortable with him using those kinds of effects more often because he’s proven himself. Does that mean he should only use CG from now on? Of course not. He should use whatever technology he feels would work the best. But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that miniatures and practical effects are a cure, or a can’t-miss. That’s simply not true.

Giovanni Pastrone’s 1914 silent film Cabiria is both important and influential. The director brought more camera movement to cinema, as well as massive sets that raised the scope of the story to “epic” status. For its time, and even today, these sets are absolutely grand and impressive. And yet the movie still stinks.

The story is painfully boring, confusing, and uninteresting. Eventually it just felt like Pastrone was trying to show off his magnificent set pieces. It became a crutch. But do we blame the practical effects and sets? No, we blame the story, the acting, the directing—the real culprits. Replace those practical effects in Cabiria with CG and it’s the same exact result.

In the same way, making Kingdom of the Crystal Skull with practical effects doesn’t necessarily change anything; the risk of using the technology as a crutch for the film’s deeper problems is just as high, in my opinion.

I encourage people to enjoy the fourth Indiana Jones film for what it is. But if you find yourself dissatisfied, just try to aim your criticism in the right direction.