[lbo-talk] Re: Art is Dead

Miike Quenling Ellis flagrant_sake at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 25 10:56:59 PDT 2003


--- Brian Siano <siano at mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 09:31:39 -0700 (PDT), Miike Quenling Ellis


> That's usually the nature of _any_ kind of special effect. After all,
> when
> Willis O'Brien was adjusting his 18-inch models bit by bit, exposing
> each
> frame separately, he was creating the illusion of "real motion." He was
> also creating King Kong.
>

but that was real motion occuring in physical space. the godzilla or Rodan model actually did fly through the air. and it was always light going through a lens onto some celluloid.... physical space. light had to always travel to the camera etc. CG negates physical space and imposes a simulated version.


> The problem I have with CG effects is that it makes it extremely easy to
>
> create photorealistic scenes with no defects at all... and I just can't
> churn up the same degree of respect I had for, say, Willis O'Brien or
> John
> Fulton or Linwood Dunn or Douglas Trumbull. Miracles just don't astound
> us
> as much when _everyone_ has godlike powers.

well you just pointed out it's major defect. it quantifies every aspect it touches.


> But that said, I can't agree with Mike's points above. For one thing,
> inventive camera work has always been performed against the limitations
> of camera technology.

i already addressed this in another post.

> And the use of CG isn't just in creating scenes as in _The Matrix_. Take
> _O Brother, Where Art Thou_, where all of the scenery was
> computer-processed so that the vegetation was a sun-blasted, desolate
Dust Bowl brown.
> Added a lot to the movie, I think. CG has opened cinematography up in
lots of
> ways; now, instead of experimenting with chemical processing,
filmmakers can
> now control color values to a tremendous degree of precision.

earlier in the message you basically said this was the reason you didn't like it, for it's 'godlike powers'. what about say a very beautiful shot that happened by accident? or alot of indeterminate features that add alot of interesting things. Take for example...'happiness of the katakuris' by Takeshi Miike there's one scene where there is a solar eclipse....it wasn't in the script but they had to finish that scene on that day and it was night time...half the scene in daylight half of the same scene at night....T. Miike just put in a solar eclipse. that wouldn't have happened with total control over everything....that was an indeterminate aesthetic element inherrant to film making. no matter how much of a control freak the director is those indeterminate elements will find their way in. with CG that is eliminated almost completely.

~M.E.

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list