Friday 5 April 2013

Vanity Over Value

The film-making world seems to have gone mad. The emphasis appears to be on gloss (dross?); pristine images and virtuosic visuals.  As long as the movie looks sharp and slick, and is three dimensionally close enough to lick and coated in a crispiness worthy of (CGI'd) autum leaves; factors such as plot and character seem to have become all but secondary, if not redundant. 

Even a vast amount of indie films appear to have abandoned their rawness in favour of the flash and the flush, so when directors aren't arguing the toss over a fraction of a fraction of a frame, because they can eradicate imperfections with the touch of a tablet; they are smothering their 'storylines' in tsumanis or flaming infernos instead, just because the technology is available to do so. Apparently. I'm still yet to see one that looks convincing. But that aside, a flying, flapping  gargoyle which has been added (forced) into the plot merely because one has the programme to create it, is always going to feel exactly what it is: redundant, no matter how nicely it's been done.

None of which is the end of the world of course; but for all this perfection and gimmickry what have we gained? More importantly what might we have lost? Have we forgotten story? Are we not perhaps undermining the true power of film: the simple but effective art of attacking an audience with characters who embark on a journey; who learn about themselves and teach us about ourselves in return?  That has nothing to do with technical triumphs or glossy, skin-deep depictions.

Where are the classics? Will the vein of film I'm hinting at above still be discussed in half a century's time? Probably not.  Because if the movie's main selling feature is it's contemporary look and visual effects, won't they surely be left behind by the rapid evolution of such technology?  

It seems to me that the one attribute which can guarantee a film's longevity is it's ability to convey, as best it can, the human condition, which will always be timeless and thus still appeal to future audiences.  

I was asking myself the question at an anniversary screening of Jaws: what is it that makes audiences return to this movie over and over again? Certainly it’s a master class in film making (and of course is still powerful enough to have people running from the first bit of suspect seaweed to brush against your paddling feet) - but then so are many movies. However, nearly 40 years later and with special effects that have clearly dated the story and the characters remain as fresh as the very people sat next to us in the cinema.

The community on the island of Amity are evocative, colourful, realistic, complex, flawed and intriguing. They do not exist simply to be sacrificed for the plot. They have their own fears and agendas, are both selfish and selfless at times and display moments of tenderness & anger in equal measure.

This is the human angle which is missing from so many visual / technically tantalizing films: characters are regularly created merely to be disposed of, scenes thrown together, the only function of which is to grab the audience’s attention. They are the microwave meals of the celluloid world: people will always buy them and enjoy them (AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT), but just like their gastric counter parts they are as forgettable as they are feeble. The problem comes when the visuals and the effects are  given priority over everything else.  More often than not, the results are a string of scenes strung together, regularly splattered with unnecessary SFX whose purpose it is to distract. This montage of monotony is made to make money and it does. But it won’t enjoy longevity in my opinion. 

Compare Jaws with Deep Blue Sea or Night of The Living Dead with Quarantine even Alien with Prometheus.  The originals weren’t just monster movies, nor were they just monster hits…they were also thoughtful, well thought out, layered stories about people caught in a particular situation. When people used to refer to three dimensional films this is what they were talking about.











No comments:

Post a Comment