I wonder when filmmakers are going to start repackaging all their old movies in a new and exciting 3D format. How long is it going to be before movie goers are subjected to the Passion of the Christ 3D version (now with even more blood and depressing violence!)? Think I’m crazy? Well, of course I’m crazy, but by no means does that mean I’m wrong. Remember in the mid-90’s when Geroge Lucas released the “updated” versions of the original Star Wars trilogy? I remember going with my family to the theatre and wondering why on earth my dad had to pay for us to see the same movie that we had on VHS at home only with CGI lizards meandering around in the background. The only slight plot change in the first movie was Jabba the Hut slithering in and interrogating Han Solo before take off. I mean wow Jabba the Hut actually moving, money well spent! Still, these re-releases made more money than I’ll make in my life. Why? Because George Lucas understand better than most the insatiable desire of our society for visual excitement.
The printing press changed the world, but only in terms of distribution of media. People had greater access to books, but visual entertainment stayed on stage or in roaming bands of minstrels (not sure if those existed, but I’ll take Monty Python’s word for it).
Computers have changed everything. As Manovich states, “computer media revolution affects all stages of communication...” (43). E-mails have taken the place of letters, online periodicals are rapidly taking away from print journalism, and 3D movies are rapidly taking the place of boring old 2D movies. Heck, even websites like Hulu and Megavideo are starting to cut into the market for pirated films and TV shows (sorry decrepit stands at the Harvest Market in Vermont, but I don’t need to survive a situation in which I’m 30 percent sure I’m going to get stabbed to watch not yet released DVD’s of The Office). The affects of computers are everywhere, but there’s no place that this is change is more visible then on movie screens across the world (Get it? No place more visual then on a movie screen...).
The highest grossing film of all time is James Cameron’s Avatar. The visual effects in this films are, simply put, amazing. I mean Cameron wanted to make it ten years earlier, but technology hadn’t caught up to his vision yet. The movie made over 2,000,000,000 dollars and was heavily favored to win the Best Picture Oscar. Instead it lost to The Hurt Locker an independent film that made just about 48,000,000 (according to Wikipedia, so take that with a grain of salt, or don’t... that’s a debate for another day). How could this have happened? How could a movie that was in theaters for months not win this award? I mean Titanic (Cameron’s other masterpiece of computer cinema) won Best Picture in 1997, why not Avatar?
The key difference between the two movies is that Titanic under all the crazy computer graphics is a good movie. It’s a compelling love story that happens to be set against one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. What is Avatar without the amazing computer graphics? It is (in my venomous opinion) just a recycling of an increasingly cliche plot line. White people are bad and they take over lands from native inhabitants. That story has been told repeatedly throughout the history of cinema. The plot also plays off the cliches that natives are much more connected to nature then the conquerors. Isn’t that the plot of Disney’s Pochahontas? Plus, the evil corporation (another cliche) is after the moon’s cache of “unobtanium”. Really? Unobtanium. That’s the best Cameron can give us? I mean, come on. That’s not even good writing. So, at the end of the day Avatar didn’t win best picture because without the computer graphics it wasn’t a great movie. Still, that didn’t matter, it still made more money then any other movie before it. Including those with fresh plot ideas.
What does the future hold for cinema? Will we continue to be subjected to bad movies masquerading around as ground breaking work? Manovich alludes to the danger that can come if “cinema becomes a slave to the computer” (48). Without the human element to cinema, what are we supposed to connect with? It’s hard to speculate. I hope that the future feature a combination of the human element as well as the amazing images that come with technological advances of the computer. But, if the next Adam Sandler led slapstick comedy is released in 3D, then game over man. I give up.
I agree with your assessment of Avatar. It was not a great story but had great use of new digital technologies. I too, hope we do not see all movies focusing on just that aspect, and lose the human touch.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how the PDF reading tied so well into Manovichs' assertions about the need to learn how to learn about technology and that digital technology's assumptions need to be acknowledged and explored, not unproblematically accepted or rejected.
This would be a form of the public moving into accepting the movie industry's interests only.
As you stated, cOmputers have changed communication so much; I wonder about the future of tv, postal mail, movies,land line phones, to name a few more. It will be interesting to see where this is all headed.
I think the very fact that Hurt Locker won goes a long way towards showing that, while we may be suckers for visually stunning displays, we're also suckers for a good story. We will, of course, "continue to be subjected to bad movies masquerading around as ground breaking work," as we always have. Mothra, anyone? (Okay, maybe that was never considered groundbreaking, but.) But we'll also never stop telling amazing stories. Imagine how well the first film to combine Avatar-like effects AND plot will do!
ReplyDelete