Craven 1 Braden Craven Mr.

Newman English 101: Rhetoric 18 November 2013 Bridging the Gap Since the birth of cinema, filmmakers have strived to bring the most enjoyable and memorable moments to moviegoers everywhere. A very common way of doing so is pushing the limits of technology to further the film experience leaps and bounds to keep viewers coming back to theatres across the world. From sound, color, and animation to full on computer generated movies, the technology surrounding cinema has only gotten better and will continue to advance in the future years to come, with computer generated imagery (CGI) being the most recent and controversial advancement. CGI is essentially just that, images created by a computer to make a film to the directors vision, usually used in tandem with motion-capture for the movies actors. This brings a certain atmosphere of hyper-realism that hasnt been utilized in the cinematic world until the 21st century. CGI gets a lot of criticism from many critics about the artificial-esque feel to it, as if it takes away from the movie experience, while other feel CGI is the next step in moviemaking. Despite the many criticisms CGI receives, such as looking overly artificial and being used by lazy and incompetent filmmakers, computer-generated imagery brings a new method for moviemakers to bring forth their ideas and imaginations to the big screen.

Craven 2 CGI became extremely mainstream with the release of the James Camerons 2009 film Avatar, which pushed the limits of CGI by generating an entire world completely electronically. Actor Woody Schultz, whos motion captured for many movies including Avatar, explains that CGI, in the hands of master filmmakers and wizardly animators opens up an incredible new world of creativity and imagination and it allows moviemakers to explore and inhabit the souls of characters, human or otherwise that previously wasnt open to them before. Screenwriter Mark Hughes goes on to talk about how technological advancements do nothing but improve cinema, and has done so in the past, referencing the beginning of color in movies by saying that like any new advancement, its ridiculed at first. Hughes states that when color was first used in film many people called it a gimmick inferior to black and white just as people feel about CGI today. He brings an argument that one cannot blame the tool itself for the inexperience or incompetence of the user of said tool. Hughes compares the use of CGI to the use of matte paintings or makeup. As a backup to his statements, he compares the advancements of CGI used in Avatar to the stop-motion effects used to make the classic King Kong and proceeds to ask if the use of those effects ruined cinema through its use and making an example. For someone to claim that their method of art is ruining their genre is extremely insulting, especially when its used to push the barriers that kept moviemakers from further expressing their ideas in their art form. Despite CGIs creative possibilities, it has its fair share of naysayers that feel it is not only a bad method of filmmaking, but its destroying cinema as a whole. Common arguments opposing CGI are very similar, the main argument being that it takes away from the movie magic of film, a fact that Schultz, Hughes and even myself argue against whole-heartedly. However, film critic Armond White scoffs at CGI because instead of bridging the gap between

Craven 3 real life and film they douse us in artifice. This is an understandable way to see it, but it closeminded and near ignorant, and goes back to Hughess argument of the misuse of the tool itself. White refers to various films most notably the film adaptation of the Speed Racer cartoon, which notoriously showcased a massive overuse of CGI that is near seizure-inducing at times. White also refers to the film Oz the Great and Powerful, the prequel to the 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz, stating that the movie substitutes potentially wondrous details with a certain overripeness of imagery, and that the overuse of technology in cinema is taking away from a films narrative as a whole. This overuse White refers to is the attempt to make movies spectacular worlds seem like they actually exist, which science reporter Natalie Wolchover aptly names the Uncanny Valley. Wolchover explains this uncanny valley to be where the characters in a movie are generated or mo-capped in such a way that they look eerily similar to real humans, but are easily distinguishable as generated by a computer. Wolchover, with a lot of distaste, uses the film Beowulf as a prime example of this and quotes New York Times blogger David Gallagher when comparing the creepiness of the movie monster antagonist to the fact of the movies hero, Beowulf. She claims that creators stay wary of finding themselves in this valley, which leads to very artificial looking characters in landscapes which dont necessarily mesh well with the characters that inhabit them. Her case in point being the combination of character and landscape in the recent Disney film Brave, which hosts very cartoony looking characters in a very detailed and semi-realistic environment, which to some would seem to throw off the atmosphere of the entire film itself, taking away from what the creator intended. Those against the use of CGI like White and Wolchover bring valid points to their arguments, indeed, as the large misuse of CGI makes for a bad image of modern cinema as many directors now look to it as a way to easily make up for things they cant do in real life, but dont do such things correctly. While shunning

Craven 4 lazy directors should be encouraged, putting a stigma on the tool itself and discouraging its use will not only hold back competent directors, but also hold back cinema itself. Cinema is a mirror of society itself, constantly moving forward with technology as it comes to us. From black and white, no sound films, to fully colored high definition audio films, cinema as a whole has come a very far way in means of technological advancement in a relatively short time. CGI, like any other new technology, is going to be used in by some with inexperience, which will result in lackluster titles. But the blame shouldnt be put on CGI, as creators with real prowess and know-how use it to create brilliant worlds and work of cinematic art that its difficult to shun completely. I believe it was put best by Mark Hughes, that [e]ven bad films today are crafted more skillfully than bad films of yesterday. As our methods of movie making refine and increase, the overall quality of cinema in any aspect will become better. Yes, bad movies will still exist, as we live in a universe where Baby Geniuses 2 exists, but the manner and method of which those movies are crafted (be they brilliant, or garbage) will be infinitely higher of a quality than films of our past. Taking this as fact, its unfair to say that CGI is ruining a medium of entertainment, as its existence is living evidence of cinemas improvement, and how much farther it can improve.

Craven 5

Works Cited Hughes, Mark. "Did Color and Sound Ruin Movies?" Room for Debate. New York Times Company, 8 Mar. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. Schultz, Woody. "A New Era of Filmmaking." Room for Debate. New York Times Company, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. White, Armond. "Cinema Is About Humanity, Not Fireballs." Room for Debate. New York Time Company, 13 June 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. Wolchover, Natalie. "Beware of the Uncanny Valley." Room for Debate. New York Times Company, 8 Mar. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.