Owen Longstaff

The Spectacularity of Digital Visual Effects

Over the course of the year, my perceptions towards the use of Digital Visual Effects (DVFx) and spectacle in new media has changed somewhat. I began with the opinion that films that use 'excessive' amounts of visuals, tend to be rather shallow, with the audience gaining little from the viewing experience. But as I started to research more, I found in fact that there are other concerns in these particular films with their own merits.

I began by trying to get a better grasp of the kind of experience one gains from viewing content heavy with Digital Visual Effects, so I started to isolate and analyse the dominant features of such effects from both a contemporary and historical perspective. Through this process, it became evident to me that the type of effect I was dealing with, and the resulting reaction were of a spectacular nature. I began researching some of the popular western entertainments of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries such as the Vaudeville, Stage Theatre and Magic Shows, finding many parallels with the production and experience of DVFx. This seemed an appropriate starting point, as it marked a crossroad between the traditional methods of the stage and the newly-developing world of film, so the very ideas of spectacle, illusion and narrative flow, were reaching new bounds through the impetus of technology.
I then traced the evolution of spectacle, looking at how it became subservient during the classic Hollywood, and how, with the aid of computer technology, it experienced a revival in the early nineteen eighties, particularly through the ‘Blockbuster’ genre. Whilst analysing the shape and form that spectacle had taken on in this new wave of digital filmmaking, it became apparent that there was a significant tension in the way in which these effects were implemented. There has always been an awkward relationship between the narrative and the visuals, a relationship that became more complex with the arrival of DVFx. My research exposed two schools of thought on the topic; one which argued that DVFx were spectacular and spectacle is the antithesis on narrative and thus DVFx and narrative cannot coexist peacefully. The other viewpoint argued that DVFx are not inherently spectacular, occupying a wide range of applications and, in most cases, and serve to enhance the narrative.

My own findings suggest that the true role of DVFx lies somewhere in between. DVFx encompass so many facets that it perhaps unfair to label them as always being locked in a power struggle with narrative, they are much more versatile than that, having the ability to also support and be confined to the narrative. These findings deeply influenced my studio work, shifting my focus from just the effects, spreading my time more evenly across the whole spectrum of filmmaking. Through this process, I discovered the many difficulties that arise in trying to carefully orchestrate this balance.

Overall, I am quite pleased with the result. I believe that through my research, I was able to approach this task of making a film heavily ladened with effects, with more of a balanced perspective and hopefully its audience with leave with both an interpretive and visceral experience. It has been an enlightening year, and I can only see myself heading further down this path I've laid for myself.

I wish my fellow peers the best of luck in the future endeavors.

Eight selected entries:
Andrew Darley and 'Surface Play'
The Waning of Narrative Cinema
Invisible DVFx
Digital Cinematography
DVFx: a threat to the artistic integrity of cinema?
A Visual Effects Pioneer
DVFx and Genre
The Experience is Dependent on the Context

Cheers!

Owen Longstaff

Hi again,

One thing which I noticed while reading through my sources, it that the application of DVFx is limited to, or rather, has more influence, in certain genres like science fiction or fantasy, because in these types of stories, spectacularity would actually enhance the narrative, be it weak or strong, because the suspension of disbelief in these instances is dependent on grounding the often unbelievable and outlandish diegetic worlds that is usually extraordinary to the human experience. Annette Kuhn, editor of the Alien Zone series explains that, in particular, science fiction ‘distinguishes itself...by its appeal to special effects technology in creating the appearance of worlds which either do not exist, or cannot for one reason or other be recorded, as it were, live’ , and so in these instances, DVFx switches places with the narrative, providing the continuous means in which to engage the audience because, without them, these ‘other worlds’ would simply not exist. Perhaps another reasons as to why science fiction has such a high density of effects, is that ‘special effects dramatize not just the thematic materials of science fiction plots, but also illustrate the state of the art in themselves, so, in effect, as Angela Ndalianis puts it in her article 'Special Effects, Morphing Magic and the 1990s Cinema of Attractions', these types of films become ‘venues that display developments in new film technology’. In the same vein, a connection can be made between the magical properties of DVFx, as discussed earlier in relation to magic shows, and the idea of the mystical atmosphere in the fantasy genre. In both cases, it concerns the ability of DVFx to heighten the unreal through its capacity to display that which is not able to be recorded, as it were, live, and thus delving the viewer into another world. DVFx also have granted filmmakers the ability to delve us further into this world, recreating events from the past in scale and grandeur more convincingly than through traditional means. Though the historical accuracy of these ‘epics’ is always in question, like science fiction or fantasy, they have the ability to connect the viewer seemingly distant worlds of the past. In these instances, an accurate historical narrative is subverted in favour of drama, spectacular battles and resolution of plot, all geared toward producing visceral pleasure. In these it is about the feel of the past rather than a direct representation. Something which I know angers many history teachers, as it promotes a false history, that is if the audience is gullible enough to take it as being fact.

Owen L.

Hi all,

To emphasize the arguments in my research pertaining to effective use of spectacle in cinema, I decided to use director James Cameron, who I believe is one of the most influential and talented visual effects practitioners, as the example. James Cameron was largely responsible for the transition into digital technologies with his films The Abyss (1989) and Terminator 2 (1991). For the Abyss, Cameron wanted a magnificent ‘pod’, made completely from water, to rise out of the dive tank inside a submersible US oil rig and interact with the crew on board. This type of effect simply could not be achieved with traditional effects, and so Cameron, after much persuasion, enlisted Industrial Light and Magic (ILM), the company behind the VFx wizardry in George Lucas’ Star Wars trilogy, for the job. After half a year of toiling and constant modification, ILM was successful in achieving the kind of realism that Cameron desired, with the ‘pod’ oscillating like the surface of water. Software had to be specially written to allow the level of control necessary to animate the ‘pod’ realistically. The next scene shows the ‘pod’ mimicking a crew member’s facial expressions. In order to achieve this, the actor had to be digitised, by way of a 3d scanning machine, and then this information was applied to the surface of pod to appear like the reflection of the character.
With his next film Terminator 2, Cameron was able to take DVFx to the next level with what is now considered one the most iconic characters in film history - the T-1000, a completely computer generated anamorphic robot that could mimic human form to escape detection. Once again, the aid of DVFx was required to create the robot form as well as achieve smooth the transition between the two incarnations. The ability to morph accelerated the menacing presence of the character and was essential to many of the key events in the film, such as the scene where he walks straight through prison bars, advancing on the supposedly safe assailants. It was both the essential nature and originally creative use of DVFx early on by Cameron that made the difference between failure and success. It proved the capabilities of the computer as an image making tool and altered the perspective of many critics like Anthony Lane who lacked faith in this new technology, commenting in his article Really Special Effects (1991) that ‘Terminator 2 beckons the art of special effects into alarming and beautiful new territory, and forces you to reconsider their place in cinema’ .
The films by James Cameron were pivotal in the shift in aesthetic to spectacular imagery that would form the basis for a new wave of Blockbuster films. This new dimension of visual display became synonymous with digital spectacular imagery, and has only shifted further away from strong narrative in recent years, becoming ‘so distinctive that it requires recognition and analysis as a formal aesthetic element in its own right.’ With Cameron’s films and the subsequent the rise of Blockbuster as a result of their mainstream popularity, the last fifteen years or so have seen a dramatic shift in popular visual culture back to the prior mode of looking that was evident in the nineteenth century magic shows and trick films that I discussed in earlier blogs.
When Cameron made Terminator 2, or The Abyss, he was already a veteran filmmaker who understood that narrative, character development, acting and atmosphere were still really important, even if the effects were the dominant feature. He used DVFx and its spectacle in such a way that it not only enhance the narrative, but to rather became part of it. According to Lane, the creative potential that DVFx allow ‘actually excited him into his most fertile and expressive works’. Unfortunately, such an innovative and original fusion of spectacle and narrative is rare. Far more often is the case in contemporary cinema that the film contains DVFx that are ‘excessive’ or superfluous, that is that they display DVFx so predominantly that they interrupt the narrative flow.
I can only hope that this is a phase for the medium, but I'm not going to hold my breath as recent films such as Michael Bay's Transformers have enjoyed a huge response from audiences. I suspect though, that much of this excitement is caused by the films ability to dominate the senses and films such as these, will be largely forgotten once the visceral thrill subsides.

Well...that's my opinion anyway.

O.L.

Hi again,

In reading through my sources, primarily in Darley book and also Robin Baker's article - 'Computer Technology and Special Effects in Contemporary Cinema', I came across quite an interesting point concerning the role of the physicality of the cinema in the whole visceral experience, especially in regard to Blockbuster cinema.
The place of exhibition is crucial to how a viewer perceives a piece of artwork, i.e. the experience is altered by the context. This is especially true for the relationship between films and their place of exhibition - the cinema. They note that the cinema owes much of its form to the theatre, in terms of physical layout but also in cultural expectations. They argue that cinema built on the popularity of the theatre by offering an exhibition centre that had many familiar hallmarks but promised new and exciting thrills. Darley also notes that as screen size and audio volume increased because of technological advances, so too was the viewer experience, becoming a symbol for visceral thrills. It is perhaps no mystery then that the content started to indulge in the technology available in cinemas. It is as though both the cinemas and these Blockbuster films are trying to attract audiences, who in the age of the computer, television and the internet, by offering an experience hard to get in these other, newer venues for entertainment. However, with the rising adoption of home theatre equipment, this tactic may only be a short term solution.

There are other factors which dictate a viewers visceral experience besides from the place of exhibition. Many factors including the type of film in question, type of DVFx, expectations of the viewer, place of exhibition, desire for technical superiority and the amount of excess come into play. This contextual relationship shows that DVFx can function in a broad range of applications, more versatile than they are often given credit for. The goal of DVFx can vary; there are instances where spectacularity is the primary concern and there are others in which it is vital that the effect be transparent, and yet other instances where there is a combination of the two. Blockbuster films represent a new genre for popular cinema, one that takes a form of epic proportions as a result of the high density of self-referential DVFx involved, and while these are often excessive and thus inherently spectacular, they are usually born out of a desire to serve the story as the kind of epic stories being told require spectacular visuals. Though Blockbusters take the same form as previous Hollywood genres, this new genre breaks a long tradition with Hollywood cinema in terms of aesthetic goals, sharing many qualities with earlier forms of spectacular entertainment. It is important to note then, that DVFx are simply another tool in the artist’s arsenal, an extension of practices that have been an integral part of the industry since its beginning.

Owen

Hi all,

Just thought i'd spend some time bringing you up to speed with where I am currently at regarding my theoretical studies.
After much re-writing, i am nearly finished my thesis draft. I have had many perspective changes since I first set out to explore the topic of Digital Visual Effects.
The approach I began with, which was to set out a question for myself and then follow it up with a conclusion, proved troublesome. I found it very hard to stay within the bounds of my question when writing about the things I wanted to discuss, and my conclusion was having to be continuously rewritten to compensate for the new ideas I was discussing. This approach was clearly not working, so I decided to scrap both the question I set out and my conclusion, and focus on the topics most important to me. The result was a less frustrating and more fulfilling writing process. The key was good structure, with a distinct beginning - in my case, the heritage of DVFx and other forms of spectacular entertainment, a middle - discussing the contemporary industry and its related virtues and problems giving examples where possible and at last my own thoughts about how the medium can evolve past its current ephemeral nature.
I'm confident that I have the basis for a strong discussion, however, I will need advice from the ANU's Academic Skills Centre as well as my supervisors in order to strengthen it and take it to the next level.

More updates soon!