The concept of the "death of cinema" is a legitimate concern for the film buffs of the world. Within the past several years, 3D and stunning CGI graphics have become staples in the film industry, and can be found in nearly half of the movies in theaters every day. What 3D and CGI do can cheapen the movie going experience for those of us who truly adore the cinema for its original greatness. The cinema has entered a new phase of novelty that doesn't seem to be wearing off. It's all about the money and 3D/CGI sells.
But these attractions aren't always evil. In fact, quite often, CGI, and even 3D, are used in ways that enhance film. This concept was quite clear to me when I watched the film "Melancholia". The opening of this movie was spectacular, visually. the establishing shots in this film actually took place at the conclusion of the story, when the world is on the verge of destruction. There is no way this strong establishment could have been made as eloquently as it was without modern technology and CGI.
With that being said, I think CGI has its place in film, and can definitely be utilized in ways that not only fit into the movie, but make the movie. For me, this opening was simply awesome. The moments in this opening, such as electricity shooting upward form Justine's fingers, or Claire carrying her son on the golf course (19 holes?) create lasting images in my mind. Now when I think of "Melancholia", those two are the first images that come into my head. This is a good thing.
So all in all, the current notion of the "death of cinema" is full of grey areas. While many films are abusing CGI and 3D, there are other cases in which these tools are used for the betterment of films. It is just up to the film buffs of the world to decipher where these tools are used for good and where they are used for evil.
There is a subplot running through the “Justine” chapter of Melancholia in which Jack (Stellan Skarsgard) pushes Justine (Kirsten Dunst) for the tag line of a new advertisement. This request comes across as intrusive and out of place considering it is Justine’s wedding reception. By the end of the night, after a final pressuring by Jack, Justine tells him that she has nothing. She has no tag line, and she tells of Jack – essentially resigning from her job.
ReplyDeleteThis action by Justine is perfectly natural for someone who is being pressured in such a manner during their wedding reception. What I find telling, though, is how director Lars von Trier uses the character of Justine as his mouthpiece. He already has a connection to the character in that he was the writer of the film (and thus responsible for her dialogue) and based her depression on some of his own experiences. It certainly gives a new interpretation to the line when Justine mentions how their goal is to hook a group of minors to a sub-standard product. When taking with this frame of reference, it could be interpreted that von Trier is responding to critics claiming that cinema is dead and that there is nothing new or innovative about current films. The literal reading of this line of dialogue seems to show agreement with those critics, but I feel Dunst’s sarcasm and anger she delivers the line with speaks more to von Trier’s true intent. He believes that quite a few commercial films are substandard and aimed at minors, but he is using Melancholia in ways opposite to both these goals. His is a personal film aimed at a mature adult audience. Just as Jack’s pressuring of Justine for a tag line led nowhere, von Trier is saying that if critics continue to unendingly deride film for being dead, it will lead to nowhere as well.
In my opinion, the two most noticeable changes in film during the past decade has been the pace of the editing and the higher contrasts and saturation in the color of films. Both of these aspects are changes manufactured during the post-production of filmmaking. In this respect, there is nothing “new” in the actual structure or storytelling of a film. Instead, the pace of the edits is sped up, which can give the illusion of energy and action, even if the story is providing neither of these things. The high contrast color schemes and saturation of film is a result of how much of filmmaking is a digital process now, and it allows for directors to imbed scenes with a tone or feel merely with color.
While it may seem that these two evolutions of film offer nothing new, they do add something new to the language of film for modern audiences. It may be that films are being dumbed down for modern audiences, as the fast-paced editing is supposed to keep their attention and the color schemes instantly reveal the mood of a scene, leaving little room for ambiguity. These two characteristics of film are now widely understood by audiences. A pessimist would claim it shows how stale films have become. An optimist would claim that now that this new language of film has been firmly established, it can be used in new ways to challenge the expectations of the audience. While I am not sure how it can or will be used in a new fashion, I feel confident that as long as the language of film is evolving and changing, cinema is not dead. So even though I may have a different opinion from Thomas as to which technological advances are most important in the past decade of film, I fully agree that these tools can be used for good and for evil.
-PA
Though the opening of this film would not have seemed as futuristic and enhanced, such as during the realistic scenes of the plants moving towards each other and the very slow motion pace of the main characters running away from their fear of the approaching end of the world, I believe that the use of CGI and new “film” technology is unnecessary to produce a truly amazing film. I disagree that the dying of the classic film for the replacement of movies that use 3D and advanced computer technology has greatly improved the film going experience, but, instead, has actually lessened the movies of today.
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing the beginning scenes that lasted eight minutes, but seemed to last half an hour, Melancholia was just an ordinary film. It became very slow moving, especially in the first half of the wedding scene. I became bored after continuously watching Justine pretend to act happy in front of the crowd of people at her wedding reception, only to sneak away to look at Melancholia. During one particular scene, she drives away in a golf cart and stares up at the sky and through a telescope without saying anything. Maybe the audience was supposed to be imaging what she was thinking in that moment, but compared to the images of the realistic solar system I had just seen, this scene was too slow moving without enough pizzazz needed to capture the audience’s attention. This scene, on its own, would not have brought in an audience and would have created bad reviews for the film. I believe that lulls like this in the movie were overlooked by the critics only because of the use of advanced technology in the other parts of the movie.
I feel that the classic film era truly knew how to produce a captivating story. They did not have the technology to over dramatize the plot and instead kept it simple. Dialogue was continuous throughout the old films and every aspect of the story had an important meaning that gave significance to the rest of the film. Because of this, the storyline and acting were not overlooked by the visual appeal of the movie and were still the main attraction for people of all ages and backgrounds to go to the theater. I hope that one day other films realize the importance to not overdo the use of new technology and begin to revert back to the classic way of producing films.
-Summer Ceraolo-O'Donnell