Cotton Candy and the Art of Adaptation
Last night, as I lay on my couch recovering from an awful day of something that may have been food poisoning or a 24-hour virus (either way, I wont be venturing into the Outback steakhouse on West 86th street anymore), I happened to catch the movie Legend on one of my various movie channels . . . Something about it instantly caught my eye, and it wasn't a skinny, young, pre-Scientology Tom Cruise in a scraggly wig, either. It was what filled the screen.
In its day, of course, Legend was a big special effects bonanza fantasy film, but having seen several big special effects bonanza fantasy films in the last few weeks - which I'll get to presently - I instantly registered the main difference. Just about everything I was looking at - barring the odd optical effect - was real. It was the result of actually photographing things in physical existence; real Tom Cruise and Mia Sara, real dwarves (or midgets, or little people, or what have you) in heavy goblin makeup, real soundstages, real horses with horns glued onto them to make them look like unicorns. The overall effect may have been somewhat clumsier in certain aspects than in the post-CG world where you can conjure anything out of 1s and 0s, but it was somehow more satisfying. It was like being given a nice, hot baked potato after having nothing but cotton candy to eat for weeks.
It made me reflect on everything I'd just seen in the last few weeks - which have been busy moviegoing weeks for me, comparatively speaking. For the first, a complete contrast from an entirely-photographed world:
Robert Zemeckis' All-CG 3D Beowulf
I enjoyed this film much, much more than I expected to. Well, actually, I expected to hate it, so anything on the other side of neutral would have been an improvement, but I actually came out thinking it was pretty good. There were certain story threads that I wish had been explored in much greater depth, but on the whole I thought the script was a literate and smart adaptation of the original epic poem - which is one of my favorite works of literature in any language.
(Literary side note: This movie would, of course, never have been made if it were not for the success of The Lord of the Rings films. But The Lord of the Rings itself was originally inspired by Tolkien's love of Beowulf and other ancient works of the British isles and Scandanavian/Germanic mythology. So in a sense the literary tail is wagging the cinematic dog.)
Believe it or not, some of my favorite moments in this film were actually quieter acting moments . . . which is interesting, considering that the "acting" going on is a hybrid of actors' voices and one of the most thorough attempts yet made to create photorealistic motion capture CG characters. (That's probably why this ended up with a PG-13, despite the extremes . . . nobody's really naked or getting their limbs hacked off; it's technically animation. Actually, Angelina Jolie's avatar's "nude" scene reminded me of a certain scene from Goldfinger.) But some really interesting and nuanced performances come through, despite the general waxiness (still present even though the illusion of reality is sometimes very strong) of the CG simulacra of the actors.
By contrast, I found the action sequences a little chaotic and literally dizzying. Part of that is undoubtedly the sometimes-disorienting 3D effect. (Sit as close to the center of the theatre as possible. Viewing the 3D screen at an angle - especially such a big one - causes considerable "ghosting.") Part of it is just hyperactive editing. (I liked Roger Ebert's comment: "To call this movie over the top is assuming that we can see the top from here.")
At any rate, this movie is absolutely worth seeing in IMAX 3D. This will lose a lot on home video, I guarantee. Get out and see it.
(Note: I hated the design of Grendel. I thought he looked like a zombie Muppet. But Crispin Glover's characterization of him is nonetheless compelling - he is one of the only characters who actually speaks Old English in the film.)
At any rate, this movie is at the very least a fascinating experiment in the possibilities of this still-evolving medium. I'm still not sure I see the point of the mo-cap exercise, though, especially with such A-list talent as Beowulf sports. It's an interesting little trompe l'oeil when it works, but as soon as the characters start moving, the illusion is broken. The human eye is so quick to catch movement in human figures that isn't realistic. That said, the technology has come a long way since The Polar Express.
Also, I found the overall look of the film more absorbing than 300, in which live actors are surrounded by a completely digital environment. I thought that world looked rather flat and hollow . . . so maybe there's something to be said for CG characters in CG environments in terms of the unity of the piece. Or maybe it's just design differences, since 300 was designed to resemble a 2D comic book.
By the way, if you're interested in seeing a live action treatment of this story, there's a movie called Beowulf and Grendel that was made a couple of years ago. It's pretty low-budget, but it was filmed entirely on location in the weird and haunting landscapes of Iceland, and stars Gerard Butler (aka hunky Scotsman from 300), Stellan Skarsgaard, and Sarah Polley.
I was going to follow this with commentary on Enchanted and The Golden Compass (yes, I saw a sneak preview on Saturday!), but I'm tired now (still recovering today) and I don't feel like continuing to strain my eyes on a computer screen. So those thoughts will follow.
In its day, of course, Legend was a big special effects bonanza fantasy film, but having seen several big special effects bonanza fantasy films in the last few weeks - which I'll get to presently - I instantly registered the main difference. Just about everything I was looking at - barring the odd optical effect - was real. It was the result of actually photographing things in physical existence; real Tom Cruise and Mia Sara, real dwarves (or midgets, or little people, or what have you) in heavy goblin makeup, real soundstages, real horses with horns glued onto them to make them look like unicorns. The overall effect may have been somewhat clumsier in certain aspects than in the post-CG world where you can conjure anything out of 1s and 0s, but it was somehow more satisfying. It was like being given a nice, hot baked potato after having nothing but cotton candy to eat for weeks.
It made me reflect on everything I'd just seen in the last few weeks - which have been busy moviegoing weeks for me, comparatively speaking. For the first, a complete contrast from an entirely-photographed world:
Robert Zemeckis' All-CG 3D Beowulf
I enjoyed this film much, much more than I expected to. Well, actually, I expected to hate it, so anything on the other side of neutral would have been an improvement, but I actually came out thinking it was pretty good. There were certain story threads that I wish had been explored in much greater depth, but on the whole I thought the script was a literate and smart adaptation of the original epic poem - which is one of my favorite works of literature in any language.
(Literary side note: This movie would, of course, never have been made if it were not for the success of The Lord of the Rings films. But The Lord of the Rings itself was originally inspired by Tolkien's love of Beowulf and other ancient works of the British isles and Scandanavian/Germanic mythology. So in a sense the literary tail is wagging the cinematic dog.)
Believe it or not, some of my favorite moments in this film were actually quieter acting moments . . . which is interesting, considering that the "acting" going on is a hybrid of actors' voices and one of the most thorough attempts yet made to create photorealistic motion capture CG characters. (That's probably why this ended up with a PG-13, despite the extremes . . . nobody's really naked or getting their limbs hacked off; it's technically animation. Actually, Angelina Jolie's avatar's "nude" scene reminded me of a certain scene from Goldfinger.) But some really interesting and nuanced performances come through, despite the general waxiness (still present even though the illusion of reality is sometimes very strong) of the CG simulacra of the actors.
By contrast, I found the action sequences a little chaotic and literally dizzying. Part of that is undoubtedly the sometimes-disorienting 3D effect. (Sit as close to the center of the theatre as possible. Viewing the 3D screen at an angle - especially such a big one - causes considerable "ghosting.") Part of it is just hyperactive editing. (I liked Roger Ebert's comment: "To call this movie over the top is assuming that we can see the top from here.")
At any rate, this movie is absolutely worth seeing in IMAX 3D. This will lose a lot on home video, I guarantee. Get out and see it.
(Note: I hated the design of Grendel. I thought he looked like a zombie Muppet. But Crispin Glover's characterization of him is nonetheless compelling - he is one of the only characters who actually speaks Old English in the film.)
At any rate, this movie is at the very least a fascinating experiment in the possibilities of this still-evolving medium. I'm still not sure I see the point of the mo-cap exercise, though, especially with such A-list talent as Beowulf sports. It's an interesting little trompe l'oeil when it works, but as soon as the characters start moving, the illusion is broken. The human eye is so quick to catch movement in human figures that isn't realistic. That said, the technology has come a long way since The Polar Express.
Also, I found the overall look of the film more absorbing than 300, in which live actors are surrounded by a completely digital environment. I thought that world looked rather flat and hollow . . . so maybe there's something to be said for CG characters in CG environments in terms of the unity of the piece. Or maybe it's just design differences, since 300 was designed to resemble a 2D comic book.
By the way, if you're interested in seeing a live action treatment of this story, there's a movie called Beowulf and Grendel that was made a couple of years ago. It's pretty low-budget, but it was filmed entirely on location in the weird and haunting landscapes of Iceland, and stars Gerard Butler (aka hunky Scotsman from 300), Stellan Skarsgaard, and Sarah Polley.
I was going to follow this with commentary on Enchanted and The Golden Compass (yes, I saw a sneak preview on Saturday!), but I'm tired now (still recovering today) and I don't feel like continuing to strain my eyes on a computer screen. So those thoughts will follow.