Limitations can help filmmakers and GEORGE LUCAS is insane
Is it possible for someone to suddenly change? I mean, I know that as we age we mature and gain life experience. We learn from our mistakes and become better people by overcoming life’s adversities. It’s like dating really, you go through a few (or a lot of) failed relationships until you’re lucky enough to find the right one. Sometimes it’s worth going through the hardships – horrible as they are – to gain some sort of life experience. People change over time, there’s no doubt about it.
We aren’t talking about this kind of learned or aged change though. We’re talking about something abnormal, something possibly paranormal.
We’re talking about George Lucas.
The growth of a filmmaker is a lot like a human life in many ways. You learn about the craft the more that you participate. George Lucas doesn’t seem to follow this rule, in fact, he seems to be a Benjamin Button type figure when it comes to well known directors. Lucas was a determined, furiously independent young man. He sought funding from a big studio for Star Wars simply because he couldn’t get the money himself. George didn’t take no for an answer and he was constantly fighting against ‘the man’.
We received news this week that he is currently producing a CGI musical feature centering on faeries. Let that sink in.
To be fair, there’s nothing wrong with this. If that’s the avenue he wishes to take, then all the more power too him. Hearing this news did start to make me think though, have most of the big ‘Hollywood directors’ been possessed by some sort of CGI demon? George Lucas obviously is, James Cameron has all but given into it, Robert Zemeckis has been dating it for years and Steven Spielberg is teetering on the edge of falling in love with its sleek shiny surfaces. I’ll let you be the judge, but here’s my argument:
It’s almost redundant at this point, so I’ll only briefly talk about George Lucas. The first really troublesome signs that he’d given into this beast appeared throughout the re-releases of the original Star Wars trilogy (episodes 4 to 6). Here we were introduced to comic Jawas falling off beasts, large CGI lizards which walked directly in front of the camera, whole new musical numbers and a Sarlacc Pit that had a beak and tentacles…a beak, and tentacles.
The real horrors were yet to come though, as I’m sure you’re well aware. The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were films that needed a lot of effects, this is true. Unfortunately, Lucas had become completely obsessed with CGI at this point. Why build a set when you can create it digitally? Why not have the frame brimming with CGI distractions? Why not digitally put a baby into Ewan McGregor’s arms?
The answer to these questions is obvious, but not to Lucas. Almost everything in the prequels felt fake and light. It all looked like it came from a computer, despite the hard work put in from the folks at ILM (they’re a great company, but even they can be pushed over the top). In fear of sounding like every internet fanboy, the original trilogy had more weight to it.
There’s something about having a physical object caught on camera that I don’t believe CGI will ever replace. The budget and physical restrictions that were placed on Lucas back in the 70s and 80s were obviously a blessing in disguise. There is such a thing as having too much control, most artists would like to slave over every detail in their work, but sometimes it helps to have your creation taken away before you unwillingly kill it. As Georgie boy himself says in the Making of The Phantom Menace.
“You can do it, you can destroy these things, you know.”
Lucas isn’t the only one to fall victim to this trend. Although I am a fan of Avatar, the CGI demon has been slowly coaxing James Cameron for years now. Taking him out for expensive dinners, giving him lifts to work, paying for his movie tickets and ‘accidently’ laying it’s hand across his crotch. Unfortunately, he’s starting to fall for it. Take this quote for example, from a recent issue of Newsweek:
“ If I did Titanic today, I’d do it very differently. There wouldn’t be a 750-foot-long set. There would be small set pieces integrated into a large CGI set. I wouldn’t have to wait seven days to get the perfect sunset for the kiss scene. We’d shoot it in front of a green screen, and we’d choose our sunset.”
I realize that CGI is one of the biggest changes we’ve had in filmmaking since it existed, especially in terms of effects (I’d wager it’s caused a bigger change to cinema than 3D ever will, but that’s a different story). Building partial sets makes sense a lot of the time, but when does this tool stop helping the directors vision and start hindering it? I don’t know about you, but there’s something to be said about the ‘magic’ of capturing something on film. A CGI sunset will always be just that, computer generated. If it’s going to be the set piece of a sequence, why not spend the time capturing something that’s real and beautiful? I’m glad they did it for Titanic.
Perhaps the worst example of Cameron’s love affair with the demon is a comment he makes on the commentary for Terminator 2. During the scene where Arnold exposes the metal skeleton of his arm, Cameron comments that if he were to do the scene today he’d use CGI.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with how the arm looks, even by today’s standards. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that a CGI arm would look slightly out of place and, most likely, move around way too much. It’s comments like these that make me slightly worry about Old Jim, thankfully he still seems to have control over where to put all of his CGI. Say what you will about Avatar, but it was directed and framed pretty beautifully.
So what can we gather from this little discussion? Is it too late for some of our favourite filmmakers? I’m not sure*, but I think it’s safe to say that limitations can – at times – help directors. Take Duncan Jones’ Moon for example, which was reportedly made for 5 million dollars and thus, was forced to use the techniques and tricks of Sci-Fi from the 70s, 80s and 90s…and wouldn’t you know it? It looked amazing, much better in fact, than any of the Star Wars prequels.
Creative freedom is something every artist aspires to have. Unfortunately more often than not, if they’re successful in their endeavors, then their work starts to suffer. It’s a trend we see a lot.
- The young angry artist who wants to get his vision out to the world and who’ll fight the suits in charge to make it happen.
- The middle aged artist who creates work that is starting to become repetitious, there’s hints of former greatness, but they’re diminishing.
- The elder artist who has now turned to his previous work as it’s all he has to stand on. He re-releases his films and inserts new scenes, promising that they’ll make the film better. He even puts a beak and tentacles into the Sarlacc Pitt.
It’s easy to rip on CGI, and I hope that I’m not coming across like that. After all, it gave us the beautiful and haunting images of fully mobile Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, it made us feel empathy and anger at Gollum in The Lord of the Rings films. However as a wise man once said, with great power comes great responsibility. Please, wield it well Cameron and co. Wield it well.
I’ll leave you with this comic from an artist friend of mine; Christian White
Please leave your thoughts in the comments below.
* Except in the case of George Lucas.
