-
How did you find the essay assignment?
(For example, was it useful, challenging, difficult or rewarding? Please write a couple of sentences below about the experience?)
It was definitely challenge for me. A bit difficult but on the other hand interesting and giving me an experience researching and find a different points of view about VFX influence in the cinematography in last 20 years. I am really interested in cinema of attraction “rebirth” and also how the VFX chance the cinematography like actors playing for instance. And of the way audience react and accept VFX in the movies.
2. Let’s start to think about your next essay question. Do you have an idea what that might be yet?
(What part of the first essay did you find most interesting – can you expand that into a question for the second assignment?)
I thing about VFX or /cinema of attraction in progress/ like evolution – for instance in actor playing - Tom Hanks in Forest Gump – he is acting in front of the camera, in Polar Express he “is” animated character and in the Toy story – just a voice. On the other hand, how the audience accept or refuse VFX characters mostly.
Actors playing on blue screen and actually audience watch digital characters not real one. There is no contact actor – audience. Or there is?
Does the attraction is sufficient?! What s is the future of cinematography?!
100 % CG movies with no human actors in or back to acting?!
Does the VFX should be use just to create environment or machines or fantastic beast, or create a human characters also!?
3.Please write below a question for your next assignment (it can be rough at this stage)
Realism in Visual effects /VS reality/ ?!?!
The dynamic of visual effects?!?!
Visual effects and actors and the way of movie making
Realisti
How the visual effects impact the actor playing
The compositing lecture /week 11/ - creating entire cities from scratch - star wars - resurrecting the persons The language of new media - Manovich
______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
4. After feedback from the group – please rewrite the question below.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
How has Visual Effects impact film Narrative?
Introduction
People often comment they did not like the film because it was “all effects and no story”.
Computer-generated effects are often blamed for bad Hollywood movies. On the other hand, the audience is existed of visual “fists” in some movies.
What is the narrative?
What the visual effects actually are, attraction or part of the story?!
Doe`s the visual effects make film worst or better?
Does all attention is focused on the visual effects but not the story?!
Does the computer effects impact narrative?
How have visual Effects impacted film narrative?
Storytelling
People have been telling stories from the dawn of humanity… In the caves near the fire the first men telling the story about the beast outside, about the stars and sounds of the night. Human imagination starts drawing fantasies of the world outside the cave. That’s the way the first myths and legends are created.
In the ancient Greece, the legends and stories are turned into a spectacle with the birth of theatre. Theatre was a please to tell a story to VIEWERS. Peoples come into the theatre not only to listen but to do WATCH the play.
What is story craft, what is the good storytelling?! The most enduring treatise on story craft is Aristotle’s Poetics. He states: “Now, according to our definition Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude; for there may be a whole that is wanting in magnitude. A whole is that which has a beginning, a middle, and an end.” [1] “Beginning, middle, and end” became a fundamental framework for story craft and storytelling in the filmmaking. Aristotle also defines six parts /of Tragedy/ of the story:
“Every Tragedy, therefore, must have six parts, which parts determine its quality- namely, Plot, Character, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Song”. [1]
Attraction
Centuries after the birth of Greek theatre another theatre was born. In the end of 19-century moving pictures magic start conquer the world. And the word will never be the same. The first films are images of fantasy and exoticism. Movies like “Boxing Cats” - Thomas Edison (1894) or Melies Illusionist (1899). The early stages of film production are known like “cinema of attractions”. [2]
“I use the term to refer to an approach to spectatorship that I felt dominated early cinema from the novelty period until the dominance of longer narrative films, around 1906-07.” - Gunning says – “I never claimed that attractions were the only aspect of early cinema, although I claim they do dominate the period”. [3] /p. 36/
A Trip to the Moon (1902) is one of the earliest cinematic imagery of man’s flight into outer space and probably the first film based on the work of a science fiction author.
After 1910, film theorists observed a decisive shift towards theatrical storytelling. Film narratives are based on theatre and literature works. As Gunning says: “In fact, the cinema of attractions does not disappear with the dominance of narrative, but rather goes underground, both into certain avantgarde practices and as a component of narrative films, more evident in some genres (e.g. the musical) than in others. [3] /p. 20/
Obviously, since the very beginning of cinema can talk about “two waves” in the movie making – visual spectacle and the narrative structure.
Steel about storytelling
Sixty years after “Trip to the moon” Yuri Gagarin did the first journey into outer space on 12 April 1961. Humanity turns eyes to space. Unknown is just a step away but still undiscovered and full of mystery. The audience needs stories about the stars and the world beyond.
And it happens in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) directed by Stanley Kubrick. "The picture that science fiction fans of every age and in every corner of the world have prayed (sometimes forlornly) that the industry might someday give them. It is an ultimate statement of the science fiction film, an awesome realization of the spatial future ... it is a milestone, a landmark for a spacemark, in the art of film." [4]
Ten years later in 1977 George Lucas “Star Wars” reveals fantastic worlds “far, far away”.
“There is a bigger mysterious world in space that is more interesting than anything around here. We`ve just began to take the first step and can say “Look! It goes on for zillion miles out there! You can go anywhere and land any planet” [5]
There is no way back. It is time visual effects to be born.
What the visual effects are
The difference between visual effects and special effects is that special effects are carried out on set during production. They are captured by the camera. Visual effects are postproduction. They are added to final vision after and outside the content of a live action shot.
In the beginning, CGI was typically used mostly in genres such as science fiction to give the illusion of imaginary reality to become real. Like getting into computer programs world like in the “Tron”. “Tron” /1982/ is first of the movies where the computer graphics are the main component of the movie. Many blamed computer graphics for the failure of Tron /at the box office/.
“Richard Tailor, one of the CG team members involved with Tron, observes that: “if a film does not grab you by the heart, it does not matter technically how it looks. In the end, a film is in the story…and the density of visuals in the film or the look of the film doesn’t guarantee success at all.” Abel who’s also contributed to the film says: the bottom line of Tron, I think that all we learned - is the story and the involvement with the characters that really makes or breaks the movie” [6]
It`s all about the storytelling
“A feather floats through the air. The falling feather.
A city, Savannah, is revealed in the background. The feather
floats down toward the city below. The feather drops down
toward the street below, as people walk past and cars drive
by, and nearly lands on a man's shoulder.”
– this is the opening scene of Forest Gump movie (1994). One of the vivid examples of narrative and visual effects in perfect symbiosis. In the movie, Tom Hanks as Forest Gump met President Kennedy, Elvis and getting involved with a lot of popular people and events happened recently in the past. Really strong narrative /plot/ brilliant character /Tom Hanks as Forest Gump/ a lot of “invisible” visual effects. A classical example of how the visual effects can support narrative without being “most visible part of the movie.
At last moviemakers have no limitations to do amazing shots and merged together narrative and visuals filmmaking. With tools of 3D Animation, compositing, virtual camera, motion capture moviemakers can rich the borders and go far away further – actually, there are no borders anymore. From details like CGI tear till to epic battle scenes in Lord of the rings visual effects are useful tool supporting the narrative. To lead audience into the realm of wonder,
Between storytelling and attraction.
And here they come - James Cameron, Peter Jackson and their worlds of wonder. They abandoned the cinema of permanent spectacular, of all attraction, in order to find the attachment to the narrative and the characters.
For the first time in the ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring’ (2001) is used motion-capture to create a complete CGI character - Gollum. The actor /Andy Serkis/ play all movements and mimics of SCI character weard in special suit which captures every movement and then that was transferred to Gollum 3D model. All these fantastic beasts and words /mountains and caves/ are a perfect example of how visual effects can support narrative – being part of the narrative and being attraction also. And in the bottom is Tolkien’s story/plot/. Visuals are pledged in the story. Characters are so visual- seems like Tolkien’s story for good and evil, honor and betrayal, love and friendship is written just to be recreated in movie visual effects.
James Cameron`s world of Pandora in Avatar (2009) is an amazing virtual reality, a “visual fist”. He was able to create this amazing word because of the technology and development of the CGI. But Avatar is successful not only because of the computer graphics but the classic narrative also /plot and strong characters/ It is kind of Romeo and Juliet love story in the colorful and amazing Pandora`s world. Still… with amazing visual effects and deeply “human” fillings and passions, the word of Pandora is believable and acceptable for the audience.
It looks like visual effects achieve everything that the visual effects can do and do a lot more.
There are no limitations anymore.
It`s all about… attraction
"People say 'It's all about the story. When you're making tentpole films, bullshit. The story isn't very good, but visual spectacle brought people in droves."[7] This is kind of exhibitionism. Naked attraction. In the traditions of “fighting cats” cinema of attraction. There are a lot of films where “story” is created “around” special effects. Spectacles created for itself. A huge example of this is the ‘Transformers’ trilogy (2007 – 2011) which has an obvious high use of CGI. There is a huge lack of narrative, and the second installment (Revenge of the Fallen (2009) has been known as the worst of the three for storytelling, as pretty much nothing happens except explosions and action.
Why story so important in a film, why is so important that visual effects do not substitute the story!? Can’t we just have a colossal amount of visual effects /explosions, beasts and characters/ and accept it for what it is?
The story gives a life of the film. Trough story audience is connected to the character, fells what character feel, cry or laugh together, experiencing emotions. The good stories touch audience souls, explored audience feelings. That’s why is a fight between car-robots in Transformers is just “noise and action” – it doesn’t touch audience feelings. It`s just a “fighting cats”. Fight between two CGI characters is attractive but nothing more. CGI s a – beautiful and impressive but empty shells. And that’s why the CGI are blamed for the destruction of narrative – but they should not. If there is a story or plot than the CGI characters or CGI environment will be live – and ll help to narrative and story.
That’s happened in the “Hobbit” – scene with dragon slayer – a father fighting for his and his sons live against the /CGI/ dragon. Nobody thing about the SCI at this moment - audience, holding breath watching what will HAPPEN in this battle of life and death and there is no SGI anymore, there is a man against a dragon. That’s the way that the visual effects are part of the narrative and they not only help but do the story.
Conclusion
Visual effects are a new era in moviemaking. Cinema is attraction also, not only storytelling. Visual effects are the tool for moviemakers to combine both. If there is a story in the script, then the visual effects are the powerful and useful tool to do not only support and make the story spectacular but to be part of the story to DO story. Both narrative end visual effects can create magical worlds of art, trickery, magic, and craft can swirl together and form a world that everyone wants to enter /Forest Gump, Lord of the ring, Avatar/. And the visual effects are the magic that will make this journey really fabulous.
On the other hand, movies are visual stories – visual storytelling. Creating worlds of wonder in the movies is spectacular and amazing suspense for the audience. There are no boundaries for imagination that cannot be reached by visual effects.
What the visual effects actually are, attraction or part of the story?!
Both – visual effects are an attraction, but also they are PART OF THE STORY.
Doe`s the visual effects make film worst or better?
NO, visual effects don’t make film worst. The core of the movie is storytelling – if there is no story, then the visual effects are just visual effects – empty shells.
YES, visual effects make the film better – if there is a story, narrative - then there are no visual effects in the movie. There are dragons, Balrogs, elves, dwarfs etc. Visual effects make the environment of the movie more organic and real.
Does all attention is focused on the Visual effects but not the story?!
YES, and NO – No when the story is interesting and exciting /dragon slayer against dragon – LOTR/ the visual effects are “invisible”. If there is no story at all or the “story” is created “around”, based on special effects then YES, the special effects are in the focus of attention.
Does the computer effects impact narrative?
YES - visual effects do impact the narrative if there is narrative – if there is a story and balance between storytelling and SGI are part of the story then the story became more fabulous, more wonderful.
How has Visual Effects impacted film Narrative?
Digital effects fundamentally changed a filmmaking process – they also changed our perception for cinema. Movies became more and more realistic, reached more and more fantastic world, they even present us ideas for the future, we can rich heights that are never reached before. Because of the visual effects long after the movie is finished you can still go back to Middle-earth or to Pandora or any world of wonder. Lots of stories are possible because of visual effects /Avatar/ narrative became more vivid, more real, more visual. Visual effects support narrative and they are part of the story.
1. Aristotle, “Poetics” /part VII/, S.H. Butcher’s translation
2. Gunning, Tom. “The Cinema of Attraction: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde.” Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative. Ed. Thomas Elsaesser and Adam Barker. London: BFI, 1989. PDF file.
3. The cinema of attractions reloaded – Wanda Strauven - Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam 2006
4. Chaplin, Charles. Review of 2001 reprinted from Los Angeles Times in Jerome Agel's The Making of Kubrick's 2001, Signet Books, 1970.
5. George Lucas quoted in an interview with Stephen Zito that appeared in American Film, edited by Hollis Alpert in April 1977.
6. Mac Clean, Shilo T. Digital Storytelling: The narrative power of visual effects in film
2007 MIT press. PDF file
7. Andy Hendrickson – Walt Disney Animation Studios chief technical officer, talking about his own studio's ‘Alice in Wonderland’ (2010)
Master of puppets
Presentation
Ancient Greek - Masks
The origins of theatre are to be found in Athens /ancient Greece/, circa 600 BC, in the festivals that honored Dionysus. But theatre as we know it began to take form around 400 BC.
Ancient Greek theatre was more or less a static performance. There wasn’t acting but mostly talking and singing on the scene. The actors /always men/ wore masks and costumes to express their feeling and emotions for the audience. Main reason for that was really huge auditoria where the performance happened. The arenas were amphitheatrically buildings with sits for ten to fifteen thousand people. Using this big masks with over-expressed facial features and expressions was the only way for auditory to see the characters on the scene just because of the huge spaces.
Masks also enabled each one of the actors to play several characters because audience can see and identify the character /mask/ but not the actor himself. During the centuries theatre evaluate and artist start acting without mask using only simple make up and costumes. Stanislavski determinate principals of acting, principles of “naturalism” in theatre and later in filmmaking as well. But my point here is in the very beginning of the theatre the audience doesn’t see the actor’s faces but masks /like symbol or sign for the character/. With the word - actors in the ancient Greece theatre are invisible. Audience can see only character they representing. Invisibility of the actors continue or rather have a traditions in
Puppetry
Puppetry is a very ancient art form, thought to have originated about 3000 years ago.[1] Hieroglyphs describe "walking statues" being used in ancient Egyptian religious dramas.[1] Puppetry was practiced in ancient Greece and the written records of puppetry can be found in the works of Herodotus, dating from the 5th century BC.
In Midlle Ages, puppets were also popular. Puppets were mostly used to act out morality plays, acting in ways that would “never have been acceptable for humans to behave”.
On his essay "On the Marionette Theatre" Heinrich von Kleist praised puppets “as being less self-conscious than humans, and therefore would always be the better choice. There was the argument made, that while the human actor imitates the emotion, the puppet, by virtue its unchanging nature, always expresses that key emotion.” [2] The most complete definition of puppetry is the one in Wikipedia:
Puppetry is a form of theatre or performance that involves the manipulation of puppets – inanimate objects, /resembling some type of human or animal figure/, that are animated or manipulated by a human called a puppeteer. Such a performance is also known as a puppet play. The puppeteer uses movements of her hands, arms, or control devices such as rods or strings to move the body, head, limbs, and in some cases the mouth and eyes of the puppet. The puppeteer often speaks in the voice of the character of the puppet, and then synchronizes the movements of the puppet's mouth with this spoken part. The actions, gestures and spoken parts acted out by the puppets are typically used in storytelling. [3]
But here, same like ancient Greek theatre the actor is hidden behind the puppet and actually actor lead the doll and with the methods of this kind of art try to “attach” him behaviour and emotions to the doll. One more invisible acting.
Rotoscoping
In the beginning of the 20th century Max Fleischer invents the rotoscope. Rotoscoping is an animation technique in which originally, recorded live-action film images are projected onto a glass panel and re-drawn by an animator. This projection equipment developed by animator Max Fleischer in 1915. The new technic was used by What Disney for the “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (1937) movie. To get convincing motion for the human characters Disney studios traced animation over film footage of live actors playing out the scenes. Movements of Snow White herself were acted out by actress - a high school student Marjorie Belcher. In another movie - Alice in Wonderland, Disney goes further – they were filming entire performances with dialogue. They rotoscope not only the full actor’s body movement, but also their faces and mouth. There are a lot of examples of rotoscoping sins 1915 till present days like Alfred Hitchcock`s film “The Birds” (1963). In Star Wars /1977/ one of the biggest attraction – lightsabers are just a “rotoscoped sticks”. In the last century rotoscoping is may be most useful technique for moviemakers. Referred to actors - again it’s a kind of “hidden acting” – audience doesn’t see the actor himself but seeing only animated character and the result is amazing.
On the other hand rotoscoping gives an opportunity to filmmakers and actor to do playing with imaginary partners or environment. They are invisible in the movie – literally behind the scene like in the movies like “Toy story” or “Polar express”, but also there are no more limitation of using imagination and creativity.
“In the late 1970's, when it began to be feasible to animate characters by computer, animators adapted traditional techniques, including rotoscoping. At the New York Institute of Technology Computer Graphics Lab, Rebecca Allen used a half-silvered mirror to superimpose videotapes of real dancers onto the computer screen to pose a computer generated dancer for Twyla Tharp's "The Catherine Wheel." The computer used these poses as keys for generating a smooth animation. Rotoscoping is by no means an automatic process, and the complexity of human motion required for "The Catherine Wheel," necessitated the setting of keys every few frames. As such, rotoscoping can be thought of as a primitive form or precursor to motion capture, where the motion is "captured" painstakingly by hand.
In 1983 Ginsberg and Maxwell at MIT, presented the Graphical Marionette, a system for "scripting-by-enactment"—one scripts an animation by enacting the motions. The system used an early optical motion capture systems called Op-Eye that relied on sequenced LEDs. They wired a body suit with the LEDs on the joints and other anatomical landmarks. Two cameras with special photo detectors returned the 2-D position of each LED in their fields of view. The computer then used the position information from the two cameras to obtain a 3-D world coordinate for each LED. The system used this information to drive a stick figure for immediate feedback, and stored the sequence of points for later rendering of a more detailed character.” [4]
Motion capture
Also known as performance-capture, “mo-cap” /for short/ is a technology used to transfer movements of an actor to animated /3D/ object. In the early techniques multiple set of cameras captured the movements of actor from different angles to calculate 3D positions. This animation data is mapped to a 3D model so that the model literally repeat the same actions as the actor. Facial expressions, costumes and other details are added later by animators in post-production. The technology became really popular with the second “Lord Of The Rings” film (2002), in which Andy Serkis play Gollum and gives a life to animated creature. Virtual character physically interacted with other characters /actors/. It was a slow process. First Serkis work with the actors on set, then another take is filmed with him just off-screen (during which he’d describe his motions to the other actors) and after he play Gollum’s movements on a special stage at Jackson’s visual-effects company. The basics of the technology is almost remains the same: an actor wears a series of sensors around their bodies. Multiple cameras are placed around the performer, which allows a computer “to capture” movements end export them to animation software to be attached to 3D model.
Rings star Serkis, in motion-capture unitard (left); at right, the final on-screen result.
Andy Serkis is mostly popular from his motion capture performances. He explained:
"When we finished Lord of the Rings, I just thought, 'I'm gonna go back to my career as a normal actor. Doing stage, and film and TV. And then Peter Jackson said, 'You wanna play King Kong?' And I thought, 'Man, I'm going to go from a 3 ½ foot ring junkie to a 25 foot gorilla.' This is the end of typecasting as we know it. This is it! You can play anything. Anyone can play anything." [5]
Andy Serkis is typical example for invisible acting but as he pointed while appearing on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," he has more freedom than ever now with the acting jobs he takes. Thanks to this particular brand of post-production movie magic, the sky's the limit!
Serkis had always been seen as a pioneer in the form, but playing Caesar in the 2011’s “Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes” reboot was something quite different: he was the lead character in a live-action movie, and with the sensors more impressive than ever, Serkis won rave reviews for his turn as the super-intelligent chimpanzee. That’s only become more true with Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (which also leaps forward by enabling dozens of mo-cap actors to perform in real life, outdoor daylight locations, which would have been unthinkable only a few years ago). Serkis is the only major cast member to return from the first film, and has carried much of the publicity for the film on his shoulders. Even if you on’t know his face, there’s little doubt that he’s become the very first motion-capture superstar.
Yet another interesting fact is the advice Andy Serkis gave Cumberbatch on playing Smaug (“Hobbit, desolation of the Smaug” - 2013)
“I said, ‘Treat it like you’re playing the role. Don’t think you’re just providing the voice. Go in there physically. Get what you can out of it. There will be head turns. There will be moments from that performance that you give that can be pulled out and extrapolated and will become part of Smaug’s being.” [6]
Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug
Next technology innovation is in the “Avatar” (2009). Actors here wore a “helmets” that had cameras in front of the actor's faces and had also dots painted onto their faces. The camera captured every facial change, every lips and eye movements. Literally “mirroring” the mimics of the faces. Now the actors are able to interact with each other, not just interact with imaginary partners. One more important innovation was first used on "Avatar." A virtual camera with a monitor allowed James Cameron to view the actors' as their computer-generated characters along with the CG setting in real-time while the performances were happening. Limit is …the sky.
The first feature film to be shot entirely in Performance Capture Motion is Robert Zemeckis's "The Polar Express" (2004). Оne curious fact for the film is that Tom Hanks plays five characters, as the Hero Boy (motion-capture only), the Hero Boy's father, the Conductor, the Hobo, Santa Claus, and the Narrator.
“Because of the sensors, Hanks says, everything you do registers so you cannot afford to make a mistake. On the other hand, having the momentum of shooting for 10 or 15 minutes at a time and getting it all like one continuous moment, one fell swoop, is as free as I’ve felt as an actor. It was like being in theater again. If we could imagine it, we had it.” [7]
Blessing and the curst of motion capture technology is that actor don’t wear a customs in classical meaning of the custom in the movies. Also make up is ..not exactly make up. That means for instance Tom Hanks like conductor – have to imagine all the time he has wore uniform and glasses and have to keep this in mind all the time. It is the same with the environment – the actor need to imagine all the time in the virtual set where is the door or window or the tree or whatever just to do the right acting and behaviour. Motion capture technology requires actors of extraordinary depth and skill. One of the characters Tom Hanks playing in the “Polar express” is the main character an 8-year-old boy. Its just a matter of operating scale and proportions – available because of the new technology but also it is a matter of actor skills. And again freedom of acting /behind the scenes/ allowed Tom Hanks to play 8 years old boy. In the classical meaning of acting this is absolutely impossible.
MASTER OF PUPPETS*
As we can see during all the history of acting theatre was acting “behind masks, or dolls or behind scene, that gives actors ability and freedom /more or less/ to express specific face of the character. There is something very similar in puppetry and motion capture. Goal is the puppeteer to rule the doll. With motion capture ability to copy human emotion there really no more limits in acting, as Serkis said “anyone can play anything”. At last puppet obtain a soul. More or less puppet and puppeteer became one whole, And this is just the beginning – its just a matter of time all of us to be able “to play anything” in virtual reality. Eny one of us will have freedom to do acting without the distractions of a regular bustling movie set. In some ways, it will be acting in its purest form – just the character, words and endless worlds of imagination. Anyone will be master and puppet in the same time.
*I borrow the title from rock band Metallica from the album “Master of puppets” (1985)
Ref:
1.Blumenthal, Eileen, 2005, Puppetry and Puppets, Thames & Hudson
2. Heinrich von Kleist and Thomas G. Neumiller, On the Marionette Theatre, Source: The Drama Review: TDR, Vol. 16, No. 3, The "Puppet" Issue (Sep., 1972), pp. 22-26, Published by: The MIT Press
3.Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppetry#cite_note-:0-13
4.David J. Sturman , A Brief History of Motion Capture for Computer Character Animation, , MEDIALAB, Paris France
5.Kirsten Acuna, Business insider, Oct. 22, 2014, 2:47 PM
6.Adam Holmes, CinemaBlend, Jul. 13, 2017, 9:51 AM
7.From Polar Express Production Notes, Warner Brothers Studios, http://motion-capture-system.com/resources/Documents/History%20polar%20express.htm