FORMAL FILM STUDY: Progression of Speical Effects Through the Years

My second Formal Film Study consists of 3 films that showcase the use of special effects through the years. The first is the oldest of the three; Alien was filmed in 1979, and directed by Ridley Scott. The second is The Matrix, filmed in 1999, and directed by the Wachowski Brothers. And lastly I chose a newer movie, Avatar, made in 2009 and directed by James Cameron.

I chose to do my film study on these three films because I have always thought special effects were really cool, and going more in depth on movies that highlight this sounded interesting to me. I also wanted to see how special effects progressed throughout its recent history, by comparing 3 films each from different time periods. Each has obvious differences, but they all have interesting similarities as well.

The first movie of my study was Alien, which was filmed in 1979 and directed by Ridley Scott. I knew this movie was pretty well regarded for its special effects at the time, so I thought watching it would provide me with a good starting point for my film study. The plot of the movie follows Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver, the warrant officer on a spaceship that is returning to earth. On their way back, they receive a transmission from a derelict alien spacecraft, and go to investigate what exactly it is. The exploration turns bad when they discover a large chamber room filled with eggs, and a creature attacks one of the crewmembers. Unbeknownst to the crewmembers, the creature finds its way back on the ship with them. The alien grows into an enormous killing monster, and kills off the crew one by one, until only Ripley is left. She has to figure out a way to survive and escape the ship, while stranded in the middle of space.

The second movie of my study was The Matrix, filmed in 1999 and directed by the Wachowski Brothers. After seeing a few scenes from this in class, I knew it would fit perfectly into my formal film study and I decided I would watch it. The plot follows Thomas Anderson, played by Keanu Reaves, a computer hacker who goes by the codename “Neo”. He is visited by Trinity who tells him that a man named Morpheus can tell him about something called “The Matrix”. When he finally does meet Morpheus, he gives Neo two options, to continue living normally, or to see what the Matrix actually is. He wakes up to find that his entire universe was fake, that machines actually control everything about his life and humans are not living free lives. Neo and the crew of men on his ship make it their duty to find Zion, the humans refuge in the real world, while fighting off machines in the real world and agent Smiths in the Matrix. Neo gains incredible control over his abilities in the matrix, and defeats Mr. Smith in the end.

The last movie in my study was Avatar, which was filmed in 2009 and directed by James Cameron. I wanted to study this movie specifically because I feel it is the epitome of what special effects can do. It provided a good standpoint of just how far special effects have come since they were first introduced. Because the world has run out of resources, the military has been put in charge of taking over the Planet Pandora, which is rich in unobtanium and inhabited by the blue Na’vi people. The plot follows Jake Sully, a paraplegic marine whose body is used to operate an Avatar on the world of Pandora. Jake gathers intelligence on the Na’vi people, and begins to befriend and sympathize with their culture. This obviously causes problems, when his military is the one who is trying to take over the planet. When the military tries to destroy the Hometree, the Na’vi peoples most sacred and life-giving element, Jake leads a revolt against his own people, the humans. This ensues a large final battle, where the Na’vi defeat the humans, and Jake opts to stay on the planet Pandora.

Differences: In regards to special effects, what I wanted to focus on for this study, I noticed stark differences between the three films. Because of when they were all produced and the technological advancements of each time period, they all have things that stood out, for better or for worse.

Alien was made in 1979, so it is safe to assume it had the most rudimentary special effects of the three. This does not mean it was the worst of the three however. Because computer generation was very limited at the time, all of the special effects of the movie were accomplished through models and miniatures. Iconic things in the film, like the ship Nostromo, the Facehugger, and the Alien itself were all made as props, and used in the actual film with minimal computer editing. In the picture above when the Chestburster pops through a torso, one of the most memorable scenes of the movie, shows a good example of how props were used effectively without any computer generation. Just because they were props did not minimize the scariness or effectiveness of the movie as a whole.

The Matrix was made in 1999, and is regarded for its use of computer-generated effects, which had only recently become popular at that time. In addition to these effects, props were used as well for more basic special effects, such as the Sentinels and the ship, Nebuchadnezzar. One of the movies most memorable uses of computer generation was the “bullet time” sequence, shown above. They used 3D modeling and extremely complicated visual software to produce this effect. It not only provided a memorable scene for the movie, but somewhat set the standard for what effects could be used for in the future. I thought that The Matrix was most effective in its use of special effects, of the three movies.

Avatar was made in 2009, and James Cameron’s use of special effects is this movie has become somewhat legendary in the industry. The movie’s $237 million dollar budget was allotted mostly to its use of special effects, and the movie has set the standard for CGI in modern cinema. Because it is almost entirely a CGI movie, everything about it was a special effect. In the picture of the landscape scenery I posted above, it shows just how much detail was put into each part of the movie. In my opinion, it was the least successful in its use however. It was excessively CGI oriented, and seemed too cartoonish for me. It wasn’t realistic at all, and I thought it went way overboard in its use of special effects. Ironically, the movie with the most modern effects turned out to be my least favorite of the three.

Similarities:

While the three films definitely had distinct differences, there were some interesting similarities I found as well. One of the most prominent of these similarities was the use of a distinct color palate for each film. What I mean by this is that each had their own color scheme, and used special effects to accomplish this. In Alien, the entire movie was really dark, with a lot of green highlights, as you can see in the movie poster. In The Matrix, you can see the emphasis on green as well when neo is in “the matrix”, and when he is not the colors are a normal tint. In Avatar, when Jake is in avatar form, the colors of the planet are all intense electric blues, greens and other bright colors. When he is a normal human, the dull shades of brown and grey and more prominent. In each of these films the tinting of color was used to highlight the change of scenery, or a change of worlds. The three movies accomplished this through the use of special effects.

The most interesting thing I noticed in my study was that the quality of the effects did not determine the quality of the movie. Alien used props, The Matrix used Props and CGI, and Avatar used entirely CGI. Even though Avatar had the most expensive and technologically advanced effects, I liked it the least because it looked too fake and cartoonish. Conversely, Alien’s use of props worked well for what it was used for, however at times the props seemed too fake and brought me out of the experience. I thought that The Matrix executed its use of special effects the best, the mixture of props as well as CGI ended up being my most enjoyable movie experience. I think this could relate to our study of movies transition from film to digital, in that the most modern technology is not always the best.

1975 Movie Trailer Post

“The Policeman”

Starring Robert De Niro, Jack Nicholson, and Jodie Foster, Francis Ford Coppola directs the  story of a man determined to do what is right. Coming back from Vietnam, John Doe(played by Robert De Niro) discovers the country he left to fight for in the war has completely changed from what it used to be. Vying for peace and a return to normality, he becomes a policeman through his connections with the military. Though he is no longer a soldier, he still believes that orders need to be followed and rules must be obeyed. However, as the ever-changing country evolves, John changes with it. He finds himself caught in society’s new influence of drugs, sex, counterculture, and revenge. He must solve for himself what is good and what is bad. Paramount Pictures presents “The Policeman” an exploration of morality, justice, and humanity. This film is Rated R for violence, sexuality, drug usage, and explicit language.

I thought that the 70's placed a large emphasis on the changing moral standards of the world, so thats the idea I based my movie on. I saw in The Godfather that Francis Ford Coppola does a great job with charachter development, like he did with Al Pacino in Michael Corleone's charachter. I chose him to direct my movie because I thought this charachter development  would make my movie that much more interesting to watch. In addition, The Godfather, as well as other 70s movies, showed a main charachter that was not outwardly good. This "antihero" aspect was another thing I wanted to include in my movie, and I couldnt think of a better way to show it than with a crooked cop. Obviously I have included popular social changes and events in the 70s, which are all accurate to that time period. My genre is definitely more of a drama than anything else, which I think would be succesful as people were looking for more grown up movies at that time. Lastly, instead of trying to get the wholesome, family-oriented viewers, I wanted to include copious amounts of violence, sex and the like, because thats what I think people really wanted to see. While ill admit my movie isnt the most innovative or origional story, it would be extremely fitting for a 1975 movie.

MYST POST #4

For my fourth MYST post, I watched the movie “The Perks of Being a Wallflower”, by Stephen Chbosky. I decided to watch it because it was a rainy day, and my girlfriend really wanted me to see it because it’s her favorite movie. The story follows a boy named Charlie in his freshman year of high school. He doesn’t have many friends, and is a generally shy and antisocial kid until he befriends a group of seniors. As we follow Charlie through his first year of high school, we see adversity arise in many different ways. The story covers topics like depression, suicide, love, homosexuality, and drugs, and ends up being a very real view of a teenager’s life. By following Charlie in his story, it ends up relating to the viewers life as well, which made it a very powerful and touching movie.

One part that was especially memorable to me was the final scene of the movie. After Charlie’s senior friends go away to college, he is left alone again. His depression comes back, and he ends up getting put in a psychiatric hospital for treatment. Everything seems to be spiraling downward into a tragic end, when his two closest friends come back to visit. They take him on a car ride through a tunnel they used to drive through together, and Charlie comes to a moment of realization where he fully appreciates everything he has in his life. The whole story leads up to this point, and the music and filming make it into a really special scene.

I thought one of the best parts of the movie was the music. Because it was made to appeal to teenagers, it used upbeat, modern, music in most of the scenes. In other, more serious scenes, the music also fit really well. In addition, I was pleasantly surprised to see that there actually was some element of cinematography involved. In the scene I mentioned above, as well as in many others, long sight lines and perspective made the characters seem either big or small, depending on the situation. The lighting was also dark during the sad scenes, and really bright during the happy ones. It was nice to see that amount of care put into what would normally just be a standard teen movie. It reminded me of the movie Brick we watched in class, with some film noir elements and dry humor spread throughout. It was actually really successful in terms of artistic style and cinematography, which was a nice surprise.

Overall, I would give The Perks of Being a Wallflower a 10/10. I really, really liked it, which is rare for movies of this type. Even though it’s a typical teenage girl’s movie, I thought it was actually really really well done stylistically. I feel like to give anything less than a 10 would be unfair, because there was simply nothing that this movie did badly. Steven Chbosky’s original story provides a real look at a high-schooler’s life, and I think anyone who watches this movie can relate to, and learn from the messages this movie portrays. I would highly recommend it to anyone, especially those in high school, to watch this. Don’t be afraid of the “girly” aura that it might exude, this is a competent exploration of life and what it means to appreciate everything we have. Do yourself a favor and watch this movie.

MYST Post #3

 

For my third MYST post, I watched the movie Memento, by Christopher Nolan. After watching it in class, I knew it was something I had to see, and ironically my Philosophy class was watching it at the same time so I decided to do my review on it. The movie is extremely unique and creative in that the plot works in a reverse manner. It shows what happens at the end of the story first, and then backs up to meet in the middle, with scenes going forward intertwined. This is very confusing, so refer to the graph below to understand the plot progression more clearly. The story is about a man named Lenny whose wife was raped and killed by a man named John G. This movie chronicles his quest to find and kill his wife’s murderer. However, Lenny’s head injury leaves him unable to form long term memories, so he has to keep notes to remember what he is doing. The scenes represent his point of view, as someone with no memory of what happened a day ago. I would classify the genre as a psychological thriller, in that it is as much an exploration of the function of the mind, as it is of his story.

 

One scene that stood out to me was when we find out that Natalie, someone who seemed to be Lenny’s friend, turned out to be using him the whole time. She says incredibly offense and completely evil things to him, and provokes him to punch her. He does, and she leaves the house crying. What makes it interesting is that she walks back into the house a moment after, and Lenny has no idea what happened because of his condition, so he tries to console her and find out who did that to her. At the beginning of the movie we see that Natalie has these bruises, but didn’t know who did it. During this scene we see it was actually Lenny. Moments of realization like this are what make this movie so interesting and cool to watch. It stood out not just because of the terrible things Natalie said, but because we finally realize she has been using him the whole time. The movie is packed with a ton of scenes that stand out, and there is a wide assortment to choose from.

The thing this movie did best was its defying of a traditional narrative structure. The black and white scenes provide a supplement that explains his background and condition, in addition to what leads up to the end of the film. It defies traditional narrative structure because the STORY goes from end to beginning, instead of the traditional beginning to end. However, it also follows traditional narrative structure because it has a start, rising action, and climax at the end, and that is its own story in itself. This movie was really two in one intertwined with each other, which was extremely interesting. In addition, the movie makes interesting points about the nature of truth versus reality, and moral responsibility. Is Lenny responsible for his actions even though he doesn’t have a memory? I think he is. At the end of the movie we become aware of his admittance that he lies to himself to stay happy, he takes advantage of his own condition to manipulate himself. This is where Lenny shows moral irresponsibility, and where I think he deserves to be punished. However, everything else is justified; I know if I woke up with all his tattoos and notes I would do the same thing. Regardless, vigilante revenge by murder is not acceptable, and his condition is irrelevant, he would be morally responsible either way. These philosophical and moral questions that the movie raises are what make it so unique and interesting.

Overall, I would give this movie a 10/10. The plot and story structure are enough to make me fall in love with it in the first place, and I think the acting and setting and characters were all really well done as well. The thriller aspect of the movie is really entertaining, and the twist ending is the best I have ever seen. I really, really liked this movie and would consider it one of, if not the, favorite movie of mine. I would recommend everyone to watch this, but beware you have to be mentally focused and emotionally invested in order to fully appreciate, understand, and enjoy it.

MYST Post #2

I watched the movie Wreck-It Ralph for my second Movies in Your Spare Time post. After seeing the commercials for this movie on T.V., I had always wanted to watch it, however I did not want to make a trip all the way to the movie theater to see it. Since it was playing on TNT Family one night, I decided I would sit down and take the time to see it. The plot revolves around Ralph, the "bad guy" of his video game, "Wreck-It Ralph". He decides that he was tired of being a bad guy, so he escapes his game and enters others in search of a Medal to prove to everyone else that he is actually good. In this journey, he meets a character named Vanellope, who is ostracized by her game for being a glitch. Ralph is determined to get Vanellope back into her game, defeat the evil King Candy, and save the video game universe.

One scene in particular that impacted me greatly was when Ralph destroys Vanellope's car. Ralph promises that he would help build Vanellope a racing car because she didn’t have one, and help her learn how to drive it. After all this progress we think that Vanellope is finally ready to race, however Ralph finds out that letting her race as a playable character would be disastrous because of her glitching. When he finds out this information, he tells Vanellope he can’t let her race, so he must destroy the brand new cart for her own good. As he is wrecking the cart, we see the innocent Vanellope's eyes welling with tears. Sad music plays, and the audience is forced to feel the betrayal that Vanellope feels. It was a surprisingly emotional scene for such a lighthearted movie like this, and that’s why it stood out to me.

The most unique part of this movie was the plot itself. I’ve never really heard of a successful movie with the setting in a video game world. I think it appealed to a lot more viewers because of this. Speaking from experience, if the movie made me, an 18 year old guy, want to see it, then they must be doing something right. In addition, the characters were really likeable, and the voice actors for were all perfect for each role, John C. Reilly as the large, good spirited Ralph, Sarah Silverman as the innocent yet devious Vanellope, Jack McBrayer (Kenneth from 30 rock) as the timid Fix it Felix, and Jane Lynch as the draconian Sergeant Calhoun. Actors don’t usually play a big part in animated movies, but it was a factor that definitely stood out in this one.

Overall, I would give this Movie a 9/10. For its genre, a predominantly kids movie, it was spectacular in evoking emotion and investing the viewer. It was successful on many fronts; it supplied a good, original story, and maintained the plot's appeal throughout the movie with twists and subtle story lines. The human parts of this movie, the actors, were all extremely good as well, and I thought they fit their roles perfectly. Well I thought everything was done right, it didn’t have anything deeper to it; there was really no sub story or symbolism or anything like that, which I typically enjoy in a movie. However, I realize it’s still just a kid's movie so I will only take 1 point off my overall rating. If you want to watch a good family movie with anyone, and actually enjoy it, I would recommend Wreck-It Ralph. I can't wait until Wreck-It Ralph 2 comes out.

30's BLOG POST

The black and white movie our group made was about a small town man who is trying to become something great. Thomas Carlson, played by James Stewart, is a post office worker in a small town in Nebraska. He knows everyone and everyone knows him as a smart, all around good guy. Thomas wants to become something big, so he decides to run for Mayor in the town’s election. Betty Lou, his childhood friend, stands by his side and encourages him to run for this position. The conflict is that the mayors of the town have always been from the Lee family, and Charles Lee, played by Clark Gable, is adamant about winning this election. Lee uses his aristocratic wealth and greed in his campaign, and Carlson uses his good morals and sound judgment to win the people of their town over. The main theme of my movie is the American dream. The dream that someone small and insignificant can become whoever they want to. This interpretation of the story is a timeless message that Americans love to hear.

Our studio was Columbia Pictures. I chose this because they were famous for good writing and directing, which was exactly what we were looking for. In addition, Frank Capra was a great choice to develop a large, but wholesome movie such as ours. Capra also directed the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” which is somewhat similar in plot to ours. His connection with our lead actor James Stewart was important as well. Stewart’s forte is playing aspiring, wholesome, determined men, which is perfect for this role. Capra and Stewart’s history of working with each other is also invaluable when it comes to a big picture such as ours. Another reason this is a big picture is by using Clark Gable as the antagonist. Even though he’s a big money guy who almost exclusively works with MGM, we felt his role was important enough to shell out the money to get him. Sometimes people only go to movies to see big-ticket actors, and I feel Gable’s influence on the film is positive enough to warrant the exception from MGM for his acquisition. Ann Rutherford is a good supporting actress because she isn’t too famous, but is good enough to be recognized. In addition, it’s nice to have a pretty face to look at. Each cast and crewmember plays an important role in our movie and the combination of them will make it successful.

The unique thing about our movie that makes it stand out from the others is its use of cinematography and color in our poster. We chose to have Gregg Tolland as our cinematographer because we feel his unique style will bring an artistic feel and interesting spin to our story. In addition, the color scheme we used on the poster had red, white, and blue to invoke feelings of patriotism in the audience, which is very popular in the 30’s. These two things will get a better review from the critics and modern artistic supporters. I don’t think the Hays code affects our movie. All good morals and values are upheld, there is no drinking, gambling, sexuality, religiousness at all, it is simply a true American classic that is aimed at families everywhere.

If I made this movie on my own, the main thing I would change is using color instead of it being black and white. I think that people were interested in color, and would have accounted for more views in the long run. I also disagreed with our group’s decision to use Gregg Tolland’s cinematography. While it is certainly unique and interesting, I think it would scare away some viewers simply because of its modernity and progressiveness. While the “art house” vote is good, I think more people would enjoy a more traditional cinematographer. Other than these two things, I think our movie is great and it would be very popular in the 30’s.