CG storytelling
iaian7 » blog John Einselen, 12.02.08I watched the animated film Beowulf a couple weeks ago with some friends at the cheap theatre in town, and any review I could muster always comes back to this; computer graphic storytelling shouldn’t be any different than film. When it’s treated as something different, as something other than a filmic art form, it will fail.
Much has been written about the uncanny valley and its effect on storytelling. To paraphrase, the more robots and CG characters look, move, and talk like humans, the more repulsive they are. This is due to a multitude of factors, but depends primarily on the uncanny effect of something that closely mimics humanity – but gets it subtly wrong.
I’m not sure this can really encapsulate why Beowulf fails so spectacularly; though it’s certainly a contributing factor, there’s a bigger problem here. It’s also something I’m seeing more often as technology advances, and directors become more comfortable with CG. Like any other technique, 3D animation and computer graphics are merely a means to an end—the story. If the technique does not serve the story, it will most certainly and absolutely hinder it. Beowulf is a rather decent example of this; of how not to do a film.
Doing something because you can, inspires only rubbish.
Doing something because you cannot do it any other way; that has a chance to become art.
It’s a weird and tricky dichotomy. Technology allows creative and amazing new forms of artistry, and yet often destroys the drive to make it good. And because so much is possible now, many directors seem to feel the need to use it, even when unneeded or inappropriate.
In the classic sci-fi film Forbidden Planet, a horrifying monster was insinuated instead of shown; footprints, shadowed lights, noises. It’s a well established fact that allowing the audience to fill in the gaps, to imagine what isn’t shown, is a far more effective, more terrifying storytelling device than merely showing the monster itself. Defining something limits it. The same principle developed by Greek philosophers should be used to great effect in filmmaking! Be it a logical argument, frightening scene, a tragedy, comedy; when the audience is involved in the act of creation (be it the logical conclusion of an argument, or the imagining of a monster in a film), it becomes their own. Far more true and real than a speaker or filmaker could ever try to define by themselves.
The movie Signs used this approach for much of the film, but ultimately showed the aliens in full-on visual effects. Many viewers complained that, once shown, the mystery and terror had been lost. There would be complaints if the film had been too subtle of course, and in my opinion M. Night Shyamalan often strikes a decent balance between subtle storytelling and visual gratification.
Limitations, though frustrating, will often stretch those involved to come up with creative solutions; a more effective story telling device, a cheaper alternative, perhaps a more subtle, more elegant telling of their story. I can’t say I like this principle, or even rise to the challenge myself, but everything I’ve learned so far points to it being true.
The creator of Family Guy blamed an unfunny season on the lack of limitations. They had not been censored as much, and instead of writing something funny, it became something crass (or in the case of Family Guy, simply more crass).
The original Star Wars films used cutting edge effects, but was still constrained by the limitations of film, miniatures, and (at least compared to now) rather primitive bluescreen technology. Instead of focusing solely on effects, however, the story took precedence. Technology became a supporting actor. Part of that was due to limitations, and I suspect part due to Steven Spielberg’s involvement, but nonetheless, the movies became a huge success.
Once freed of those limitations, however, George Lucas went completely nuts. Quite literally. Story was thrown out in lieu of “stunning” worlds and vast digital landscapes. Not only are the new Star Wars movies less convincing, but they fail at the very foundational element—the story was hurt, instead of helped, by focusing on technique instead of art.
This discourse could go one for quite a long time, so I’d better start wrapping up…
Which brings us back to Beowulf. While fighting an uphill battle to overcome the Uncanny Valley (and failing miserably), director Robert Zemeckis completely missed the point. The story didn’t need to be told via animation. There was no reason to use motion capture and advanced technology, none, and it’s painfully obvious that performances and purpose were completely lost in the process.
Pixar, on the other hand, has made it abundantly clear that they will not only put story first, but will only tell stories that should be animated—how else could toys, bugs, and cars talk?
Should a film be done digitally? Only if that is the only way to do it, the only way to tell your story.
mediaboxAdvanced
Couldn’t possibly agree more.
Have you seen Lightwave stuff in Youtube? Mostly they are titled “VFX test” or “dynamics test”.
Most independent CG hobbyists never finish their production or even take a story into a serious consideration.
Myself, Im making animated small feature because I have discovered that “maybe Lightwave could be a media what I can use”. If I could, I would shoot the movie with 35mm film with real humans (and dogs).
I find your comment most refreshing and wise.