Month: September 2020

Computer animation has clearly dominated the film industry over hand-drawn animation. Even though hand-drawn animations continue to be made in anime and TV shows (i.e. The Simpsons), computer animations have been overwhelming success in comparison. Movies such as How To Train Your Dragon and The Incredibles show how successful they can be.

Ironically, hand-drawn animation was how animated movies began. It could be argued which is better (hand-drawn or computer animation), but there’s no doubt that hand-drawn animations bears more of a human mark. The drawings are imperfect in themselves, such as pencil strokes, and uneven lines across the frame.

In computer animation, even though we know that there is an artist working behind it, we are more or less watching a rendering of their work. The images don’t bear any imperfect lines or pencil strokes. The images are detailed and realistic.

It seems that viewers want to see more realism in movies and animation overall. Just as computer games have improved in terms of graphics, the same could be said of movies. Hand-drawn animations are obviously meant to stylize reality, just like comics and anime. But perhaps there has been a shift away from a stylization of reality and a move toward a realistic representation it.

Why is that? Perhaps our way of seeing, as an audience, has changed overtime. People in the past watched black and white films because that was what was available to them. Then came sound, technicolor, and decades later, digital film.

An evolution could be said of animation. Films were predominately hand-drawn until they CGI came along. After that computer animation burst onto the scene with Toy Story being the first big animated film.

But in each phase, the previous one influenced the that came after it. It’s obvious that the computer animators of today were influenced by the hand-drawn animators of the past. The methodology has changed, but the style and storytelling remains.

And with each new phase of technology, the imperfections are erased, and the films appear closer to reality. It’s as if the world of film (or animation) should be seamless compared to our own. But as this trend continues, do the artists behind the film become mere technicians? Are their voices lost in the pursuit of realism? Will the story get lost as well?

Besides, isn’t realism just one way to tell a story? By this, I don’t mean to say that the film must be grounded in reality, but that the depiction of that world is no longer expressing the distinct eye of the filmmaker. Perhaps we’ve veered away from what was considered the auteur idea of filmmaking, and seek a rather generalized type of film.

And with regard to animation, we’ve veered away from imperfection of the hand-drawn to the perfection of computer renderings.

There are many black and white films that are considered classics such as Citizen Kane and Seven Samurai. Even though they were made at a time when black and white films were the standard, these films still entertain and influence us today.

Nowadays, filmmakers have more tools at their disposal. Many color films, especially digital films, employ CGI and post-production tools to improve the quality of the movie. But the one aspect that many of movies suffer from is flashy/rapid editing, which has unfortunately, become common place.

When the shots are edited (strung together) rapidly, the images blur, and the shots become ubiquitous. Although the purpose of the fast edit is to grab our attention, it comes at the cost of letting great shots slip away. The images become subliminal and secondary to the editing. And the impact of the quick/flashy editing is an emphasis on spectacle, action, quips, rather than on story and characters.

The black and white films of the past did not suffer from this, fortunately, due to a general slower pace of the films. When watching a great film a black and white film, it’s easy to appreciate the shots, the composition, lighting, framing, etc., because of the slower pace. Like black and white photography, the images are reduced to its bare essentials: positive and negative space–appearing like abstract images.

Color films can be just as powerful as black and white films, even more so. But they require a careful consideration of how the colors are used.

In any film, the costume, lighting, set design, and scenery all play a role in how the story is told. With color films, filmmakers have a whole palette at their disposal, just as a painter does to mix colors and apply them on a canvas. When color is used effectively, it not only draws our eyes to the image, but communicates the story in a way that elevates it.

Both black and white and color films can be powerful and captivating. Their visual impact depends on the imagination and artistry of the filmmakers. The tools they have at their disposal are employed at the service of the story, which must be good on its own.

But rapid editing is the trapping of today’s films, and so long as this is the trend, films will continue to suffer from it. For one, the visuals will blur by. Two, the stories will feel rushed, and we can’t invest in them to the same degree if they had been edited slower. And three, we won’t get to know the characters fully, since the pace leaves them in the dust.

What is it that makes a film a classic after decades has past? What makes a film speak to future generations to come?

Classic films are such because they still resonate with us today. They continue to impact us through us its universal storytelling and values. Despite the decades that have elapsed, they speak to us as if they had been made today.

One of the most famous classic films is A Wonderful Life by Frank Capra. In short, it’s about a man who is about to leap off a bridge after his partner loses his bank’s money. Before he leaps into the icy winter waters, a guardian angel jumps in the first, and the man dives in to save him instead.

Despite its black and white photography, slow-moving pace, lack of CGI and action scenes, it’s a film that speaks to our heart. The story is essentially about how each person has an enormous effect on other people’s lives (i.e. saving their lives or steering them in the right direction), and in spite of the hard times we experience, we will get through them–especially through generosity and kindness.

If a movie studio decided to remake it now, I have no doubt that it would be a great movie, though people would irresistibly compare it to the original. But it wouldn’t be great because it had been updated, but because the story was great to begin with.

Time well tell which films of today will be a classic in ten, twenty, or thirty years. Will it be The Matrix? The Sixth Sense? The recent Star Wars or Marvel films? Or does a film stand a greater chance at being a classic if it wins awards (i.e. the Academy Awards)?

Special effects and great CGI are all things that will be improved upon as time goes by, but a great story that captivates the imagination and the spirit are what I think will set a film apart and make it a classic.

When filmmakers adapt a novel or story for the silver screen, something always gets lost in the translation. For one, films are limited by running time, and two, they’re limited by budget, which in turn, means that their resources and time may never be enough. A scene or a passage in a book might end up costing millions of dollars to film. Even if the story were carried across sequels or a series, scenes might even be cut out because the filmmakers didn’t find them necessary to include.

Books stimulate our imagination to create scenes (for free), and the difficulty of adapting a story into a film are 1) the cost (as aforementioned), and 2) what a vision of the story looks like according to the filmmakers. Of course, we must keep an open mind since it’s impossible to meet everyone’s expectation/vision of a book, but an adaptation can succeed to some degree if it at least captures the essence of the narrative, as well as the meaning behind it.

Filmmakers have to make a choice as to what they film. Adaptations usually end up covering the essential parts, and highlight key moments in the story.

Depending on whether they follow the story closely or not can produce a wide range of results. The movie might be great apart from the book, even if it doesn’t follow it closely. A movie that follows the book closely might feel like something is missing cinematically (i.e. certain scenes might not be suspenseful when they should be). And movies that take too many liberties with the plot might feel like an affront to the source material.

However the film turns out, an adaptation rarely meets the quality of the book. Because in a book, the writing style of the author captivates the reader to see their world through the lens of their words. On screen, that world flashes by and extinguishes after 90 minutes or 2 hours (depending on the length of the film). When reading a book, however, that world might stay in one’s mind for days or weeks, depending on how long it takes them to finish it. And the author’s words created a world that only the mind’s eye can see.

Comparing films from decade to decade, there is a trend where the rapidity of cuts/edits increase overtime. It’s as if a single shot wasn’t even worthy of our gaze, but rather, a glimpse.

The effect of quick edits produces a pace in which the film seems to be speeding by, a pace which is supposed to grab our attention and hold it. But at the cost of keeping our attention, the visuals fly by without giving us a chance to digest them–to sink ourselves into that world. Even though we might get the gist of what’s going on, the quick edits don’t allow us to appreciate the artistry of the image, lighting, cinematography, etc.

There’s a balance that has to be made with regard to holding a shot and cutting to another one. If the edits are too quick, the scene seems like a blur, but when they’re too long, the scene wears out our patience.

As aforementioned, the rapidity of edits has increased overtime (i.e. compare the films of the 1990s to now). The bombardment of noise in conjunction with the edits just overwhelms the senses, making the spectacle outweigh the story or the emotion of the scene. I’ve noticed this more and more with action films or big budget films, where so much is going on that it’s hard to process the chaos. It’s barely coherent, though the rush of the chaos might be exciting in itself.

But amidst the chaos and mayhem, I find it’s hard to appreciate the filmmaking and artistry of the film itself. The scenes just become noise and rollercoaster rides (perhaps that’s the intention) rather that allowing us to take in what’s happening or appreciate the work that went into it (that’s often relegated to the behind the scenes featurettes on Blu-Ray or DVDs).

Filmmakers stand out not only because of the great stories they tell, but because of how they tell them. A film is essentially a series of shots. Each shot is a frame that can be broken down into composition and lighting and staging, not to mention set design, costuming, acting, etc. All of these components embody the shot–and when it’s cut short by an edit–even for less than a second, it’s as if it weren’t worthy of our attention. What was the point of the shot then?