Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Is It Real? ...

Or is it a shot in a box?

Major cinematographers have spoken out against the increasingly deceptive use of VFX in films.

When you think of CGI you probably think of the very unsubtle Michael Bay, robots smashing skyscrapers kind, but the technology is now used in many ways you wouldn’t even notice - from enhancing landscapes to thickening forests.

"I wish there were two categories," Oscar-nominated The Hateful Eight cinematographer Robert Richardson told The Hollywood Reporter, because there are "films that are shot relatively 'normal,' and then there are films that are shot with all visual effects and very minimal live action." ...

This is kind of an issue, isn't it?

When the most stunning shots in the movie are manufactured in a computer, what exactly is the director of cinematography doing?

But we can take it a step further. Those arresting visuals in The Good Dinosaur or Tangled or any number of other animated features have no credited cinematographer, yet are created in the same way that Avatar and Gravity were created: inside computers by people who work with a keyboard and flat screen.

So why does one movie have a director of photography and the possibility of winning an Acadeny Awards for the d,p.'s work, and the other gets nothing at all? The Life of Pi and Gravity get Oscar nods, but Inside Out gets nothing?

Kind of arbitrary, don't you think?


Unknown said...

The animation industry seems to have bought into the notion that if animation looks "more real," it's better. How sad. Recreating "realism" in the computer is easy. Taking advantage of animation and all it can do in films like Kung Fu Panda or Inside Out is more challenging than recreating kitschy imagery in a film like The Good Dinosaur.

Site Meter