Models, puppets and pixels

If there's an aspect of filmmaking I truly enjoy, it's the area of special effects. Granted, it's not that the only two movies I've managed to shot (plus the one music video I've done) contained plenty of visual and special effects shot, it's that I like how they look and what they convey when done right. On the other hand, I also like the fact that they've changed so much during the course of moviemaking history.

Films like Metropolis, for example, from 1927, contained revolutionary effects shots for its time. Now, of course, everything in there is date, but that doesn't mean it looks dated. I guess that's the key difference between a well-crafted effects shot and a lazy kind of work. I know what I'm about to do is unfair, but bare with me. Consider, for example, the effects shots from Fritz Lang's aforementioned masterpiece, and those from a movie like Van Helsing. Don't take me wrong, I liked the latter (in a "so-bad-it's-good" kind of way), but although it makes use of today's latest computer technology, its effects look horribly cheesy and cartoony. On the other hand, everything in Metropolis, while obviously artificial, looks breathtaking and beautiful. That is the main difference right?

And why do I say it was an unfair comparision? It's not only the fact that both films were released 80 years apart, it's also that they are completely different motion pictures that try to convey completely different things. Van Helsing's failure has to do, in part, I believe, with the fact that it tried to convey something that could never exist, and something that's supposed to be a living, breathing thing. On the other hand, Metropolis was supposed to look artificially crafted. The city, its industrial look conveyed something man-made, not something natural. Creating a city backdrop in a computer or with models is considerably easier than trying to create, say, a wolfman or a vampire monster. Maybe that's why, after more than 80 years, Metropolis' effects don't look dated, while Van Helsing's overreliance on CGI looked bad and cheesy the moment the film was released in theatres.

Now, if you've seen films like Star Wars or 2001, you might have realized that old school visual effects are all about matte paintings, models and image compositing. George Lucas' original space opera saga is the prime example of this. The "special editions" aside, none of these movies contained anything remotely computerized - everything, from aliens to alien worlds to spaceships was created with the use of models, paintings, costumes and masks. And maybe that's why it all looked so real - because everything on screen was actually in front of the camera. Everytime I watch any of those films, I know whether I'm seeing a painting, a model or a mask, but it doesn't take me out of the story; they don't detract from the experience because, although I know none of them are what they are supposed to be, at least I know they are real.

Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park changed all of this. Granted, models are still being used, but the revolution of CGI commenced with these two movies. Terminator 2 brought liquid simulation, and the Spielberg's dinosaur flick provided with photo-realistic, chillingly believable dinosaurs. The thing is, none of the effects in these movies have dated because they didn't rely on one single technique. They are combined efforts. Although the majority of dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are computer generated, the filmmakers also employed a large quantity of animatronics, which mesh seemlessly with the CGI work. And the liquid version of Robert Patrick in T2 works because it meshes perfectly with the flesh-and-blood actor. There's no overreliance of anything. If anything can be said about CGI, is that it can be really effective when used correctly and in combination with other techniques, and that it's the 21st century's equivalent of models and matte paintings.

A lot of negatives can be said about CGI, but there's no denying that it's brought a lot of delightful vistas that couldn't have even been dreamed 30 years ago. Movies that have made good use of CGI? Jurassic Park, the Star Wars prequels, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the first Matrix movie, War of the Worlds, Transformers, Titanic and many more. The thing is, most of these movies - yes, even the Star Wars prequels - provided with awesome visual effects because they combined models, matte paintings and other techniques with CGI, instead of only using computers. I believe that's what a good visual movie requires - teamwork and a good combination of different techniques.

This year, apart from Terminator Salvation (which looks gritty from a visual standpoint) and Transformers 2 (which will probably provide with even more destruction and visual mayhem than its predecessor), we will have James Cameron's Avatar. He has promised he will revolutionize both digital technology in the use of visual effects, and 3D technology. Given his track record, I don't doubt he will. We'll just have to wait and see.