The problem has been trying to tie it into the ideas of the dissertation. I just wanted to learn the tools and trying to view it from the point of view of narrative is stressing me out because I didn't begin this project with a story I wanted to tell.
Anyway, I know the power of storytelling in cinema lies in the ability to craft and create an image on the screen - the image you want to show the audience. It's a composite in the complete sense of every element in the screen.
To me that's where this is the power of digital visual effects. An image can be altered, added to, have elements removed, tweaked or even constructed entirely from scratch.
The Wolf of Wall Street is insane in it's image composition.
I haven't seen the film yet but I will have to now just because it looks like it will be really hard to tell which parts of the film are actually 'real' and which parts are completely manufactured.
This isn't a sleight on the process or the end result or anything. In fact it probably goes a long way to making some sort of point for me that I have yet to make. Or maybe I have already and this just backs it up more =P
I remember Stephen Prince talking about critics of digital effects for this manufacturing. Die hard photography buffs keen on the idea of photography as being 'indexical' or true. I can see their point from the idea of photography, at least from a particular artistic perspective, but I don't think it rings true with cinema for the sole reason that even when it was purely indexical, i.e when what was there, live on set was what was shot, you were still being 'tricked' by the director into believing what was true about the story he or she aimed to tell. Even before digital manipulation was an option one could believe that a lake in Italy was on the doorstep of an English country manor. It is not indexically true, but it seems real. It is believable. That is therefore the success of a well directed film.
And I think then that this is where the success of digital visual effects lies - in its believability. What Stephen Prince calls "Perceptual Reality". I think this is a good basic judgement for success in that we as people are basically kind of programmed to know when something we're looking at isn't [quite] right. Probably where the well trotted out 'Uncanny Valley' example is mentioned.
I think I'm beginning to go over old ground here, though... I feel like I've said all this before but for some reason going through it again seems to focus my mind on the idea...
In fact it seems like I might be hitting on the answer. The problem I've been having is determining how to explore this in practical terms... (and I know it's probably something I JUST NEED TO DO!!! Give myself something to get on with and practice some techniques from the tutorials)...
So I think what might be an appropriate solution to the practical work might be in trying to simply create something that is perceptually real, i.e. it doesn't matter what it is as long as it is believable: perceptually real to the viewer, and real within its own diegetic. That should hopefully save me having to come up with some sort of narrative, although I did say in my Proposal that I would show some overarching "narrative", but I'm not too worried about that - little things can hint at connectivity without necessarily explicitly saying so.
Ahhh god, now that I think back, that's probably what Brian's point about adverts was....
In fact it seems like I might be hitting on the answer. The problem I've been having is determining how to explore this in practical terms... (and I know it's probably something I JUST NEED TO DO!!! Give myself something to get on with and practice some techniques from the tutorials)...
So I think what might be an appropriate solution to the practical work might be in trying to simply create something that is perceptually real, i.e. it doesn't matter what it is as long as it is believable: perceptually real to the viewer, and real within its own diegetic. That should hopefully save me having to come up with some sort of narrative, although I did say in my Proposal that I would show some overarching "narrative", but I'm not too worried about that - little things can hint at connectivity without necessarily explicitly saying so.
Ahhh god, now that I think back, that's probably what Brian's point about adverts was....
I might then say something like:
- Create something perceptually real using VFX
But that's too vague... So it might be better to say something like:
- Create a perceptually real character/
Still too vague but probably getting warmer. We've been toying with the idea of a futuristic Dundee. So for instance in that context (diegetic) I guess one could say...
- Create a perceptually real policeman from a futuristic Dundee
Anyway I have tasks to do for this week so I will get on with them first and perhaps work towards the above. It will help to discuss it with Lynn on Monday.
No comments:
Post a Comment