How Computers Make Movie Miracles Cheap

Sunday Morning Critic On How CGI Can Turn Films Like "300" Into Something Less Than Magical

(CBS)  Sunday Morning movie critic David Edelstein reviews the box-office smash, "300," and finds its computer-intensive look, while impressive, is less muscular than the brawn of real warriors.

---

Critics have called the new Spartan war picture "300" "groundbreaking," which is funny because no ground was broken! It has real actors, but computers added the scenery. They might have added the muscles, too. It's a movie with a cast of hundreds of thousands that could have been shot in a walk-in closet in Burbank.

Now, I don't care for the picture itself. Even though it's based on a vivid Frank Miller graphic novel, it plays like a campy homoerotic video game (and, mind you, I have nothing against homoerotic video games); I just think it's a weird time to be celebrating the pictorial beauty of lopping off Persian limbs.

But most of all, I'm bored by CGI, a.k.a. computer generated imagery. Or, "Computers Gone Insane."

I don't want to get all doctrinaire. I don't hate computer animation. Another Frank Miller picture, "Sin City," has a luminous black-and-white palette, with breathtaking splashes of crimson. The images seem dredged up from the collective unconscious of graphic-novel freaks. And the film doesn't try to be ennobling like "300." It's happy to be a sick puppy.

Brilliant computer artistry and the acting of Andy Serkis make Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" the most fascinating gargoyle in all movies.

I don't begrudge Clint Eastwood for using computers to enhance the fleet in "Flags of Our Fathers"; I wouldn't have wanted all those battleships pulled from places in the world where we need them.

And, of course, the way computers create the illusion of moving around the suspended Carrie Ann Moss in "The Matrix" drives home that you're in a virtual-reality universe.

But when the "Matrix" guys upped the stakes for the so-called Bully Brawl in the sequel, "The Matrix Reloaded," we lost all connection with gravity. And without the texture of reality, there is no real threat.

How many times did George Lucas take visually-dead scenes in the new "Star Wars" pictures and sprinkle in effects like cyber-MSG? It doesn't help.

In "Spider Man," director Sam Raimi and actor Tobey MacGuire give us a wonderfully down-to-earth superhero whose powers seem an outgrowth of his adolescent confusion. Then he turns into a little videogame man swinging through a videogame cityscape.

Here's the real point: When it's all done with computers, miracles are cheap. You miss the mixture of athleticism and sharp editing you get in the battle scenes in "Braveheart."

You miss the scary, real-time feats of Jackie Chan and stunt guys who trained for years at places like the Beijing Opera.

You miss, well, Hollywood greats like Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor in "Singin' in the Rain."

That's when I look at the screen and say, "Ah: The magic of movies."

[hissteps4u]

CGI has it's place but I would rather watch a good animation from Disney, or read a Stephen King Novel

[toadfoto]

David:

Being 56 years old I certainly have issues with the world moving too fast and much of what was in the past did have a certain value to it, if for no other reason than nostalgia. However, when it comes to CGI, I must totally disagree with your views. The thousands of digital artists that give us these amazing images to view both in the motion arts and still works are simply astounding. The digital artists of today, works far harder and their results are exponentially finer to that of any of the so called masters of the past art world, which CBS Sunday Morning so often profiles. That statement might seem to be a little bit like comparing apples to oranges, but these are our modern day artistic geniuses that you are so callously ignoring. Their work is of greater artistic effort to anything that has gone before. Some of the spectacular imagery we see in today%u2019s modern movies requires ten of thousands to hundreds of thousands of man-hours to produce. It is not as easily created as you might think. A movie from the 50%u2019s where Donald O%u2019Connor bounces off the wall can be created in one %u201Ctake%u201D with a few dozen man-hours of effort by the film crew. Compare that to the spectacular imagery of Pearl Harbor or Titanic where just a few seconds of film can take months of work by hundreds of people. David you do these hard working and talented people an injustice.

Dana Todorovic

[jonesson]

After Star Wars IV, V & VI (with people, models, real sets), there was Star Wars I. Then II & III. CGI. What a disappointment. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Edelstein. Lord Of The Rings used CGI to excellent effect - but it still used real people and, in some cases, real sets. CGI alone is like a comic book.

[yvh1]

I understand how all the CGI can be distracting -if you are paying attention to it in particular - but comparing 300 to Braveheart is quite unfair. Braveheart was not based upon a graphic novel. I think, given the fact that 300 was - it makes perfect sense that Zack Snyder used the best CGI that $ could buy to do proper justice to the story as told by novelist Frank Miller. Also, with all the talk about grueling fitness regimen followed by Gerard Butler, the lead actor (was even profiled in a major fitness magazine - either Men's Health or Men's Fitness)it's kind of a cheap shot to say that the warrior bodies were probably CGI'd as well! Gee there is still such a thing as dedication among artistic workers that makes them work to rise to the occasion and actually DO something that makes them look fierce enough to fit the role!

Thanks.

[desertrat200]

Whine, whine, whine,
All critics are alike.
Get a life David!

[tonic1661]

I totally agree. When a movie lacks the convincing element of reality and is mostly created by computers or say Disney cartoonists isn't it a cartoon hoping to be real... something like Pinocchio?

[ubikvalis2]

CGI is just like any other tool a film director has at his or her disposal. It can either be used effectively or it can be a disaster. The same can be said for acting, the script, the sets, the score, etc.

One thing is for sure: MORE CGI doesn't mean better CGI, as the star wars fims have proven.

[vader1949]

David,

If it bothers you sooo much to see modern film technology, don't watch it. Just because you have been given the honor of whining on national television you don't need to degrade a film that set a new record of $70 million on its opening weekend. It seems most of you so called national "critics" whine about films that are not French subtitled films about forlorn lovers commiting suicide.
I have been watching films the better part of my life and thouroughly enjoy Ronald Coleman, Errol Flynn, Charles Laughton and all of the rest of the greats, but get a grip, film moves on. Yes, George Lucas changed the genre and film in general, so quit whining and learn to accept change, or get left in the dust.