Computerized Graphics: A new aura, not no aura

I actually had a quite a different reaction than Ben regarding Grzinic's thoughts about computer graphics (see Computerized Graphics Just Can't Cut It). I agree with Ben that the 3 new Star Wars movies sucked compared to the first three, but I will get into that later. My biggest point of contention is Grzinic's claim that computer-generated graphics of virtual reality collapse the exposure time down to nothing. This strikes me as a very ignorant claim by someone who knows very little about computer graphics. Computer generated images take a really, really long time to design and an extremely long time to render. I view both of these processes as a form of art and I think most people would only disagree with me about the rendering. In this way, computer-generated images actually have a really long exposure time and I think this imbues them with a very strong aura. My thoughts may be biased because I am a computer scientist and have worked with computer graphics before and know how painfully tedious and difficult it is, but when I look at computer-generated images I think primarily about the process that went into making it.

But, as Ben pointed out the new Star Wars trilogy sucked. I blame a lot of that of George Lucas' naive misuse of CGI with Jar Jar Binks being a great example. The current level of computer graphics cannot adequately imitate reality in many cases. Any person who has a good command of the art knows how and when to use it and not use it. Computer graphics is a tool for a director to use and it is not the answer for every situation. Most directors and the film community realize this which is why the most extensive use of CGI you see today is in the many animated movies that come out such as Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, etc. These people know that CGI is not yet capable of displaying a completely convincing reality so they avoid the issue by creating made up realities in which they don't have to play by the normal rules. Yes CGI is used by most Hollywood movies these days, but it is used mostly for effects, scenery, background shots, etc. Human perception is much more lenient when looking at these things as compared to a close up of a speaking character.

Lord of the Rings is, for the most part, an example of a director who knows how to use computer graphics in film. Peter Jackson knew enough to make sure that his main characters were all real human characters and that whenever possible the audiences main focus on the screen should be real as well. Instead of making the entire armies using CGI (as Lucas did in Star Wars), Jackson used real actors for the front of the army and then CGI to fill in behind them. Most of the detail is then seen in the real actors so the viewer is given the perception that the whole army is more real. Of course during long shots Jackson knows he can use almost entirely computer-generated shots because the level of detail is not high enough to easily notice differences. One of the main differences between Lucas and Jackson is that Jackson used CGI to augment real images and Lucas tried to use it as the whole image of at least the main focus of the image.

Anyway, I am going off on a tangent about these two director's films. My main point is that in all these films, even when they suck, there is an aura in the images that I very strongly identify with. Grzinic's idea that computer-generated images collapse exposure time and kill the process is unfounded. These technologies do get rid of some processes but they create other ones that are also etched with aura from the creation process. In conclusion, I'm definitely not trying to say that CGI is better than reality. I am saying that instead of being seen as the end of art and the destruction of the aura of the image it is actually very artful and because of the way it is produced has a lot of aura contained in it.

Run Lola Run... no, not that way

I've seen this movie a couple times now and it still excites me every time. The way the film plays with time is fascinating and explores questions everyone has about the significance, impact, and repercussions of minor events in our lives. I think what makes the film great though is that the manipulation of time is not the only strong element. Even before the first repeat of time the film is compelling and draws the viewer in. One cause of this is the highly saturated colors which particularly accent Lola's red hair. The color gives the film an energy and a sense of urgency that would not exist if it were in black and white. Also, the rapid editing while Lola is running adds to the sense of desperation and urgency.

Another very interesting feature of the film is the use of animation for the scene of Lola exiting her apartment. Most of the film seems to rely on realistic and revealing camera work so this animated snippet stands out. I really wonder why the director wanted to include this piece. Possibly filming Lola run down the stairs would have been to difficult or it did not come out as well as an animation. Do people have ideas and explanations for the inclusion of this animated sequence?

What does it all mean? Does Virilio even want us to know?

In “Indirect Light”, Virilio continues with the style we discovered in “The Third Interval.” By this style I am referring to the manner in which he invents or redefines words without ever providing the definitions he attributes to them. It appears to me that he intends much of his argument to be understood through the deep meaning these words hold, but by obscuring and condensing his message with these complex and hard to comprehend words he is making it much less accessible than it could be. He uses many 'clarifications' of words that are themselves extremely hard to interpret. However, many of the words are reoccurring and some seem to relate to others so there must be order and structure to this chaos, but without further explanation there is a very high barrier to understanding.

Despite all the confusion, I think I got glimpses of what Virilio is trying to say. When he talks about indirect light it seems like he is referring to the light captured by a video device being transported somewhere else and illuminating some display in real-time. In a sense, this display is being lit by the light captured elsewhere and therefore it is not the same light. Virilio combines this with the fact that displays and video recording devices are becoming more ubiquitous so that every surface and space can be a display and everything in space is recorded. I don't necessarily agree that this real-time capture to display explosion will really happen though because live feeds are extremely boring and worthless 99.9% of the time. In general, most of life is not worth reproduction. For as far into the future as I can predict I see people being more entertained and captivated with pre-scripted recordings or at least edited and selected 'reality.' Reality TV shows are a great example of this: they film all the time and only select a very small portion of the footage that is interesting and compelling enough to show the viewer. Even with this highly selective, non-real-time process, many of these shows are still boring in my opinion.

That being said, I don't really know if that is what Virilio was trying to say because it seems like he tried his hardest to make it hard to understand him. It would be interesting to see an updated version of these ideas though because since he wrote this in 2000 YouTube and online video in general has really taken off. I don't know how YouTube would fit in with his argument though because although it broadcasts videos all over the world in real-time, none of the videos are actually live feeds. On a similar train of though I wonder what he thinks of streaming video such as webcasts and what he would say about students that never go to class and prefer to simply watch the webcasts.

Why travel time to talk about the present?

I think “The Time Machine” is less about the mysteries and science of time travel than it is a critique or warning of the consequences of industrialization. Wells warns about the potential harms of subjugating the working class and also of eliminating challenges from life. He sees a future where the poor or working class have been banished from the surface of the earth and are no longer even seen to be the same species as the upper class which was allowed to stay on the surface. The Eloi are Wells' comment on the “easy life” of the elites and what happens when survival is not challenged. Although Wells wrote this book over 100 years ago, I think the novel's lesson is even more relevant in today's world. The evolution of humans into lesser beings is also the subject of the movie Idiocracy (which I mentioned in an earlier comment).

It interested me that Wells foresaw the impact that industrialization would have on people's attitudes toward melanin. Before industrialization, most workers were agricultural and developed darker skin. In contrast, the elites stayed inside most of the time and had pale skin. As a result, pale skin was seen as a sign of success because it meant you did not have to do real labor out in the hot sun. Wells saw that now the majority of the working class was kept in factories during daylight hours and rarely saw the sun. He speculated the continuation of this, and progressively worse working conditions, would make the working class very pale skinned. The Morlocks in The Time Machine represent the projection of this 800,000 years into the future, but we can already see some of what Wells “predicted.” Tan skin is now viewed in our culture as being more attractive than pale skin and I think what Wells saw happening during the industrial revolution has a lot to do with it. In the modern age, a lot of labor (particularly factory work) is done inside, while the elites, with their free time, are able to stay outside and get a tan.

Depicting the future working class as barely resembling humans seems like a comment on hazards already known to be caused by inhumane working conditions, like rickets for example. Rickets was a disease that riddled young children working in factories in England, because they did not absorb enough sunlight to produce Vitamin D and suffered the painful growth deformities caused by the deficiency. The Morlocks are Wells' warning of what the future might be like if such practices are not changed. Wells' time traveler guesses that “thousands of generations ago, man had thrust his brother man out of the ease and the sunshine.” By this he is hypothesizing that the working class was pushed underground, but it could also be seen as Wells describing the thrusting of workers into factories where they get no sunlight.

Even though I think Wells was commenting on English society at the end of the 19th century, it is understandable why he set his book in the future. Time travel allowed him more freedom to hypothesize about what current practices might lead to, and at the same time protected him against being labeled as too critical of contemporary society.