When I was a kid living in Dallas, my parents took me to see Toy Story. Made by Pixar and distributed by Disney, the movie utilized a filmmaking process called Computer-generated imagery (CGI) to bring its animated world to life.
CGI was nothing new, even then, but it was usually something equated with poor effects and cheap cinema. Pixar changed that and CGI soon became a frequently used tool in Hollywood even for live action movies. Unfortunately, what was a tool soon became almost the entirety of the filmmaking process replacing practical effects.
CGI has indeed revolutionized filmmaking, allowing for awe-inspiring visuals and fantastical worlds previously confined to imagination. However, its unbridled use has become a pervasive issue, homogenizing film aesthetics and sacrificing substance for spectacle.
I would argue that CGI overuse detracts from the filmmaking experience, advocating for a return to a balanced approach where CGI serves as a tool for enhancement, not replacement, of practical effects.
Firstly, CGI can hinder the emotional realism of a scene. Take, for instance, the infamous uncanny valley phenomenon, where overly humanoid CGI characters evoke unease due to their imperfect imitation of real emotions. A perfect example of this is MODOK in Ant-Man And The Wasp: Quantamania. The surrealism was almost painful to look at. He emoted poorly and the shape of his body not only dishonored his Marvel Comics source material. Sure, the character looked hideous, but in style, not in a villainous way.
Compare this to the raw, physical performances in The Dark Knight, where practical stunts and effects ground the characters in a tangible reality, amplifying the emotional impact. The Joker, portrayed by Heath Ledger, exclusively used make-up and prosthetics, giving him a disturbing aesthetic that perfectly matched the Batman villain and won the audience with his charismatic performance.
Scenes relying on CGI, like the MCU example above, often lack the weight and texture of practical sets and props, resulting in a sterile, digital aesthetic that alienates viewers.
Furthermore, CGI overuse stifles creative ingenuity. When filmmakers rely solely on digital manipulation, they neglect the potential of practical effects, a time-honored art form with its own unique beauty. Consider the meticulously crafted miniatures in Jim Henson’s Labyrinth, fostering a sense of wonder and groundedness absent in purely CGI landscapes. Practical effects often involve collaboration and innovation, leading to unexpected solutions and fostering a spirit of craftsmanship that enriches the final product.
Let’s be clear, CGI is not the villain. Used judiciously, it can be a powerful tool for seamless editing and visual enhancements. The many buildings in The Truman Show add to the illusion that the protagonist lives in, while the subtle de-aging effects in The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers enrich character development. The key lies in using CGI as a complement, not a replacement, for practical effects.
In conclusion, while CGI is a valuable tool, its overuse in filmmaking detracts from the overall experience. By prioritizing practical effects alongside judicious CGI use, filmmakers can create movies that are both visually stunning and emotionally resonant. Let us hope for a future where the digital and the tangible coexist, fostering unique stories and enriching the art of cinema for generations to come.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below. Tell me if there is a comic book, movie, anime, or novel you would like me to review.