Fuzzy Signals

In praise of waste?

I missed the Oscars, didn’t even know they were on, until I went onto IMDB (one of the great resources on the web) to look up some movie trivia. I vaguely recall some coverage leading up to the event, the usual analysis about whether 2003 was a lowlight or highlight in comparative terms, and of course, important topics like how the Red carpet is now the new catwalk for fashion denizens—which is why many of the top stars are gifted their posh rags. Sigh.

So my thoughts were naturally triggered into thinking about filmmaking—that most scintillating, experiential, acoustic innovation in modern cultural production. In particular, I have been ruminating about the relationship between the introduction of new cinematic technologies and the quality of films produced. These two things don't always follow each other in step. In fact, more than often, this is an inverse relationship. More tech results in less quality not more, at least at first, when the first early adopters (or early followers) enter the scene. While computer generated imagery (CGI), animation, and other technical triumphs have put a lot more creative power in film-makers hands these days, the tendency towards wastefulness and immoderation takes over. Like kids in a cinematic candy shop, the more cool tools, tricks, and techniques there are to play with, the more tempting it is to go overboard, hog-wild, and max out on its newness. Artistic judgment and discernment take a back seat. (And I have to say, this is a predominantly male trait, which explains a great deal since most directors are of this gender. More directors like Sophia Coppola please!)

In a nutshell, this is a trap I'm seeing more directors and producers, and few people are talking about this, which is why I was delighted to read this excellent review of Tarantio’s Kill Bill - Volume 1 (December 18, 2003). As Daniel Mendelsohn writes:

“What few critics have remarked on is how boring all this actually is—how random the action seems, how incomplete the narrative feels, how tedious, for all their color and noise, the scenes of violence are.”

A bit of discloser: vulnerable as I am to gross displays of violence, I have not seen this movie yet. But the point could be just as easily applied to the Matrix films, especially the last two, which were disappointing at best. Too much cool special effects and not enough story is my gripe with these films and others like it.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a notable exception. It will be a far more enduring work because its creators knew that a powerful story had to come first, and technology was just a means to an end. This is not to diminish the role of technology. Peter Jackson, the indomitable director and visionary behind this project, said it would have been impossible to create the fantastical world of Middle Earth in any satisfactory way without them.

So as viewer, I’m incredibly grateful and excited about these cinematic innovations, and in awe of the amazing virtual realities that are now possible. The seamless integration of animated characters like Gollum with human actors was a brilliant example of this kind of ingenuity. For a very fun if profane snapshot of this, see Gollum’s acceptance speech on the MTV awards. And then there is what we can now make humans do with almost no trace of artifice. I’m talking about the wickedly super-human fight scenes and violent feats, which can be very interesting when done with a measure of artistic restraint and "choicefulness " (to use a consulting term), like we saw in the first Matrix and, say, Crouching Tiger, Sleeping Dragon. If film-making is the art of creating virtual realities that entertain and edify, suspend our disbelief and get us to imagine new worlds and ways of being, these technologies hold a lot of promise for the evolution of this media.

Of course, what we are seeing in the movie business is also part of a much broader phenomenon. Digital technologies have transformed the nature of innovation (both content and process) by dramatically reducing the costs of creative production. We've seen this transformation occur across industries and fields, everything from automotive design, to drug discovery, to a revolutionary yacht that won the coveted America's Cup. One of the best books on this is Michael Schrage’s Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate. Modeling and prototyping new ideas, approaches and processes are now faster, better, and cheaper than ever before. In the past, it cost a lot to build a physical prototype or model, so it was more risky making the early design choices. Today it costs comparatively little to change the parameters on a virtual model. This freedom enables innovators to experiment with many more possibilities and variations, fruitfully and efficiently, reducing the risk of trying new things. Thus in a strange way, enabling this kind of waste is good. These tools clearly expand our creative productive potential, and they bring many more minds and people into the process. But if the proliferation of mediocre films are anything to go by, there are downsides to this new freedom. (Another posting shall be about the impact of PowerPoint on the quality of presentations. Hint: it's been very bad. Edward Tufte wrote a fantastic article called the "Cognitive Style of PowerPoint" explaining why.)

Less is more, to quote many... which leads me to another observation: all of these cutting edge films are noticeably long in duration and getting longer. Multi-part series and three hour plus shows are becoming the norm, if my sore butt is any reliable yardstick. Not so long ago, putting out such a product would have been deemed unmarketable, not economic. But thanks to the cost advantages of digital technologies, it’s getting easier to make these long films for many the reasons I mentioned above, as opposed to the days when movies like Cleopatra broke the bank to create those special effects.

To paraphrase Schrage, with rapid innovation and prototyping possible, the challenge is managing an abundance of options. Making artistic choices is even more important not less. In the past, scarcity of time and resources were the enemy, the biggest constraint, but in a world of abundance, they resurface and are appreciated as a useful parameter driving efficiency and inspiration. Most of my best, creative ideas have come under a draconian deadline. Lack of time was my friend, even if it didn't feel that way in the moment. Otherwise, the time it would take to accomplish my task would expand like an elastic band to fit the time I had available, whether it be one week or six. Clearly, if there was ever such a thing as a “law of human nature,” a good candidate would be this: the more time you have to do something, the more time you waste doing it. There are exceptions, of course, but perhaps this “law” is the uncle to what I was describing with new cinematic technologies when in the hands of undisciplined directors.

The simple point I'm making is that the STORY matters the most. Finding better, creative, more imaginative ways to tell stories will always be an art, and will always require artistic choices. Technologies may expand the range of these choices, and this is a good thing, but we shouldn't let them wag the cinematic dog. This is not a recipe for good films. Of course, if advancing the craft and practice means a few duds, a few failed experiments here and there, I'm willing to live with this. Peter Jackson, what's next?

Posted by nicole at March 2, 2004 11:19 PM