www.slashfilm.com: When "Mad Max: Fury Road" came along in 2015, it was a revelation. The fourth "Mad Max" film landed in theaters thirty years after "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome," the third entry in the series. In a year where the box office was dominated by blockbusters like "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," "Jurassic World," and "Avengers: Age of Ultron," no one had any reason to suspect that this other old franchise would come roaring back to life with such great gusto, rather like a souped-up car engine in a post-apocalyptic desert "war party."
5 comments:
I love this film, and I’ve always admired the design of the entire piece, both the crazy costumes and the insane vehicle designs. In a way, I find it fun to think that even in the apocalypse, humanity will always love fashion and pomp and circumstance. However, one of my core beliefs is that creating great theater (or in this case, film.) does not involve bodily harm or dangers to the artist’s life. I hold this belief in regard to all art, but more specifically film and theater because they are collaborative projects. The stunt people, stunt drivers, and camera operators whose lives were put in danger filming these scenes weren’t the ones who planned them or intended to risk their lives, they also aren’t the ones who reap the rewards and accolades for the scene’s success and legacy. So when I ask myself whether it was worth it for the end product, I say no.
It is absolutely insane to see the lengths that people will go to make their art. I think that a lot of the time action movies like this are seen as corny or less effective because of a use of a lot of CGI editing. I think that there are definitely valid reasons for using both practical and edited effects in films. Like the article mentions, for this film they used almost all practical techniques and real stunt peoples, but it was extremely dangerous. So while CGI might not be as real, you are keeping real people safer. It also must have been very difficult to work all practical effects with that many people on set at a time, the article mentioned about 1000. In addition, I completely understand their reason for not wanted to mix the two. Because while some effects may be very achievable practically if you switch between the two it can be a bit distracting. Personally I know when I watch a film and I can tell editing has been heavily used it can really take me out of the world.
I will admit that I have not seen any of or heard much about the Max Max films, except that there are a lot of insane stunts inside involving ridiculously modified vehicles in a post apocalyptic world. I have always just assumed those are mostly achieved through CGI and other visual effects due to the scale and danger of them, so it was a little surprising to find out that nearly all of them were practical. I personally think that if a scene or stunt requires even the smallest risk of actors and crew being injured, then it is not worth going through with. This whole article honestly reminded me of several articles I read last week about the death and lifelong injuries that a performer and crew member sustained in theater production spaces; safety needs to be prioritized in the entertainment industry and should not be glorified as a normal or exciting part of the experience.
A question that this raised for me goes along the lines of, is CGI and video editing ever going to take the place of practical stunts completely? I know that video and our ability to mess with and tweak it has increased dramatically over my lifespan and will very probably continue to do so. This question reminded me of a conversation I’ve had before about actors needing tor respond to stuff, commonly this is the audience but in this case I imagine this extends to stuff like props or stunts where the awe of seeing a large car flip is wild compared to just having to imagine that it is happening in your mind as you act and are filmed. The point at which that would be is probably the point where CGI is so indistinguishable from reality and can be used in some regard in the filming process which might not ever happen. On a last note, I’m deeply curious how that all was done safely, and what the threshold for safety is considered at.
I do have a great appreciation for movies that can achieve many of the same looks as CGI with entirely practical effects, but I wonder if there's a time when practical effects might go too far. Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly appreciate the dedication to the craft that the cast and crew had with this film, but when people are being put in mortal danger in order to achieve a certain look or feel, maybe it's time to go back to the technology. You lose a certain level of reality, but there is an artistry in CGI that your film might also gain (plus, there's no chance of someone getting killed working at a computer, whereas a speeding vehicle is especially deadly). This is especially true as CGI gets ever more advanced, and eventually to the point where there can be no visual difference. At that time, will directors still even want to use practical effects, or will there always be a home for stunt work and those that perform them?
Post a Comment