 |
 |
Dan, I'm in total agreement regarding the verisimilitude of CGI. One of the best uses thereof still has to be found in Terminator 2, where 'form follows function.' That's why I personally generally prefer old- fashioned (analogue) Hollywood à la Cleopatra (1963) anytime to CGI fests such as Ridley Scott's Gladiator. CGI is fundamentally 'cold,' better suited to technological themes, as prevalent in SF, for instance in form of the opposition reality vs simulation. There are exceptions, of course, such as Peter Weir's Master and Commander, which seems incredibly realistic in its special effects, but in general CGI tends to flaunt itself. Henry > Patrick Crogan argued (in a sweet article for the special Horror > Edition of Film and Philosophy) that the digital revolution leads us > to lose the thingness of the thing (in Heidegger's sense), and that > CGI is just not as convincing (and moving) as good analog special > effects. I think his point has been proven ad nauseum in the eight > years since its publication. The suspension of disbelief is getting > harder and harder to secure. > > "For beauty is the beginning of terror we are still able to bear, > and why we love it so is because it so serenely disdains to destroy > us" Rilke's First Duino Elegy > > Daniel Shaw * * Film-Philosophy salon After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. * Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **