The Future of CGI

Though it seems as though CGI in film has always been with us, it’s really only been with us in modern form since The Abyss (1989) and, more memorably, Terminator 2 (1991). While critics and filmmakers have been right to cite CGI as revolutionary, it’s important to remember that it’s been largely a limited revolution, exclusive to the big budget, consequentially commercial films which can afford the expensive technology. It’s always been a let down to me that CGI has been available to (endlessly) create pyrotechnics, aliens and natural disasters (and occasionally entire worlds) but far less available to illuminate less literal concepts (like falling out of love). To be fair, this isn’t the fault of the technology as special effects have always been expensive and Hollywood largely confined pre-CGI special effects to conventional big budget films because of their cost. But there have been exceptions. For example, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) (which seems to be the exception to every rule) was able to harness state of the art technology in the service of three tenuously connected visual meditations of humankind’s relationship to the cosmos and higher intelligence. Granted, that was Stanley Kubrick and that was 1968 but it serves as an example that special effects need not be exclusively tethered to linear narratives concerned with the destruction of natural phenomenon. By no means typical, 2001 does at least reflect a time when studios were willing to take more chances (that is take any chances) with unconventional concepts and expensive special effects.

Since the ‘80s this has not been characteristic of big budget studio films. This is not to say there haven’t been some imaginative uses of special effects in big budget films. Pre-CGI films such as Blade Runner (1982) and Dune (1984) were highly ambitious films that used special effects to create unique and disturbing alternate worlds. And post-CGI studio films like Jurassic Park (1993), What Dreams May Come (1998), A.I. (2001), and the Lord of the Rings films (to name a few) have similarly visualized rich, alternate realities. It’s just that, for the most part, these imaginative uses of CGI are wed to less imaginative overall films. For example, in many respects the purpose of Titanic (1997) was to use state of the art technology to convey the reality of a unique historical event. What was the actual sinking of the great ship on its maiden voyage really like? And in this regard it was spectacularly successful. The human element (I hesitate to use the term “drama”) of the film, however, was clumsy and clichéd. Imagine (and I realize that we’re taking Tattoo by the hand and walking the beaches of Fantasy Island here) if Titanic had featured the exact same meticulous CGI recreation of the ship and its sinking but was written and directed by Robert Altman. Both of the films would capture the technical destruction of the ship but surely the Altman film would more accurately reflect the realities, social and otherwise, of those aboard. This would involve the free floating, overlapping style of Altman in which multiple characters would interact, some unaware of others, until their various conversations and interactions would be interrupted by the convergence of steel and ice.

I can see your eyes rolling from here. No one is going to let Robert Altman direct a 200 million dollar “disaster movie.” Titanic thus reveals how CGI’s historical limitation to conventional, big budget studio films has limited its definition in our minds. CGI is buildings exploding, ships sinking and aliens attacking, not the backdrop for an Edwardian class commentary or even more ambitious uses. The lowering costs of CGI and its consequent increased use in independent film, however, promises to expand this limited definition.

It has been heartening to see the independent film (in the sense of artistic independence not true studio independence) explosion of the ‘90s. Though this explosion was concurrent with the explosion of CGI in big budget films, CGI has not been an economically available tool for indie filmmakers. This constraint has similarly limited our definition of what an independent or artistic film is. Like John Cassevettes and Orson Welles who essentially invented American independent film, indie film has been characterized (and confined) from the beginning by qualities that aren’t particularly cost dependent: innovative directing, unconventional concepts/scripts and edgy performances. Historically, convergences of artistry and expensive special effects have been the rare product of the unusual permissiveness of a historical era (like the late ‘60s) or what a big name director (like Kubrick or Spielberg) can “get away with” while still receiving major studio financing. The coming of CGI did not change this. The dynamism of the technology has been largely confined to technically impressive but repetitious and rather literal applications in big budget, commercial films. Seeing dinosaurs for the first time was breathtaking. Seeing them for the third time and then the fourth time was not. Tired car chases with real cars become tired car chases with CGI cars. The action of The Matrix was truly innovative but nonetheless yoked to conventional action elements and imitated in other films endlessly. The ‘90s retold a familiar story: if you wanted interesting characters and dialogue and direction, then indie movies were for you, but if you wanted that experience augmented by CGI, well there’s always an A.I. every ten years or so.