Left Brain vs. Right Brain: Computer graphics in film

In a battle of right brain versus left brain, Trevor Bekolay, Science and Technology Coordinator and Chelse McKee , Arts and Entertainment Editor, debate the latest issues of science and arts.

Chelse: So we’re discussing computer graphics in film. I’m against them.

Trevor: I’m for them. Now I’m curious, give me an example of computer graphics in film that is horrific and terrible.

C: I Am Legend. The zombies at the end were such overkill. The computer graphics exaggerated the mouth of the screaming zombie to the point of making it unbelievable. It threw the film from actual into fantastical, which eliminated the whole objective of what they were doing with the film’s plot. That’s why I have a huge problem with computer graphics. I mean, I’m fine with computer graphics when they do shots that you could never get from a camera and it adds to it but when it distorts the realm of reality, which I think cinema is based in, that’s when I think computer graphics begins to corrupt the film.

T: The only thing that computer graphics do is enable writers to fulfill any vision they might have, so if they want some retarded car chase with crazy explosions, they’re now able to do that without destroying a city. Computer graphics should enable a writer to be able to write whatever they feel like.

C: But at the same time, computer graphics almost seems like an easy way out rather than the director using their creative minds to say “hey, how can we actually make this a possibility.” If you looked at Be Kind, Rewind, it was amazing how these amateur filmmakers used their imagination, like piano keys using black and white hands being the actual piano keys. That’s what it should be about, is the creativity of cinema rather than just right away going for computer graphics.

T: I see that point and maybe it is a director’s discretion and whether they go for that. I don’t see a problem with computer graphics being another possibility. To say that traditional methods of visualizing something are more creative than computer graphics is a bit harsh. You can do a lot of creative things with computer graphics.

C: Like?

T: (laughs) If a writer comes up with a creative vision, being able to fulfill that vision that they can tinker with it rather than saying “Well, this is what’s available, so this is what it’s going to look like.”

C: I’m trying to think of what else we can talk about. We’ve sounded so smart up to this point. With computer graphics, they seem to be overtaking the films now. They seem to be overwhelming the film to the point of what’s real and what’s not. It seems to be redefining what cinema actually is. So it might just become computer cinema. It’s almost an uncomfortable zone of ambiguity. It’s similar to a discussion I’ve just heard where the question was “Is filmed theatre film?” So it becomes, if a film is mostly shot with computer graphics, is it still a film?

T: Are you saying that something like Toy Story isn’t a film? It’s all going towards this idea of traditional things are better because they’re more real and newer things that are created with technology are worse because they’re not “real.” If it looks the same to us, what’s the difference? The other point I wanted to make is doing computer graphics shouldn’t look like computer graphics. For example, one of the films with the most computer graphics is Forrest Gump and that’s not a film you’d think would use a lot of computer graphics. Lord of the Rings, the shots were really memorable. A lot of that film is good because it’s natural and it has this amazing New Zealand environment but all those things were enhanced by computer graphics. If you’re doing it right, it shouldn’t be obvious that it’s been faked.