The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Visual Effects
Editor’s note: Welcome to the twenty-eighth of a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!
by Jason from The Entertainment Junkie
Think about all of the summer blockbusters we’ve seen in the past several years. The form is full of special-effects-driven spectacles, with giant robots going head-to-head, whole cities being laid to waste, and gorgeous new worlds being built. And as the technology improves, these effects become sharper and more realistic, allowing filmmakers to bring to life even more wonders. But with this comes a problem: more and more films are abusing the use of visual effects, making effects drive the story (or semblance of a story, as is too often the case). The kinds of effects that the Academy should honor, then, are the opposite of this: the effective use of visual effects, which is the story is supported and enhanced by the effects, whether through important plot points (like 2008’s winner, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) or by creating a world for the story to take place in (like last year’s champion, Avatar, which admittedly didn’t have much in its favor outside of its effects).
Now that the Academy has expanded the Visual Effects category from three to five nominees, there are more opportunities to honor the use of effects. The decision to expand to five nominees is certainly symbolic of how many films are driven by special effects now. The question is, how many of these five nominees are effective uses of visual effects?
Alice in Wonderland certainly isn’t a shining example. In fact, I’d say that it’s the perfect representation of everything that’s wrong with blockbusters these days. It’s not that the world of Underland shouldn’t have been built by special effects; surely it was necessary. The problem is that the world is so ugly, the effects so poorly rendered (especially in 3D) that it’s ridiculous to even think that the film could earn a nomination here. If you want evidence of just how bad it gets, look no further than the abomination known as the Futterwacken scene toward the film’s end. If there’s any justice in the world, this will win nothing come Oscar night.
Iron Man 2 also fails on this front. The effects in this film aren’t nearly as ugly as those in Alice in Wonderland, but they do fall short in another way: they’re boring. The film shows us nothing new, nothing that we haven’t seen done before (and better) in other movies. And that’s a tragic short-coming for an effects-driven film. All around Iron Man 2 was a disappointment compared to the original, including its effects. Did the film really deserve this nomination? Not when the digital-cool world of Tron:Legacy and the brilliant (and perfectly used) visuals in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World were ignored (the latter, by the way, had the best visual effects of the year, hands down).
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 is a difficult film to figure out in regards to visual effects. The whole film series doesn’t make magic look particularly fun or magical, despite using cutting-edge technology. The strengths of these films’ effects come from other things, such as Lupin’s werewolf transformation in Prisoner of Azkaban or the bridge collapse in Half-Blood Prince. In Part 1, the big effects pieces are few, and there’s nothing really stunning about them. I’m guessing next year’s Part 2, featuring the climactic Battle of Hogwarts, will be a lock for next year’s Visual Effects prize, and this year’s nomination is simply filler for the category.
Hereafter was not among many people’s favorite films. It was a big-idea piece that didn’t really have anything to say, with plot strands that went nowhere and a third-act that completely derailed the film. But the tsunami scene at the beginning of the film was terrific, completely unexpected in a Clint Eastwood film and wonderfully executed. I wouldn’t say that the film is worthy of winning the Oscar, but it is a film in which the story, for better or worse, is supported by the effects rather than the other way around. Though the glimpses into the afterlife weren’t terribly thrilling, the tsunami was certainly worth a nod.
That just leaves Inception. The film is obviously built as a effects piece, the kind of film that couldn’t exist unless the technology for the effects existed. But the great thing about Inception is that the film isn’t dominated by computer-generated visual effects. For example, the oft-discussed hallway fight sequence was filmed on a rotating set, utilizing camera tricks instead of CGI. Of course, digital effects were employed as well, and unlike the other four films they created truly memorable spectacles, such as Paris folding in upon itself and Cobb’s meticulously detailed Limbo world. All of which never took precedence over the story. And that is the most special effect of all in this film (well, that and Marion Cotillard *sigh*).
So there you have it: five films that supposedly exemplify the best visual effects of 2010. Maybe next year the Academy won’t ignore such shining examples as Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, recognizing the truly special effects of 2011 (however many there are).
