SCREEN-L Archives

August 1994


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
"John G. Thomas" <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 4 Aug 1994 09:09:11 -0700
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (29 lines)
        I have the feeling that these computerized/special effects movies
may not be around too long.  As nice as the "Mask" is, I wonder if it
and other films like "Jurassic Park" will represent a high point with
these kinds of films.  On the flip side, these films may evolve into
their own type.
        Right now, these films are a great novelty and the ability of the
filmmakers to bend reality in such new directions is a great new tool.
But will viewers tire of these new visual extremes?  Are these new visual
tools the modern equal of lap dissolves, fades and split screens of years
ago?  The acceptance by the audience of these very special visual effects
is worth study.  On a psychological level, what happens to the audience
when what they are viewing is obviously not a part of anyone's reality?
For instance, for the typical viewer, do they just accept what they are
seeing, or do they somehow "switch" to another level of perception?
        It is one idea that a filmmaker can use these incredible visual
tools to "fix" or correct a production problem, but quite another
proposition in films like "Jurassic" or "Mask" where the effects
themselves have become the heart and soul of the film.  I would be very
interested in the thoughts and comments of other Screen-L people along
this line.
                     "I'm pink, therefore I'm Spam"
---------------->from John G. Thomas ([log in to unmask]) <-------------------