MPAA: Time for a Change

      This was my research paper for my English class.  I hated that class.



         Millions of people go to the movies each year and many rely on the ratings assigned by CARA (the Classification and Rating Administration) to choose which movies are appropriate for their children to watch. CARA, which is an affiliate of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), was established on November 1, 1968, as a tool for parents (Ratings History). As stated on their website, the purpose of the MPAA’s ratings system is to “provide parents with advance information about the content of films, so they can determine what movies are appropriate for their young children to see” (“Film Ratings”). While the ratings system does give a general idea of a movie’s content, the system is inadequate in helping parents decide which films their children should see. The ratings system does not sufficiently inform parents of movie content because the system suffers from ratings creep, inconsistency, and vagueness. The MPAA needs to revise the ratings system to remove these problems. The current ratings system, which assigns a letter grade to a movie designating who should be allowed to see it, should be changed to a system that, instead, quantifies the amount of objectionable content (i.e. violence, nudity, drugs, etc.). CARA also should not look at context or restrict audiences. The MPAA will be able to correct the problems that are presently in the ratings system by changing to a classification system that looks purely at content and not at what may or may not be offensive to prospective audiences.

         One of the problems that the ratings system has (and one a change in the system could fix) is ratings creep. Ratings creep is when content that used to be predominantly assigned to one rating (such as R) begins to “creep” down into another (PG-13). A study done in 2010 by Priya Nalkur, Patrick E. Jamieson and Daniel Romer, provides evidence of ratings creep. Nalkur et al. compared the content from the highest grossing films from 1950 to 2006 to their ratings. Nalkur et al. found that “differences in violence between R and PG-13 were often blurred” and “PG-13 has absorbed films that would previously have been assigned R, and has exhibited an increasing trend regarding the explicitness of violent content” (Nalkur). According to their studies, PG-13 movies are becoming increasingly more violent (Nalkur). A PG-13 movie from 2004 is likely to be more violent than one from 1990.

          A similar study was done by Richard Potts and Angela Belden. However, instead of looking at the actual content of the movies, they only looked at the rating descriptors. (Ratings descriptors explain why a film received a certain rating.) They came to the same conclusion--that there is “increasingly more adult content in movies at all the rating levels examined . . . ” (Potts). Potts and Belden write that “children are exposed to more mature content . . . in today’s G, PG, and PG-13 movies than they were only a few years ago” (Potts). If movies aimed at kids contain more mature content than they used to, then the ratings are not doing their job.

          In addition to reporting their findings, Potts et al. give possible reasons why ratings creep is happening. They point out that CARA is part of the MPAA, which is an “organization whose primary function is to maximize the financial success of motion pictures” (Potts). Because of this affiliation, they continue, a “competing profit motivation exists for CARA to apply the most liberal rating assignments possible and thus facilitate the largest audiences possible for each movie to be released” (Potts). Restrictive ratings, such as R, limit the number of prospective audiences; therefore, these movies are more likely to make less money. By giving more movies PG-13 ratings than R, CARA is increasing their profitability. However, Potts et al. point out that this reason is only “speculative” (Potts).

          Another possible reason Potts et al. give is the raters on the board are becoming desensitized to adult content (Potts). They write that “ratings creep could also result from a natural psychological process in which CARA raters themselves, in the execution of their jobs, become involuntarily desensitized to evocative adult content, resulting in collective assignments of more ‘lenient’ ratings” (Potts). If the act of them doing their job compromises the integrity of the ratings, then a revision is needed.

          One way to fix ratings creep is to quantify the content instead of assigning an age category. If the raters scaled the amount of violence or sex on a scale from one to ten, instead of deciding whether the movie should be given a PG-13 or R, it can prevent ratings creep. The amount of adult content is objective, whereas assigning content to an age category is subjective. While a better way to rate movies than today’s standard, it is still not perfect. In order for a quantitative rating to really work, there has to be a definitive way of quantifying. But, establishing a standardized way to quantify content is beyond the purpose of this paper.

          The second problem a change in the ratings system could fix is inconsistency. In an article for “The Hollywood Reporter,” Joan Graves, head of CARA, wrote, “Our most important job is consistency: Whether a film is educational, delightful, terrible or insightful, ratings are applied based on the level of content in a film” (Graves). However, by examining the content/ratings from different movies, a lot of inconsistency can be found. One example would be the documentaries Gunner Palace (2004) and Bully (2011). Gunner Palace is about the war in Iraq and Bully raises awareness about bullying in public schools. Both movies were originally rated R for language and both appealed to the MPAA to get their ratings changed (Tucker; Sacks). Gunner Palace’s appeal was successful and the film was given a PG-13 rating (Tucker). However, in order for Bully to achieve a PG-13, it had to remove some swearing (Sacks). While one movie was able to get a PG-13 rating without any editing, the other had to be re-cut. Bully removed half of the f-words used, taking it from the original six down to three (Zeitchik ‘Bully’). Gunner Palace, which was not edited, contains forty-two f-words (“Gunner Palace”). If CARA cannot consistently rate language, then something needs to be changed. By quantifying the content, Gunner Palace would have rated higher on the language scale than Bully, allowing for more consistency. A quantification also would have alerted parents of the actual content better than a letter would have.

          Language is not the only thing that is unsystematically rated--sexual content also is. In 2010, two movies with similar sexual content were released, Black Swan and Blue Valentine. However, Black Swan was rated R while Blue Valentine received a NC-17.  The distributor of Blue Valentine appealed the NC-17 rating and won, allowing the rating to be dropped to an R without any change in content (Zeitchik ‘Blue Valentine’).

          These movies show two different inconsistencies. One, they show that the MPAA does not always give the same rating to movies with similar content. One would assume that movies which contain similar content, such Blue Valentine and Black Swan, would receive the same rating. It also shows another inconsistency:  changing the rating without changing the content. Bully had to be edited to receive a PG-13 rating. It had different content, so it deserved a different rating. However, Blue Valentine kept all of its content intact while obtaining a lower rating. So, whether it was rated R or NC-17, it was the same movie with the same content.

          If the MPAA changed their ratings system to one that quantifies material, it would help decrease the inconsistency in the current ratings. Instead of the board members trying to decide whether something deserves a PG-13, R or NC-17, they only have to measure the amount.  By simply quantifying the amount (in whichever way CARA decides is best), it will be able to more consistently describe a movie’s content.

          Another concern a revision of the ratings system could change is the vagueness of the ratings themselves. The MPAA assigns a rating (G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17) to each movie and then offers a description. According to their website, the purpose of the rating is to signal “the degree of caution parents should exercise in weighing whether a movie is suitable for children” (“How to Read a Rating”). However, not all R-rated movies require the same amount of “caution.” Some R-rated movies, such as The King’s Speech, only have a few f-words, whereas other R-rated movies contain horrendous acts of violence. Not all R-rated movies have equal content and, therefore, should not have equal ratings. Scott Wampler, a writer for Examiner.com, wrote about his surprise that The Human Centipede, a movie “where three characters were stitched together, mouth-to-anus, and forced to parade around a mad scientist's lair,” received a less restrictive rating than Blue Valentine initially received, both of which were released the same year (Wampler). After Blue Valentine’s appeal, they both have an R-rating. But, are parents sufficiently “cautioned” about the movies’ content? According to the rating, the true story about a man overcoming a speech impediment, as seen in The King’s Speech, deserves the same amount of caution as torture-porn films such the Saw franchise. Movie critic, Michael Phillips, in an article for the “Chicago Tribune,” wrote “If ‘The King’s Speech’ and ‘Saw 3D’ warrant the same rating, then the system underneath leaves me speechless” (Phillips). It is arguable whether the profanity used in The King’s Speech is offensive, particularly to younger children; however, one cannot argue that The King’s Speech is equally offensive as Saw 3D or The Human Centipede. If they are not equally offensive, they should not have equal ratings. The vagueness of the ratings system necessitates that it be updated.

          In attempts to make the ratings clearer, the MPAA started including descriptions with the rating during the 90s (“Motion Picture”). As described on their website, the rating descriptor “aims to convey with precision why the film received its rating” (“How to Read a Rating”). Adding these descriptions did help, allowing parents to know the general content of a movie. However, the descriptions are still too vague. The MPAA does modify the content, but these modifications are also unclear. Some PG-13 rated movies contain “violence,” “combat violence,” “sci-fi violence,” “fantasy action violence” and “intense war violence” (“PG-13”). Essentially, these modifiers only name the genre of the movie. Is there a difference between “combat violence” and “war violence”? It can be seen that these descriptions are not very precise.

          While the present ratings system is useful, it is not as effective as it should be. It does provide general information about movie content, but it needs a revision. In a study similar to the ones mentioned above, Lucille Jenkins et al. suggest that the ratings could be improved by “the addition of a quantitative component” (Jenkins). However, this idea needs to be taken further and the current letter system replaced by a quantitative system. Referring to how they rate films, Graves wrote, “When we assign ratings to films, we do not make qualitative judgments; we are not film critics or censors” (Graves). However, they are making a “qualitative judgment” when they decide whether certain content is worth a PG-13 or an R-rating. A quantitative system would help CARA achieve its goal and reduce ratings creep, inconsistency and vagueness.

          To make the ratings system more effective, the MPAA should adopt a system similar to the one used by Kids-in-Mind.com.  As posted on their website, Kinds-in-Mind claim, “We do not assign an inscrutable rating based on age but 3 objective ratings for SEX/NUDITY, VIOLENCE/GORE & PROFANITY, on a scale of 0 to 10, and we explain in detail why a film rates high or low in a specific category” (Kinds-in-Mind). Instead of giving a movie an R-rating, the MPAA should assign a rating similar to four-seven-six (reflecting the amount of sex, violence, and profanity) and then have a detailed outline of the content on their website.

          While not a perfect solution, a quantitative ratings system would cut down on the amount of ratings creep. Instead of deciding from movie to movie which deserves an R-rating and which deserves a PG-13 rating, they determine up front how to scale content when the quantitative system is implemented. This will give them a baseline for consistency. Establishing a standardized way to rate films will, of course, be the tricky part. Will sex be measured by screen time, body parts shown or some other way? But, once a way has been chosen and implemented, it will help prevent the amount of ratings creep. One way in that it would help ratings creep is that it would be more transparent; it would be a lot easier to keep track of one specific category and to tell when ratings are creeping.

          Another problem that a quantitative ratings system could solve is inconsistency. A scale of one to ten is objective whereas a letter rating is subjective. Saying a movie, in regards to violence, earns a seven out of ten would be easier than deciding whether it deserves a PG-13 or an R rating. Because the one letter grade would be changed to a three category content grade (or whatever is decided upon), it would be more consistent. The rating given to one category would not be influence by the amount in another, thus making it easier to be consistent in scaling it. The raters would only have to look at and measure one category at a time, instead of weighing all of the content and coming up with an average rating for the entire movie.

          The four-seven-six example would not necessarily remove the vagueness of the current ratings. However, having a detailed description on a website explaining each category would. Instead of saying that a movie contains “war violence,” it would describe the violence--people are shot with blood splatter, a man gets his arm blown off, etc. It would also clarify the sexual content by saying whether it was consensual or forced, a same sex encounter, etc. Also, some parents may be more concerned about one type of content over another. By having the content divided, the specific content in question would be more accessible to parents and will better help them decide which movies are ok for their children to view.

          In addition to preventing ratings creep, inconsistency and vagueness, a switch to a quantitative system would prevent the MPAA from interpreting context and establishing restrictions. Context is more subjective than content. It is true that a war movie might be a more realistic portrayal of violence then the glamorized action blockbuster; but, violence is still violence and some people may want to avoid all of it. A person who wants to avoid all forms of violence would be more easily able to do so with a categorical rating of content.

          This type of ratings system would also prevent the MPAA from restricting audiences. It could be argued whether the MPAA should have the right to do so, but I am not going to go into detail about that here. However, Joan Graves, did write that “The ratings system exists for one purpose: to inform parents about the content of films” (Graves). Therefore, they should not censor who sees what, but should leave that to the individual and parents. Potts et al. point out that “The assertion, or assumption, by the MPAA . . . that CARA raters are somehow valid representatives of the American public, and that their judgments reflect the public's values, is implausible” (Potts). The members of CARA cannot represent the American norm and they should not try; parents should decide what their children see.

          In addition to censoring children, the ratings system is also censoring filmmakers. Filmmakers try and earn money from their movies; but a restrictive rating would decrease the prospective audience and, subsequently, box office earnings. So, in order to reach the widest possible audience, filmmakers edit, and censor, their movies to get a lower rating. Steven Zeitchik, in an article for the “LA Times,” wrote that 

An NC-17 rating means anyone younger than 17 cannot see the movie in theaters — even if they are accompanied by an adult. Many theater chains have a policy of not exhibiting NC-17 films, and some media outlets refuse to carry ads for NC-17 movies. That means the box office receipts and cultural impact of an NC-17 film are likely to be much more limited than an R-rated movie. (Zeitchik “Two Films”)

Many NC-17 rated movies are mature takes on adult themes, but they are not available because of their rating. In an interview with “TIME,” Dan Glickman, chairman and CEO of the MPAA, said, “Some people still see this as a censorship board. It's not. It's an information system. It's actually designed to keep censors at bay” (Cruz). The MPAA may be defending movies from government-imposed censorship, but the structure of the current system is only shifting the censorship to distributors and theaters.

          In order for the present ratings system to better fulfill its purpose, it needs to switch from the subjective letter grade based system to an objective quantitative system. Ratings creep, inconsistency and ambiguity in ratings prevent the system from fulfilling its purpose. The ratings system also is imposing its own interpretations on context and is restricting people from seeing certain films. However, a change to a ratings system that objectively assigns content (sex, violence, etc.) a number from one to ten and provides an explanation of the number on its website would greatly help in reducing the current system’s problems.  The next question is to decide how to quantify content.

Works Cited

     Cruz, Gilbert. "Happy 40th Birthday, Movie Ratings." Time.com. Time, 30 Oct. 2008. Web. 11 Mar. 2013.

     "Film Ratings." MPAA.org. Motion Picture Association of America, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2013.

     Graves, Joan. "MPAA Ratings Chief Defends Movie Ratings." The Hollywood Reporter n.d.: n. pag. 23 Feb. 2011. Web. 11 Mar. 2013.

     "Gunner Palace." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     "How to Read a Rating." MPAA.org. Motion Picture Association of America, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     Jenkins, Lucille, Theresa Webb, Nick Brown, A.A. Afifi, and Jess Kraus. "An Evaluation of the Motion Picture Association of America’s Treatment of Violence in PG-, PG-13–, and R-Rated Films." Pediatrics 115.5 (2005): E512-517. 1 May 2005. Web. 1 Mar. 2013.

     "Kids-In-Mind." Kids-In-Mind.com. Kids-in-Mind, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     "Motion Picture Association of America Film Rating System." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Oct. 2013. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     Nalkur, Priya G., Patrick E. Jamieson, and Daniel Romer. "The Effectiveness of the Motion Picture Association of America's Rating System in Screening Explicit Violence and Sex in Top-ranked Movies From 1950 to 2006." Journal of Adolescent Health 47.5 (2010): 440-47. ScienceDirect. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

     "PG-13-Rated Movies (MPAA)." MovieInsider.com. The Movie Insider, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     Phillips, Michael. "There's a Word for the MPAA...." ChicagoTribune.com. Chicago Tribune, 4 Nov. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     Potts, Richard, and Angela Belden. "Parental Guidance: A Content Analysis of MPAA Motion Picture Rating Justifications 1993–2005." Current Psychology 28.4 (2009): 266-83. SpringerLink. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

     Sacks, Ethan. "‘Bully’ Rating Reversal: The MPAA and Weinstein Co. Agree on Compromise That Nets Documentary PG-13." NY Daily News. Daily News America, 5 Apr. 2012. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.

     Tucker, Michael. "War May Be Hell...But Fighting the MPAA Over an 'R' Rating Is F*@#in' Lethal." Documentary.org. International Documentary Association, Feb. 2006. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     "Ratings History." MPAA.org. Motion Picture Association of America, n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2013.

     Wampler, Scott. "Why Did the MPAA Give 'Blue Valentine' an NC-17 Rating? You'll Never Guess." Examiner.com. Examiner, 8 Oct. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     Zeitchik, Steven. "'Blue Valentine' Wins MPAA Appeal, Will Be Released as an R-rated Film." 24 Frames. Los Angeles Times, 8 Dec. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

     Zeitchik, Steven. "'Bully' Rating: Some, but Not All, Profanity Cut to Get PG-13." 24 Frames. Los Angeles Times, 5 Apr. 2012. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.

     Zeitchik, Steven. "Two Films, Two Sex Scenes, Two Different Ratings." 24 Frames. Los Angeles Times, 4 Dec. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2013.

Ocean Heaven (2010)

          In my English class last semester, we had to choose a movie playing at International Cinema and write a review about it.  So here it is.

Ocean Heaven (2010)

An Average Story of a Father and his Son

  The premise of Ocean Heaven looks like a very promising tear-jerker: A father with a terminal illness, awaiting his own death, must find a way for his autistic son to survive on his own. And it stars Jet Li as the father. However, while someone would expect a powerful film, Ocean Heaven does not really pack a punch.

          Don’t get me wrong, Ocean Heaven is a decent film, just not as moving as I anticipated. The film is about Wang (played by Jet Li) who works at an aquarium. Wang is a widower who takes care of his twenty-two year old autistic son, Dafu (portrayed by Zhang Wen). After finding out that he is suffering from a terminal illness, Wang must find a place where Dafu will be taken care of after he dies. It seems like compelling stuff, but the whole movie is subtle and does not really invoke any strong emotions. And I think that is partly because of the script and partly due to the restrained acting. There are some tender moments between the father and his son. There are also some hard moments. But these are all small; there are no big, emotional scenes that most drama movies of this kind normally have. There are no dramatic hospital scenes, no powerful “I love you” moments. The emotions are pretty much low-key here. I could see and understand why this situation would be hard on Wang; but, I never felt his struggles.

          The script could have also benefited from some more revisions. There are a few plot points and scenes that feel a little out of place. The opening scene sets you up for one type of movie, but fails to follow that, taking you in a totally different direction. The beginning brings up some interesting ideas and questions, but the rest of the film never pursues or examines them. It is almost as if it never happened.

          And just like how there is no follow up to the opening scene, there is no build up to the ending. I do not want to give anything away (though, the movie is fairly predictable with no real surprises) but the ending involves a sea turtle. But I do not think we ever see a sea turtle before then. Sea turtles actually play a pretty big part in the ending of the film, but it comes as kind of a shock because it appears so random. The guy works at an aquarium; I imagine it would have been fairly easy to insert a scene early in the movie, introducing the idea of the sea turtle. But, there is none; so the ending is a little weird and not as compelling as it could have been.

          The same thing applies to the mother. Early in the film, it is established that she died when Dafu was still a young boy; but, it leaves it at that. Later in the movie, some more information is revealed about the mother’s death. But, because she is basically absent from the whole movie (there may have been one flashback), this revelation has little impact.

          But, like I have said, Ocean Heaven is worth watching. The actors do a good job. This is Jet Li’s first main role outside of the action genre. He trades in his lightning fast hands for a pair of glasses and a blue jumpsuit. Li plays an average man who works hard and wants the best for his son; and he pulls it off pretty well. Zhang Wen also is believable in his role of Li’s autistic son. I have not spent any time with autistic children, so I do not know how “realistic” his portrayal was; but I bought it. (Though, the hand thing seemed a little weird to me.) All of the supporting actors are also convincing in their roles.

          It does bring up some interesting points about our society. Whose responsibility is it to watch after and take care of a person with a mental disability when he has no family members? Dafu is twenty-two years old with no mother and a dying father; and all of the institutions that Wang visits are unable to accept Dafu. Wang tries to teach him how to take care of himself; but without external support, it does not appear to be enough. Should the government institutionalize him? Should the community get involved? Who should be responsible?

          It is interesting to see what points and themes are brought up, considering that the writer and director, Xiao Lu Xue, had previously volunteered for fourteen years at an organization for autistic children. Ocean Heaven is her directorial debut. Her only previous film credit was writer of Together (2002), which was also about the relationship between a father and his son.

          While not as moving as expected, Ocean Heaven is good film. It has a strong story with honest acting; but, everything was too subtle to really stir me. But, it is worth watching. I give it three out of five.

But that's just my opinion...

TRON and The Thing: Changes in Film Technology from 1982 to 2011

          So, it is the end of the semester, that mean research papers.  And since my major is Media Arts, all of my papers are movie related.  So, I'll probably be posting them on the blog.  They're longer, ranging from 7 to 10 pages; so you don't have to read them.  But they'll be here if you want.

          This first one is a paper I co-wrote with a classmate about changes in film technology in regards to SFX.  He wrote about the TRON franchise and I wrote about The Thing movies.  We then put them together.

TRON and The Thing:

Changes in Film Technology from 1982 to 2011

          The study of the history of cinema rests upon four pillars: aesthetics, sociology, economic and technology. Every work of cinema both influences and is influenced by each pillar, and the pillars intertwine to affect each other. For instance, technological advances create new and unique aesthetics and are informed by social demand and industry prices. A careful comparison of films divided by decades reveals the shifts in filmmaking technology that have occurred. An effective means of comparison involves appraising the differences and similarities between movies in the same franchises between which many years of technological advancement have elapsed. Comparison and contrast of special effects in the 1982 film TRON with its 2010 sequel TRON: Legacy and the The Thing (1982) with its 2011 prequel by the same name indicates the clear and drastic shifts in the technological pillar over the 28 years that divide the films.

          TRON is about a computer programmer who is digitized and transferred inside the mainframe of his company’s computer.  Once inside the computer, he must find a way to escape.  The sequel follows the programmer’s son as he enters the computer in search of his father several years later.  By taking place inside of a computer, TRON was an ideal film to explore the possibilities of computer generated effects.

          The 1982 film TRON and its 2010 sequel TRON: Legacy are stylistically similar in their visual aesthetics by intentional design. However, the areas where the aesthetics differ between the two films indicate clear shifts in film technology, mainly in post-production computer graphics and compositing technology.

          The 1982 film TRON remains a milestone in the history of computer-generated imaging, as it pushed the boundaries of the cutting edge of computer imaging and pioneered new technologies that became the foundation for modern practices.  It was one of the first movies to rely extensively on CGI.  The imaging computer used to create scenes such as the light cycle sequence was the size of a washing machine and used two MB of processing data on a drive with 330MB capacity – figures archaic and minimal by today’s standards, but state-of-the-art at the time of the TRON’s production.  In reference to the limitation of their computer, scene programmer, Christ Wedge, recalls, “Our system couldn't hold enough data for us to resolve much stuff in the distance.  We had a fog function that would track along, and at a certain distance, we would start mixing in black to fade things out. We called it ‘depth cueing.’ Richard Taylor used to say, ‘When it doubt, black it out!’” (“Tron Then and Now”).  The predominantly black environment in which the heterotopic story-arc transpires became an identifying characteristic of the Tron franchise by technological necessity, but the look carried over into the 2010 sequel to maintain stylistic consistency.

          The post-production procedure was a tedious and time-consuming process. Effects animator John Van Vliet recalls the hours of painstaking frame-by frame animation and compositing:  “[TRON] was a curious hybrid of live action, CG, and hand animation. Every frame of live action had to be blown up to animation-sized cels, color tinted with mattes, have hand-drawn animation added, and then composited under a huge camera” (“Tron Then and Now”). Whereas the computer technology of 1982 required frame-by-frame matte painting and manual compositing, the 2011 picture utilized blue screen technology consistently to composite digital imaging with live action.  Director Joseph Kosinski and his team knew they would be pushing the boundaries of what current effects technology can achieve to make Legacy in the spirit of TRON. The result is a complicated blend of techniques, from blue screen to 3D cameras, that Kosinski and his team melded together for the film.

          TRON: Legacy’s post-production supervisor Eric Barba claims that the matte painting techniques would have made the overall look of the film, including its exhibition in 3D real-D, quite impossible to achieve. “The cityscape of The Grid traditionally would have been matte paintings, but in a 3D movie other 3D elements won't look right with a flat matte painting. You can't cheat like that. We had to project everything onto geometry with scenes built to the correct scale and depth’" (quoted in Bunish). The advances in filmmaking technology over the 30 years since the original minimized, if not eliminated, the limitations on scope inherent in the original.

          Comparison of the costume design of the two films is indicative of the magnitude of the advances in technology over the three decades that divide them. In both films, the suits worn by programs within the TRON system exhibit glowing electronic circuitry, and the faces of the characters while in the program are colored and illuminated. The techniques used to accomplish this coloration differ between the two films due to advances in computer imaging and practical effects. According to Alex Santoso, one of 41 ink and paint artists employed on the crew of the 1982 original, “The glowing circuitry on the character's costumes… were hand-painted onto each frame” (Santoso). By contrast, in the 2010 sequel, the costume designers engineered cutting-edge suites that illuminated themselves with self-contained power and fluorescent light strips flexible enough for high levels of physical motion in thick foam suits. Christine Clark, the film’s associate costume designer, revealed in an interview with “Popular Mechanics” that “we used seven little tiny lithium-ion batteries, together about the size of a deck of cards, for each inverter. And this is all buried inside the hubs in the identity discs on the backs of the suits… and then we would lay the lights into little channels in the foam suits and secure them with Velcro” (Clark). This was accomplished practically due to the fact that the film was shot and screened in 3D, which would have made the frame-by-frame post-production painting very difficult in dual-optic visual effects.

          Another film franchise that similarly demonstrates changes in film technology over the past three decades is John Carpenter’s The Thing, released in 1982, and its prequel of the same name, The Thing, which was released in 2011.  Similar to TRON, about twenty-eight years passed between each installment, and because of this, the two movies use very different technologies to bring the title creature to life, with each technology adding to the overall aesthetic of the film.

          John Carpenter’s The Thing is a remake of 1951’s The Thing From Another World, which in turn was based on a novella by  John W. Campbell, Jr., called “Who Goes There?”  The basic story involves an alien ship crash landing Antarctica, where it is dug up by a team of scientists.  Once uncovered, the alien turns out to be a shapeshifter and begins assimilated members in the group until it is finally defeated in the end.  However, in Carpenter’s film, the alien is originally discovered by a Norwegian team prior to the start, then makes its way to the American camp.

          We could even look back to the 1951 production to see an even wider change in technology.  The alien portrayed in the earliest version is merely an actor in a suit; the filmmakers did not have the technology to depict the alien actually changing its form.  However, with advances in technology, John Carpenter was able to show one thirty years later.  Rob Bottin, head of the special effects team, used animatronics and puppetry to bring the creature to life.  Robert Zak, a freelance writer, wrote that The Thing “represents the pinnacle of prosthetic and animatronic-based special effects in horror films” (Zak).

          There are several scenes where the alien, disguised as a human or a dog, begins to change and ruptures to reveal the monstrous alien.  Once such scene occurs when one of the characters, Norris, goes into cardiac arrest.  The doctor attempts to use a defibrillator on him, only to have Norris’s chest burst open like a mouth and bite the doctor’s arms off.  A second head then emerges from the chest, rising up into the air.  The first head detaches itself from the body, sprouts legs and tries to escape.  Luckily, the protagonist is able to kill it with a flamethrower.

          There were several techniques used to accomplish this  horrendous scene.  The first thing that had to be done was to replicate the actor.  A reproduction of the head was sculpted into clay, a mold was taken and filled with latex, finalizing with a fake head controlled by a puppeteer.  Another puppeteer pushed on a rod, that ran hidden through the fake body, that forced the head away and off of the torso.  Other workers controlled the chest/mouth mechanism.  A double amputee was used as a body double for the doctor.  Fake arms were attached to the actor’s stumps, which were then ripped off by the mouth mechanism.  To accomplish the detached head trying to escape, a fake head was attached to a remote control car, that, when drove, moved the legs.

          Because all of the effects were mechanical, they had a specific aesthetic to them.  All of the effects were very limited in movement.  When the second head grows from the chest, the audience sees the body shaking, then it cuts to a reaction shot of one of the researchers, and when it cuts back, the new appendage has fully sprouted.  The audience never actually sees the head emerge.  There are multiple scenes where the film cuts away and then back to reveal a person farther along in a mutation.  Also, the movements of the alien themselves are distinguished.  Zak also wrote, “The jerky, twitchy movements do look mechanical, but then the human body essentially is mechanical” (Zak).  Because of the limitations and physics of the puppets, the creature has a distinct feel to it.

           Twenty nine years later, the prequel was released, which primarily used computer-generated imaging.  However, in between the two films, Jurassic Park came out, which relied heavily on the combination of practical effects and complex computer-generated imagery and ushered in a new wave of special effects.  From that point forward, CGI has become a norm for movie special effects.

          2011’s The Thing is a prequel to John Carpenter's version, depicting what happened at the Norwegian camp.  The alien shown here was done with computer effects.  To accomplish these, a team of animators would use computer software to design the look of the creature, decide how it was going to move and change, and adjust textures, layers and lighting, and finally composite it into the final sequence.  There were two groups of animators, one working on things like blood and slime and the other animated the transformations themselves.  And similar to Carpenter’s version, the creature here splits open, changes and sprouts new limbs.  The animators were also able to put actual footage of an actor’s head onto the alien’s CG body, instead of having to “sculpt” a head like Bottin’s team did.  They even had a CG alien merge its face into the head of an actor, combining them into one creature, which would have been impossible using puppetry.  However, because these were all done inside the computer, they were not limited in the ways that Bottin’s practical effects were.  The alien was free to move and change as it wanted to.  And because the alien was no longer restrained in what it could do, it had a different feel to it than the previous version.

          While the Thing in the 1982 film only showed part or simple transformations, the prequel was able to show everything.  Instead of cutting between reaction shots and progressively more mutated animatronics, the prequel depicted the complete change in shape.  A human character would suddenly grow monstrous legs out of its torso and begin to walk around.  And while the practical version was limited in movement, the CG version was free to do whatever the animators could think of.  There are several scenes in which the creature chases people around the compound, even jumping through a window to get them.  All of these movements would have been extremely hard to achieve with practical effects.  Zak described the effects as “fast” and “fluid” and that the alien can sprout any number of limbs “with ease” (Zak).

          These two films demonstrate a major shift in film technology.  John Carpenter’s version relied on practical effects.  Because of this, they were limited in the creature’s movements and the amount of mutations actually shown.  On the other hand, the prequel primarily used computer-generated imagery.  And because of this, the creature was free to move, run, change,  and sprout all it wanted to.  These two different technologies also lend themselves to the overall aesthetic of their respective films.

          The dramatic advances in filmmaking technology over the past three decades as indicated by the TRON and The Thing franchises illustrate the awe-inspiring rapidity of technological development. One must only observe the trajectory at which the technological world is evolving to extrapolate the future sophistication of the visual effects industry, which excites practitioners and audience members alike. The technology with which filmmakers accomplish ‘movie magic’ will continue to develop and progress as the medium moves into the brightness of the future.

Bibliography

     "Jurassic Park (film)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 Sept. 2013. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

     "The Incredible Effects of The Thing." Cinefantastique n.d.: n. pag. Outpost31.com. Outpost 31. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.

     "The Thing (1982)." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013.

     "The Thing." Imagine-engine.com. Image Engine, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013.

     "Who Goes There?" Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 Feb. 2013. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

Works Cited

     "Tron Then and Now." Creativeplanetnetwork.com. Creative Planet Network, n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.

     Bunish, Christine. "Digital Domain Creates a 21st-Century Tron: Legacy."Markeemagazine.com. Markee 2.0, 5 Dec. 2012. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.

     Clark, Christine. "Creating Tron: Legacy's Lightsuits." Interview by Erin McCarthy.Popularmechanics.com. Popular Mechanics, 9 Dec. 2010. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.

     Santoso, Alex. "10 Neat Facts About Tron." Neatorama.com. Neatorama, 28 June 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

     Zak, Robert. "Modern Horror: Lay off the CGI and Bring Back Prosthetics."Blogs.independent.co.uk. The Independent Blogs, 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 08 Apr. 2013.

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

          So, I recently found a paper I wrote a few years ago and seeing how today is Halloween, I decided to post it.  This is an academic paper, so it will be different from my usual posts.  And it also contains spoilers.  But, if you haven't seen this yet, spoilers is the least of your problems.

9 March 2011

Film Analysis Paper #1

Night of the Living Dead

George A. Romero

1968

USA

English

Introduction

When George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead premiered in 1968, it revolutionized the zombie genre. Before Romero, most movies featured zombies that were a product of voodoo.  They were usually slaves, being controlled by the person who put the curse on them (Roberts, The Zombie Movie History).  The writers at IGN.com put it this way:  “The granddaddy of the modern zombie genre...rethought what a zombie movie could be, removing the shambling creatures from the realm of voodoo...and placing them squarely in the backyard of middle-class America” (Linder).  Ever since, zombies have been depicted as undead that feast on human flesh.

By defining the rules of the zombie flick, Romero has influence all following movies of the type.  But, Night of the Living Dead was only the beginning.  Romero has since followed it with five sequels.  The first three films in the series have all been remade.  It has spawned numerous imitations.  Even after 40 years, this classic still influences everything from blockbuster movies to low budget films to video games (Linder).

Synopsis

          Barbra and her brother Johnny go to visit their father’s grave.  While at the cemetery, Ben and attacked and killed by a strange man, who then chases Barbra.  Barbra flees and takes refuge in an abandoned house.  She is shortly followed by another person, Ben, who also hides there.  Together they begin to board up the house, to protect themselves from her attacker, who is slowly joined by other people acting in similar ways.  Barbra and Ben are also joined by other people--The Cooper family and Tom and Judy--who have been hiding in the basement.

          They find a radio and television and discover that the people that have been surrounding the house are recently animated corpses that feed on flesh.  Fearing the undead, Harry Cooper hides his family in the basement.  The others continue to board up the house.  In an attempt to escape, Tom and Judy are killed.  Fighting over a rifle, Ben shoots Harry, who descends into the basement and dies.  Harry’s daughter, Karen, becomes a zombie and kills her own mother.  Meanwhile, Barbra sees her brother among the undead.  Taken by surprise, she is pulled into the mob of zombies.  As a last resort, Ben locks himself in the cellar, where he passes the remainder of the night.  The next day, Ben emerges from the basement and is subsequently shot and killed by a posse, who confused him for an undead.

Analysis

          While looking at the formal elements, the most obvious is the use of black and white film stock.  When Night of the Living Dead was released in the 60s, most films were shot in color.  The choice to use black and white stock was not an aesthetic one, but an economical one.  According to Lee Roberts, Romero chose black and white because it was cheaper, keeping the budget down (Roberts Night of the Living Dead).  Whether he intended it or not, this choice added a great deal to the atmosphere of the film.  The lack of color emphasizes the emotions of the characters; they are scared and running out of options.

          Another important element was the use of camera angles.  Romero constantly uses a Dutch angle.  Many of the shots of Barbra running from the cemetery to the farmhouse employ this angle.  After Barbra watches her brother’s murder and is subsequently chased by his attacker, her world is turned upside down.  The dutch angle is also effectively used when Barbra tries to use the telephone to call for help and discovers that it has been disconnected.  She is trapped without a form of communication.  The unnatural tilt of the camera captures the unnatural events taking place outside the farmhouse.

          While Romero uses the Dutch angle as it is customarily used, he does the opposite with another angle--the low angle.  Normally, a low angle shot represents power and authority and a high angle conveys vulnerability.  But, Romero makes little use of the high angle shot (which would have normally heightened the character’s weakness), instead, filming many scenes from a low angle.  One particular scene has Barbra standing in front of a fireplace while Ben gathers wood to secure the house.  She is filmed from a low angle.  Normally, this angle would depict her own strength.  But, in this context, it seems more to emphasize her fear.  As Ben boards up the house, low angles are also used.  This does not focus on his power over the zombies, but rather his determination.  Rather than affirming the characters’ themselves, the low angle strengthens their emotional states.  Barbra looks more afraid from a low angle than a high one.

          Another element successfully used is the lighting.  The whole movie uses low key lighting.  This creates high contrast.  The contrast between light and dark alludes to the contention in the film.  The people in the farmhouse struggle to survive the invading zombies.  These two forces battle against each other, just as the light and dark do in the lighting.  Another contention occurs between Ben and Harry.    Ben wants to stay and fight while Harry wants to descend into the basement to hide.  The contrast between their plans is accentuated by the low key lighting.

          Low key lighting is also exploited to achieve a different effect.  When Barbra and Ben first enter the house, there are no lights on.  The house is completely black save a few blotches of light.  It is not until they have been in the house for about 10 minutes that Ben turns on the lights, eliminating the darkness.  In this first part, the blackness represents the unknown.  They do not know who the zombies are or where they came from.  Ben and Barbra do not know what they are going to do.  But, Ben eventually has an idea and turns on the lights.  He begins looking for tools to fortify the house.  Turning on the lights and eliminating the shadows symbolizes their turn of action.  Ben realizes the gravity of the situation and now knows what they must do.  He makes a plan and follows it.  This plan guides them just as the lights do.

          At the end of the film, the power goes out, throwing the house into the same darkness it was in at the beginning.  But, this time the shadows coincide with the impending doom.  Right after the lights go out, the zombies break through the boards and enter the house.  Just as the shadows surround the characters, likewise do the zombies.  This can most easily be seen in the last shot of Ben that night, before the next day.  The zombies have invaded the house and Ben has locked himself in the basement.  He is trapped; there is only one way in and one way out.  Ben is last seen crouching in the middle of the frame, with shadows on either side, occupying about two thirds of the shot.  The shadows are on the verge of collapsing on Ben.  Upstairs, the zombies are on the brink of reaching him as well.

          An additional element that is used (though to a lesser degree) to create a sense of helplessness is the use of a frame within a frame.  At first, the only connection to the outside world was the radio.  Eventually, the group finds a television set.  Now, they can watch the news and learn any updates about the events.  But, all the scientists and police are framed by the television.  They are the people who know and have the power to help.  However, by framing them in the television, they are removed one step from Ben and the group.  It distances them, placing help beyond reach.  Towards the end of the film, after the night has passed, the police and his posse are seen for the first time without the frame.  They are now close enough and able to help; although it is too late.

Personal Response

          I found this to be a really fun film.  While I enjoyed it, I also feel torn by it.  Some aspects of the film have aged quite well.  At the same time, others have not.  I thought the cinematography was quite good.  Camera angles, movement, lighting all contributed to create an effective atmosphere.  However, other aspects of the film seem outdated.  There are many instances where it cuts to the group of zombies outside.  They stand there for a split second, then they start walking.  It is almost as if the director gave them their cue one second too late.  I would assume that they would have been able to cut that first part out.  But either way, it looks a little funny and distracts from the film.  In another scene, Ben tackles a zombie and begins to punch it in the face.  But, it is obvious that he is punching off to the right, to avoid hurting the other actor.

          However, no film is perfect.  Even with its flaws, the overall film is a good watch.  Some parts are genuinely creepy; such as when the zombies eat Tom and Judy and when the Cooper girl, Karen, kills her mother.  The story is well written and the actors act as one would logically expect.  While not as fast paced or gory by today’s standards, this classic will always be a great one to watch.

Works Cited

     Roberts, Lee. "Night of the Living Dead Broke the Rules of Moviemaking." The BEST Horror Movies, For the Discerning Horror Freak... 2006. Web. 05 Mar. 2011. <http://www.best-horror-movies.com/night-of-the-living-dead.html>.

     Roberts, Lee. "The Zombie Movie History - Everything You Need to Be a Zombie Master." The BEST Horror Movies, For the Discerning Horror Freak... 2005. Web. 04 Mar. 2011. <http://www.best-horror-movies.com/zombie-movie-history.html>.

     Linder, Brian, and Scott Collura. "Top 10 Zombie Movies - Movies Feature at IGN." IGN Movies: Trailers, Movie Reviews, Pictures, Celebrities, and Interviews. 11 Feb. 2008. Web. 04 Mar. 2011. <http://movies.ign.com/articles/851/851230p2.html>.

But that's just my opinion...