Investigation: "Bad" effects as a choice

Either it's all a choice or none of it is. There are no accidents in art.

Perhaps the most common critique against old movies is that their effects did not age well. While I can understand the basic logic behind this criticism, I find it reductive and works as a way to ignore the critical use of those effects. There is often an interesting analytic purpose to these effects, however sometimes it is just an ascetic choice. Take the example above, if that snake looked like a genuine snake it would be a far less interesting and make the movie worse. Tim Burton uses these distinct "bad" effects in all his good films to great effect. Another example of supposed bad effects can be seen in Wes Anderson.

 

All of the effects in Anderson's movies look stereotypically cinematic and all the backgrounds look overly flat. These poorly done effects complement his overall style. The power of movies is to introduce a world completely separate from our own. When effects are meant to replicate the real world they are...boring. So when someone says that something doesn't look good because it doesn't look real I find that criticism extremely uninteresting. And as I said in the beginning often "bad" effects add analytic depth to a piece. 

The movie that faces the "the effects did not age well" critique the most is probably Cast Away. 

The night scenes from this movie look rather strange. This is because none of the scenes on the island were shot at night, instead shooting all at day and darkening the sky for the night scenes in post. So, the lighting seems a bit off in these scenes. While this can be viewed as a mistake or side-effect of it having been 20 years since the movies release, but Zemeckis had access to lighting to shoot at night so making these scenes look this way must be viewed as an artistic choice. In making the lighting strange in these scenes Zemeckis displays the disconcerting feeling of night on the island similar to his use of the jungle rustling at night. Similarly, there is a scenes on the boat where Hanks' character sees a whale's eye that doesn't look like a whale at all. Again this is not a fail of effects, but a showcase of Hanks' character's insanity during those scenes. 

Another example of "bad" effects adding depth can be seen in Starship Troopers.    

This is a movie about how action and war movies are thinly veiled fascistic propaganda. The bugs and space scenes look a little cheesy from a modern prospective, but if these scenes looked actually good it would subtract from the film's message about propaganda. The movie needs to look clearly like a movie and not a reflection of reality. 

Not all effects are good and I can recognize that not everything is intentional, but its more fun to assume every aspect of a movie to be a choice in order to gain deeper meanings, even if they were not intentional. 

Work Log

Monday- No school

Tuesday- attempted to salvage HGO doc, started work on Cost

Wednesday- Stated work on jane doe

Thursday- Jane doe titles 

Friday- Pretzel pie brain storming, Cost audio fixing