Is Technology Ruining The Magic of Film?

The 21st Century has been an amazing time for cinema. It's been revolutionary.  We are living in a new age of cinema - the technological age.  We now have cinematic marvels like 'Gravity', 'Avatar', 'Star Trek' and 'Star Trek: Into Darkness'.  These films are all beautiful and filled with mind blowing images and special effects.  But in this new age of cinema, have we lost something?  Have we lost the mystique of filmmaking, the mystery?  The reason I ask is with every new technological film and, at this point, new film in general, we have updates on websites, numerous trailers, still photos and behind the scenes featurettes.  All of this is during the filmmaking process.  I think the age of technology has taken the mystery out of filmmaking and out of viewing films as a whole.

Imagine this: It is 1981 and Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have teamed up to make a film.  The film is titled 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.  Now, imagine all the speculation, videos, trailers, articles, and set photos that would be released if 'Raiders' had come out in 2014...  all the website casting speculation and plot details, etc.  The magic that Indiana Jones has and the magic of that trilogy would undoubtedly be greatly diminished.  Why?  Because we would have numerous trailers spoiling great scenes.  There is a magic to not knowing what would have been, and that is gone.

Before the internet, it was much harder to spoil a film.  You would have to hear plot details from a crew member or read it in a published magazine.  There were no blogs.  There was no Twitter, Facebook or YouTube for people to just talk or write whatever they pleased.  It was a more mysterious time in cinema.  It was also less "in your face" with trailers and promos.

Before 1990, films really only had one trailer.  One.  That was it.  Now we have about two trailers and one teaser.  That's the average.  Now imagine this: imagine seeing the film 'The Wolf Of Wall Street' or 'Gravity' with no trailers.  Nothing.  A short synopsis and that's all you get.  Now imagine leaving the theater having never seen a trailer, you only saw the film.  I bet people would have a very, very different reaction.  Maybe a positive reaction, maybe a negative reaction, but you would have gone into the film with no pre-conceived notions of what to expect.  You would have no expectations other than the talent involved and the synopsis you read.  Wouldn't that make for an amazing experience?  I sure think it would.

I don't think anyone can honestly say the internet has made the moviegoing experience better.  You would like or dislike 'Gravity' if you had seen the trailers or not, and I tend to think you would have liked it more, had you not.  Personally, I feel we as moviegoers are spoiled.  We are like addicts. We see one trailer and we need to see the next one.  Everyone and their mother was awaiting the 'Interstellar' teaser with baited breath, myself included.  But, I wish I wasn't.  I wish I saw the looks on people's faces when I first saw the movie.  I wish I heard Hans Zimmer's music for the first time, the first time I saw the film.  We are spoiled.  There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Don't get me wrong, I think technology has done a lot for film; absolutely.  But with all new things, old things are sacrificed.  For example, many filmmakers don't shoot on film anymore because digital is cheaper.  Think about that for a second... many FILMmakers don't shoot on FILM anymore.  So as we go out with the old and in with the new, I ask this... is what we are sacrificing worth what we are getting in return?

- George McCann

What Gives Awards Validity? A Different Perspective on Awards Season

Last night, the Golden Globes aired kicking off the 2014 Awards Season.  Many people refer to The Golden Globes as the redheaded stepchild of The Oscars; basically saying The Globes don't matter.  I beg to differ.  I believe The Golden Globes and The Oscars both matter quite a bit and, at the same time, don't matter at all.

THE GLOBES:

1. A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE:

I can't tell you how often people get upset with the winners of the Globes (at times, myself included).  I feel like the Globes give a different take on filmmaking.  The Globes are made up of Journalists from all over the the world.  So, there will be a very different perspective, as there should be.  For example, last year Ben Affleck won Best Director at the Globes and wasn't nominated at the Oscars.  Also, Kathryn Bigelow earned a direction nomination and was not nominated at the Oscars.  So, right there we have two different perspectives on filmmaking.  This, in my opinion, is a good thing.  The Hollywood Foreign Press and The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences are two separate entities; therefore, you will never have the same result.  Why is this a bad thing?  I don't think it is. I don't think it is at all. People have  made these awards very personal.  Why?  

The main reason I feel people dislike the Golden Globes is The Best Musical/Comedy category.  Let's talk about the Musical/Comedy category.  I think it is an interesting category to have and an important one.  That being said, the definition of a Comedy always seems a bit loose.  Yet, it is a nice counter to the Oscars, which is ALWAYS serious.  The last major Comedy to win an Oscar in my recollection was 'My Cousin Vinny' in 1993; 21 years ago. The last time a Comedy won a Golden Globe... last night.  Leonardo DiCaprio took home gold for 'The Wolf Of Wall Street' - a film that may get nothing at the Oscars.  So, Best Musical/Comedy is not a bad thing in my eyes.  The category gives worthy films consideration they may not otherwise get.

2. WHAT THE OSCARS MISS:

In some years, as with any human run organization, mistakes are made and sometimes films get missed or overlooked.  People are human.

Last year, I felt the above happened at the Academy Awards.  As I stated earlier, Affleck wasn't nominated for Best Director and neither was Kathryn Bigelow.  Also, John Hawkes didn't get a nomination for 'The Sessions' (which was, in my opinion, the best male performance all year.)  People have speculated the reason 'Zero Dark Thirty' didn't win any major awards was due to the content and politics.  That may be true; that may be malarky.  I don't know.  What I do know is that the Oscars are an organization made up of Actors, Directors, Cinematographers, Composers, Editors, Set and Costume Designers, Sound mixers etc. and all of these men and women (some having huge age gaps) vote in their respective slots.  I can understand great films getting missed and people having very different views and this is a major reason why the Globes matter.  If the Globes miss a great film, the Oscars might award it and visa versa.  The two entities are different with the same goal... award great achievements in filmmaking and that is exactly what they do.

The Globes matter as much as the Oscars do.  They give a different, but worthy, view on the best of the year.  

3. WHY NEITHER MATTER:

It is simple.  In the end, we remember how a film makes us feel whether it won an Oscar, a Golden Globe or a Razzie.  The power of films and filmmaking (at least of great filmmaking) is the emotion it brings to the table... how we laugh or cry.  Making and watching a film is about feeling something and wanting to make your audience feel something.  Let's celebrate that.

- George McCann