Spectacular Film

The Spectacles in film has become a far more popular thing recently. But it has still be around for a long time.

Spectacles in films are generally special effects. There are two types, invisible and visible. Examples of both of these are in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." Here the invisible special effect is harnessed by deleting the wires that the characters use to fly around on. A visible special effect would be the dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park." Arnold Schwarzenegger is a special effect himself. Would Terminator 2 have been so successful if Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't involved in it second time round?

Everything in every film is constructed to a certain extent, including documentary. A film such as "Gladiator" needed its special effects when the Colosseum was in shot. In reality, it is a waste compared to the representation in the film. Film thus celebrates it's own fakeness because it is completely constructed.

The spectacle has always been a big player in marketing films. Only yesterday did I see "I Am Legend (Francis Lawrence : 2007)" expecting a massive shooting frenzy with gore and head-shots. This was the case to an extent, but i brought something out of the film that was completely unexpected. The character Sam in the film was my biggest love for the film. Her loyalty and listening skills proved that she made such a difference in Will Smith's life. SPOILERS* Then half way through the film she gets infected by the zombie people and in Will's loving arms, she turns on him. Will is then forced to kill by crushing her. It was absolutely tragic. The rest of the film was absolute rubbish, but that part pulled my heartstrings completely END OF SPOLIERS*. My point is is that spectacles count for a lot in advertising films. If the whole part I've just mentioned above with Sam the dog was advertised instead, then the film would not have attracted such a large audience.

I don't know about you but i would love to see that new film coming out, "Alien Vs predator 2 Requirem" because it looks just amazing, so gory, loads of people die in spectacular ways. Apparently it's a load of shit though as there is no plot or storyline. It's just a load of people dying. Great! Again, it's the spectacle that drove me towards it, having played video games etc I am one of those people who loves not to be shocked or scared, but blown back by violence and by people's bodies.

Alright, so spectacle lends itself to the advertising industry 

"The most epic thing I have ever seen ****"

"This film will blow your mind out of your head"

"An hour and a half of extreme stunts and C.G.I that will tear your mind in half ****"

"A brilliant representation of loneliness between a man and his dog?" Hmm, I don't know that the executives would like that one. Although, it is the best one.

But the spectacle also adds to the "Toys r Us" and games industry. Think how many games and action figures there were after "Lord of the Rings" came out. There were tons and we all bought into them. A computer game only comes out of a violent / action packed film. There was a "Sponge Bob Square Pants" game that was action packed because that is what i presume that program is all about. Theme park rides get some of the action as well. "Spiderman 3" had a massive theme park ride out in California. Apparently, as it is 3D, you cannot tell whether Spiderman is real or not in the actual ride. It's almost like your watching a film, playing a computer game and sitting in a roller coaster cart all at the same time.

Cinema is a one way, voyeuristic window that shows you something. The 4th wall, the wall that separates us between the characters in the film is sometimes broken but conventionally not. An example would be in "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (Kevin Smith : 2001)" where the 4th wall is broken twice. At these points the audience realizes that they're in a film. If a character looks at the character without meaning to then we naturally feel weird and self conscious as an audience. In the old days o cinema, when it was just something at a science fair where people would pay money just to see the projector work its magic, the 4th wall was broken a lot more. In a film called, "That Fatal Sneeze (Lewis Fitzhammon : 1907)" the 4th wall is broken to show the audience, just like in a pantomime, where the pepper is being poured and what a funny thing it's going to be. The reason it is like this is because there are no cuts whatsoever because they didn't have the time or technology to do cuts. The most recent film that exploits technology for you to see is "Beowulf (Robert Zemekis : 2007)" at the IMAX. It's in 3D so anyone should se it just to experience what 3D is like. 

Reversing time was a magic trick back in the day when cinema was still just a machine of illusions. A wall would remake itself just after being smashed down. This is easily done, just from reversing the way of the projector. People were amazed by this.

Back to modern spectacle. Modern stories include modern characters and modern concerns, such as genetic engineering. However, the linear story line they are is typically very old. It is called the mythology of "frontier." This is a theory of Frederik Jackson Turner who stated that when Europeans first went to America, they held high European values. As the next generation came, they moved more West becoming more violent, more independent from aristocracy and christianity. There was so much unused farm land that the new Americans purged the natives off and become far more wild compared to the East Coast settlers. In Spaghetti Westerns, Clint Eastwood's character typically moves between the wild and the civilized. This character is typical of a "frontier" protagonist as he is the frontier.

Dr. Grant in "Jurassic Park (Steven Spielburg : 1993) is on the frontier between the Dinosaurs and the civilized world. He has the bet of both worlds though, unlike the fat dude who gets killed by the spitting dinosaur who harnesses the worst from both worlds. He has the dinosaur DNA and he wants money for it. He also has a physical imperfection, in that he is fat and he has glasses. This makes him typically evil. Think about all the James Bond characters that are evil, how many of them have a physical imperfection? Nearly all of them, except for the femme-fatals.

"Titanic (James Cameron : 1997)" has one massive spectacle at the end, that is when the ship sinks. It lasts for about an hour. There are so many shots of people dying, people being trapped in water, people falling off the ship, the ship ripping itself apart, the freezing cold water, smashing glass, water exploding everywhere, etc. Explosions plus star performances plus an in-genius narrative plus amazing landscapes, luscious furniture, pop star music equals a high grossing film. That is why Hollywood always make films with narrative and spectacle being close mates that never leave each others side. But of course, spectacle can go off on a tangent and be alone for a while leaving the audience in awe for a while and then pounding back with more explosions whether they are bits of bodies or bit of buildings. Crucial narrative elements can be added to these spectacular scenes, such as in "Jurassic Park." Here, the T-rex stamps on a car with Lex and Tim trapped inside. Dr. Grant realizes that they're in extreme danger and distracts the T-rex. By doing this he brushes away his anti-child characteristic "They're expensive... They smell... Ahh come on they smell, babies smell." Throughout the rest of the film, he is seen with the kids protecting them and teaching them his "frontier" knowledge. At the very end of the film, he is seen smiling with a kid in each arm looking as if, he wants some now as they can be quite fun. This gives the audience something extra at the end of the film, rather than just seeing dinosaur attacks. Characters need to develop in films don't you think? Well, there is an exception I can think of, in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" the Ugly doesn't learn anything throughout the film. He affects other people.

Following a plot is like not knowing the stated enigmas. If you know what the ending is to a computer game / a book, do you really have the previous incentive to find out what happens? "Assassin's Creed (2007 : VG Corey May) is a computer game where the spectacle is the best part about it. It is absolutely amazing. But really, the plot is very thin. There is a twist, but the middle of the story could have been summed up really. It's was just repetitive, just like a soup opera. the acting was pretty bad also. So if this game was to be really good, it needed to include proper camera directions in the talking scenes to make it interesting rather than just being verite (fly on the wall.) It needed more enigmas, better actors, more characters and some sidekicks rather than just a massive spectacle. "Metal Gear Solid" and "GTA" are brilliant for narrative as they include analytical editing in the talk scenes with brilliant ideologies and actors. The best is "Mass Effect" and "Final Fantasy" for spectacle and narrative. "Final Fantasy" has brilliant ideologies associated with it's demons and characters. They all change in someway towards the end as well.

In depth on Jurassic Park, Titanic and Saving Private Ryan

Jurrasic Park. This amazing film came out in 1993 advertised on the television as a spectacle and a half just like Titanic. "Now there's something you don't see everyday" was used to advertise Titanic because it was just that. Lingering shots of the ship collapsing were exploited by the director James Cameron. The advertising also emphasized how much the movie cost and that it was a masterpiece of spectacle. Jurassic Park did the same to an extent but it wasn't all to do with a spectacle, it was also horror based. All horror is based on the repressed* (Arrogo, Action S&S, p. 118). Digging something up that should have been left behind basically, such as, the dinosaurs. Our fascination for these beasts comes from their extinction and to see them alive and kicking is quite spectacular. Just like in Star Wars, Jurassic Park is a journey of self discovery. Dr. Grant goes from bachelor to caring father figure in the film. He starts by imagining murdering a child with a raptor claw to protecting the kids from the child molesting velociraptors. The deranged and mutated father figures are sexually inactive as they don't have any gender. This comes from the fact that they can change sex when they want to male or female. This sexually inactivity turns to violence "All you need is love."

Alfred Hitchcock

Just like in The Birds, Jurassic Park has slashers trying to kill the protagonists. Only the knives and other weapons have been replaced by beaks, claws and jaws. Jaws is included in this niche of films as well as the shark is a serial killer. There are many parallels between the films. Between The Birds and JP there is a bachelor who turns into a protective father figure, there are creatures who deemed harmless at first end up killing in vendetta, especially children. "Punish the women", "Scare the children" is the thing here (these aren't my ideas I got them from an article in the bfi from the book I've mentioned, just to let you know ok). The point here is, is that the kids are the most vulnerable and the victims. The two most horrific scenes in JP are velociraptor hunt on the children and the T-rex attack on the car. Both include the possible deaths of the children. The child molesting raptors and the raping birds were all initially loved by those who were most vulnerable, that is, the women for The Birds and the children in Jurassic Park. Speilburg said that his most disturbing film was Bambi because of the fire scene. Bambi only just escapes without his mother and in extreme danger. This is a general fear that children have, as well as clowns, spiders, etc. It was due to the fact that Steven survived the Blitz. Considering Psycho compared to Jurassic Park, there is a big connection between the Norman Bates character and the killing that the dinosaurs do. Without mothers, the dinosaurs go crazy and vengefully kill everyone. You can agree or disagree with this it's up to you.

Spectacle for spectacular sake

When Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler are completely stunned by the huge mass of the Brachiasoraus, the spectacle is done so we can see the characters' reactions. This is done with great anticipation. First, we see Dr. Grant turn and look past us open mouthed and baffled. He takes his glasses off and his hat so we can see his eyes popping out. Dr. Sattler does exactly the same. We then see the spectacle for ourselves with the characters shot from extremely far away so they look like they're part of the audience (if it was in a cinema.) The bass on the Brachiasorous's footsteps shake the audience up like a nightclub's bass.

If you have a DVD of King Kong, watch chapter 35 as this is just one massive spectacle including falling T-rexes, massive fights, massive drops and awesome computer graphics. It is about 15mins of shear amazing computer graphics and it is the only reason I went to see that film twice at the cinema. 

A next greatly anticipated spectacle that isn't gory or anything like that in any way, is the point where Ian Malcome says "What have they got in there King Kong?" The shot before he says that, we have a P.O.V (point of view) shot from inside the car as we go underneath the gates of Jurassic Park. I imagine that the Hollywood ride would have felt exactly the same as this. Steven uses the pov shot again in the T-rex attack sequence. The nightvision and the shots from inside the car keep us in the car with the characters. All the shots are very claustrophobic as they are nearly all close ups. When we first see the T-rex it is from the left window of the car. It then looks in our direction glaring at us. We have pov shots from inside the cars when the kids are being trapped under the glass and from Dr. Grant's car. This puts us in the spectacle making it more authentic and realistic. Another Steven Speilburg film that uses this is "Saving Private Ryan." It uses these techniques to a different meaning altogether though.

Saving Private Ryan

After the end of it all, that is the beginning, we go into the flashback. Instead of trating us to an establishing shot, Spielburg gives us an icon of 'Ohama Beach,' the anti-tank structure that is so common on the beach. These icons serve as a graphic match between the graveyard and the beach. We only have close ups off peoples' faces and shots of the boats that take up the hole frame. We then see soldiers simply destroyed by bullets that come from behind our view. Compare this to a film such as Shoot 'em Up that has non-diegetic rock music playing throughout a fight scene and enough steady cam shots to establish where you are, you have a completely different spectacle. Shoot 'em Up combines comedy with extreme action here combining humorous one liners with fast paced editing, imaginative ways of being shot, slow motion, lighting that illuminates all of the bad guys and sparks where bullets have narrowly missed our "Mr. Hero". Everything is so casual making this film celebrate violence as a way of entertainment. Saving Private Ryan however has no establishing shots, all unsteady cam, it has camera movements that follow that of the characters making it pov such as, the point where the camera goes under water and back to the surface very quickly to make it seem more authentic and realistic, it has a desaturated image and instead of sparks flying everywhere we have blood. There is also no music. There is a horrible simplicity to which Steven shoots a shot in the beginning sequence where we see an objective view / pov shot of a German gun killing about ten guys helplessly lined up in their claustrophobic boats. We feel awful because just before this, we are the ones inside the boats. Colour is used sparingly and only really for blood that appears on peoples' bodies and hands. It is not glamourous at all and leaves us feeling terrible for what happened on 06/06/1945. Medal of Honour: Frontline copied this sequence, being a first person shoot (fps) it worked very well. It gave a new authenticity to games and left you feeling terrible for playing it (not really, it felt pretty bad though.)

Other films that use the pov shot and the unsteady cam to produce a meaning that is clearly anti-violence are 28 Weeks Later and Bloody Sunday. Both the directors Paul Greengrass and Juan Carlos Fresnaillo are European, not American or Cantonese (Hong Kong film makers such as John Woo.) Both films have a soldier character who disagrees with the fight he is fighting as what they are doing is killing innocent citizens. Both films use an unsteady cam, fast cutting, unclear shots and pov shots with close ups of the soldiers' dismay. 

Narrative and spectacle cross over, but do other forms of media. Yes is the answer to your question. Spectacle has recently gone hand in hand with documentary in the recent "Planet Earth." "Space" with Sam Neil in it was also spectacular. Anything that's larger than life is considered spectacle.