Experimental, or innovative film making in any instance is a risk. If it works, then you can set the template of film making for years to come. If it doesn't...well, one example in my mind that really doesn't work is A Scanner Darkly.
Rotoscoping is the problem. It has been used very successfully in animation; Disney's Snow White famously employed the technique, and managed to achieve some very beautiful and naturalistic movements. Yet Richard Linklater's film is a far cry from that handcrafted masterpiece. Rather than using the live action footage as a solid foundation to guide the actions of carefully designed characters, the finished film looks as though it has had a Photoshop filter placed over each frame. It doesn't help that the software used (Rotoshop), by a team of over 30 inexperienced animators, merely interpolated vector key frames. How can a computer effectively judge which aspects of a frame need emphasising in order to construct a pleasing result.
It appears that the sole purpose for using rotoscoping was to serve one small aspect of the narrative; the scramble suits. These suits, which resemble bio-hazard suits, make it impossible to identify the wearer as they display a continually shifting pattern of clothing and facial features. An odd concept, suited to the drug laced story. And while the suits work to an extent, the use of rotoscoping feels like a gimmick, which doesn't serve the narrative, and even detracts from it.
The graphic style, of black outlines framing block colours (reminiscent of a Roy Lichtenstein image), results in flat characters; as though every frame is taken from a (not particularly dynamic) comic book. Any finer emotion in the actors' performances is lost behind the slick veneer. It is near impossible to pick up on any creases around the eyes, or twitches of the mouth; anything that might indicate what a character is feeling or thinking. It is as though they are all wearing a mask. Consequently all of the characters appear blank and emotionless, with nearly immobile faces, making it hard to decipher their motivations or invest much interest in their stories.
Aside from the suits, the only way that the animation particularly enhances the live action footage is in bringing to life the paranoid fantasies of the protagonists, particularly one involving swarms of bugs. However, as the rotoscoped style is consistent throughout, it is not always easy to tell when you are watching a paranoid delusion or reality. Perhaps this is to mirror the protagonists view of the world? I can see that the animation style may have been intended to illustrate a warped and unrealistic world view, but ultimately it is so distracting that it makes an already tricky narrative even more intangible.
What would the film would have looked like without the rotoscoping? Would it have worked any better if the impossible-to-film-in-live-action elements had been achieved through CG, and the actors' performances had been allowed to take center stage, rather than be glossed over? Would the characters have appeared more expressive, more relatable, or appealing? I cannot help but feel that with a Scanner Darkly, more thought and effort has been put into the visual style, at the expense of constructing a coherent narrative with engaging characters, able to pull the viewer in and hold their attention. The unusual animation seems contrived in order to attract attention, rather than serve the story.
It appears that the sole purpose for using rotoscoping was to serve one small aspect of the narrative; the scramble suits. These suits, which resemble bio-hazard suits, make it impossible to identify the wearer as they display a continually shifting pattern of clothing and facial features. An odd concept, suited to the drug laced story. And while the suits work to an extent, the use of rotoscoping feels like a gimmick, which doesn't serve the narrative, and even detracts from it.
The graphic style, of black outlines framing block colours (reminiscent of a Roy Lichtenstein image), results in flat characters; as though every frame is taken from a (not particularly dynamic) comic book. Any finer emotion in the actors' performances is lost behind the slick veneer. It is near impossible to pick up on any creases around the eyes, or twitches of the mouth; anything that might indicate what a character is feeling or thinking. It is as though they are all wearing a mask. Consequently all of the characters appear blank and emotionless, with nearly immobile faces, making it hard to decipher their motivations or invest much interest in their stories.
Aside from the suits, the only way that the animation particularly enhances the live action footage is in bringing to life the paranoid fantasies of the protagonists, particularly one involving swarms of bugs. However, as the rotoscoped style is consistent throughout, it is not always easy to tell when you are watching a paranoid delusion or reality. Perhaps this is to mirror the protagonists view of the world? I can see that the animation style may have been intended to illustrate a warped and unrealistic world view, but ultimately it is so distracting that it makes an already tricky narrative even more intangible.
What would the film would have looked like without the rotoscoping? Would it have worked any better if the impossible-to-film-in-live-action elements had been achieved through CG, and the actors' performances had been allowed to take center stage, rather than be glossed over? Would the characters have appeared more expressive, more relatable, or appealing? I cannot help but feel that with a Scanner Darkly, more thought and effort has been put into the visual style, at the expense of constructing a coherent narrative with engaging characters, able to pull the viewer in and hold their attention. The unusual animation seems contrived in order to attract attention, rather than serve the story.
No comments:
Post a Comment