OVP: Best Visual Effects (2015)
The Nominees Were...
Andrew Whitehurst, Paul Norris, Mark Ardington, and Sara Bennett, Ex Machina
Andrew Jackson, Tom Wood, Dan Oliver, and Andy Williams, Mad Max: Fury Road
Richard Stammers, Anders Langlands, Chris Lawrence, and Steven Warner, The Martian
Rich McBride, Matthew Shumway, Jason Smith, and Cameron Waldbauer, The Revenant
Roger Guyett, Patrick Tubach, Neal Scanlan, and Chris Corbould, Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Andrew Jackson, Tom Wood, Dan Oliver, and Andy Williams, Mad Max: Fury Road
Richard Stammers, Anders Langlands, Chris Lawrence, and Steven Warner, The Martian
Rich McBride, Matthew Shumway, Jason Smith, and Cameron Waldbauer, The Revenant
Roger Guyett, Patrick Tubach, Neal Scanlan, and Chris Corbould, Star Wars: The Force Awakens
My Thoughts: See, I told you we'd get to two a week going forward! And you doubted me (okay, that might be stretching it as there are probably like twenty of you who actively read this blog, but still amuse me for the moment). We go from Makeup (all links to past 2015 OVP articles down below, links to what the OVP is up-top) into the world of Visual Effects aka the movies you actually saw, though this year that might not entirely be the case. While, yes, there are four films that made gargantuan mountains of money, we actually saw a film that only had a $15 million budget not only make the cut in 2015, but in fact won the prize outright. We shall start with this small miracle first.
The genius of Ex Machina is not that it's the best movie of this bunch (even though it is, and as a result some credited its win for being "the best movie with special effects and not just the best visual effects" after its shock victory), it's that it clearly is using every single penny of its effects to tell a story. A lot of what assists our fascination with Ava, played by Alicia Vikander, is the slim ways we notice the effects amidst the very real surroundings. This is a vision of the future borrowed not from the deepest depths of imagination, but from our real life. We can picture homes like Nathan Bateman's, even if we know we can't quite afford them, and that makes the visual effects vital to the story. The effects themselves, like her electronic body or the way that the skin peels, are creepy, hyper-realistic, and frequent enough that they sing in the memory even if, on this budget, they don't overpower every shot. It's proof that Best Visual Effects hardly needs to equal most, as the work in Ex Machina aids the story and Vikander's performance without ever overpowering either of them.
One could actually make a similar claim for The Revenant, a movie that had 10x the budget but actually doesn't have a lot of obvious effects. While there are clearly some crowd-shots that have visual touches, the movie's effects' centerpiece is also a small portion of the film, and one of the picture's most harrowing moments involving a bear attack on leading man Leonardo DiCaprio. The entire sequence is aided in part by the talents of Emmanuel Lubezki (who shoots the scene in one continuous loop, much like Birdman), but the VFX team knows what it's doing here, making the bear attack believable to the point where you're panting in the theater, and yet doesn't quite go into the Uncanny Valley with the animal the way that I felt The Jungle Book would do a year later. All-in-all, while it's strange that the film got a nomination for such a small effect, it's certainly noteworthy and well-executed.
The three remaining films are gigantic in both their scope and the way that they utilize their effects. The Martian, of course, does this frequently out-of-necessity, as despite our best efforts, we have not landed on Mars and certainly have not created the sort of practical effects that could aid Matt Damon on the planet. The Martian is a better movie than I remember (every time I re-read my review of it I'm reminded of this fact), but perhaps the strangest and biggest hurt I feel toward the film is that it was the third in a series of hyper-realistic space films that were cited in this category, and it's definitely bronze compared to the groundbreaking effects of Gravity or Interstellar. Still, though, it's beautifully shot, particularly the jaw-dropping sequence with Chastain saving a chair-bound Damon in the atmosphere above Mars, and another case of subtle effects rather than showy ones.
Star Wars cannot be subtle about its effects; it's not really in the film series' nature. But that doesn't mean that it can't create a powerful ride, one filled with space creatures (hello Lupita Nyong'o) and fantastic battle sequences that jolt you back to childhood. The effects of Lucas's films are always groundbreaking, to the point where the only caveat that might hold them back is that they look unrealistic compared to human actors, a problem I saw with some of the prequels in particular. Thankfully the past ten years have been kind to this juxtaposition of real people vs. invisible backgrounds, and we get a hyper-realistic depiction of multiple worlds, as well as some wonderful touches such as Kylo Ren's lightsaber having a laser-infused hilt or the great way that the art direction and the effects tie together so aesthetically (I loved some of the touches like the great use of vermilion and black in the matte work, and the shady transmissions of Supreme Leader Snoke). All-in-all, the only film that is brimming with CGI at least combines the visual effects with some groundbreaking action and beautiful color schemes, so it's hard to fault it in a very restrained year for this category.
The final nominee is Mad Max: Fury Road, the rare big-budget film to seem to rely on practical effects more often than CGI, though clearly there are moments where computer-generations are putting the finishing touches on George Miller's magnum opus. The picture itself is extremely well-done, with the heat from the explosions simmering off the screen, perhaps because it's so well-lit by John Seale in the hot desert sun. Honestly, while some of the more clearly-computer generated effects aren't as impressive as you'd see in a Star Wars, the seamless combination of traditional and more modern special effects is fantastic, aiding in world-building in a way few effects team have ever dared to accomplish. As a result, we get a unique directorial vision where the effects feature as supporting parts, rather than leading characters.
The genius of Ex Machina is not that it's the best movie of this bunch (even though it is, and as a result some credited its win for being "the best movie with special effects and not just the best visual effects" after its shock victory), it's that it clearly is using every single penny of its effects to tell a story. A lot of what assists our fascination with Ava, played by Alicia Vikander, is the slim ways we notice the effects amidst the very real surroundings. This is a vision of the future borrowed not from the deepest depths of imagination, but from our real life. We can picture homes like Nathan Bateman's, even if we know we can't quite afford them, and that makes the visual effects vital to the story. The effects themselves, like her electronic body or the way that the skin peels, are creepy, hyper-realistic, and frequent enough that they sing in the memory even if, on this budget, they don't overpower every shot. It's proof that Best Visual Effects hardly needs to equal most, as the work in Ex Machina aids the story and Vikander's performance without ever overpowering either of them.
One could actually make a similar claim for The Revenant, a movie that had 10x the budget but actually doesn't have a lot of obvious effects. While there are clearly some crowd-shots that have visual touches, the movie's effects' centerpiece is also a small portion of the film, and one of the picture's most harrowing moments involving a bear attack on leading man Leonardo DiCaprio. The entire sequence is aided in part by the talents of Emmanuel Lubezki (who shoots the scene in one continuous loop, much like Birdman), but the VFX team knows what it's doing here, making the bear attack believable to the point where you're panting in the theater, and yet doesn't quite go into the Uncanny Valley with the animal the way that I felt The Jungle Book would do a year later. All-in-all, while it's strange that the film got a nomination for such a small effect, it's certainly noteworthy and well-executed.
The three remaining films are gigantic in both their scope and the way that they utilize their effects. The Martian, of course, does this frequently out-of-necessity, as despite our best efforts, we have not landed on Mars and certainly have not created the sort of practical effects that could aid Matt Damon on the planet. The Martian is a better movie than I remember (every time I re-read my review of it I'm reminded of this fact), but perhaps the strangest and biggest hurt I feel toward the film is that it was the third in a series of hyper-realistic space films that were cited in this category, and it's definitely bronze compared to the groundbreaking effects of Gravity or Interstellar. Still, though, it's beautifully shot, particularly the jaw-dropping sequence with Chastain saving a chair-bound Damon in the atmosphere above Mars, and another case of subtle effects rather than showy ones.
Star Wars cannot be subtle about its effects; it's not really in the film series' nature. But that doesn't mean that it can't create a powerful ride, one filled with space creatures (hello Lupita Nyong'o) and fantastic battle sequences that jolt you back to childhood. The effects of Lucas's films are always groundbreaking, to the point where the only caveat that might hold them back is that they look unrealistic compared to human actors, a problem I saw with some of the prequels in particular. Thankfully the past ten years have been kind to this juxtaposition of real people vs. invisible backgrounds, and we get a hyper-realistic depiction of multiple worlds, as well as some wonderful touches such as Kylo Ren's lightsaber having a laser-infused hilt or the great way that the art direction and the effects tie together so aesthetically (I loved some of the touches like the great use of vermilion and black in the matte work, and the shady transmissions of Supreme Leader Snoke). All-in-all, the only film that is brimming with CGI at least combines the visual effects with some groundbreaking action and beautiful color schemes, so it's hard to fault it in a very restrained year for this category.
The final nominee is Mad Max: Fury Road, the rare big-budget film to seem to rely on practical effects more often than CGI, though clearly there are moments where computer-generations are putting the finishing touches on George Miller's magnum opus. The picture itself is extremely well-done, with the heat from the explosions simmering off the screen, perhaps because it's so well-lit by John Seale in the hot desert sun. Honestly, while some of the more clearly-computer generated effects aren't as impressive as you'd see in a Star Wars, the seamless combination of traditional and more modern special effects is fantastic, aiding in world-building in a way few effects team have ever dared to accomplish. As a result, we get a unique directorial vision where the effects feature as supporting parts, rather than leading characters.
Other Precursor Contenders: The Visual Effects Society splits its nominations between effects-driven films (the ones that actually get nominated at the Oscars) and the ones with supporting effects (which only rarely get cited with AMPAS, but are usually a more interesting lineup). Supporting effects nominees included The Revenant (the victor, and the only Oscar crossover), In the Heart of the Sea, Bridge of Spies, The Walk, and Everest, while the effects-driven films had Furious 7, San Andreas, Mad Max: Fury Road, and The Martian all falling to Star Wars: The Force Awakens. BAFTA doesn't split these two categories, but still differed a bit from Oscar picking Star Wars as the winner and substituting out The Revenant in favor of Ant-Man. Finally, VFX is one of the few categories to have the Academy "bakeoffs," so we know that Jurassic World, Ant-Man, The Walk, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Tomorrowland nearly made the cut. In terms of sixth place, it's hard to tell-none of these films were cited anywhere else, and the two Marvel adventures, while hugely successful, are difficult to gage as Oscar is quite fickle when it comes to comic book characters. I kind of want to say Jurassic World, as it was both insanely profitable and a wheelhouse that AMPAS has gone to more often, but I'll hear arguments in the comments.
Films I Would Have Nominated: Admittedly I might have made room for the gorgeous scene work in Tomorrowland, but really this is a very good list considering the competition. One film that I remember being surprised didn't factor more is Furious 7, and while I haven't seen it (and therefore won't recommend it for a nomination as that would be a tad hypocritical), I'm surprised that when a commercially-successful series meets critical acclaim and "best of the series" situations that they didn't take the time to cite it for a "career achievement" style nomination. They did this with The Bourne Ultimatum, after all, and you'd think they might have room for the multi-billion-dollar car chase franchise as well.
Oscar’s Choice: In a huge upset, we saw Ex Machina shock everyone by besting Mad Max and Star Wars (the frontrunner choices at the time).
My Choice: Though there's some solid choices here, the beauty and use of the visual effects in Ex Machina is too fine to pass up. I'll follow that with Mad Max, Star Wars, The Revenant, and The Martian.
And those are my thoughts-what are yours? Are you with AMPAS/myself that Ex Machina deserved this trophy, or do you side with the consensus that gave it to Star Wars? Who do you think was the sixth place finisher? Or the runner-up? And why do you think Furious 7 couldn't translate its box office/critical appeal into at least making the shortlist? Share below!
Also in 2015: Makeup & Hairstyling, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment