What Avatar brought us?
Aristotle’s aesthetic work The Art of Poetry tells us that a poet’s responsibility isn’t to record what happened, but to portray what might possibly happen. So does the epic movie Avatar, which becomes a millstone in the movie history partly because it shows the trend of the future, a fresh life experience with 3D in possibly every filed.
The vividly produced virtual Navi, the residents of the fictional planet Pandora, won the movie overwhelmingly positive comments globally. Folks are standing in line to praise its 3D technology, contributing their money to the Golden Globe-award winner.
Audiences can see the texture of the muscles of the Navi people. They can read their eyes and capture every small change on their faces. It’s as if those not-really-there computer-generated characters really exist on a planet called Pandora. The film leads people to visit a different reality. However, when audiences were praising the film without reservation, were they thinking about how advanced movie computer techniques will affect human lives in the future?
The first sufferers must be actors and actresses, who now are expected to compete with cyber-stars. How many people took notice of the lead human role of Jack, who appeared in one-third of Avatar? Audiences just remember his image as a three-meter high Navi. Memories of those human actors and actresses will fade easily.
Although many critics, including director James Cameron, don’t think digital characters will replace real actors, his Avatar has made the possibility of replacement more visible. Yet, some argued that virtual figures don’t have the ability to simulate the indescribable energy that passes from an actor on the screen to a viewer in a movie theater; they forget the actors’ emotions in movies are cultivated by circumstances. That means that they express certain feelings to meet the requirements of directors; they’re not showing their true thinking. From this perspective, their emotions are “fake”. If audience can accept the “fake”, why can’t they adapt to the “acting” of digital characters, as long as their performances cater to the storyline?
When audience sticks to the “authenticity” of human actors over virtual characters, do they consider why they can tolerate a young actor to play an elder, and vice versa, with the help of make-up? Is that authentic to see someone playing a deceased person in a movie? If that are all tolerable, why can’t audience accept digital figures? Forrest Gump can shake hands with President Kennedy, and so can a computer-generated “actor”.
Besides actors groups, Avatar will affect the movie industry technically, as well. Both the movie and audience benefit from the 3D mode, which might set a new standard for film producers. When the technology allows, audiences will watch such movies with naked eyes, and 3D skills can then be extensively used in movie production. If so, its cost will drop, which helps more directors to turn to it. With the mature technology and low cost, there might be 3D televisions and computers, as well. Besides entertainment, 3D technology might be used in other fields such as medicine, education and sports. Can 3D contribute to the World Cup this year in South Africa?
What’s the next revolution in movie technology? Maybe in the near future 4D films will prevail. But what will happen after 4D movies? Perhaps, we can connect computers with our heads via USB to be “in” the film. At that time, the words of “actor” and “cinema” will only be found in a dictionary.
