So the Oscars were a thing last night.
All of Los Angeles is abuzz with what went down, and, more importantly, the VFX/animation industry is abuzz with what DIDN'T go down. Now, personally (and I know a number of my animation major brethren who will loudly disagree with me), I didn't find fault with either the Jaws music cutting off the VFX Coordinator of Life of Pi or the awkward Avengers cast attempt at.... Well, I'm still not totally sure what that was, but in both cases, it didn't seem like an overt attempt (or a covert one, for that matter) to brush off the immense amounts of time and effort put into creating VFX-heavy movies. In fact, the Avengers cast ... thingy seemed more like a poorly executed attempt to acknowledge the fact that the VFX industry is getting hammered by big budget Hollywood films that demand more, more, more for pennies on the dollar. But that's just my opinion.
I saw a post in Facebook arguing for why photographers charge so much (it was a cute little columned compare/contrast chart that I can't replicate here, so I'll just have to explain it), and I thought it was pertinent. On one side, the title of the column was: what you think you are paying for (someone to take pictures for a certain amount of time). On the other side, the column was called: what you are really paying for. This column can't be put in parenthesis because it was a good ten items long. It included things such as "camera and lenses", "tutorials or classes", "driving costs", "photo editing/computer equipment", etc., etc., and most importantly, "the cost of living, aka bills, food, rent". Or something of the sort.
I saw it and thought, "This is an EXTREMELY pertinent post." When we think of VFX, we think first and foremost about the creatures or explosions or extra-terrestrials that are given form on the big screen because they cannot be physically represented in the real world, whether it be because it is too dangerous to create thing, too costly, or just that they literally do not exist. We, the audience, think of VFX as the pretty thing that comes out at the end of the movie, aka, "someone taking pictures for a certain amount of time".
However, there is much more than just the pretty picture that comes out at the end. Even if, say, somehow the filmmaker manages to persuade all his VFX artists to work on their own from home, and with their own equipment, what their paycheck goes toward would be this (at the extreme bare minimum): a computer with ample enough RAM to be able to provide real-time playback from Maya (probably a desktop computer with excess memory than standard), a individual license to Maya (I've recently looked this up: $3000+) or Houdini or ZBrush or Mudbox, an Internet connection, and an external hard drive (what? Saving reminders abound...). And I haven't even included the necessity for that paycheck to go towards bills such as electricity or gas, or even getting the computer fixed should it break down mid-production. Not to mention the FACT that VFX artists are highly trained in what they do. Sure, maybe they didn't go to a four year university or have a fancy piece of paper that says they're "smart" enough to have a degree in what they do, but in terms of experience and ability to make something -- something amazing -- out of nothing, these guys have put in the years and years necessary to truly be masters of their craft. To me, that is a billion times more important than going to a school; real life experience is always the best experience. To break it down simply: animation's more than just staring at a screen and moving little points; it's bringing your character to life, which is especially difficult on a life action plate where the artist is put to the test of matching the level of realism they must create to that of something that is actually real! It is an art form. Would you sell the original Mona Lisa for $500? I didn't think so. So how is it fair to be paying artists the absolute minimum to create something as realistic and gorgeous onscreen?
The level of blood, sweat, tears, and raw talent that goes into the visual effects in effects-heavy films NEEDS to be recognized. I'm not trying to pat my own back either, I'm not even technically in the industry yet. I just know, from the amount of work I have had to put in to my own work, to my own student films, how it must be exponentially more difficult and time consuming to create a feature length film that has visual effects up the wazoo.
You might think: "hey wait a minute, they're just asking for more money!" But the truth is, VFX work is usually contracted out (the exception being when a studio has their own in-house VFX side, i.e. Sony and Spider-Man). Contracted work means that the Houses are paid ahead of the movie actually coming out. The salary is set long before the film sees the light of day and the VFX House itself never sees a cut of the actual income from the film. Again, it's like being paid minimum wage for six months to a year to create a masterpiece that grosses $100,000,000+. Am I the only one who sees what's wrong with this picture?
Thus, we have Visual Effects (power) Houses like Rhythm & Hues and Digital Domain announcing bankruptcy while Hollywood rolls in money gained from effects-heavy films like The Avengers, The Dark Knight, Titanic, Life of Pi, The Hunger Games, Harry Potter, and even the Best Picture WINNER from this year, Argo (yeah. Betcha didn't know that). I know that when I first watched all these films, I didn't really think twice about the stunning visuals. It was all about the actors' performance, the seeping camera moves, the gorgeous cinematography ... And I'm an effects person! The VFX has been swept under the rug for literally doing too good of a job; the integration of imagined visuals has been so seamlessly integrated into the reality of the rest of the film that it is overlooked easily and then possibly not even recognized for what it is (case in point, Argo. I spent a number of days wondering how the hell Ben Affleck managed to obtain permits to film in Iran when the film he made showed the country in such a negative light, only to read an article about how it was pretty much all set extensions and seamless integration of epic proportions).
I guess what I'm getting at is that the visual effects side of the industry have been overlooked for too long. These Houses are instrumental in creating a world that envelopes the viewer, makes it all really ... real, at least for the two hours they watch the movie. But they get no respect. And this is the industry I'm trying to get into, because I want to do something creative, and I love the creativity that this industry puts out into the world.
So yes, I want VFX artists to be paid better and to be able to support themselves and their families, and I believe that comes first with the industry giving the VFX side the respect and honor it is due. I truly hope that industry artists have riled up enough anger and frustration to stand up and demand the recognition deserved by the many thousands of people currently employed in the VFX industry.
We shouldn't be the forgotten and invisible industry, especially since we're just as good at making flashy explosions as we are at making reality and CGI blend together.
--Tiffany
No comments:
Post a Comment