VR is not a passing fad

If you are one of those people who needs to argue that VR is not just a passing fad, take a look at these two articles:

First, WIRED mag’s post Slickest Things Google Debuted Today

Among the announcements for further development of AI, Google is also developing a standalone VR headset—“no cables, no phone, no PC, just VR”.  As I said in my previous post we are entering a moment where the largest, most capital rich companies in the world are actively pursuing VR as a new revenue stream.  As the costs of the hardware falls and the capabilities of the software rise there will be much broader use and demand for VR experiences.  This includes VR as a non-commercial art medium, which brings me to the second article.

Variety’s post from Cannes: How Alejandro G. Inarritu Used Virtual Reality to Tackle Illegal Immigration

(Apologies to the incorrect spelling of Mr. Inarritu's name, but I could not figure out how to get diacritical marks on the blog editor)

The review of an Inarritu VR installation at Cannes by Variety’s Senior Film and Media Editor, Brent Lang, makes some VR claims via quotes Inarritu and his collaborator Emmanuel Lubezki made that need to be addressed.

To start with, Lang claims the 6 minute VR piece is a “shattering new virtual reality experience” in which “there’s never been an installation of quite this size and scope”.  Er, okay . . . considering Variety is the Hollywood hype machine par excellence I’ll let the hyperbole go, but I find the supporting quotes from Inarritu and Lubezki simplistic and revealing a lack of understanding of the VR medium.

Who knew VR was an art form?

First, Inarritu claims VR has been “used to hawk Hollywood blockbusters, not to tackle hot button issues”.  He goes on to say, “The big mistake of VR is that it has been considered an extension of cinema.  It has been considered a promotional tool.  It has been devalued.  This is an art in itself”.  This is what I might expect from someone who is a film director working in the studio system.

What he should have said was, “I, me personally, have made the big mistake of considering VR an extension of cinema”.  VR got its start in the digital world 30 years ago as part of a NASA project which had nothing to do with cinema.  Inarritu obviously came to VR through his work as a cinema director for movie studios and seems unaware of all the development that has happened (and continues) in VR in the fields of education, medicine, robotics, and a host of others.  This is much like President Trump stating, “Who knew health care was so complicated?”  As a personal note: I was creating “VR art”, whatever that is/was, 25 years ago using what was available at the time: QuickTime VR and VRML.  Welcome to the club Mr. Inarritu.

Brother, can you spare a dime for a VR project?

Lang comments, “The roughly six-minute experience is being backed by Legendary Entertainment and Fondazione Prada, neither of whom plan to make a penny on the installation”.  So what?  The reason VR is being developed at all is because there are now opportunities for monetizing the product that didn’t exist before.  Furthermore, with the commercialization of VR, there are new opportunities for VR artist because there are companies creating revenue-generating VR that can afford to fund VR for non-commercial use (e.g. art)—even for famous, wealthy people like Mr. Inarritu.

My past work presaged the whole VR craze, of course

Lang writes, “Lubezki believes virtual reality is a natural extension of recent works such as “The Revenant” and “Birdman” that used long takes to create a feeling of verisimilitude and plunge people into a frontier landscape or backstage on Broadway.”  Quoting Lubezki directly “We’ve been looking for this.  ‘Birdman’ and ‘Revenant’ were immersive.  There’s an immediacy.  This is all of that and even more."

That’s all fine and good, but “immersive” filmmaking has been around a long time.  I’m old enough to have grown up seeing John Cassevettes’ and Stanley Kubrick’s films and I can’t think of more immersive works than “The Killing of a Chinese Bookie”, “2001”, or “The Shining”.  Even my own recent feature, “Holiday”, is highly immersive and very much about experiencing a “place”.

Mr. Lubezki and Mr. Inarritu seem to want to set themselves up as creators of proto-VR in order to legitimize their very first foray into VR, which only makes them sound naive about a medium in which they have no prior experience.

VR is the future, stupid

Lang writes, “Lubezki claims returning to traditional filmmaking will be difficult”.  Hmm. Okay, but be aware the pay for DPs and directors in VR is not what you are used to receiving from the studios.  Just sayin’ . . . 

Lang also states, “Inarritu thinks that soon traditional films, with their flat screen and traditional plotting will seem anachronistic to a rising generation looking for something more experiential.  He warns that studios ignore the medium at their own peril.  ‘If the studios don’t get into it, they will be irrelevant soon . . . Filmmakers will be very attracted to this’”.

Wow.  Okay, first of all, as far as I can tell ALL of the major studios are developing VR in some capacity or another.  They are not ignoring the medium, they’re simply figuring out how to monetize a medium that at the high end is very expensive.  It is their charge to make money off entertainment.  They are in the entertainment business, not the art business.

Stylizing the ugliness

One last commentary on the VR piece itself.  It is described as an experience of attempting to illegally cross from Mexico into the United States.  Perhaps the elite crowd at the world’s most glamorous film festival will get a sense of the terror of that moment.  I haven’t experienced the piece, but I think the piece misses the mark at a very basic level.

Lang suggests that the work, entitled “Carne y Arena” is an “empathy machine”, as Roger Ebert claimed was the case for movies.  Lang writes, “’Carne y Arena’ is trying to make viewers appreciate the risks that refugees take in search of a better life.  Inarritu . . . said that many Mexicans are fleeing gang violence that has made the country the second deadliest in the world after Syria.”

It seems to me that what should be experienced is the violence these people need to escape from.  Show what their lives are like when they are the victims of criminals, not criminals themselves (attempting to cross illegally).  But violence in VR is a tough sell.  A little fake cat and mouse entertainment after a few martinis is all good fun, but watching your family be gunned down in front of you, well that’s not quite the same thing, is it?

What I find odd is that this is a director with no problem including savage violence in his movies, but shies away from it in another medium.  Don’t be coy with your political art, Mr Inarritu.  My film “Holiday” is about the abduction of a young woman from Venice Beach.  I force the audience to experience the gritty horror of that act.  I didn’t stylize the violence so it looked cool or entertaining.  I kept the whole feature very concrete in its imagery, privileging experience of the moment over character empathy.  It makes for a film most people don’t like, but I’d argue it more of a proto-VR narrative experience than any film by Mr. Inarritu.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Mr. Inarritu’s films, I just feel his very first VR work is not quite the landmark in the medium his PR team is pitching it as.  Hopefully he will choose to do more.