Less is More.. Unless it’s Just Less

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” - Ian Malcolm

If you are reading this, there is a reasonable chance I’ve hosted a trivia or games night where you participated. Well before online trivia nights were trendy, I’ve hosted a few each year for people I work with and then randomly sometimes with friends. While a decent amount of work, I actively enjoy coming up with questions and occasionally it gives me insight into groups of people and knowledge they have stored somewhere inside them, often without their understanding of why they know these things. Mostly this allows me to see who has traveled to a place or has read a novel or just has a memory suited to random trivia, however sometimes there are group reactions to things that either show a connection or lack thereof with a topic. I’ve had crowds know about Gatsby but not Goodfellas or a group that collectively knew their world capitals but have a toddler's understanding of North American sport. What is even more pronounced is when there is a collective reaction to something that transcends upbringing, nationality or age. These reactions almost always occur during the music round, despite them being the most difficult to plan in advance. Every trivia should have a version of a music round as it is incredibly easy to select random songs - yet often challenging to work out the technical issues and more importantly, nearly impossible to get songs that everyone is happy with. It either represents an era or country of origin they don’t know - or it’s a universal top 40 that is a bit obvious. But when you catch a song that gets a great reaction with most teams, it's a fantastic feeling watching the immediate physical responses of those in attendance. Regardless if it creates a sing-along that only Joe Cocker can produce, or the involuntary dancing that ignites when you catch a crowd who hasn’t heard a tune in a while and has had the exact right amount to drink, I now remember these songs more because of the reactions they produced. However, without a doubt, one of the most universal reactions I’ve noticed happened when I diverted from a traditional music round and included only soundtracks from epic movies instead. These all invoke great reactions as people seem to like to pick out themes so they can get nostalgic in a hurry or just look confused/frustrated not knowing if/where they heard this melody before. But when this tune comes on, it seems to create a specific kind of nostalgia. (Just a head’s up, I would have it cued up almost a full minute into the song as you want to get it so there is about 10 solid seconds of indecision before it gets to the part that sounds familiar) Each time it hits the thread where it becomes clear that this music was playing the first time we saw dinosaurs on the big screen, the reaction is almost universally the same. Head goes up, a smile starts to form and almost a full body sway before shoulders go down and people start to make eye contact to excitedly tell their team they know this one. Until I started doing this, I had no idea so many people would feel like kids the second they started hearing Jurassic Park’s theme. In a way, it’s not surprising as it is catchy, distinctive and is connected to a movie that I would think a huge percent of people who watch movies, have seen - and probably more than once. What is peculiar is that it is involved with a movie that shouldn’t really be that positive. A bunch of scientists, a couple of kids and a lawyer go on an island where nothing works properly and some of them get eaten. Then they leave the island as it’s a massive failure and they look at birds flying out of their helicopter. This isn’t the greatest breakdown of the movie, nor is it complete. You can tell because I didn’t just write an entire paragraph about Jeff Goldblum and how he accidentally ignited the “nerd stud” trope. However, despite the failures and people eating, the movie has an overwhelmingly positive acceptance level (Rotten Tomatoes has it at 91%), it won three Academy Awards (Sound Editing Effects, Visual Effects and Sound), it is one of the most financially successful movies of all time (40th all time) after recently coming back to theatres to climb over a billion worldwide in ticket sales, and seems to have a special place in most people’s collective memories. At least that’s my observation from basic body language when the music hits. And while other movies might generate similar reactions for specific groups, it’s rare that a movie can do this over cultures and ages with this type of longevity. The mere fact that it went back on big screens and had people raving about how it still holds up is impressive considering it is 27 years old and is about an extinct species coming back to life. While I’m sure there are several reasons for this, I would like to point to one in particular. Simplicity.

---

Back When Phoning Home Was Harder to Do

The movie is famously directed by Steven Spielberg who has been relevant in the movie industry since the 70’s and is often credited for his role in establishing the modern day summer blockbuster. His role in creating Jaws, E.T., Close Encounters and Indiana Jones cemented him as a name to know well before Jurassic Park. This was because even though he was synonymous for action packed movies, his creations were also known for their quality. Jaws was seen as a technical marvel of it’s time as it had to make a series of animatronic sharks to make the effect feel as real as possible. People often forget that he was also nominated for an Oscar for best director for both Raiders of the Lost Ark and for Close Encounters and E.T. before he made The Color Purple and showed that he could also make thoughtful movies without relying extensively on special effects (although the make up work in that movie was almost effects worthy). Even the year he released Jurassic Park, he also made Schindler's List which won him his first of two best directors statues (Saving Private Ryan is the other one). All this to say, he was a rare hybrid of a filmmaker who was known for stylish and thought provoking movies that may also be known as technical marvels. However - after Jurassic Park things changed - and I think simplicity plays a role.

Jurassic Park has dinosaurs in it. Dinosaurs aren’t around any more. So step one in this process was how to make them look like they were real so we, as audience members weren’t just spending the whole time focusing on if we could see the strings or tell when computers were involved. The solution - build as much as possible. They actually built model dinosaurs, including parts of the T-Rex. Rumor has it, the famous scene when the T-Rex goes through the clear part of the car containing the kids didn’t go as planned. They used the large model of the dinosaur to come towards the kids only to have it go through the plastic and break it on top of the kids, which was not intended. If this is true - it explains why their screams seemed so real as they probably actually thought the mechanical dinosaur was about to eat them. It also explains why the poison spitting dinosaur (Dilophosaurus) that eats Newman (Wayne Knight) is used so awkwardly in the movie. Newman runs into the car knocking himself down only to have the dinosaur somehow get over him and into the passenger seat without him knowing - which makes no actual sense. But it may help to know that they built that dinosaur too and they couldn’t make it walk without it looking ridiculous. So all of those scenes overly rely on the dinosaurs head and neck moving… but it couldn’t be seen chasing anyone. Essentially, the movie with a run time of 127 minutes had only 14 minutes of dinosaur CGI (which was insanely ahead of its time). To put this in context, Avengers: Infinity War was said to have 96% of it’s shots contain CGI. (Which my calculator tells me is about 153 out of the 160 total minutes). This may not seem important, and it may not be. But Spielberg became known for doing so much with so little and for his efforts, we often remember him fondly for this. I went back to take a look for myself, and the movie is still watchable. The effects still work - which is astonishing as you can’t say the same for most of the movies from the late 90’s or early 00’s… or even some recent blockbusters. If you are looking for an example, try to watch Justice League without staring at Superman’s CGI’d out mustache. But beyond the effects, it was the way it was shot that makes it re-watchable. It knew it had to have good effects, but it also had to have a way of telling a story visually where what you don’t see is as important as what’s on screen. The aforementioned T-Rex scene has mostly blurred views of the dinosaur at first and is probably most known for a cup of water that had tremors. This represented Speilberg at his best as no one was able to tell a story by having a camera show only the legs of a Raptor chasing kids around a kitchen, yet still have it so tense that anyone watching it today would be riveted.

What I don’t think Spielberg knew was that by introducing the use of enhanced CGI, he was making himself obsolete. The art improved over the years and now we have lifelike images that are created so we don’t need to apply the less is more philosophy. If the success of the two most recent Avengers movies is any indication - the audience thinks more is in fact more. I don’t think either of those efforts could fit any more “movie” into their final product. Certainly this isn’t Marvels fault as they are not the only ones relying on this type of technology or large scale production in their movies. Yet, you can see this trend emerging in a post Jurassic era, as during the 90’s as technological advances improved, Spielberg tech based storytelling began to fall. Saving Private Ryan was an exception where he married the two again in a very realistic way, but most of his tech reliant ventures were not successes (A.I., War of the Worlds, Indiana Jones 4) and while some of his other projects are still celebrated (Bridge of Spies, The Post and a director nod for Lincoln), they don’t inspire the same childlike wonder that his earlier work did. His recent Ready Player One could have and should have gone back to this type of nostalgia as it is literally the plot of the movie, but it didn’t land the same way. There were no limits to what he could do, and yet his final product was still missing something.

---

Can't Polish What Isn't Already There

I can’t help but also take my profession into account when thinking of stripping something down to its core elements. When I first started teaching and there were lessons that I knew were going to be observed either by colleagues, my superiors or parents, I would go out of my way to make them look big. The massive, multi-format, huge prep lessons that if I was an Instagram-teacher, I would post and act as though I taught like this everyday. (I still don’t get this concept, but I guess it fills the person posting with pride while also making others feel like inadequate crap - which in a relative sense is all the same) While those lessons exist and in many cases they work, the inner analytics nerd in me recognizes them as extremely cost ineffective. The amount of prep time, set up and focus on transitions are extreme. And while all three of those things need to be there for any lesson, it excludes attention to the learning process and individual attention (often… I’m generalizing…. But this is a blog and not an academic publication so I think I’m allowed). Now, I don’t really dress up my lessons for visitors but rather push on with any lesson that I happen to have planned. If it happens to look more impressive, then that’s fine. But I actually would rather be evaluated and get feedback on the lessons that are simple. Regardless if that is a brief lesson/slideshow or some level of hook to engage with content - the central part of an effective lesson I would argue, involves significant time to work collaboratively with direct but not extreme contact with the teacher. And while that does seem like less is coming from me - it actually is quite tiring to jump from issue to issue and person to person. Yet I think everyone walks out with a reflection of exactly what they put in themselves. This type of lesson makes it easy to screw around, but also gives ownership to excel.

A common theme in these two examples though lends itself to the fatal flaw in my logic. I’m using my own perspective. I grew up with practical effects, so I have a nostalgic attraction to them that younger generations probably don’t. I actually care about thinking “How did they manage to get that shot” and trying to figure it out based on my extremely limited time taking film courses at university. So imagine my disappointment when I hear that computers did most of the dirty work. I also remember a time when I heard a Spielberg movie was coming out and I was sure it was going to be an event. I thought I had a good chance of at least enjoying it, and he had a great chance of being nominated for an Oscar. There was palpable buzz about it and going to see it in the theatre was almost a bit of an event. I don’t feel that way anymore and I actually haven’t seen many of his recent efforts as again - he now has too much. The subtlety and genius of finding a unique way of telling his story isn’t there for me. Thinking about sports, I’m totally fine with baseball, basketball and football all coming back without fans as I actually enjoy those sports. I don’t love soccer (or football for the international crowd… of course by that logic I should have also said American Football before), so when I’ve watched it recently without the crowd, it didn’t really hold my attention like it would an actual fan. I still watched it, but I was checking my phone and drinking more than I normally would. I guess it’s because I don’t really care to watch the beauty of the sport unfold. I just want to see people be athletic and watch the crowd geek out about it. And finally, I like watching people digest information and then have their understanding be demonstrated by hearing them make connections and form independent thoughts and analysis. So it makes sense that I like lessons that allow people to do that. I suppose if I was a parent, I would probably care more about being able to inherently “see” the learning but that may also be because parents don’t have the time to spend waiting for something that may not happen upon command.

Having limitations of special effects produced cringe worthy movies that become tough to re-watch if they were in the hands of someone without the talent or vision to make it come alive. Where on the other end, movies that lean into quality CGI have been paid off as long as they play to their audience plot wise. So instead of having a unique perspective or take, you can get by with a reasonable idea of what to do and cash to spend. Clearly the MCU has mastered this process. While the 10 year set up was a part of the equation, the two most recent Avengers movies had more of everything and now they have billions to show for it. (Don’t get me wrong, many of their filmmakers have great vision - the over the top style is on purpose) I’m not convinced that cash is the best indicator for the quality of a movie, but again, there are some that would argue against that. Personally, I don’t mind MCU movies, but it does bother me that they go after quality filmmakers. Vision is essential (the skill set, not the character) and having a voice and conceptual understanding of direction in movies is more rare than we think. There are many people making movies, but not many filmmakers that I would consider auteurs of storytelling. These people need to be given support and freedom, not a huge star and plot devices they must use or they get removed from the project. Edgar Wright is probably the most notorious story where someone who enjoys being unique and has a certain vision meets a studio who really just wants us to like Paul Rudd so when there are ridiculous leaps of faith we will need to take with his character in later movies, we just let it go because … you know….. Rudd.

---

Easy Now Boomer

This is where I need to be careful. It sounds like I’m erring on the side of a traditionalist and I’m only one step away from throwing down a “back in my day, things were better” comparison. This is dangerous as I don’t believe it. Education is better now than it was in my youth. I enjoy most innovations sporting leagues have made. Baseball is faster but still has a focus on the sport. Football isn’t as, for lack of a better term, concussion-y as it was in previous decades and the NBA has more variety of strategies and ways of being successful - or at least as many as in previous generations. So I’m not saying that things were inherently better in any generation, but that there is a market for both. If I like the essence of something, I’m in, with minimal bells and whistles as the purest form of that entity is in itself, worth my time and focus. However, if I don’t feel any point of expertise or interest, I am probably just as susceptible to the flashier element of “more”. In those cases, having a less involved and stripped down product, is just less. So I suppose if you want to make something more mainstream friendly, this is why you need shinny shit to entertain so the consumer fully enjoys the event or product. Luckily, there are markets for both - they just might not be prevalent and only one is purely concerned about quality and authenticity. So selfishly, I guess my issue is that films don’t have practical limitations anymore. And that’s not a good thing. Having a limitation to a product is essential. If anything is possible, nothing is exceptional. It is only when we have a ceiling on our expectations that we can truly have it blown open. These stories do exist, but they exist on the small screen. TV is the format for new indie movies sadly. I say that because I’m one of those sentimental idiots who actually enjoys overpaying for popcorn and seeing movies with strangers. I miss going to a movie and then going somewhere and talking about it. There is a reason that’s it a date classic - only I would argue it shouldn’t be dinner and then a movie. Movie first - then drinks. And if the date is good - lots of them. You find out a lot about someone based on their immediate reaction to a movie, especially now that people can get their opinions off online reviews unless you catch them right after viewing. However, what has been a pleasant byproduct of online movies is the increase in the marginalized voice. Now, all directors don’t have to be white men as it doesn’t cost as much to get a story out there in the world, so producers (who are often not progressive thinkers as much as cash counters) are taking more chances. I suppose in the long run, that alone is worth losing some authenticity in my theater experience.

In this paradigm shift, some people will get left out that used to be staples of the movie industry. Who knew that Spielberg would be making a movie that would eventually lead to his own extinction. And maybe that’s not a bad thing. New voices and visions might be the answer to the film-making staleness of more sequels, prequels or franchises and instead focus on storytelling - which is terribly ironic as Jurassic Park is now a massive franchise in itself. But maybe these new voices were predicted by Speilberg years ago when just before people start getting eaten there is this back and forth:

“God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.” “Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the Earth.”

Normally I would finish with that quote - but to bookend this post with a summary line from Goldblum: “Life finds a way”.