Emotional Response to Computer Generated Special Effects:Realism Revisited
The art of visual effects in motion pictures is an art of
illusion. For over 100 years,
film audiences have experienced cinematic illusions, some more believable
than others. When a film grosses
millions of dollars during its first week of national release, it
is likely that it has had a large pre-release budget, that it has
opened in a large number of theaters, and is entertaining, perhaps
boasting the latest in computer-generated special effects.
Before the 1990s, motion picture special effects were created
by photographic process, choreographed before the camera during the
production phase of the film. Today, the computer-generated special effect
flourishes in modern motion picture production, particularly in the
horror and science fiction film genres, as an alternative to filmed
special effects.
Computer-generated special effects have become
more technically mature, resulting in their greater use by filmmakers,
and film spectators have given them a positive reception (see Morse,
1995). It has been argued
that as the technology improves, its emotional impact on the viewer
will increase, resulting in a greater emotional connection to the
motion picture (Weiss, Imrich, & Wilson, 1993), along
with increased believability of the filmed image (Anzovin, 1993; Rayl,
1990). Some investigators have even proposed that the film viewer
may soon be unable to distinguish between filmed and computer-generated
images (Anzovin, 1993, Rayl, 1990).
Although audience reaction to filmic special
effects has been studied (Hill, 1998, Hoffner, 1995, Johnston, 1995,
Zillman & Gibson, 1996), little is known about audience response
to computer-generated special effects.
Some obvious questions arise:
Do viewers perceive computer-generated special effects to be
as realistic as filmed effects? Do
viewers respond to computer-generated special effects with the same
emotional intensity as filmed special effects?
Is the degree
of realism
of special effects related to the viewer’s emotional response? In other words, to what extent does the realism
of special effects drive the emotional intensity of the viewer’s response?
For a given set of images, can viewers distinguish between
filmed images and computer-generated images, and can they distinguish
between unstaged filmed images and staged film images?
In the provocative, but largely unscientific
literature of film studies the issue of the importance of realism
in motion pictures has been hotly debated.
The French film journalist and theorist Andre Bazin (1973)
eloquently argued that realism brings the viewer into a closer relationship
with the world of the film, that it brings the viewer into a relationship
more like the relationship the viewer enjoys with reality itself. In her writings on photography, Susan Sontag lays out the difficulty:
She states "Photographs furnish evidence. Something we hear about,
but doubt, seems proven when we are shown a photograph of it. In one version of its utility, the camera happened.
The picture may distort; but there is always a presumption
that something exists, or did exist, which is like what is in the
picture.” Extending these notions a bit, one might expect that if
viewers perceive a filmed effect as more realistic than a computer
generated effect, they might also be expected to find it more emotionally
intense. I decided to test
this notion in the form of the following hypotheses:
(H1) The degree of realism perceived by the viewer will be
greater with noncomputer-generated special effects (live film footage)
than with computer-generated special effects.
(H2) Emotional response to exposure to graphic violence will
be greater with noncomputer- generated
special effects (live film footage) than with computer-generated special
effects.
(H3) There is a positive relationship between the viewer’s
perceived realism and the viewer’s experienced emotional intensity
when watching film footage of graphic violence.
Participants were 65 undergraduate students
in communication at Georgia State University (female=34; male=31),
ranging from 19 to 51 years of age, with a mean age of 23 years. The Perception Analyzer, a new device designed
to measure response in film viewers, was used. The Perception Analyzer consists of a computer
linked to wireless control modules to be managed by participants in
a study. Each participant
was given a wireless control module with a dial set at the
midway
point and instructed that 0 (far left) was lowest and 100 (far right)
was highest. Participants
were given five warm-up questions with which to practice using the
device, and proficiency was confirmed by the administrators.
Two videotapes of film clips containing graphic
violence were prepared, each tape containing eight 30 second clips
in three catagories, computer-generated special effects (C); filmic
special effects (F; live, staged); and, documentary footage (D; live,
unstaged), for a total of 24 film clips per tape.
Both tapes contained the same film clips, but in a different
order to minimize order effect. The
first videotape (Videotape 1) was used to obtain the participants’
ratings of emotional intensity to the clips, and the second (Videotape
2) to record the extent to which the participants perceived each clip
as real. The participants
viewed Videotape 1, and during the viewing , reported on emotional
intensity of each film clip by turning the dial. The participants did the same with Videotape
2, but this time, reported their perception of the realism of the
film clips. After viewing
each film clip, the participants’ dials were returned to midway position. The readings from the Perception Analyzer modules
were collectively recorded on computer for analysis.
Results
The mean scores for each type of footage,
computer-generated special effects (C ), filmic special effects (F;
live, staged), and, documentary footage (D; live, unstaged), support
the first hypothesis, that viewers perceived the film clips with noncomputer-generated
special effects (F and D) as more real than film clips with computer-generated
special effects (C) (see Table 1).
The mean scores for each type of footage support the second
hypothesis, that film clips with noncomputer-generated special effects
(F and D) would receive higher ratings of emotional intensity than
film clips with computer-generated special effects (C).
Preliminary analyses of the data indicate support for the third
hypothesis: There is a significant positive relationship, in the
expected
direction, between degree of perceived realism and emotional intensity. The greater the perceived realism, the greater
the emotional intensity rating.
Looking more closely at the data one sees
that the realism means for the "D" (unstaged film) category
are higher than those for the "F" (staged film) category,
and that the intensity means are the reverse (Table 2).
The indications are that:
1) Participants were generally able to distinguish the unstaged
film from the staged film, and to distinguish both from computer generated
footage. They rated the unstaged
as more realistic than the staged, and they rated both the staged
and unstaged film as more realistic than the computer generated sequences.
2) In terms of intensity,
viewers found the staged footage more intense than the unstaged even
though they seemed to have known it was staged. And both staged and unstaged film sequences were judged to be more
intense than the computer generated sequences.
3) There are a couple of anomalies in the first scenes in
both the "D" and "F" groupings in Table 1, in
that for these scenes the staged scene is rated as more realistic
than the unstaged. These
can perhaps be explained by the difference in scene construction. The unstaged scene, even though it was unstaged, was presented in
a series of shots utilizing different camera angles and image sizes
edited together; and the staged scene, even though staged, was presented
in what appears to be one long take. This may be a clue as to the
information participants used to sort the unstaged and staged sequences.
4) Overall, there is a positive correlation between intensity
and realism, but this correlation is statistically significant in
only 7 of the 26 sequences.
Discussion
I have presented evidence that filmic special
effects and documentary footage convey a greater degree of realism
to the viewer than do computer-generated special effects, and that
film
viewers
are more likely to experience emotional intensity through filmic special
effects and documentary footage than through computer-generated special
effects. There is a legitimate
question of which is the cause and which is the effect here. That is, do viewers react with more emotional intensity to scenes
they see as more realistic, or do they attribute greater realism to
scenes that provide them with more emotional intensity?
One can't be sure. Note
that while the realism and intensity seem to be positively correlated,
many viewers in our sample rated the staged film scenes as more intense
than the documentary unstaged scenes.
We suspect that there are other variables at work here.
What I may have inadvertently measured here is the effect of
the filmmaker's presenting images moment to moment in a way that will
maximize the impact on the viewer.
The filmmaker presumably knows how to do this by having learned
from example and by trial and error.
Why should we be surprised that the makers of theatrical motion
pictures are able to evoke a strong emotional reaction from viewers?
This is, after all, what the makers of theatrical motion pictures
are good at. If mere documentary footage consistently evoked
such strong emotional responses, documentary films would fill the
theaters. But they do not. Well crafted theatrical spectacles with an
engaging storyline make up the list of mega-hits. Yet no matter how far fetched the premise or how far removed from
earthly reality, no matter how bizarre or fanciful the subject matter,
the makers of theatrical motion pictures strive to create a compelling
appearance of reality. And
as our data indicates the computer-generated effects just aren't quite
there--yet.
What does seem clear from this research is that the viewer’s
perception of the degree of realism of a scene is positively linked
with her/his experience of emotional intensity.
And because emotional intensity is an important, if not the
primary, goal of graphically violent special effects, attention to
realism seems to be key to enhancing any special effects, be they
filmic, documentary, or computer-generated. Perhaps Andre Bazin was correct -- the realistic
image may indeed bring us closer to that relationship that we enjoy
with the real world.
Incorporating computer generated
images into cinema also introduces a new spin on a long standing debate
in film history, arguing the extent to which a motion picture camera
can be viewed as a chronicler of events.
If one subscribes to the philosophy that a degree of objectivity
is inevitably lost at the point when one decides in which direction
a camera should be aimed, then the use of computer generated imagery
is little more than a step away from some ideal aspiration for objectivity
and perhaps the ultimate demonstration that such an ideal can never
be achieved. At the same time,
if the technology can be used to create images which audiences cannot
distinguish from live filmed images the question becomes, "to
what degree does such a technique not only compromise the directors'
art, but radically alter the viewers relationship with the film?”
Anzovin,
S. (1991). Synthetic stars.
Compute, 13, 100
Bazin,
A. (1967). What is cinema? Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hill,
A. (1998). Shocking entertainment: Viewer Response to Violent Movies. West Sussex,
GB; University of Luton Press.
Hoffner,
C. (1995). Adolescents’ coping
with frightening mass media. Communication Research, 22, 117-133.
Kaiser,
C. & Roessler, R. (1990). Galvanic skin responses to motion pictures. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 30, 371-374.
Morse,
F. (1995). Current trends
in cinema. US
News and World Report. 11, 45- 46.
Rayl,
A. (1990). Things to come: aliens and robots invade Hollywood-moviemakers
held hostage.
Weiss,
A., Imrich, D., & Wilson, B. (1993).
Prior exposure to creatures from a horror film. Human
Communication Research, 20, 41-66.
Zillman,
D., & Gibson, R. (1996). Evolution
of the horror genre. In Horror Films: Current Research on Audience
Preferences and Reactions. (Eds.), J. Weaver & R. Tamborini.
Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Table 1.
| Sequence |
Film Type
|
Mean Indensity
|
Mean Realism
|
Pearson
|
| Monkey brain |
D
|
75.0
|
76.1
|
.40
|
| Electric chair |
D
|
67.6
|
86.6
|
.39
|
| Lamb |
D
|
59.1
|
89.3
|
.58*
|
| Severed leg |
D
|
57.7
|
82.6
|
.58*
|
| Crocodile feast |
D
|
45.0
|
82.7
|
.44
|
| Gunshot to head |
D
|
44.7
|
94.4
|
.18
|
| Scorpion |
D
|
39.4
|
80.5
|
.31
|
| Pig guts |
D
|
25.8
|
81.6
|
.48
|
| Brain eating |
F
|
79.7
|
78.5
|
.53*
|
| Eyeball gouge |
F
|
73.2
|
41.1
|
.29
|
| Penis chop |
F
|
70.1
|
74.1
|
.63*
|
| Child possession |
F
|
62.3
|
49.7
|
.47
|
| Exploding chest |
F
|
57.4
|
17.0
|
.25
|
| Zombie bites |
F
|
46.2
|
26.9
|
.20
|
| Head explosion |
F
|
43.7
|
31.0
|
.07
|
| Cannibal feast |
F
|
40.1
|
53.4
|
.22
|
| Partial head explosion |
C
|
57.3
|
27.4
|
.41
|
| Decapitation |
C
|
55.2
|
32.2
|
.09
|
| Bugs in head |
C
|
47.4
|
29.8
|
.29
|
| Snake attack |
C
|
45.3
|
43.4
|
.47*
|
| Child facial terror |
C
|
43.6
|
28.2
|
.49*
|
| Human morph |
C
|
36.1
|
35.2
|
.25
|
| Bug attack |
C
|
36.0
|
36.5
|
.56*
|
| Worms in head |
C
|
35.2
|
17.6
|
.22
|
| Knife hand |
C
|
27.0
|
25.2
|
.28
|
| Head with legs |
C
|
21.1
|
16.3
|
.05
|
Table 2. Average Mean Intensity
and Realism Ratings of Film Clips
| Intensity | Realism | |
| D | 51.79 | 84.23 |
| F | 59.09 | 46.46 |
| C | 40.42 | 29.18 |
