Gantz: O - Game Cinema
Thoughts On: Gantz: O (2016)
Having been resurrected by a computer system, a man has to fight monsters invading Japan.
A while ago we talked about video game adaptations and Red Dead Redemption: The Man From Black Water. I really liked this 'movie' as it had the guts to actually be a video game adaptation and so essentially took the cinematic elements of video games (cut scenes) and turned them into a film. Whilst I appreciate Red Dead Redemption as a film, it obviously represents an early example of a genre that I hoped we would see explored more. In Gantz: O we see this genre take another step forward.
Whilst this is an adaptation of a manga, not a video game, Gantz: O is not only about playing a game, but it looks exactly like one. Thus, its cut scene aesthetic, whilst it takes a moment to get used to, is ingenuously suited to its narrative, the world design and the function of the movement in the frame. Gantz: O then manages to construct action sequences in a cinematic way that also adhere to the rules of a video game's visual space - which is where the power and excitement of this film really flourish from. Whilst there is some question of this being cinema, I won't actually raise topic this as, like Red Dead Redemption, I think this is representative of a new form of cinema that isn't quite animation, that isn't just a cut scene in a game, but is something of its own. Maybe we can call this emerging genre Cut-Scene Cinema, but I think there is a quality in its image that requires a better name.
The function of Gantz: O's narrative, acts, sequences, scenes and singular shots are all motivated by the goal-orientation that we see in games. Thus, not only because of this goal-motivation, but also because of the video game aesthetics, we have a Game-Image.
The Game-Image builds Game Cinema; a cinema that is an extension of the action or adventure film in that its primary purpose is to move towards a definite goal. Unlike the thriller or adventure, Game Cinema films have a narrative space that is heavily defined by rules; after all, games are all about rules. Thus, whilst all characters in action movies have goals, downfalls and weaknesses, they exist in a much freer space. This is especially true in contrast to Gantz: O. With Red Dead Redemption, an open world game film, there isn't this same pressure from the rules. Thus, Ganzt: O seems to be a purer game film, or at least, a game film that is more so inspired by the fundamental concept of a game with strict rules and strong goal orientation. So, whilst Gantz: O may be a "game film", maybe Red Dead Redemption is an "open game film"?
When we consider the Tomb Raider or Mortal Kombat films - or even the two Jumanji films - we see live action game films. They bear the same goal orientation as true game films such as Gantz: O, but obviously do not share their aesthetic. Whilst I think the original Jumanji works as live action, as I suggested in the Red Dead Redemption post, I think the Mortal Kombat and Tomb Raider films should be made in accordance to the aesthetics of their actual games. Nonetheless, we can see a wider spectrum of the game film extending into live action - and let us not disregard the fact that sophisticated video games such as the first fighting games have much to do with the action cinema of the 70s and 80s, especially as they evolved to include narratives. However, I think there is a true or pure game film to be found in Gantz: O that must be concentrated on.
Gantz: O represents the building of a new genre of cinema in my view for how brilliantly constructed its story and action sequences are. However, whilst the strengths of this film are quite evident, there are issues with it that stem from both video games and manga. In such, we have pretty cheap characterisation - especially in minor characters. Some of the main figures become pretty strong archetypes and so are given depth and a certain degree of roundness as the narrative progresses. However, there are many tropes and cliches in the construction of characters - and also in plotting; repeatedly, someone comes in from nowhere to save the day. This leaves almost everyone apart from the lead, Kato, and his supporting figure, Reika, as flat caricatures. Some will then point to the female caricatures and see them as offensive because, especially for the first part of the movie, they are only a pair of bouncing boobs.
If this game film genre is to expand it certainly needs to retain some of its tropes, such as its aesthetics, rule pressure and goal focus. However, it also needs to develop more sophisticated techniques in setting up a narrative and developing characters. The end result will be a new kind of physical-interactive cinema that engages and immerses audiences somewhat like games do whilst providing a substantial story. I certainly hope to see this in the future.
However, these are just my thoughts. What do you think of the Game Film? Does it have more tropes? Do some of its conventions need to be questioned? Are you interested in seeing more films like Gantz: O?
Previous post:
End Of The Week Shorts #35
Next post:
Princess Mononoke - Children Of Nature
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
Having been resurrected by a computer system, a man has to fight monsters invading Japan.
Whilst this is an adaptation of a manga, not a video game, Gantz: O is not only about playing a game, but it looks exactly like one. Thus, its cut scene aesthetic, whilst it takes a moment to get used to, is ingenuously suited to its narrative, the world design and the function of the movement in the frame. Gantz: O then manages to construct action sequences in a cinematic way that also adhere to the rules of a video game's visual space - which is where the power and excitement of this film really flourish from. Whilst there is some question of this being cinema, I won't actually raise topic this as, like Red Dead Redemption, I think this is representative of a new form of cinema that isn't quite animation, that isn't just a cut scene in a game, but is something of its own. Maybe we can call this emerging genre Cut-Scene Cinema, but I think there is a quality in its image that requires a better name.
The function of Gantz: O's narrative, acts, sequences, scenes and singular shots are all motivated by the goal-orientation that we see in games. Thus, not only because of this goal-motivation, but also because of the video game aesthetics, we have a Game-Image.
The Game-Image builds Game Cinema; a cinema that is an extension of the action or adventure film in that its primary purpose is to move towards a definite goal. Unlike the thriller or adventure, Game Cinema films have a narrative space that is heavily defined by rules; after all, games are all about rules. Thus, whilst all characters in action movies have goals, downfalls and weaknesses, they exist in a much freer space. This is especially true in contrast to Gantz: O. With Red Dead Redemption, an open world game film, there isn't this same pressure from the rules. Thus, Ganzt: O seems to be a purer game film, or at least, a game film that is more so inspired by the fundamental concept of a game with strict rules and strong goal orientation. So, whilst Gantz: O may be a "game film", maybe Red Dead Redemption is an "open game film"?
When we consider the Tomb Raider or Mortal Kombat films - or even the two Jumanji films - we see live action game films. They bear the same goal orientation as true game films such as Gantz: O, but obviously do not share their aesthetic. Whilst I think the original Jumanji works as live action, as I suggested in the Red Dead Redemption post, I think the Mortal Kombat and Tomb Raider films should be made in accordance to the aesthetics of their actual games. Nonetheless, we can see a wider spectrum of the game film extending into live action - and let us not disregard the fact that sophisticated video games such as the first fighting games have much to do with the action cinema of the 70s and 80s, especially as they evolved to include narratives. However, I think there is a true or pure game film to be found in Gantz: O that must be concentrated on.
Gantz: O represents the building of a new genre of cinema in my view for how brilliantly constructed its story and action sequences are. However, whilst the strengths of this film are quite evident, there are issues with it that stem from both video games and manga. In such, we have pretty cheap characterisation - especially in minor characters. Some of the main figures become pretty strong archetypes and so are given depth and a certain degree of roundness as the narrative progresses. However, there are many tropes and cliches in the construction of characters - and also in plotting; repeatedly, someone comes in from nowhere to save the day. This leaves almost everyone apart from the lead, Kato, and his supporting figure, Reika, as flat caricatures. Some will then point to the female caricatures and see them as offensive because, especially for the first part of the movie, they are only a pair of bouncing boobs.
If this game film genre is to expand it certainly needs to retain some of its tropes, such as its aesthetics, rule pressure and goal focus. However, it also needs to develop more sophisticated techniques in setting up a narrative and developing characters. The end result will be a new kind of physical-interactive cinema that engages and immerses audiences somewhat like games do whilst providing a substantial story. I certainly hope to see this in the future.
However, these are just my thoughts. What do you think of the Game Film? Does it have more tropes? Do some of its conventions need to be questioned? Are you interested in seeing more films like Gantz: O?
Previous post:
End Of The Week Shorts #35
Next post:
Princess Mononoke - Children Of Nature
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
