The Art of Spectacles in ’The Creator’ 

The storyline of this film is excessively clichéd, falling into the well-worn tropes that have long populated the genre of sci-fi films centered around AI awakening. The protagonist's journey, intertwined with deep emotional bonds formed while escorting a child possessing some prophetic power, feels all too familiar to audiences.

However, the film is riddled with clichéd and misconstrued stereotypes of Eastern culture that clash with its sci-fi theme. Despite portraying a future era where living on the moon is feasible, the film's depiction of New Asia feels stuck in the early 20th century, with scenes of people farming and praying on bamboo rafts amidst picturesque landscapes. Moreover, the film is peppered with details that invite ridicule, such as robots tending crops and reciting scriptures, introducing a novel concept of cyber-religion.

Nevertheless, the film carries a common Western perspective of expressing pity and universal empathy towards the untouched Third World. Yet, it fails to genuinely understand or humble itself enough to grasp the proper forms of life there, resulting in a portrayal of compassion that feels contrived and hollow.

For years, works of Third World culture that have garnered international acclaim, not limited to films but also literary novels, often highlight themes of backwardness, savagery, and disorder. Only by exploring topics related to primitiveness and religion do they stand a chance of gaining recognition from the Western upper echelon's aesthetic sensibilities. But isn't this purported respect for indigenous cultures, in reality, a form of stereotypical prejudice and discrimination?

But truth be told, I like this film. The reason is simple: the visual aesthetics of this film are outstanding. However, I'm not privy to the film's exact budget, but this film truly shines in terms of artistic standards and visual presentation.

The film boasts grandiose scenes that left me marveling and screenshotting, with its epic scale that blends sci-fi with realism. Seeing enormous weapons floating through the sky, evoking a sense of awe and excitement in any lover of colossal objects, instills in me a feeling akin to witnessing a scene from a dream materialized on the screen.

Film is the art of spectacle, and through this gateway to otherworldly realms, we're treated to romantic marvels on screen that one might never witness in real life, no matter how many extra centuries one may live. This is one of the primary reasons I love the art of cinema.

Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" continues to provide precise typological definitions for an endless array of films. Some films exist to gratify the viewer's visual senses, allowing them to witness marvels. Yet today, in an age where visual effects technology has advanced beyond what it was decades ago, we seldom see directors genuinely striving to create spectacle-driven films that offer a visually stunning virtual experience. Instead, we often encounter the monotonous stacking of CGI, the formulaic superhero genre, and standard sci-fi scenes straight from the stock footage library, with more light pollution and explosion scenes but needing more creative ingenuity.

Only some directors today are genuinely dedicated to crafting spectacles, with notable exceptions like Christopher Nolan, Denis Villeneuve, and Guillermo del Toro...but they need to be more and far between. Of course, this might also be due to our existence in an era of information overload, where the threshold for visual impact and pleasure has been raised to a high degree. When I first saw Iron Man descending from the sky, my hair would stand on end, but after watching the thirtieth Marvel movie, I no longer feel a flicker of excitement at the similar CGI effects.

I genuinely admire the artistry of this film, with its highly realistic sci-fi style that reminds me of "District 9" from years past. While the logical combination of machinery and religion in the film may seem absurd, its presentation is hauntingly captivating. By juxtaposing the future with the primitive, the film creates a mysterious and gloomy atmosphere that's difficult to describe. Just imagine, if airplanes were to appear in ancient times, they too would be worshipped as deities.Upon seeing the director's name, Gareth Edwards, in the credits after the film, memories of his previous works, "Godzilla" (2014) and "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story," came flooding back. Like "The Creator," these films weren't universally acclaimed, but they are my personal favorites.

The reason is the same: I love the unique spectacles and artistic styles showcased in these films, the grandeur tinged with an apocalyptic tragedy atmosphere and realistic rendering of sci-fi marvels that can only be felt in his movies.

"Godzilla" (2014) received criticism for its excessive night scenes and limited screen time for Godzilla, always teasing but never fully revealing the monstrous entity. However, I vividly recall the sensation of watching it on the IMAX screen, gazing up at the colossal figure that would send shivers down my spine every time it emerged from the shadows. The scene of soldiers parachuting from high altitudes in the latter part of the film is still celebrated.

Similarly, "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" remains my favorite Star Wars installment, and I can still recall the sense of disbelief I felt watching it in the theater. The appearance of the Death Star evoked a profound sense of despair and oppression that other films' toy-like Death Stars couldn't match, embodying the true essence of the silent cosmic reaper.

I've always believed that Gareth Edwards stands out among contemporary directors when portraying "grandeur." It's a pity I couldn't watch this film on an IMAX screen, because I know the experience would be vastly different depending on whether you view the same scene on a computer screen or TV screen (or perhaps even a smartphone). Otherwise, witnessing the breathtaking scene of Nomad plummeting from the heavens would undoubtedly leave me speechless.

So, perhaps not entirely objectively, if one watches a film solely for its visual effects and pays no heed to the script's quality, can it be considered watching a movie? Yet most of the time, people's preferences for a film are highly subjective, and even a single highlight, a reason for liking, or a particular person watching the movie with you is enough to change one's evaluation completely.