Practical

Rating: Null/10 (5 July 2007)

"Practical" is the term movie makers use to denote effects done in real life instead of added in by CGI or animation or some such device.
A practical movie is a sort of handmade movie, a sort of sushi of film. Today, hardly any movie that depends on extra-reality is practical. That's good in a way; we get ever increasing imaginative experiences, at least in the better stuff. But as the technology grows, there is a growing appreciation I think of the masters who did stuff with actors and cameras.
Its a sort of embodiment, a reality, a commitment that you can feel. It matters to me more that Jeff Goldblum put on all that goo and plastic than Bill Nighy had Davy Jones' tentacles superimposed on his face while he was on vacation. There's a direct connection that comes from this, one that prompts us to allow more in what we accept as real. This is real, and bless Geena Davis for being our surrogate observer, camera and all. Its her horror that is essential to this, and the very real horror of imagining her child. And knowing that the two were lovers in real life.
The story is about embodiment, as it happens. Cronenberg in his intelligent period, where ghastly shapes were derived from organic forms. Contrast this with the insect-derived monster in "Aliens" of the same year. That insect is unlike Ridley Scott's. Its all angles and plates and jutting sharp things. This is modeled, organic, moist.
Oh, the story. Transformation again, a method of folding a character into another. A standby, but bodily change is novel. This version of the story is massively different than the last one. In that case, it was a matter of an alien consciousness creeping into a human and eclipsing it. Here it is a matter of human consciousness surviving the horror of transformation. Keeping a museum of dropped body parts. Wanting to preserve a fetus.
Loving. Even then. Loving.
Practical. Embodied. Worth it.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.