Reel Critics
Allen MacDonald
Universal Studios should have filed a restraining order on behalf of
E.T. against Steven Spielberg. Fox should do the same for the original
“Star Wars Trilogy” to protect it from George Lucas.
These guys can’t help themselves -- they have to mess with perfection.
I won’t use this space to review the original “E.T.” As it remains --
even in this new, altered form -- a magical experience, having lost
little of it’s luster and impact. However, I will pose this question: was
it necessary to tinker with a near perfect film?
The short answer is no.
Ask any filmmaker if they’d change anything about a completed film,
and they’ll usually spout off a quick mental list. No director ever
really finishes a film, they simply move on or can no longer stomach
tinkering with a project they’ve seen so many times that they no longer
have a clear perspective.
Steven Spielberg has stated his reason for doing this latest reissue
was the opportunity to subtly alter E.T.’s performance in scenes where
the animatronic puppet didn’t quite deliver the performance he would have
liked. Spielberg feels the movie has aged and needs to catch up with the
modern audience. For me, the old puppet still looks more real to me than
the digital face-lift E.T. has been given.
Using current technology, digital artists have “painted” over E.T.’s
face in nearly every scene in which he appears, adding texture to his
skin and details to his expressions so he can better emote.
I have to admit, I was impressed with the early scenes. Especially in
the opening chase sequence when E.T. zooms through the forest to avoid
capture, his orange heart aglow as his body bounces. In the original
version, E.T. was obviously sliding on an unseen track.
These remastered scenes work because Spielberg reveals E.T. slowly, a
little bit at a time, mostly shrouded in shadow and mystery. Digital
effects work better in dark lighting; it hides the warts. This was why
“Jurassic Park” worked so effectively nine years ago.
Yet, as E.T. progresses into fully lit scenes, the results are often
disastrous. The worst example of this is a restored scene that was
deleted from the 1982 cut. In it, E.T. has some wacky adventures with
tooth paste and takes a bath while Eliot fields a phone call from his
mother. Spielberg originally cut these scenes because he felt the puppet
didn’t work in it. This is one of the few scenes that has a fully
reanimated E.T. (most scenes only involve face animation), and it
borderlines on the ridiculous.
It feels like a parody of the character rather than an organic part of
him. Here, the animators throw restraint to the wind and give us a
version of E.T. that is painfully reminiscent of Jar Jar Binks of “Star
Wars Episode I” infamy. The added scene is also over the top and
extraneous. I can see why it was cut: it tells us information we already
know.
Spielberg wisely leaves E.T. untouched in the final act. Here, E.T.
and Elliott are kept together in quarantine (After 20 years, I doubt I’m
spoiling the story) and E.T. appears effectively sickly, withered and
heartbroken. The puppet works because he’s really in the scene, not added
later. The actors interacted directly with the character.
To be fair, the digital touch-ups of E.T.’s space ship are awesome, as
is the remastered sound design, which remains chilling and eerie in the
opening; warm and life affirming near the end.
Compared to George Lucas’s special edition tweaking of the original
“Star Wars Trilogy” in 1997, the “E.T. -- 20th Anniversary” mostly stays
in sync with its original tone. My main problem with digital effects is
they don’t seem a part of the scene. They look flatter, less dimensional.
When E.T. ceases to exist within the frame, some of the magic simply
gets lost in the process.
* ALLEN MacDONALD, 29, is currently working toward his master’s degree
in screenwriting from the American Film Institute in Los Angeles.
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.