Future of entertainment
SepT 13, 2005
| Future of entertainment |
 Syd Mead
The artist and futurist says the future is out there.
Variously as a "visual futurist" and "one of the most-celebrated designers of our time," the work of Syd Mead lives indelibly in the hearts of science-fiction cineastes who remember his futuristic world that was brought to life in Ridley Scott's 1982 film "Blade Runner." His other credits include 1979's "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," 1982's "Tron," 1984's "Aliens" and Warner Bros. Pictures' September release "A Sound of Thunder." Mead put down his sketch pad long enough to talk with The Hollywood Reporter's Paula Parisi about the shape of things to come. The Hollywood Reporter: As a concept artist, what do you do? Syd Mead: I create a visualized end-process representation of something, whether it's a prop or a set. It might be a yacht or a supervehicle or a space. All of these design fields are very specialized, but I'm invited in to bring a new kind of approach. When you bring in someone from the outside who doesn't have the presuppositions that go along with living with your limitations in the real world, you can get something very different. THR: How do you begin the process of visualizing the future? Mead: We don't go into any future barehanded, from zero. There's always baggage because the audience has to, in some way, recognize what you've designed. Vehicles are a staple of sci-fi films because everyone is familiar with what a car is. The other touchstones of familiarity are clothing and houses. So, you have to make these things look somewhat familiar while still being quite imaginative. If you violate that, you lose the viewer. THR: Why do you think "Blade Runner" has held up so well? Mead: One of the reasons is, it's completely immersive. It doesn't violate any of its own premises, even though there is a certain illogic to it. I mean, Rachael (Sean Young) runs around in a fur coat for most of the film, which doesn't make any sense because it's supposed to be hot and wet and steamy. On that film, I was originally hired just to do the vehicles, but when they saw that I could put the vehicles in an environment, Ridley and (art director) Dave Snyder and (production designer) Lawrence Paull took my designs and translated them into sets, vehicles and props. We called the whole look "retro deco." What I did in my imagination was to mash together every architectural style I could think of. So, I violated architectural motif, and it's funny because architects love that film. Maybe it's cathartic for them. Because it's a wholly fabricated world, and the typical thing to do would have been to give it one style. Again, the point is, when you go into the future, you don't start from zero, you take everything along with you. You have to have old stuff to overlay the new stuff. And that's part of what gives "Blade Runner" it's unusual look. Another good example is (Terry Gilliam's 1985 sci-fi fantasy) "Brazil." It's preposterous, the technology is flawed, but in a way that works throughout the entire film. The "Brazil" approach is that technology has to work, and if it doesn't, and you continue to try to force it, you end up with a fascistic, dystopian system. The process is more important than the result. THR: How have things changed since you started out, and how will that impact the industry going forward? Mead: When I was in school, people were trained to have a linear career: You were going to be a package designer, a car designer. Today, the skill-sets are merging, so it's a much more fascinating, rich world that we're working in. I've had a varied career. I've done work for superyachts, nightclub interiors. Now, I'm doing theme parks, hotels, video games. Films are only about 20% of what I do. THR: Do you think the visual technology of today is making for better storytelling? Mead: Some of the films today remind me of looking at a painting through a window with 155 flies crawling on the glass. You have all this stuff going on, and because of that, you can't really just take in the image in a natural way. You go outside and every branch on the trees is blowing a little bit, but you're not really focusing on that. In the movies, they're boosting reality, but I think they're boosting it past a certain point of pleasurable, comfortable perception. The first time I noticed this was in (1997's) "The Fifth Element." I think the better thing would be to save your visual impact for select moments when you want to make a statement. It's all timing. You want to save your moments.  Back to index |
Share on LinkedIn
