The general theme for my work was to investigate the techniques carried out during pre production, filming and post production in the attempt to make a film appear authentic. This was a study to help understand the importance that such techniques have upon a film’s final outcome. I would then ask the question of whether or not this had any relation between critical or commercial success upon the film’s release at box office. I hoped my work would firstly; help people understand the importance of in-depth research and how integral it is to make a film appear, aesthetically at least, authentic. Secondly, I would discuss the filming techniques used to illuminate the efforts of the cast and crew, using examples of what I thought were particularly authentic or unauthentic films. Finally I would hope the viewer would be able to read my summary of findings on the relationship between authenticity and success and come to a similar understanding that I did.
The style that I used with my investigation began with various in-depth case studies in to the examination of film authenticity. I would then summarise my findings in the form of an essay into the relationship between authentic films and commercial and critical success. The content would be largely gathered from sources directly from DVD ‘making of’ documentaries as these provide direct quotes and explanation of methods from the key member of cast and crew. Important website based sources would also help add depth to my case studies. In total I carried out 4 case studies, three of which I considered authentic, and one which I felt did not strive towards authenticity in their production. I eventually used more positive examples of films then bad quite simply because it is a lot easier to gather information from solid sources of the better productions. I put this down to the fact that it is quite obvious that a director such as Mel Gibson would not want to discuss at length the reason why Braveheart appeared so inaccurate as he would naturally want to defend his own work. I balanced this numerical disadvantage out in my essay using web based sources and quotes.
The essay that I would write would use knowledge gathered from my initial studies and summarise this to try to find a definitive relation between authenticity and success, being my initial posed question. I decided that the easiest way to determine success with film was to use the original box office release figures and reviews. I categorised my findings into two groups, those being critical (reviews) and commercial (box office). The reason for the use of box office in terms of commercial success was applied simply for numerical clarity as it would allow an obvious level of success, which in this case would be how much revenue it gained. However, believing that box office figures can be misleading towards the true quality of a film, I decided to use critical reviews also. Rotten Tomatoes is a highly valued website which totals up the positive reviews against the negative reviews giving the reader a clear percentage. The only issue that this could conjure up would be to analyse the individual reviews and determine whether or not you can actual draw the line between positive and negative and whether or not these are two legitimate categories. I decided to use it based on the fact the Rotten Tomatoes is a highly respected review website and has a huge influence on such areas as international box office releases and DVD sales.
The traditions of filmmaking that this question would arise from could be any film created that has strived to give as true a representation as they possibly can. It appears that when the film requires such a representation, the level at which the production team and the actors perform is at a pinnacle and is in the interest of moving the art form forward. I believe that the research I carried out would certainly hep to highlight this. At present the film industry faces serious struggles with funding and some production companies are currently in large amounts of debt forcing almost certain closure, such as MGM. The reason I feel that my study is important as it could also illuminate such alternatives to high budget, over the top CGI films, where in some cases it may not be necessary. The best example of this I can use in my study is the difference between budgets with the highly authentic, The Wrester (Aronofsky) and the GCI laden, massively inaccurate Pearl Harbour (Bay). The Wrestler would cost $6,000,000 to make, compared to the massive budget of $140,000,000 of Pearl Harbour yet both films attempted to make the film appear as accurate as possible with the latter failing in its quest.
The key piece of terminology that I used throughout the investigation was the word ‘authenticity’. I decided to use this word after watching various documentaries and noticing that filmmakers would often refer to the term ‘authentic’ when they were shooting the film. This may cause an issue with the reader as the term authentic may have other connotations which are not related to film and could be misinterpreted. You could argue that in film is anything genuinely authentic? To help the clarity of the term I would explain the meaning of the word in relation to film as follows “Film authenticity, in relation to film is defined as 'a worthy replication of the original', i.e. an authentic reproduction of historical or contemporary settings”.
The knowledge I gained was largely on the importance of research and the specific filming techniques used. Applying this to my area of study, which is screenwriting, differs in importance. The filming techniques, such as the Apollo 13 production’s use of NASA aircrafts, could be valuable to a screenwriter in terms of a realistic budgetary vision. This is to say that, a writer could originally script, or re-write scenes, to include actual anti-gravity dynamics between the two characters. In the wrestler with the use of high flying showmanship and stunts, the screenwriter can broaden his creative vision on a project depending on the filming constraint. However, in terms of screenwriting the most important aspect to the process would unquestionably be the research carried out before creating a story. I found that this would be especially important with historical films. If a screenwriter fails to carry out research on a historical period then issues such as timelines, dialogue, character names and even elements to the story itself can be inaccurate. An example of this is clear in Randall Wallace’s screenplay Braveheart, where he had changed the age of the love interest of the lead character to be historically incorrect, a point which historians make. The more these mistakes add up, then the less authenticity a film will possess. The adopted process that I will take into future script development could be the difference between a critical success or failure. As I mentioned in my case study of the Wrestler, the screenwriter of that production Rob Siegel visited and interviewed numerous wrestlers to try and create a believable storyline that would work within the field of professional wrestling.
As stated at the beginning of my work, the reason for my study was examine and highlight the filming techniques used to make a film appear authentic and also to find out whether there was a relation between authenticity and success. For the research section of my investigation I believe the films I discussed were examined at a respectable level of depth. The quotes that I took from the sources I felt were appropriate in relation to my decided term authentic. The area that I could have developed more was the insight to the negative side to these films, which would have reflected a slightly less biased approach. However, as previously said, unless the film is remembered for its inaccuracy, such sources are harder to discover. In the interest of a balanced investigation I would also examine the other end of the authenticity spectrum, to give the reader an insight into the failings of such a film, however also pointing out the few good pieces of film making. The essay section to my project would achieve one fairly solid result and another which I felt would require further investigation. The solid result came with the critical review relation to authentic film making. I believe that the strive for this level of detail on screen will see you rewarded critically. Commercially however, there was no apparent relation. I felt that this would require research into the choice of cinema goers at the box office and that you could not judge the success of the films authenticity due to its commercial revenue. The paragraph below explains how I could move the project forward in the future:
I believe that to completely understand the value that authenticity has on commercial success would require a further investigation. This could be anything from audience feedback forms or initial interviews to examine the decisions that go into the choices made to watch films. I would also like to investigate the relationship between the area of escapism and reality as two different areas of film viewing, i.e. are escapist’s films (as apposed to realist films) more successful because they allow the audience to break free from reality?
In conclusion, I feel that authenticity is a vital part of filmmaking and when correctly attempted holds the most value with film critic’s world-wide. The casual cinema goer is something of a mystery however and their choices are determined by other factors. It is easy to assume that the average person who attends a multiplex is not too interested in authenticity, but films are rarely made today which are not without CGI or other areas of visual enhancement. If more films were made in the gritty realism style that has been achieved in the past, then perhaps these films would be more successful at the box office. There is one key element to a film, that as a fellow screenwriter, is admittedly one of the most important factors to any film; the story. People go to the cinema to get carried away in a story and are not always willing to be caught up in an accurate, realistic portrayal. My study shows however, that the two can be meshed together and result in what appears as completely believable, yet compelling, authentic cinema viewing.
Sunday, 25 April 2010
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
BRAVEHEART (1995), GIBSON
*All images and quotes taking directly from "BRAVEHEART, 2004, TWO-DISC SPECIAL EDITION DVD, All rights reserved to TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION", unless cited.
Released in 1995 and directed by Mel Gibson, the story of Braveheart takes place during the first War of Scottish Independence and follows the trials and tribulations of the historical figure of William Wallace. With my previous studies I have focused on the production and research techniques used in an attempt to make a film appear authentic. Braveheart, although still admired by many, falls down on many issues with regards to historical accuracy, many of which will be examined in this investigation.
[1]
The film was written by screenwriter and main characters namesake Randall Wallace. Anecdotally Wallace explains that during a holiday he conceived the idea of developing the story of William Wallace on the big screen. This would undoubtedly prove to be difficult with regards to historical accuracy as he explains “The actual facts of William Wallace’s life as established by historians are miniscule”. This leaves areas like character development and also story with relation to some sort of accurate timeline, a very hard task to make work. Mel Gibson himself admits that “there is a lot of legend that surrounds the character” and that the details are “kind of sketchy”. Another quote from Wallace suggests that a lot of artistic licence was taking with the history of this Scottish Knight. Wallace talks about the development of the character, “Those legends gave me a window into who the man truly was”. Unfortunately Wallace contradicts himself in this sentence by claiming that he used the “legend” to find out who Wallace “truly” was, the term legend, not meaning a fact but more of an unverified story. The issue of William Wallace’s ancestry is also brought into debate as Mel Gibson claims that Wallace was “a commoner”, however historical sources have pointed to the fact that Wallace was a descended from a noble named Richard Wallace [2]. The death of Wallace’s father is also inaccurately stated to a hanging at the hands of the English, historians suggest that Richard Wallace was killed in a skirmish Loudon Hill [3]. Even the name “Braveheart” is a name taken from a description of Robert the Bruce not William Wallace[4]. There are many more historical inaccuracies with relation to the story however I will now focus on the filming of Braveheart.
[5]
A production’s costume design is of significant importance when re-creating a historical setting. The level of accuracy and authenticity depends a great deal on the outfits used by the cast. Braveheart suffers because of the attire of its main character and his “countrymen”. The incorrect clothing that historians point to is the appearance of the kilt worn by the depicted Scottish commoners. Sharon L. Krossa states that “In the 13th century (and the 14th, 15th, and most of the 16th), no Scots, whether Gaels or not, wore belted plaids (let alone kilts of any kind)” [6]. Krossa goes on to explain that when the Scottish Gaels actually began to wear their belts outside their pants they didn’t do it in the “bizarre style depicted in the film” [7]. Braveheart’s DVD extras hold a revealing moment where Gibson talks about the different armoury and weaponry used in the film. The moment comes as Gibson holds up a sleeve that he intends to wear as he plays the character of William Wallace. The sleeve is designed to wear over the forearm for protection and has a few arrowheads super glued on. The problem with this is that the sleeve was designed and created by Mel Gibson himself and not somebody with some knowledge of weaponry from that period. It suggests that Gibson thinks of Wallace as somewhat of a superhero and is customising him in his own desired way.
Braveheart was filmed at Scotland and Ireland with most of the battle scenes filmed in Ireland. This would provide Braveheart with a strong realistic setting and in defence of the film for some sequences it certainly does. However the issue of historical inaccuracy re-appears again, this can be examined with the opening scenes of the film. The West Highlands of Scotland are originally shown, this an area which is not at the centre of Scotland and did not involve Wallace’s rise against Edward, nor was it the birth place of Wallace [8]. However, the setting for Braveheart would provide some realistic weather shots as the filming took place during some typical Scottish rain showers. The cast can be seen trenching through mud at one point giving a very realistic struggle that the weather would cause to the people at that time. Braveheart executive producer Stephen McEveety best describes the aesthetic appeal “It created a look that we would not have had if the weather hadn’t designed it for us”.
[9]
Despite its failings with authenticty and general historical accuracy Braveheart was a commercial success and would go on to win 5 Academy Awards out of a possible 10. Braveheart would eventually gross over $200 million, not quite making it into the top ten highest grossing films of 1995 but making it a critical hit nonetheless. However it is the films’ storyline and battle sequences which are the main attraction, despite the evident unrealistic events that surround them. Mel Gibson would own up to the inaccuracies in an interview with The Times (UK) in 2009 and shed some light onto the reasoning behind these deliberate mistakes. Talking about what Gibson thought the real Wallace was like he states “He wasn’t as nice as the character we saw up there on the screen. We romanticised him a bit. We shifted the balance because someone’s got to be the good guy against the bad guy; that’s the way stories are told.” [10] With this quote it becomes quite obvious that Mel Gibson values areas such as story structure over authenticity or accuracy. It should be noted however, that not one of Mel Gibson’s directorial films which are set as a period piece (Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ 2004, Apocalypto, 2006), have failed to reach the $100 million mark at box offices worldwide [11].
Released in 1995 and directed by Mel Gibson, the story of Braveheart takes place during the first War of Scottish Independence and follows the trials and tribulations of the historical figure of William Wallace. With my previous studies I have focused on the production and research techniques used in an attempt to make a film appear authentic. Braveheart, although still admired by many, falls down on many issues with regards to historical accuracy, many of which will be examined in this investigation.
[1]The film was written by screenwriter and main characters namesake Randall Wallace. Anecdotally Wallace explains that during a holiday he conceived the idea of developing the story of William Wallace on the big screen. This would undoubtedly prove to be difficult with regards to historical accuracy as he explains “The actual facts of William Wallace’s life as established by historians are miniscule”. This leaves areas like character development and also story with relation to some sort of accurate timeline, a very hard task to make work. Mel Gibson himself admits that “there is a lot of legend that surrounds the character” and that the details are “kind of sketchy”. Another quote from Wallace suggests that a lot of artistic licence was taking with the history of this Scottish Knight. Wallace talks about the development of the character, “Those legends gave me a window into who the man truly was”. Unfortunately Wallace contradicts himself in this sentence by claiming that he used the “legend” to find out who Wallace “truly” was, the term legend, not meaning a fact but more of an unverified story. The issue of William Wallace’s ancestry is also brought into debate as Mel Gibson claims that Wallace was “a commoner”, however historical sources have pointed to the fact that Wallace was a descended from a noble named Richard Wallace [2]. The death of Wallace’s father is also inaccurately stated to a hanging at the hands of the English, historians suggest that Richard Wallace was killed in a skirmish Loudon Hill [3]. Even the name “Braveheart” is a name taken from a description of Robert the Bruce not William Wallace[4]. There are many more historical inaccuracies with relation to the story however I will now focus on the filming of Braveheart.
[5]A production’s costume design is of significant importance when re-creating a historical setting. The level of accuracy and authenticity depends a great deal on the outfits used by the cast. Braveheart suffers because of the attire of its main character and his “countrymen”. The incorrect clothing that historians point to is the appearance of the kilt worn by the depicted Scottish commoners. Sharon L. Krossa states that “In the 13th century (and the 14th, 15th, and most of the 16th), no Scots, whether Gaels or not, wore belted plaids (let alone kilts of any kind)” [6]. Krossa goes on to explain that when the Scottish Gaels actually began to wear their belts outside their pants they didn’t do it in the “bizarre style depicted in the film” [7]. Braveheart’s DVD extras hold a revealing moment where Gibson talks about the different armoury and weaponry used in the film. The moment comes as Gibson holds up a sleeve that he intends to wear as he plays the character of William Wallace. The sleeve is designed to wear over the forearm for protection and has a few arrowheads super glued on. The problem with this is that the sleeve was designed and created by Mel Gibson himself and not somebody with some knowledge of weaponry from that period. It suggests that Gibson thinks of Wallace as somewhat of a superhero and is customising him in his own desired way.
Braveheart was filmed at Scotland and Ireland with most of the battle scenes filmed in Ireland. This would provide Braveheart with a strong realistic setting and in defence of the film for some sequences it certainly does. However the issue of historical inaccuracy re-appears again, this can be examined with the opening scenes of the film. The West Highlands of Scotland are originally shown, this an area which is not at the centre of Scotland and did not involve Wallace’s rise against Edward, nor was it the birth place of Wallace [8]. However, the setting for Braveheart would provide some realistic weather shots as the filming took place during some typical Scottish rain showers. The cast can be seen trenching through mud at one point giving a very realistic struggle that the weather would cause to the people at that time. Braveheart executive producer Stephen McEveety best describes the aesthetic appeal “It created a look that we would not have had if the weather hadn’t designed it for us”.
[9]Despite its failings with authenticty and general historical accuracy Braveheart was a commercial success and would go on to win 5 Academy Awards out of a possible 10. Braveheart would eventually gross over $200 million, not quite making it into the top ten highest grossing films of 1995 but making it a critical hit nonetheless. However it is the films’ storyline and battle sequences which are the main attraction, despite the evident unrealistic events that surround them. Mel Gibson would own up to the inaccuracies in an interview with The Times (UK) in 2009 and shed some light onto the reasoning behind these deliberate mistakes. Talking about what Gibson thought the real Wallace was like he states “He wasn’t as nice as the character we saw up there on the screen. We romanticised him a bit. We shifted the balance because someone’s got to be the good guy against the bad guy; that’s the way stories are told.” [10] With this quote it becomes quite obvious that Mel Gibson values areas such as story structure over authenticity or accuracy. It should be noted however, that not one of Mel Gibson’s directorial films which are set as a period piece (Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ 2004, Apocalypto, 2006), have failed to reach the $100 million mark at box offices worldwide [11].
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
APOLLO 13 (1995), HOWARD
*All images and quotes taking directly from "APOLLO 13, 2005, 2-DISC SPECIAL EDITION DVD, All rights reserved to UNIVERSAL STUDIOS", unless cited.
“I wanted the film to be as exciting as it could be without compromising the authenticity”. Ron Howard – Director of Apollo 13.
Apollo 13 is a historical dramatisation of the unlucky lunar mission of the same name. This factual scenario would provide director Ron Howard with various authenticity barriers that he would have to overcome is he wanted to make the film as visually accurate as possible. The first and biggest of the challenges would lie with the film’s low-gravity setting.
[1]
The film’s biggest challenge is that for the majority, it takes place in an anti gravity setting within a space craft flying in outer space. Originally the most probable solution would have been to attach wires to give an anti-gravity illusion. Howard states that he “shudders to think” what the visual outcome of the film would have been had the use of wires been introduced. The reality is that the filmmaker would have no such problem due to the co-operation of N.A.S.A. Prior to the filming locations being determined, members on the cast went on a training exercise inside a fixed wing aircraft called a KC-135A (NASA 930). This was an acting exercise to increase the bio mechanical knowledge of bodily movements in space intended to be duplicated later during production. The exercise would propose a complete solution to the anti-gravity problem. Ron Howard and producer Brian Grazer decided to enquire about the opportunity to film all of the anti-gravity scenes inside the aircraft. Eventually, NASA would agree offering the use of KC-135A for all of the desired anti-gravity shots. The aircraft would go through the physical act of free-falling toward the earth inducing a low gravity setting, this free fall which lasts about 25 seconds. The number of “parabolas” that the cast and crew would endure would hit the 500 mark. This achievement with the production would ultimately mean that that Apollo 13 would hold some of the most memorising, realistic shots in the history of cinema.
[2]
The set designs used in Apollo 13 are some of the most accurate ever produced because of the intense level of detail. The biggest feat that Ron Howard and the production team accomplished was the complete re-creation of NASA’s Houston based mission control station. According to actor Bill Paxton (Fred Haise, Apollo 13 Pilot) the copy was built to “complete specifications”. This was an enormous task which was carried out to perfection, all in the push for an unprecedented level of authenticity. The detail of the replica caused Apollo 13 flight director Gerald Griffin to say “When I first walked into the set I could have swore it was Houston”. Another set design which would provide one of the most memorable scenes in the film was the creation of the command module Odyssey splashing down in the Pacific Ocean. A scaled down version of the pod was created and subsequently dropped from a helicopter with parachuted attached to give off the desired effect. The production team had originally thought the design would cost too much, however the team eventually agreed that the falling Odyssey would provide a more dramatic and real scenario.
[3]
Actor research is an important part of any historical re-enactment and the cast certainly did not let up with their role researching. Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton and Kevin Bacon all attended the Johnson space centre in Houston and familiarised themselves with the anti-gravity situation with the aforementioned KC-135A prior to filming commencing. Therefore they would be comfortable in their movement while navigating the aircraft, thus providing a more professional astronaut portrayal on screen. In preparation for Ed Harris’ own role playing Apollo 13 flight director Gene Kranz (Harris sporting Kranz’ exact same buzz cut), attended a flight controller school, other members of the cast also attended to help improve their language skills with the various command jargon. The cast also attended a crash course in physics. The attitude of the cast is impressive and best summed up by director Howard “Everybody was digging through transcripts and looking at documents”. This in-depth research into the specific terminology would provide authenticity within the dialogue of the film. Finally, before filming began, Tom Hanks (Jim Lovell, Apollo 13 commander) and Kathleen Quinlan (Marilyn Lovell) both separately lived with Jim and Marilyn Lovell and studied their character and emotional anecdotes while they spent a 3 day stay over at their family home.
[4]
Like any Hollywood movie, the film must have a compelling story line that people can relate to. Tom Hanks calls the Apollo 13 tale “one of the great stories of literature” and a “getting home” movie. The factual storyline would naturally fit in within what is considered a conventional narratives. However there was some artistic licence taking up with some of the scenes. As Bill Paxton notes that the scene in which the astronauts are arguing over a gauge being incorrectly checked, did not actually happen, however claiming that without the inclusion of scenes like that “the audience is denied that common bond of humanism”. This is only one of very few scenes in the film where such an approach is taken towards the audience. The accuracy regarding the rest of the scenes and dialogue is down to the transcripts of the actual mission that were utilised. There are other scenes in the film where it may look like the filmmaker is trying to make a character bond with the audience, but the probability is that they are genuine anecdotal re-enactments. In one scene Tom Hanks’ character embraces Bill Paxton’s character in an attempt to warm is body up, this didn’t require any artistic license as it genuinely occurred. The scene which produced the most controversy was the scene where Jim Lovell’s wife Marilyn drops her wedding ring down the bath tubs drain. This was due to a newspaper reporter from the LA Times suggesting that this scene was implemented into the film. The moment actually happened and Marilyn describes the incident as an “omen” on the rest of the mission. The scenes where there are some small changes towards the storyline are only there to enhance it, for the majority of this film the accurate footage is down to a large amount of respect towards the original story .
[5]
The final aspect of the film (albeit complete manufactured) that plays a vital role in this films authenticity is the inclusion of CGI (Computer Generated Images). Robert Legato the films’ visual effects supervisor describes the beginning of the research process as the artistic team looked through NASA footage of previous rocket launches. Although given the option to use the stocked footage, the team decided that there was a large amount of “disparity” with the footage and issues such as continuity and image quality would no doubt emerge because of this. The team then decided that the launch should be a computer generated process. Of course, the cinematic experience would not falter because the research that went into the launch was so profound. Such an analytic approach resulted in a very accurate reproduction. These results would come of the back of an in-depth study and concluded with shots like the ice falling from the stationary rocket, an actual occurrence due to the “ice-shield” that would form over it pre-flight. With the spacecrafts' rocket booster action scene, CGI was integrated with actual live explosion footage. This was done as a separate piece of footage capturing and added to the computerised take off imagery. This would give the fire from the rockets a more natural feel to it.
“I wanted the film to be as exciting as it could be without compromising the authenticity”. Ron Howard – Director of Apollo 13.
Apollo 13 is a historical dramatisation of the unlucky lunar mission of the same name. This factual scenario would provide director Ron Howard with various authenticity barriers that he would have to overcome is he wanted to make the film as visually accurate as possible. The first and biggest of the challenges would lie with the film’s low-gravity setting.
[1]The film’s biggest challenge is that for the majority, it takes place in an anti gravity setting within a space craft flying in outer space. Originally the most probable solution would have been to attach wires to give an anti-gravity illusion. Howard states that he “shudders to think” what the visual outcome of the film would have been had the use of wires been introduced. The reality is that the filmmaker would have no such problem due to the co-operation of N.A.S.A. Prior to the filming locations being determined, members on the cast went on a training exercise inside a fixed wing aircraft called a KC-135A (NASA 930). This was an acting exercise to increase the bio mechanical knowledge of bodily movements in space intended to be duplicated later during production. The exercise would propose a complete solution to the anti-gravity problem. Ron Howard and producer Brian Grazer decided to enquire about the opportunity to film all of the anti-gravity scenes inside the aircraft. Eventually, NASA would agree offering the use of KC-135A for all of the desired anti-gravity shots. The aircraft would go through the physical act of free-falling toward the earth inducing a low gravity setting, this free fall which lasts about 25 seconds. The number of “parabolas” that the cast and crew would endure would hit the 500 mark. This achievement with the production would ultimately mean that that Apollo 13 would hold some of the most memorising, realistic shots in the history of cinema.
[2]The set designs used in Apollo 13 are some of the most accurate ever produced because of the intense level of detail. The biggest feat that Ron Howard and the production team accomplished was the complete re-creation of NASA’s Houston based mission control station. According to actor Bill Paxton (Fred Haise, Apollo 13 Pilot) the copy was built to “complete specifications”. This was an enormous task which was carried out to perfection, all in the push for an unprecedented level of authenticity. The detail of the replica caused Apollo 13 flight director Gerald Griffin to say “When I first walked into the set I could have swore it was Houston”. Another set design which would provide one of the most memorable scenes in the film was the creation of the command module Odyssey splashing down in the Pacific Ocean. A scaled down version of the pod was created and subsequently dropped from a helicopter with parachuted attached to give off the desired effect. The production team had originally thought the design would cost too much, however the team eventually agreed that the falling Odyssey would provide a more dramatic and real scenario.
[3]Actor research is an important part of any historical re-enactment and the cast certainly did not let up with their role researching. Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton and Kevin Bacon all attended the Johnson space centre in Houston and familiarised themselves with the anti-gravity situation with the aforementioned KC-135A prior to filming commencing. Therefore they would be comfortable in their movement while navigating the aircraft, thus providing a more professional astronaut portrayal on screen. In preparation for Ed Harris’ own role playing Apollo 13 flight director Gene Kranz (Harris sporting Kranz’ exact same buzz cut), attended a flight controller school, other members of the cast also attended to help improve their language skills with the various command jargon. The cast also attended a crash course in physics. The attitude of the cast is impressive and best summed up by director Howard “Everybody was digging through transcripts and looking at documents”. This in-depth research into the specific terminology would provide authenticity within the dialogue of the film. Finally, before filming began, Tom Hanks (Jim Lovell, Apollo 13 commander) and Kathleen Quinlan (Marilyn Lovell) both separately lived with Jim and Marilyn Lovell and studied their character and emotional anecdotes while they spent a 3 day stay over at their family home.
[4]Like any Hollywood movie, the film must have a compelling story line that people can relate to. Tom Hanks calls the Apollo 13 tale “one of the great stories of literature” and a “getting home” movie. The factual storyline would naturally fit in within what is considered a conventional narratives. However there was some artistic licence taking up with some of the scenes. As Bill Paxton notes that the scene in which the astronauts are arguing over a gauge being incorrectly checked, did not actually happen, however claiming that without the inclusion of scenes like that “the audience is denied that common bond of humanism”. This is only one of very few scenes in the film where such an approach is taken towards the audience. The accuracy regarding the rest of the scenes and dialogue is down to the transcripts of the actual mission that were utilised. There are other scenes in the film where it may look like the filmmaker is trying to make a character bond with the audience, but the probability is that they are genuine anecdotal re-enactments. In one scene Tom Hanks’ character embraces Bill Paxton’s character in an attempt to warm is body up, this didn’t require any artistic license as it genuinely occurred. The scene which produced the most controversy was the scene where Jim Lovell’s wife Marilyn drops her wedding ring down the bath tubs drain. This was due to a newspaper reporter from the LA Times suggesting that this scene was implemented into the film. The moment actually happened and Marilyn describes the incident as an “omen” on the rest of the mission. The scenes where there are some small changes towards the storyline are only there to enhance it, for the majority of this film the accurate footage is down to a large amount of respect towards the original story .
[5]The final aspect of the film (albeit complete manufactured) that plays a vital role in this films authenticity is the inclusion of CGI (Computer Generated Images). Robert Legato the films’ visual effects supervisor describes the beginning of the research process as the artistic team looked through NASA footage of previous rocket launches. Although given the option to use the stocked footage, the team decided that there was a large amount of “disparity” with the footage and issues such as continuity and image quality would no doubt emerge because of this. The team then decided that the launch should be a computer generated process. Of course, the cinematic experience would not falter because the research that went into the launch was so profound. Such an analytic approach resulted in a very accurate reproduction. These results would come of the back of an in-depth study and concluded with shots like the ice falling from the stationary rocket, an actual occurrence due to the “ice-shield” that would form over it pre-flight. With the spacecrafts' rocket booster action scene, CGI was integrated with actual live explosion footage. This was done as a separate piece of footage capturing and added to the computerised take off imagery. This would give the fire from the rockets a more natural feel to it.
Apollo 13 was a complete success with former and current NASA employees. The film also achieved high critical praise and was nominated for nine Oscars, winning two of its categories (Best Film Editing and Best Sound Mixing). However it is the feedback of the former astronauts that unquestionably packs the most value. Buzz Aldrin said about CGI of the launch that he thought the footage was “real” and asked where in the NASA video vault they had found it, even asking if they (NASA) could “use it”. The resulting authentic piece of cinema is down to the director’s vision with producer Brian Grazer calling him part of “the accuracy police”. This film’s achievements are perfectly summed up by Apollo 15 commander Dan Elliot who states “I’m really impressed with the authenticity of the way they’re doing this, there so interested in getting this accurate and precise”.
Sunday, 21 March 2010
THE WRESTLER (2008), ARONOFSKY
*All images and quotes taking directly from "THE WRESTLER DVD, 2009, All rights reserved to OPTIMUM RELEASING", unless cited.
With my previous investigation of film authenticity I examined the techniques used in the film Saving Private Ryan. Like most of the films that I will study, the issue of authenticity falls nicely within the boundaries of historical settings. This is simply because a historical film requires a reconstruction of its original settings. However, the term ‘authenticity’ does not just have to be confined to a period piece. Issues of authenticity can also be valued within a contemporary setting. It is with the film The Wrestler (2008, Aronofsky) that I will examine the production techniques used to make a contemporary setting appear authentic.
[3]
During the live shows of both WXW and CZW, Aronofsky would capture the footage he desired, whether it was of other matches taking place that evening or footage of the live crowd. What is vital about the setting and it’s authentic feel, is that the crowd are genuine fight attendees and the wrestlers are all professional wrestlers, excluding the main character Randy “The Ram” Robinson (played by Rourke). During the live shows, Rourke and his stunt double Armond ‘Kid USA’ Ciceri, would be brought out to perform his fight scene, incidentally against actual professional wrestlers.
[4]
[5]
The application of professional wrestlers would throw up similar results to the live crowd aspect of this film. Apart from Rourke’s character, Aronofsky only used Pro-Wrestlers during the fight sequences. The realism that this would portray is another intelligent directorial vision. Professional wrestlers by trade or taught to put on an acting display every week with their chosen stage persona. Whether they want to play the villain or the hero they act out a specific type of character that the crowd responds to. Professional wrestler Mike Miller claims that he “loves to play up to the camera”. Ultimately though, the key factor to Aronofsky’s decision to use real wrestlers lies with the fighting itself. Behind the scenes footage shows Dylan Keith Summers, AKA Necro Butcher with real scars over his body, accumulated during various “Hardcore” style matches. This best illuminates the effort that professional wrestlers put in to their own performances and the real dangers that lie within this act and how the use of anybody but pro-wrestlers would make the film’s authenticity inferior. When it comes to stunt doubles Armond Ciceri’s turn to act out some fight footage, no punches are pulled. There is a scene in the film where Rourke’s character must be thrown through a pane of glass. Utilising the stunt double, Ciceri is thrown into the pane which is smashed with triggered explosions. However, Ciceri is seen moments later genuinely cut and bleeding from wounds off the glass. Therefore the use of natural action couldn’t be more valuable. It is this act that the wrestlers portray in the ring that can almost effortlessly be captured on camera, resulting in a film filled with the natural showmanship that ties within the world of wrestling.
The pre production side to the film also provides an insight into the authenticity with the actual story itself through the words of the film’s screenwriter Rob Siegel. Siegel met and talked to various professional wrestlers and noticed that there were specific similar emerging conflicts. These themes include “estranged daughters and broken relationships” a theme which is apparent in the film. Siegel deduced that many wrestlers would go on to live unstable lives and finally, a key feature in the film, rely heavily upon strip clubs. Although it may seem somewhat of a generalisation of professional wrestlers, Siegel sums this up “things become clichés because they’re actually true”.
With my previous investigation of film authenticity I examined the techniques used in the film Saving Private Ryan. Like most of the films that I will study, the issue of authenticity falls nicely within the boundaries of historical settings. This is simply because a historical film requires a reconstruction of its original settings. However, the term ‘authenticity’ does not just have to be confined to a period piece. Issues of authenticity can also be valued within a contemporary setting. It is with the film The Wrestler (2008, Aronofsky) that I will examine the production techniques used to make a contemporary setting appear authentic.
The Wrestler takes place, as the title suggests, within the world of professional wrestling. With the original development of the film, Director Darren Aronofsky had previously toyed with the idea of setting the film as a period piece. The backdrop would be during the rise of the highly successful WWF (World Wrestling Federation, Now World Wrestling Entertainment) in the late 1980’s. The idea was quickly realised to be unfeasible due the endless “licensing” issues that such a setting would throw up.Therefore the film takes place in the modern day at two genuine independent wrestling promotions, WXW (World Xtreme Wrestling) and CZW (Combat Zone Wrestling) respectively. The final match of the film does take place within a major wrestling organisation, which is that of ROH (Ring of Honor) wrestling.
Part of the research Darren Aronofsky and producer Scott Franklin carried out prior to production commencing was to attend various live wrestling shows. Eventually, the two aforementioned independent wrestling promotions were chosen to be the settings during filming. Before filming Aronofsky shares his apprehension stating that he was “unsure how it would work with the live crowd”. The filming according to Mark Heyman, the co-producer lasted a total of “35 days”. On a tight budget the crew would film the scenes away from the wrestling during the week. That left the weekend for the production team to use the live events to film the wrestling actions scenes.
[3]During the live shows of both WXW and CZW, Aronofsky would capture the footage he desired, whether it was of other matches taking place that evening or footage of the live crowd. What is vital about the setting and it’s authentic feel, is that the crowd are genuine fight attendees and the wrestlers are all professional wrestlers, excluding the main character Randy “The Ram” Robinson (played by Rourke). During the live shows, Rourke and his stunt double Armond ‘Kid USA’ Ciceri, would be brought out to perform his fight scene, incidentally against actual professional wrestlers.
[4]Aronofsky’s previous anxieties about using a live genuine fight crowd would be answered. The answer being that it would work unimaginably well. The fight atmosphere that is thrown up is one of genuine reaction to the action taking place inside the ring. The reason for this success lies with the nature of the show that is put on. It may be unfair to call the crowd a ‘pantomime’ crowd but this is essentially what they are. Regular attendees to this sort of event, the real crowd already understand exactly how to respond to the action and showmanship of the wrestlers, they either get booed or cheered, good vs. evil. Before the final wrestling match Aronofsky can be seen beginning to instruct the crowd on how to react to the action before saying “I know you guys know what to do”. This brilliantly sums up the authenticity that the genuine pro-wrestling fan posses and the masterstroke of Aronofsky to implement that within The Wrestler.
[5]The application of professional wrestlers would throw up similar results to the live crowd aspect of this film. Apart from Rourke’s character, Aronofsky only used Pro-Wrestlers during the fight sequences. The realism that this would portray is another intelligent directorial vision. Professional wrestlers by trade or taught to put on an acting display every week with their chosen stage persona. Whether they want to play the villain or the hero they act out a specific type of character that the crowd responds to. Professional wrestler Mike Miller claims that he “loves to play up to the camera”. Ultimately though, the key factor to Aronofsky’s decision to use real wrestlers lies with the fighting itself. Behind the scenes footage shows Dylan Keith Summers, AKA Necro Butcher with real scars over his body, accumulated during various “Hardcore” style matches. This best illuminates the effort that professional wrestlers put in to their own performances and the real dangers that lie within this act and how the use of anybody but pro-wrestlers would make the film’s authenticity inferior. When it comes to stunt doubles Armond Ciceri’s turn to act out some fight footage, no punches are pulled. There is a scene in the film where Rourke’s character must be thrown through a pane of glass. Utilising the stunt double, Ciceri is thrown into the pane which is smashed with triggered explosions. However, Ciceri is seen moments later genuinely cut and bleeding from wounds off the glass. Therefore the use of natural action couldn’t be more valuable. It is this act that the wrestlers portray in the ring that can almost effortlessly be captured on camera, resulting in a film filled with the natural showmanship that ties within the world of wrestling.
The pre production side to the film also provides an insight into the authenticity with the actual story itself through the words of the film’s screenwriter Rob Siegel. Siegel met and talked to various professional wrestlers and noticed that there were specific similar emerging conflicts. These themes include “estranged daughters and broken relationships” a theme which is apparent in the film. Siegel deduced that many wrestlers would go on to live unstable lives and finally, a key feature in the film, rely heavily upon strip clubs. Although it may seem somewhat of a generalisation of professional wrestlers, Siegel sums this up “things become clichés because they’re actually true”.
A final mention and a good opportunity to explore the level of depth that Aronofsky intended with this project is with the fake/real Nintendo game Wrestle Jam. The game was created from scratch by graphics artist Kristyn Hume and programmer Randall Furino and is a mock up of old fashioned Nintendo wrestling games which features the fictional Randy “The Ram” Robinson [6]. It takes it influences from other 8-bit fighting games like Nintendo's Pro Wrestling and Acclaims, WWF Wrestlemania. A quote from graphic artist Hume shows Aronofsky’s vision, that he wanted a console game were the characters could “interact” [7] . This strive towards authenticty resulted in a genuine working game being created, suitably named : Wrestle Jam.
No bigger sentiment could be paid to this film then the positive response from the world of professional wrestling and former superstars of both WWE and WCW (World Championship Wrestling). Professional wrestler and former WWE heavyweight champion Mick Foley said about the film "Within five [minutes], I had completely forgotten I was looking at Mickey Rourke. That guy on the screen simply was Randy "the Ram" Robinson" [9]. Aronofsky is quoted as saying that former WWE hall famer Roddy Piper “broke down and cried in Mickey's arms, so he was psyched that this story was finally told” [10] . Former and current professional wrestlers have to endure a life of insults directed towards the fake elements to their beloved style of “entertainment”. The irony of this project’s is that, the use of authentic, real action, direct from promotional professional wrestling events, intwined with a believable storyline, made this film a complete critical success.
Saturday, 27 February 2010
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998), SPIELBERG
*All images and quotes taking directly from "SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, D-DAY 60th COMMEMORATIVE EDITION, 1998, All rights reserved to DREAMWORKS LLC and PARAMOUNT PICTURES", unless cited.
Tom Hanks – “We were making an historical document”
Steven Spielberg by his own admission claimed that in his previous movie series Indiana Jones, he had ‘glamorised’ war. When he took up the responsibility of directing and producing Saving Private Ryan (1998) he would repeat no such portrayal, quite simply the story and setting would not allow it. Saving Private Ryan set a new benchmark within the genre of war films, with its memorable battle scenes and sobering story line. Met with critical acclaim receiving 5 Academy Awards and nominated for another 6, the definitive modern war classic is the perfect place to start with my research, into what filming and research techniques make a film look and sound authentic.
The D-Day 60th Anniversary commemorative edition DVD of Saving Private Ryan provides an excellent insight into the techniques used during pre-production, filming and post-production. The film was lauded for its accurate depiction of war, why that is becomes very clear when watching through these various documentaries. The research carried out is evident with every aspect to this motion picture. Starting with the actors’ own preparation I would like to illuminate this master class in preparation.
In conjunction with their own personal research that Tom Hanks and Matt Damon (the latter claiming that he would ‘track down ’ veterans) confess to carrying out, one of the most impressive features to the research was carried out by Captain Dale A. Dye. A former officer in the United States Marine Core turned Hollywood military advisor, Dye was the perfect educator to the incoming cast of ‘Ryan. In his own words “Much of the movies being done about the military, about the American man, were nonsense”. Describing the actors as ‘sponges’ Dye feels that actors need to be engrossed within specific military activities to prepare them for a precise acting response that they can draw back to during filming. With ‘Ryan this was done in the method of a boot camp. 10 days of training with six of those spent ‘in the field’. This would entail sleeping rough, eating only twice a day, marching, learning accurate hand signals, weapons training and physical training at 5am to name a few. The preparation intended to make the actors act accordingly on screen, a huge factor when making the soldiers appear authentic. For emotional purposes the boot camp would provide another learning experience for the cast. The camp clearly caused physical and mental stress for the cast as the unforgiving Dye would pull no punches to give the genuine feel of boot camp. The implanted feelings of exhaustion and misery would provide the perfect preparation for all of the main cast members who attended. The cast including Edward Burns (Private Reiben) who states with these experiences, he would be able to “Hold on and remember, so when they do the film, he could muster the emotion back up”.
[1]
The filming locations of Saving Private Ryan would raise an interesting problem for Spielberg as the possibility of filming the battle scenes in France were quickly realised to be impossibility. The type of filming that Spielberg required for the original invasion scene, according to Ian Bryce (Producer), fell over the ‘restrictions’ that the original historical Normandy beach location had placed upon it. While aesthetically, the surround areas located in Normandy had become quite industrialised. Therefore the filming for the now famous Omaha D-Day scene would take place in County Wexford, Ireland near the town of Curracloe. The decision to use this particular beach was well thought out, as it had a similar layout to the Vierville-Sur-Mer beach while also possessing sand which was similar in it’s golden shade. The Villages which are used during the filming are completely created set villages. The production team managed to acquire a lot just outside of London in Hatfield and then continue to build these impressive set pieces. In order to create the feeling that this was an accurate French Village production designer Tom Sanders visited several French villages which had been bombed during the war for architectural purposes. He then came back and created what was basically a “best of” in terms of design. In order to make the set appear that it has sustained heavy bombing, the exterior was wilted away using “carving knifes” to give off the impression of destruction. The detailing was also an important factor an example of this is shown with the various genuine road signs dotted around the set. The majority of the filming was carried out within the created set. The village was spliced into two scene settings with a river that ran in-between was also created from scratch. Ian Bryce stated their intent with this design “On a project like this one where you’re re-creating historical detail, the authenticity is vital”.
[2]
Costume design with any war film is vitally important to providing the movie with historical credibility. Joanna Johnston was in charge of Wardrobe for ‘Ryan. The uniforms were gathered from a re-enactment company and the boots were made direct from the actual factory that the original troops’ boots were produced in Minnesota. 2,000 boots with the identical pattern design were ordered. Aging the items that were used was also significant, this to make the various weapons and uniforms seem worn out. The DVD shows extras putting the shoes though their paces in an attempt to wear them out. Finally ‘individuality’ was a touch made to some of the main characters’ uniforms. Through extensive pictorial research carried out by Johnston the image of personalised stencilling was applied to Edward Burns character’s uniform as shown below:
Spielberg along with his director of photographer Janusz Kaminski were very acute with their general footage gathering. The entire film was intended to have a “grainy” feel to it and as Spielberg mentions that he did not want this to be a “Technicolor” movie. Each image was purposely de-saturated and as Kaminski points out most negatives had about “60%” of the colour taking away from them. The reason for this was very deliberate, Spielberg’s general vision was to try and replicate the colour scheme of the newsreels of the time. Coinciding with this was the handheld aspect to the camera and the 45 degree angle of the camera shutters which was an exact angle used in with 1940’s combat cameras.
[3]
The re-creation of the D-Day Normandy landings will be hard to surpass in terms of a cinematic experience. Watching the DVD bonus features makes you understand why this is so. The production consisted of 2,000 extras with a large proportion of these being from the Irish Army. Simon Atherton the production armourer helps with the digestion of the scale by stating that there were 2,000 M1 rifles gathered, some rubber and some blank firing guns. The re-creation itself is a very direct piece of filming. Spielberg shot the scene from start to finish with the actors landing on the beach and then moving up through the controlled explosions. This added extra authenticity to the scene as actor’s reactions were genuine.
[4]
The area of sound provides the most interesting aspect to this film’s post-production period. Spielberg had attached one of Hollywood’s most successful composers John Williams. However as sound designer Gary Rydstrom points out Spielberg did not want the sound to be “Hollywood”. Rydstrom explains that with the opening sequence and following battle scenes they decided that no music at all was necessary and that with music it makes “audience realise from moment to moment they are watching a movie”, this was something different. Rydstrom also goes on to prove the extensive sound research carried out within the film. Talking to Veterans of the war Rydstrom acquired from their personal experience, distinct sounds that they felt summed up the campaign. This could be anything from the pinging sound of an empty M1 metal cartridge ejecting to the distant 'thunderstorm' like noise from battles further away. Rydstrom recieved a Acadmey Award for the sound in the film, however the biggest compliment that he would receive would be off the veterans who would personally congratulate him on capturing the sound of war.
Saving Private Ryan is unarguably one of the most accurate war films of all time and from the evidence gathered from watching and reading the various research it is easy to see why. The moment which stands out with me the most is watching and listening to Barry Pepper who plays the unforgettable sniper Private Jackson. It is hard not to be convinced by him talking about the perfect sniper technique and how he has learned how to take apart his own weapon. He could easily be a genuine member of the armed forced cornered by a news reporter.
Tom Hanks – “We were making an historical document”
Steven Spielberg by his own admission claimed that in his previous movie series Indiana Jones, he had ‘glamorised’ war. When he took up the responsibility of directing and producing Saving Private Ryan (1998) he would repeat no such portrayal, quite simply the story and setting would not allow it. Saving Private Ryan set a new benchmark within the genre of war films, with its memorable battle scenes and sobering story line. Met with critical acclaim receiving 5 Academy Awards and nominated for another 6, the definitive modern war classic is the perfect place to start with my research, into what filming and research techniques make a film look and sound authentic.
The D-Day 60th Anniversary commemorative edition DVD of Saving Private Ryan provides an excellent insight into the techniques used during pre-production, filming and post-production. The film was lauded for its accurate depiction of war, why that is becomes very clear when watching through these various documentaries. The research carried out is evident with every aspect to this motion picture. Starting with the actors’ own preparation I would like to illuminate this master class in preparation.
In conjunction with their own personal research that Tom Hanks and Matt Damon (the latter claiming that he would ‘track down ’ veterans) confess to carrying out, one of the most impressive features to the research was carried out by Captain Dale A. Dye. A former officer in the United States Marine Core turned Hollywood military advisor, Dye was the perfect educator to the incoming cast of ‘Ryan. In his own words “Much of the movies being done about the military, about the American man, were nonsense”. Describing the actors as ‘sponges’ Dye feels that actors need to be engrossed within specific military activities to prepare them for a precise acting response that they can draw back to during filming. With ‘Ryan this was done in the method of a boot camp. 10 days of training with six of those spent ‘in the field’. This would entail sleeping rough, eating only twice a day, marching, learning accurate hand signals, weapons training and physical training at 5am to name a few. The preparation intended to make the actors act accordingly on screen, a huge factor when making the soldiers appear authentic. For emotional purposes the boot camp would provide another learning experience for the cast. The camp clearly caused physical and mental stress for the cast as the unforgiving Dye would pull no punches to give the genuine feel of boot camp. The implanted feelings of exhaustion and misery would provide the perfect preparation for all of the main cast members who attended. The cast including Edward Burns (Private Reiben) who states with these experiences, he would be able to “Hold on and remember, so when they do the film, he could muster the emotion back up”.
[1]The filming locations of Saving Private Ryan would raise an interesting problem for Spielberg as the possibility of filming the battle scenes in France were quickly realised to be impossibility. The type of filming that Spielberg required for the original invasion scene, according to Ian Bryce (Producer), fell over the ‘restrictions’ that the original historical Normandy beach location had placed upon it. While aesthetically, the surround areas located in Normandy had become quite industrialised. Therefore the filming for the now famous Omaha D-Day scene would take place in County Wexford, Ireland near the town of Curracloe. The decision to use this particular beach was well thought out, as it had a similar layout to the Vierville-Sur-Mer beach while also possessing sand which was similar in it’s golden shade. The Villages which are used during the filming are completely created set villages. The production team managed to acquire a lot just outside of London in Hatfield and then continue to build these impressive set pieces. In order to create the feeling that this was an accurate French Village production designer Tom Sanders visited several French villages which had been bombed during the war for architectural purposes. He then came back and created what was basically a “best of” in terms of design. In order to make the set appear that it has sustained heavy bombing, the exterior was wilted away using “carving knifes” to give off the impression of destruction. The detailing was also an important factor an example of this is shown with the various genuine road signs dotted around the set. The majority of the filming was carried out within the created set. The village was spliced into two scene settings with a river that ran in-between was also created from scratch. Ian Bryce stated their intent with this design “On a project like this one where you’re re-creating historical detail, the authenticity is vital”.
[2]Costume design with any war film is vitally important to providing the movie with historical credibility. Joanna Johnston was in charge of Wardrobe for ‘Ryan. The uniforms were gathered from a re-enactment company and the boots were made direct from the actual factory that the original troops’ boots were produced in Minnesota. 2,000 boots with the identical pattern design were ordered. Aging the items that were used was also significant, this to make the various weapons and uniforms seem worn out. The DVD shows extras putting the shoes though their paces in an attempt to wear them out. Finally ‘individuality’ was a touch made to some of the main characters’ uniforms. Through extensive pictorial research carried out by Johnston the image of personalised stencilling was applied to Edward Burns character’s uniform as shown below:
Spielberg along with his director of photographer Janusz Kaminski were very acute with their general footage gathering. The entire film was intended to have a “grainy” feel to it and as Spielberg mentions that he did not want this to be a “Technicolor” movie. Each image was purposely de-saturated and as Kaminski points out most negatives had about “60%” of the colour taking away from them. The reason for this was very deliberate, Spielberg’s general vision was to try and replicate the colour scheme of the newsreels of the time. Coinciding with this was the handheld aspect to the camera and the 45 degree angle of the camera shutters which was an exact angle used in with 1940’s combat cameras.
[3]
The re-creation of the D-Day Normandy landings will be hard to surpass in terms of a cinematic experience. Watching the DVD bonus features makes you understand why this is so. The production consisted of 2,000 extras with a large proportion of these being from the Irish Army. Simon Atherton the production armourer helps with the digestion of the scale by stating that there were 2,000 M1 rifles gathered, some rubber and some blank firing guns. The re-creation itself is a very direct piece of filming. Spielberg shot the scene from start to finish with the actors landing on the beach and then moving up through the controlled explosions. This added extra authenticity to the scene as actor’s reactions were genuine.
[4]
The area of sound provides the most interesting aspect to this film’s post-production period. Spielberg had attached one of Hollywood’s most successful composers John Williams. However as sound designer Gary Rydstrom points out Spielberg did not want the sound to be “Hollywood”. Rydstrom explains that with the opening sequence and following battle scenes they decided that no music at all was necessary and that with music it makes “audience realise from moment to moment they are watching a movie”, this was something different. Rydstrom also goes on to prove the extensive sound research carried out within the film. Talking to Veterans of the war Rydstrom acquired from their personal experience, distinct sounds that they felt summed up the campaign. This could be anything from the pinging sound of an empty M1 metal cartridge ejecting to the distant 'thunderstorm' like noise from battles further away. Rydstrom recieved a Acadmey Award for the sound in the film, however the biggest compliment that he would receive would be off the veterans who would personally congratulate him on capturing the sound of war.
Saving Private Ryan is unarguably one of the most accurate war films of all time and from the evidence gathered from watching and reading the various research it is easy to see why. The moment which stands out with me the most is watching and listening to Barry Pepper who plays the unforgettable sniper Private Jackson. It is hard not to be convinced by him talking about the perfect sniper technique and how he has learned how to take apart his own weapon. He could easily be a genuine member of the armed forced cornered by a news reporter.
Monday, 7 December 2009
FILM AUTHENTICITY
I will be posting feedback here on research carried out on the subject matter of film authenticity. Regarding my study, the term 'authenticity' in relation to film is defined as 'a worthy replication of the original', i.e an authentic reproduction of historical or contemporary settings. To enhance my research I will be examining the techniques and research used to make a film look and sound authentic during pre-production, filming and post-production. Case studies will appear on here in the coming months on various "making of" documentaries that I will be indulging in. Technical research used in films such as Saving Private Ryan (1998, Spielberg), and The Wrestler (2008 Aronofsky), to name just two examples, will be discussed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)