Category: Best Visual Effects

A Thousand and One Nights – 1945

It’s a good thing I’m critiquing this film based only on its special effects.  This was one of the dumbest films I’ve had to watch.  But I have to mention it because I think the sub-par filmmaking applied not only to the script, but to its visual effects, as well.  I know, they weren’t trying to make a serious drama, but I hold an Academy Award nomination for Best Special Effects to a much higher standard.

The movie had two aspects, the romance and the comedic performance of Phil Silvers as he did his shtick.  The comedy, which wasn’t remotely funny, set the tone of the film as very campy.  Thus, the filmmakers thought that matte-painting backgrounds that looked fake enough to have been painted by a novice was acceptable.  Seriously, they looked pretty bad.

Then they borrowed the effect of a giant genie interacting with the puny humans from the 1940 Special Effects Winner, The Thief of Bagdad.  The illusion of his giant eye looking at the men through a hole in the wall was OK, but not very impressive as a special effect.  This all wouldn’t have been so awful, except that the lighting used on the actors in the wide shots was off.  For example, the genie had lighting that gave parts of his body halos from light sources that did not exist. 

Then we meet a gorgeous female genie who comes out of the lamp.  Story-wise, there was the potential for some pretty cool special effects.  But no, they really dropped that ball.  There were a few shots of the young lady with only her top half sticking up through the little lamp’s spout.  There was a single shot where Phil Silvers walked through her image.  Then after those two simple tricks, the most she did was raise her arms and make objects appear or disappear.  To change a man into a dog, they simply did those two things at the same time.  And then there was the easy effect of the lamp falling off a table without being touched. 

The best it got was in two shots, in which she made people’s clothes change or vanish.  These were only notable because the people in question were in motion when their apparel was altered.  I’m not exactly sure how they did those shots because while the clothes changed, the actors didn’t.  I’ll have to concede, that effect was pretty good.

There was a bit of sword-fighting in the climactic scene, though it was much slower than I’ve seen in other swashbuckling period pieces like The Sea Hawk or The Black Swan.  And even that had a certain amount of campiness to it, cheapening the excitement.  The only other real effect that I noticed was an image projected onto an opaque crystal prop.  Other movies had done it before.  I guess, when it comes down to it, that was the real problem.  I’ve seen all these effects before, and crafted by better effects artists.

They Were Expendable – 1945

Here we have yet another war movie, so once again, I have to ask: what was it about this one that made it stand out.  Was it the superior compositing?  Was it the exciting stunts?  Was it the seamless rear-projection shots?  Or was it the inventive or innovative imagery?  To be sure, it had all these things, but I’ll be honest.  I’ve been watching so many war films lately, one exploding warship is starting to look like all the others.  Were they done well?  Of course they were, but they are all starting to look the same.

The main thrust of the movie was showing the audiences the advantages and challenges of the new PT boats that were used in WWII Naval battles.  They were fast and highly maneuverable.  But they were also fragile, especially when compared to other Naval war vessels like the giant battleships.  To that effect, there were several scenes that featured some pretty exciting Naval battles.  The high-speed stunt sailing was pretty cool!

One battle scene in which our two main heroes make a night-time attack on a small group of battleships, was very well- constructed and exciting to watch.  Both Robert Montgomery and John Wayne commanded their own PT boat.  They sped through the waves while Japanese torpedoes exploded all around them, causing violent towers of water to erupt into the air, spraying the actors with water.

Shells were detonating in little black puffs of smoke as they sped through the dark waves.  It was a really exciting scene which culminated in the spectacular destruction of the enemy vessel.  Both of the PT boats zoomed in and out of their attack runs, launching torpedoes at the massive battleships, while spraying them with machinegun fire.

Aside from that, there were a few scenes in which Japanese airplanes, called Zeroes, made devastating dive-bomb attacks on American military installations and the easily destroyed PT boats.  More gunfire effects, more explosions, more dying soldiers.  It was all good, but like I said, I feel like I’ve seen it all before, and recently.  Come-on, Hollywood.  I’m ready for something else!

Of course, there was your standard barrage of rear-projection shots that were perfectly executed.  And I have to mention the skillfully constructed matte-paintings that gave some of the sets that large-scale feel.  I really have nothing bad to say about the effects.  They were all done well.  I simply don’t think there was anything new or attention-grabbing.  But America was just coming out of the second World War and the Allies were still making all the propaganda films they could.  I don’t think it mattered that they were all starting to look the same.  Though I admit, I doubt the audiences of the 1940s were thinking the same thing.

Spellbound – 1945

The special effects for this Hitchcock movie were made fascinating by the fact that they were created in conjunction with the world famous artist Salvador Dali.  His imagery is fanciful and beautiful, but it also has a definite element of darkness to it.  The effects in the film were mostly centered around a dream sequence that blended live action, animation, paintings, and strange random floating shapes.  It was beautifully done, but the entire scene only lasted about two minutes.

I learned from reading the movie’s trivia page on IMDB that Hitchcock and Dali originally wanted to film a dream sequence that lasted a full twenty minutes.  “It included a scene in a ballroom with hanging pianos and still figures pretending to dance, followed by John Ballantyne dancing with Dr. Peterson, who then turns into a statue.”  Some of Hitchcock’s original concept was actually filmed, but he and the artist were unsatisfied with the results.

Also, per IMDB, “According to Alfred Hitchcock’s biographer Donald Spoto, William Cameron Menzies was disappointed at what he considered unappealing dream sequences, and asked to remain uncredited for them. When the sequence received critical and audience acclaim, Hitchcock was happy to take the credit for himself.”  Did it matter that Hitchcock didn’t have anything to do with directing that scene?

That’s not to say there weren’t any other special effects in the film.  There were plenty.  There was the usual barrage of rear-projection and matte-painting shots.  Unfortunately, while those things were so commonplace they should have been simple to accomplish, those of the former appeared poorly executed, especially when set next to those of the latter, which were absolutely stunning.

There was one scene in particular that comes to mind, in which both of these kinds of effects were used.  As Gregory Peck and Ingrid Bergman are skiing down a mountain, the actors look completely separate from their background.  The projection was painfully obvious.  But then the camera pulls way back to show us the entire mountain slope on which they are skiing, and it was beautiful, showing us how they are speeding toward the edge of a sheer cliff.  It was a gorgeous shot!

The movie’s climax also caught my attention.  As the real villain is revealed, we see things from the killer’s perspective, looking down the barrel of his gun as it follows Bergman to a door.  When she is gone, the gun turns toward the viewer and fires, indicating that the killer is committing suicide.  The gun and the hand were both oversized and fake, but it was a really cool effect, allowing the weapon to be turned in the right direction easily.  And as the weapon goes off, there are two frames of color, showing a quick flash of bright red in the otherwise black and white movie.  Pretty clever, Mr. Hitchcock.

Sorry, I cant find this one.

Wilson – 1944

At first, I was really questioning why this movie was nominated for Best Special Effects.  Once again, there just didn’t seem very many on which to really comment.  So I spent some time doing some research on the internet.  I looked up movie reviews, read articles about the nature of different special effects, and tried to get a sense of what was so special about Wilson.

And I think I came up with a credible answer.  One of the things about the film that stood out to me, especially considering the lack of obvious visual effects, was a particular sense of scale.  There were a lot of scenes in which the actors seemed to take a back seat to the gigantic sets.  There were large and grand halls that were filled with hundreds or thousands of people.  There were wide shots in which a lone actor would look small and insignificant compared to his surroundings, something that was done quite on purpose as a means of effective story-telling and character development.

But I figured, all they had to do was decorate a large studio and hire a bunch of extras.  But then I got to thinking that easier than decorating the set, or cheaper than employing a bunch of extras, they probably used elaborate matte-paintings and composited the images with fewer live actors.  And to be sure, the images on the screen looked completely real.

My next step was to look at the man responsible for the effects.  His name was Fred Sersen.  He was the same man that created the special effects for both the 1939 special effects winner, The Rains Came, and the 1943 winner, Crash Dive.  According to the short biographical article by media historian Hal Erickson, which is posted on the Fandango website, Fred Sersen was an effects artist that was known for, among other things, using his craft to “create the illusion of vast landscapes, huge palaces, and natural disasters where none actually existed.”

Wilson sure had that in spades.  From images of the 1912 Democratic convention hall in Baltimore, to the grand and beautiful interiors of the White House, to the interior of the Capitol Building while Wilson addressed Congress to declare a state of War against Germany.  The massive and elaborately detailed sets could only have been the work of a highly skilled effects artist.

But aside from those large scale illusions, there weren’t many effects that were easily recognizable.  There were a couple of rear-projection shots that were used in a scene where the characters were riding in a horse-drawn carriage, but not much else.  That being said, I’m sure there were other things I’m overlooking, but nothing that stood out to me visually.  Was it enough to earn the film its nomination?  I suppose so, but I understand why it didn’t win.

Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo – 1944 (WINNER)

Here we are with another war film, and this was a good one.  I think the movie’s main focus with its special effects was twofold.  It concentrated on low altitude stunt flying and scale models.  But there were also some fantastic matte-paintings and an incredibly well crafted illusion of a man who loses his leg.  When comparing the effects in this film with the other nominees in 1944, I can understand why it took home the Oscar.

So first, there is the stunt flying.  You could easily tell that it was the real deal.  We are shown images of the landscape flying by, and sure, most of the shots are from the pilot and crew’s points of view.  The shots of trees and buildings outside their windows are clearly rear-projection shots.  But that footage had to have been filmed before it could be projected.  That camera might have been attached to a more maneuverable plane, but it was a pretty cool illusion.  Also, we are given shots from outside the aircraft, showing how low it was flying, though I noticed that those shots were clear of trees or other obstacles.

Then there was the sequence where the city of Tokyo gets bombed.  The use of scale models of the city as the bombs destroyed their targets was very effective.  The image was clear and detailed with smoke billowing from the factory exhaust towers before the bombs detonated.  The grand explosions, with plenty of fire and smoke, showed audiences just how devastating that part of the war could be.

But to the film’s credit, that bombing scene was flashy but brief… actually around forty-five seconds or so.  After that, the bomber crash lands on the beach during a heavy storm.  The wind, the waves, and the pelting rain really put the actors through their paces.  It was an exciting scene, but then the surviving bomber crew are rescued by Chinese allies.  There are some stunning matte-paintings of the Chinese countryside as they are carried to safety on litters.

But for me, the special effect that caught my attention was Van Johnson’s character, Lieutenant Lawson, after he has his leg amputated.  Sure, it was probably a relatively easy effect, but because the film took the time to develop the main character, allowing me to be emotionally invested in him, the simple illusion of the missing leg was more moving than the bombing of a city.

I believe they used a few different methods for the effect, like using a real amputee as a body-double in shots where his face is not shown, or simply strapping his leg behind him when he is shown from the front.  They might also have rigged his wheelchair with a false seat to hide his leg.  However they did it, they paid special attention to the effect, making it as real and believable as possible, and they did a fantastic job.  This Oscar was a well-deserved award.

Sorry, I cant find this one.

 

Since You Went Away – 1944

This was yet another film in which there were very few special effects on which to comment.  There were some, but either the illusions were created so perfectly that I couldn’t ever tell that they were there, or there just weren’t that many in the movie.  Either way, I am once again questioning why this movie was nominated for the category.

And believe me, I did my research.  I spent hours combing the internet, reading reviews, searching for any article that mentioned the movie’s special effects or sound effects.  In doing so, I learned all sorts of behind the scenes things about the making of the film, the deals that were made in Hollywood, the directing of the film, the score, the actors, both on the screen and off.  But I couldn’t find a single article that pointed out or commented on any of the special effects.

So, all I have to go on is my limited knowledge of the effects that I could identify when I watched the movie.  First, I know that it was another propaganda film that showcased the fight on the home-front instead of on the front lines.  As such, there were no battle sequences, no stunts, no scenes of destruction and carnage.  However, there were a few effects that stood out to me as noteworthy.

Of course, there were a number of rear-projection shots that were done competently enough.  A little scene in which Claudette Colbert and Joseph Cotton were driving along a stretch of road overlooking the ocean at night.  The water sparkling behind the actors in the car was beautiful enough.  But there was another shot in particular that caught my attention.  We see Cotton putting a log into a fireplace, but what made the shot unique was that it was shown from the back of the fireplace.  The out-of-focus image of Colbert approaching from the back of the room was a projected image.  Then the camera moved into the room, where the live actress was ready to perform the scene.  It was a cleverly choreographed shot.

There was also a scene which took place inside an aircraft hangar being used as a dance hall.  The matte painting that created the illusion of the enormity of the hall was pretty well done.  And lastly I’ll mention a brief shot of a scale model of a train hauling military weapons.  I wouldn’t have known a model was being used if the shot hadn’t ended with a closeup of an obviously miniature boxcar.  It was so bad, it suddenly made everything on the screen look incredibly fake.

Don’t get me wrong.  The movie was a good movie, but it just didn’t seem inventive or innovative, or plentiful for that matter, with its special effects.  Again, I’ll make the request.  If anybody knows why this movie was nominated for the Best Special Effects category, please tell me.  I’m sure I must be missing something, but more than three hours of research on the internet failed to explain the honor.

 

So Proudly We Hail – 1943

The visual effects for this movie were surprisingly good.  I started watching this movie knowing nothing about it, except that it was another war-time drama.  But after the first forty-five minutes or so, I thought it was going to be nothing more than a romance.  The three lead actresses were Army nurses who were fighting to survive on the front lines in the Philippines, and two of them fall in love with American soldiers.  And yes, the film mostly focuses on these romantic plot lines. 

But I was surprised when the fighting started.  That’s where the visual effects were shifted in to high gear.  The explosions, the fires, the bombs, and the death were pretty standard for any good war movie, but the violence of the bombing scenes was pretty intense.  We got to see some pretty chaotic battle sequences that were really fantastic!  It was in-your-face and thrilling, and the simple love stories were elevated to a more exciting pitch as the terrible battles played out.

This movie really liked to use fire to light up the screen.  Yes, they had the obligatory explosions, which they did very well.  But the fires that they set off were great.  There were fires on the water, on the land, and burning wreckage was dropping into the frame from off-camera.  Claudette Colbert had to run into a burning building to try to save one of her nurses, though she was unsuccessful, the result of which was burns on her hands.  Paulette Goddard was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress award in this movie, but I think Colbert deserved that Oscar nomination instead of her co-star.  And there were a number of great wide shots where they showed large numbers of men and women trying to escape the bombing as explosions and burning wreckage lit up the screen.  The violence of it all was particularly impressive, and not what I was expecting in a romance film.

There was a great effect where one of the surgeons was kneeling over the body of a nurse who had been shot by enemy gunfire.  They are inside the surgical building, and as he is grieving for the woman, we hear the sound of an exploding bomb and the entire building seems to collapse to the left and bury the two actors.  That shot was unexpected and memorable.  Another great effect was where Veronica Lake suicide bombed a group of Japanese soldiers with a live grenade hidden in her jumpsuit.  Though if I’m being really picky, that explosion came from the ground at her feet, though the grenade was actually held above her waist.

And as long as I’m being really picky, I have to also point out something that never fails to catch my attention.  When showing ships on the water, whether in camera, or on a rear-projection screen behind the actors, liquid looks different in close-up than it does otherwise.  It moves differently and appears to have a different surface texture.  It was an effect I noticed in several shots in the movie, and it is a telltale sign that miniature models are being used.  But that is only a minor complaint.  For the most part, the visual effects for this movie were done well, and I agree with their Oscar nomination, though they were up against some pretty stiff competition.

Sorry, I cant find this one.