Written by Anthony Watkins

One of the most famous horror movie moments of all time occurs in Ridley’s Scott’s 1979 sci-fi/horror film Alien. Called “the chestburster scene”, it occurs about halfway through Ridley Scott’s masterpiece. Here we’ll go behind-the-scenes to see how this iconic scene was accomplished.

It is commonly thought that the cast had no idea whatsoever what was going to take place during the scene. This is only partly true. The cast knew what was going to happen…but only to a certain extent. According to Veronica Cartwright, who played “Lambert” in the film, the crew involved in the setup showed the actors a “mockup” of what would happen, but the mockup didn’t show how the gag would be accomplished. According to Sigourney Weaver, who played the main character “Ellen Ripley”, all the script said was, “This thing emerges” (The Guardian). So the actors knew in a very general way what would happen, but they didn’t have any degree of detail. One thing is very clear: none of the actors expected to be sprayed with blood when the alien creature emerged (side note: real pig’s blood was used for the scene).

For the scene, a fake chest was used for John Hurt’s character “Kane.” Hurt was underneath the table, with his neck appearing to be connected to the fake chest. Director Ridley Scott wanted the scene to be as authentic as possible, so real organs were bought from a butcher shop and stuffed inside the fake chest cavity. Hoses were also used to help pump and spray the blood when the creature exploded from Hurt’s chest. 

All the while the crew was preparing the scene, the actors were in a separate room upstairs. When they were finally called down to shoot, the actors noticed everything was covered with plastic. Veronica Cartwright noted, “When they finally take us down, the whole set is in a big plastic bag and everybody is wearing raingear and there are huge buckets around. The formaldehyde smell automatically made you queasy.” Sigourney Weaver also commented, “Everyone was wearing raincoats-we should have been a little suspicious. And, oh God, the smell. It was just awful.” Clearly, the cast didn’t know the specifics of the scene. Yaphet Kotto, who plays “Parker”, noted, “We were all wondering what the hell was going on. Why is the crew looking at us the way they’re looking at us right now? Why are they wearing plastic shields?” (The Guardian)

Four cameras were used for shooting the scene. Two technicians were under the table operating the compressed blood machine that would spray blood everywhere upon the alien’s emergence. Initially, however, the scene didn’t go as planned. When the alien puppet that was used was unable to penetrate John Hurt’s shirt, Ridley Scott yelled to cut. After cutting Hurt’s t-shirt a little more, shooting resumed. When the alien finally emerged, the whole cast was shocked and terrified. Cartwright commented, “We all start leaning forward again and all of a sudden it comes out. I tell you, none of us expected it. It came out and twisted around.” Sigourney Weaver also noted, “All I could think of was John [Hurt], frankly. I wasn’t even thinking that we were making a movie” (The Guardian). The sudden outburst and explosion of blood certainly caught all the actors off guard. After being sprayed directly in the face with the pig’s blood, actress Veronica Cartwright actually passed out. Also, after the scene, Yaphet Kotto (Parker), went into his room and wouldn’t talk to anybody.

You can probably see why the “chestburster scene” is regarded as one of the scariest moments ever put on film. In 2004, Bravo ranked the scene as the second scariest movie moment of all time in the 100 Scariest Movie Moments. What really gives the scene its authenticity is the actors’ genuine reactions to the alien’s outburst from John Hurt’s chest. I think Ridley Scott and his team made an excellent move in not revealing exactly how the scene would work. Plain and simple, there’s no better acting than when you’re not actually acting, and that’s what Ridley Scott achieved with this iconic scene from Alien.

 

WORKS CITED

“The making of Alien’s Chestburster scene”. The Guardian. 12 Oct. 2009. 12 April 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/oct/13/making-of-alien-chestburster>. 

            Although sports have dominated the entertainment industry in American culture for several years, their translation to the screen has largely proved to be ineffective, with the odd exception of boxing. However, why is it that the boxing film genre has captivated moviegoers from the early years of cinema up until today? In my opinion, this fascination can most likely be attributed to the sport’s inherent ability to create larger-than-life characters whose own struggles parallel their endeavors in the ring. Moreover, given the gritty nature of the sport, boxing films naturally create an environment where the “rags-to-riches” narrative can develop or the Shakespearean tragic figure can thrive. As a sport alone, boxing rarely has much in the way of a storyline, but when films transcend the immediacy of the ring to reveal a far greater fight that is challenging the boxer, we are left with a dramatic experience that mysteriously romanticizes the nature of the ring and amplifies its significance.

            Interestingly, the relationship between boxing and cinema extends all the way back to 1894, when William KL Dickson of the Thomas Edison Company filmed a contest between Jack Cushing and Mike Leonard. Although the film was roughly thirty seconds long, it forged a bond between boxing and cinema that has since remained strong. But what ultimately solidified the dramatic legacy of the pugilist was the decision to adapt true stories of boxers to the screen. By depicting the world of legendary boxers, cinema exposed viewers to the plights that these boxers encountered outside of the ring and focused on the sport’s extensive ties to organized crime in its early years, which ultimately gave boxers a much deeper and darker nature. This subsequently provided viewers with a haunting understanding of why boxers might opt to endure and dish out the brutal punishment that they do in their line of work. The Harder They Fall (Robson, 1956), provides an excellent example of this darker underside to the sport that was revealed in early boxing films.

            In other cases, such as On the Waterfront (Kazan, 1954), the world of boxing effectively functions as a quiet backdrop to develop a washed-up character in a story primarily driven by its attempts to expose issues pertaining to class structure and fears of Communist expansion at the time. However, there is perhaps no boxing film that has communicated its significance to the world of cinema more than Martin Scorsese’s 1980 landmark film, Raging Bull. Not only is Raging Bull widely regarded as one of the greatest sports films ever made, but it is also critically regarded as one of the greatest American films of all-time. Through the presentation of Jake LaMotta’s self-destructive journey through life, Raging Bull powerfully communicates various problems pertaining to masculinity and sexual jealousy, and how violent tendencies plague the boxer both in and out of the ring. Of comparable importance to the world of cinema, but with an entirely different message, Rocky (Avildsen, 1976) communicated something that transcended the limits of the ring; a hero is someone with perseverance who can “go the distance.”

            Even though the popularity of the sport itself has substantially waned in recent years, the boxing film genre has not shown any clear indicators of an impending decline in popularity. In fact, with films like Cinderella Man (Howard, 2005), The Fighter (Russell, 2010), and the winner of the 2005 Academy Award for Best Picture, Million Dollar Baby (Eastwood, 2004), the longevity of the boxing film genre seems quite promising. Ultimately, by continuing to shed light on the internal struggles that boxers must cope with outside of the ring, the boxing film genre should continue to hold onto its title as the most successfully adapted sport to the realm of cinema.

As time moves forward, the film industry continues to grow, becoming more advanced. The visual effects (VFX) of each film continue to bring their respective directors' visions to the screen, allowing flexibility for their cinema. The new Marvel film, Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), is a good example of how the directors, Joe and Anthony Russo, were able to use computer-generated imagery (CGI) to fulfill the demands of their story.

The VFX of Captain America were completed by the visual effects company Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), which has worked previously on films such as Pirates of the Caribbean (Gore Verbinski, 2003) and Rango (Gore Verbinski, 2011), and has won a multitude of Oscars for best VFX for films like The Abyss (James Cameron, 1989)and Jurassic Park (Steven Spielberg, 1993). The company began as a division of Lucasfilm, which George Lucas created when he was working on Star Wars (1977), and it eventually evolved into the company that it is now. ILM has become one of the most successful VFX companies in the world. Within the company, Dan Deleeuw was the VFX supervisor for Captain America, having previously helped with projects such as Iron Man 3 (Shane Black, 2013), Serenity (Joss Whedon, 2005) and Armageddon (Michael Bay, 1998). Let’s look at a few ways in which CGI and VFX were used for this film.

As with most of the blockbuster films nowadays, a majority of the shots in the film were VFX enhanced, providing more to each shot than was actually there during production. Deleeuw estimated that there were about 2500 frames in Captain America that used CGI in order to bring the story of superheroes to the screen. While only 900 of these were enhanced by the team at ILM, this rough count gives you an idea of how important the VFX studios have become to the completion of a film. Nowadays, even when a film does not revolve around supernatural people or events, there is still a large amount of CGI and VFX used. The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese, 2013) is a great example of this (an explanation can be seen here:  http://www.cinemablography.org/3/post/2014/02/the-end-of-an-era.html).

An interesting new tactic that has not been used extensively due to its difficulty and a typical film production’s time restraints, was the use of a variety of digital doubles. Although the production team still used stunt doubles as they do in most action movies, there were simply some shots in the film that could not be achieved with practical means. While at first they simply wanted to do some of the action shots with the digital double in order to minimize the amount of visibility to its falseness, when they saw the double on the computers, they realized how realistic the VFX team made the double. They were given some confidence with the digital double, and eventually even used the digital double for some close ups. This may raise the question, if we are able to create digital persons that look so realistic that audiences don’t notice, does this mean we have entered a filmmaking era where we simply don’t need actors anymore, but only digital doubles?

CGI was utilized for many of the shots, as was stated earlier. A magnificent vehicle that was seen in the film, was a flying aircraft carrier, with battleship guns mounted to its sides. In previous films, such as The Avengers (Joss Whedon, 2012), the aircraft carriers were simply actual aircraft carriers that were then digitally placed in the sky. However with the addition of the guns, it was impossible for the VFX team to repeat this process, and so they decided to use a fully digital aircraft carrier.

A common term that is used in the film industry is “we’ll fix it in post”, simply meaning that what they were unable to achieve in production, they will digitally fix during post-production. With a film having this enormous of a budget, this is completely possible. Producers on set of Captain America were trying to get aerial views of Washington D.C. but due to air traffic restrictions, they were having difficulty getting clearance. So instead, they elected to simply achieve those aerial views in post-production. So the shots in the film of Washington D.C., are not actually the capitol, but rather digital copies of the capitol.

There was an enormous amount of VFX and CGI in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, even more than what I laid out here. If you go see the popular film in theaters, look for these VFX techniques, so that you may have a broader view of how the production team was able to create the story and images that you see on the screen. Check out the trailer below in case you haven’t yet seen it.

by Mark Young

The Splice Film Festival is a very small film festival about which few have even heard.  Yet, it is one that is important and personal to me because it is put on by the college that I currently attend.  Splice Film Festival officially re-launched in its current format last year.  It is a place where the students of Messiah College get an opportunity to showcase their filmmaking abilities on the big screen.

Last year Rolando Vega premiered his much lauded short film Palace.  This year Rolando has teamed up with Mitch McClure, director of last year’s “best in show” McFly, and Mike Ortiz, executive producer and creator of the Dragoon Universe Films, to create the sci-fi thriller Downward.  We will be treated to a sneak preview of this film which premiers May 4th.  You can check out the trailer to this film below.

Another important work that will be featured at the Splice Film Festival is the documentary film Beyond The Marginsby Derick Esch.  This film speaks to the suffering of people with disabilities in the West African country of Ghana.  With the help of missions such as World Mission and Messiah’s own Collaboratory they hope to show how people with disabilities can be strong contributing members of Ghana society.  Check out the trailer below.

This year the festival will be hosted by the charming talents of Billy Martel & Lindsey Corriveau.  The talents of many of Messiah’s young filmmakers, including yours truly, will be on display in full force.  It will all be held in the Parmer Cinema of the Boyer building on the Messiah College campus.  If you live in the area of Mechanicsburg, PA, I strongly encourage you to attend this event.  Screenings begin at 6:30pm on the night of Sunday April 27th. 

Tickets are free, but seating is limited, so get your tickets at the Messiah College ticket office.  You may call them for more information at (717) 691-6036 or e-mail them at [email protected].  Tickets cannot be reserved, but must be picked up at the ticket office.  So, come join us in this celebration of outstanding student films.

Written by Anthony Watkins

One of the most prominent and successful directors in the film industry today is director Ridley Scott. Scott was born in South Shields, Durham, England on November 30, 1937. He had two brothers, one being the now deceased director Tony Scott. As a child, Ridley loved watching movies. When he reached college, he pursued a career in film and eventually helped to establish the film department at the Royal College of Art. In his last project at the college, he produced and directed the short film Boy and Bicycle, which starred his younger brother Tony Scott (Biography).

In 1962, Ridley joined the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) as a trainee set designer and began working on several popular shows. He worked at the BBC for a few years, directing episodes of shows such as Z Cars, Thirty-Minute Theatre, and The Informer. Eventually, though, Ridley left BBC because of poor financial compensation. In 1967, he proceeded to go into advertising, and founded Ridley Scott Associates (RSA) with his brother Tony. Together, they spent the next 10 years developing TV advertisements (IMDB).

Nevertheless, Ridley wanted to pursue feature films, and in the 1970s he began working with producer David Puttnam. Ultimately, this led to Ridley’s feature-film directional debut, The Duellists. The film won the Jury Prize for Best First Work at the Cannes Film Festival in 1977 and was nominated for 2 BAFTA film awards. The film effectively helped launch Ridley’s film career (IMDB).

After seeing the success of Star Wars: Episode IV-A New Hope, Ridley became interested in going into the science-fiction genre. He ended up accepting the offer to direct Dan O’Bannon’s low budget sci-fi horror flick Alien. Upon release, the film, which won 1 Oscar for Best Visual Effects, became a critical and commercial success, firmly establishing Scott’s reputation as a credible film director (IMDB).

Ridley’s next directorial effort after Alien was 1982’s Blade Runner. At the time of its release, Blade Runner was a flop for both the audience and critics. In its opening weekend, the film only garnered $6 million out of its $28 million budget. Nevertheless, as the years passed, Blade Runner’s reputation grew, and today the film is regarded as a sci-fi classic (IMDB).

After Blade Runner, in 1991, (with a few films in between), Ridley directed one of his most critically successful films, Thelma & Louise. The film, which starred Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon, earned Scott his first Academy Award nomination (IMDB).

One of the films for which Scott is most well-known came at the turn of the millennium---Gladiator. The film, starring Russell Crowe, tells the story of a former Roman General who is betrayed and who's family is murdered by the Emperor Marcus Aurelius’ corrupt son, Commodus. The film was a major critical and commercial success and was nominated for 12 Oscars, winning 5---including Best Picture. 

After Gladiator, Scott directed several other films, including Black Hawk Down, American Gangster, Body of Lies, and Robin Hood, the last of which reunited Ridley with Russell Crowe a decade after Gladiator. Most of these films were critical and commercial successes, and further established Ridley Scott as a talented, sought-after director.

In 2012, Ridley directed a “semi-prequel” to Alien, titled Prometheus. The film was, for the most part, well-received by critics and audiences, though some complained of unanswered questions that lingered after the conclusion of the film. Currently, Ridley is working in post-production on the Biblical epic, Exodus: Gods and Kings, which stars Christian Bale and tells the account of Moses leading the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt. It will be interesting to see how much debate the film receives after the mass controversy of Darren Aronofsky’s Noah.

Trademarks
Ridley frequently sketches his own storyboards for his films with great artistic style. He also usually incorporates strong female characters in his films, with examples including Sigourney Weaver in Alien, Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon in Thelma & Louise, and Alison Lohman in Matchstick Men. He also frequently casts Academy Award winner Russell Crowe (who won his Oscar for Gladiator). He has used Crowe in 5 of his films: Gladiator, A Good Year, American Gangster, Body of Lies, and Robin Hood.

On the technical side, Ridley begins most of his films with a title card sequence, as in Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, and Black Hawk Down. He usually does not use a lot of wide lenses, as he leans more towards longer focal lengths—which produce magnified shots. For music, he usually hires Academy Award winning composer Hans Zimmer (composer of Gladiator). Finally, Ridley Scott is generally known as the “father” of the “director’s cut”. These cuts included Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator.

 

WORKS CITED

IMDB. 2014. 10 April 2014. <http://www.imdb.com>.

"Ridley Scott." 2014. The Biography.com website. 2014. 10 April 2014.

 

            As a brief preface to this post, instead of providing a compressed overview and history of the “Christian film” genre as I typically do in my genre reviews, here I will critically analyze what it means for a film to be considered part of the Christian genre, as well as express some of my frustrations with how that label is used. For the purposes of this post, my definition of the Christian genre of filmmaking includes any film with a Christian themed message, produced by Christian filmmakers, and marketed to a Christian audience.

            Having grown up in the church environment my entire life, I had the opportunity to view several Christian films on various activity nights for the youth and during the occasional change-of-pace Sunday school class. However, as I got older and more interested in film, I gradually found myself resenting these Christian films and I wasn’t sure why, since all of them had explicitly clear Christian messages. I now realize that the majority of this dissatisfaction can likely be attributed to the reality that most Christian films contain inherently agenda-driven plots and forced dialogue, which hinders the plot from developing organically. Moreover, the notion of sin existing in the world is typically glossed over in a very “G-rated” fashion that stubbornly underscores the severity of its nature. With that said, Christian films usually misrepresent the reality of our fallen world and preach the Christian message in a contrived manner.

            For the most part, the language of film excels in the presentation of metaphors. However, many Christian filmmakers tend to overlook this characteristic of the medium, choosing instead to dictate their message in a manner that enables viewers to watch the film without needing to think critically or with discernment. Not only does this decision cast aside an inherent strength of the medium that could be used to more effectively convey the film’s intended message, but it also creates a very dangerous scenario. By allowing viewers to watch their films without the need for much thought processing, Christian filmmakers tend to enable viewers to put their guard down and blindly receive what they are being told, which could promote bad theology, but more importantly, it encourages us to embrace a rather shallow understanding of God. This subsequently may result in an inadequate exploration of deeper questions relating to who God is, what it means to have Christian faith, and how people of faith interact with the world around them.

            Contrast this with the fact that Jesus began many of his parables with the phrase, “The kingdom of God is like…” Ultimately, by stating their message outright, Christian filmmakers often prevent their audience from making their own, unique connections that allow them to better understand the complexity of heavenly principles. Moreover, to suggest that our knowledge of God and Christian principles can be boxed up in a completely ascertainable package, seems extremely naïve to me, and really diminishes the fact that certain aspects of God are too large to be fully grasped by the human mind. For this reason, films like The Tree of Life (Malick, 2011), an impressionistic and personal work that wrestles with questions pertaining to the manner in which we interact with God, will always be more valuable to my understanding of who God is than films like Left Behind (Sarin, 2000), which seeks to cast its own interpretation of the rapture, an event described in Revelation where God calls all those who have been saved to Heaven while all those who have not repented of their sins remain on Earth. Ultimately, the key difference between these films is how much is dictated as “truth” to the viewers: whereas The Tree of Life leaves everything very open-ended and makes our relationship with God something more personal and abstract, Left Behind presents us with a very confined and concrete interpretation of God that doesn’t allow much room for faith to function as a unique and personal value.

            Following this point, Christian filmmakers tend to see and portray the world how they want it to be, which prevents such films from wrestling with tough questions. As I have communicated to several people when speaking on this topic, if you paint an image of the world as a place where we can elevate our conduct and ourselves to the point of perfectly successful living, why would there be a need for a savior? By making their protagonists exhibit inhumanly good characteristics, Christian films largely fail to succinctly capture the rift in our union with God as a result of original sin, which in my opinion is tantamount to them understating the importance of seeking redemption.

            In summation, I would like to clarify that this post should not be taken as a blanket generalization attacking all films directly labeled as Christian, because films such as The Passion of the Christ (Gibson, 2004), which depicts the last few hours of Jesus’ life on Earth, can be extremely valuable to both Christianity and the world of cinema. Instead, this post should be received as a warning against the dangers that can come from blindly accepting the message of Christian filmmaking as total truth, while believing that films outside of the genre can shed no light on Christianity. If we believe that all truth is God’s truth, and all beauty is God’s beauty, then we should be able to derive elements of God in just about any movie that we see. Moreover, through the act of viewing film, we should be forced to participate and encouraged to derive our own personal beliefs about God, rather than have them spoon-fed to us in a neatly wrapped package. For this reason, I believe that movies that fall under the Christian film genre can be a bit dangerous and pretentious, as they tend to inadequately portray a picture of a God that transcends the grasp of human comprehension.

            Driven by an astonishing burst of energy from Matthew McConaughey, Dallas Buyers Club (Vallée, 2013) tells the story of Ron Woodroof, an electrician and rodeo enthusiast whose hard-partying lifestyle eventually causes him to be diagnosed with AIDS. The wild reality of Ron’s dangerous lifestyle is powerfully conveyed in the film’s opening moments, where a shot of cowboys bucking on bulls is stylistically juxtaposed with another shot of Ron playing around with two women in a shady area under the bleachers. Although no dialogue is used in this scene, we immediately become aware of Ron’s hazardous and unhealthy way of life. Furthermore, we are visually presented with the notion of Ron’s life symbolically paralleling a rodeo, which lingers in our minds, as the story’s central theme of how much the human spirit is willing and able to persevere is further unpacked.

            Another resounding issue that Dallas Buyers Club seeks to address becomes evident when Ron is initially given his AIDS diagnosis and told that he has thirty days to live. While Ron certainly demonstrates his stubborn independence and strong will to survive in this moment, any concerns regarding the status of his life are quickly given less precedence than his concerns that the doctors would dare to question his possible engagement in homosexual behavior. Through his emphatic defense against this postulation, Ron viciously conveys his bigoted, homophobic beliefs to such an extent, that he completely denies the possibility of his AIDS diagnosis holding truth. However, in a powerful scene where Ron recalls having unprotected sex with an intravenous drug-using prostitute, he finally comes to terms with the fact that heterosexuals can get AIDS as well.

            Although Ron makes this connection, many of his old friends still embrace the belief that AIDS is solely a homosexual disease, which causes him to be ostracized from the group and reinforces the notion of Ron independently facing his continued struggle with AIDS; a struggle that incites Ron’s relentless pursuit of a cure. This pursuit quickly sends Ron into the black market, where he acquires large doses of AZT from a crooked hospital porter. However, when this supply runs out and Ron realizes that the medicine was actually causing more problems than it was solving, Ron is faced with a near-death experience.

            While hospitalized, Ron ends up meeting Rayon (Jared Leto), a drug addict and transvestite whom Ron initially shows nothing but hostility towards. However, after traveling to Mexico and discovering a much more effective medication, Ron smuggles large amounts of the drug over the border and reluctantly sets up a business with Rayon, knowing that his associate will bring in many more clients. Through this medical co-op that gets non-approved medicine into the hands of those suffering from AIDS, Ron slowly experiences a homophobic awakening and learns to appreciate the unique personality of Rayon. Ron’s transformation is perhaps best noted in one the film’s most dramatic scenes, where Ron forces his old homophobic friend, Tucker, to shake Rayon’s hand.

            Beyond the themes previously addressed, Dallas Buyers Club really succeeds in capturing the extent of the AIDS epidemic, as well as the government’s greater emphasis on following procedure than showing compassion. By including shots of long lines stretching outside the door to Ron’s club headquarters, as well as shots of governmental figures breaking into the headquarters to confiscate various drugs, we are left with a vivid image of how difficult it was for those infected with AIDS to receive adequate medication around the mid-1980s. Couple this with the poisonous social climate of the times, and Dallas Buyers Club truly succeeds in allowing its viewers to sympathize with the plights encountered by those diagnosed with AIDS. Backed by fantastic, Oscar-winning performances from both Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto, Dallas Buyers Club functions as a compelling tale about men who dared to live and work around the system to provide more adequate medication to patients in need of assistance.

With the digital brand of filmmaking in full force, visual effects (VFX) companies have started to transition from small, contracted groups to large corporations that work on a significant portion of a film, rather than simply a single shot or scene. However with the constant need for productions to cut their budgets to make ends meet, the VFX companies are eventually those that suffer. As a production begins to reach the final stages in its creation by entering the editing process, the studios reach the boundaries of their budgets and as a result, they cut funding to the VFX companies they have hired. Additionally, the process to hire these VFX groups has remained relatively unchanged since the film industry has entered into the digital age. VFX companies are hired for a price at the beginning of a production, and then prescribed to do as the producers and directors ask. As a result, unexpected costs and demands are then implemented on these VFX companies, making their jobs more difficult and unexpectedly costly. Unfortunately, this has caused major issues that have not only impacted the VFX industry, but the entirety of the film community. 

Rhythm and Hues is a VFX company that has had incredible success throughout its 27 year existence, winning 3 Oscars for Best VFX. In 1995 the film Babe (Chris Noonan) received critical acclaim for its ability to use a lifelike pig as a main character for the entire film. After winning its first Oscar for its work with Babe, Rhythm and Hues received positive critique for many of their productions, but did not win another Oscar until the completion of The Golden Compass (Chris Weitz, 2007). Their work on this film mainly consisted of creating the story's "daemons", or animal companions in the world of the story, winning their second Academy Award for Visual Effects. The company relatively flourished, and was again commended for Life of Pi (Ang Lee, 2012). However, the smooth sailing for the successful VFX group was about to end.

When Life of Pi was released in 2012, it was obvious to the viewers that the visual effects were incredible and visually stunning. The main character, known as "Pi", is stuck on a boat at sea with an assortment of zoo animals, including a massive Bengali tiger. All of these animals depicted in the film are shown with stunning visuals, looking as if they were truly in each shot with the character. It was for this that the Academy decided to award Rhythm and Hues for the third time, recognizing their work with Ang Lee on Life of Pi. However, due to problems with the business structure of their company, Rhythm and Hues shortly after the release of Life of Pi was forced to declare bankruptcy and laid off over 200 of their employees. 

Many of the members of Rhythm and Hues were excited for Life of Pi, believing that this was the project the company had been working for since its creation. While they worked on a variety of special effects, the company specialized in the creation of CGI animals, working on Babe the pig in Babe, the animals in The Golden Compass and the lion Aslan from The Chronicles of Narnia films. Rhythm and Hues saw their work with Ang Lee as the next step in their business, because they were given the opportunity to work on a high quality art film with critical acclaim, rather than on visually beautiful, somewhat shallow blockbusters. Therefore, when a large amount of employees were fired due to lack of money, these former employees were outraged. 

At the 2013 Academy Awards, the fired employees from Rhythm and Hues protested the Oscars, saying that they were forced to complete a project that made their company become bankrupt. The Academy did not address the protesters, and did not believe they had a right to their claims. The general public was not truly aware of the events that had occurred with Rhythm and Hues and Life of Pi, so the Academy was able to avoid mentioning or speaking of the protesting that was occurring. However, eventually Rhythm and Hues was awarded their Oscar, and Bill Westenhofer, visual effects supervisor from the company, went to accept the award. During his speech, he attempted to talk about the financial issues that the VFX industry was facing and problems that had arisen, but the Academy cut off his microphone. Additionally, Ang Lee failed to thank anyone from the visual effects portion of his film, despite thanking almost every other collaborator. This eventually launched a social media campaign that involved people posting simply a picture of the green key light, trying to raise awareness for the struggling VFX industry.

While a great deal of this story is political and somewhat controversial, it did effectively begin to raise awareness for an issue that before was unknown to most people in the industry. As the market for visual effects grows and the film industry continues to become more digitally active, it is important that the business models for VFX companies continue to remain updated and budgeted fairly. While sometimes it may seem like filmmaking is a profiting and successful market, there are always financial and economical issues, as there are with any market. Below is a documentary consisting of the interviews with current and former employees of Rhythm and Hues talking about their experience with the entire episode. 

Since Life of Pi, Rhythm and Hues was repurchased and has continued to work on films including Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino, 2012), The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (Ben Stiller, 2013), and X-Men: Days of Future Past (Bryan Singer, 2014).  Numerous VFX studios have gone bankrupt since 2003, and the industry struggles, but hopefully we can fix the post-production process in the future so that these highly artistic and influential companies can thrive in a market where their skills are in high demand.

After doing a director profile on James Cameron, I feel it’s appropriate to include at least one behind-the-scenes blog post on his most well-known film: Titanic. It’s an undeniable fact that the 1997, 11 Oscar-winner is an incredible technical achievement. Supported by a $200,000 budget (the largest film budget in the 20th century--co-financed and distributed by Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount),  James Cameron’s Titanic sported a spectacular set, almost rebuilding the infamous ship to full length, and employed impressive special effects. One of the most impressive interior sets was the recreation of the famed Grand Staircase--- the most famous room Titanic contained. Indeed, the Staircase, as mentioned by one of the film crew personnel, ended up acting almost as a character in the film, due to it being the location of several pivotal scenes, including the ending scene. Interestingly, the staircase presented in the film is slightly larger than the one on the real ship. The reason for this was because people in 1912 were shorter than they are today. As a result, the staircase was scaled up to make the actors look smaller (IMDB).

Ultimately, in constructing the Grand Staircase, the film crew didn’t see it as a set at all. The staircase was built out of solid oak in Mexico City. As a result, it looked and in actuality was a legitimate room. Art Director Martin Laing quotes, “We’re actually building this as they built it on the Titanic. We’re not building it as a film set; we’re building it as a real staircase that can actually take quite a bit of damage with water and things like that” (Making of Titanic).

Finally, the time came for the destruction of the beautiful set. For the exterior shots of the ship sinking, the almost full-scale ship was placed in a 3 foot deep, 17 million gallon tank and tilted using a crane. For the interior shots of the sinking ship, the sets were enclosed in a 5 million gallon tank and again tilted in the water using a crane. This was the method used for the Grand Staircase. However, to make the destruction of the Grand Staircase more dramatic, Cameron and his team dropped 90,000 gallons of water onto it. Because the Staircase would be destroyed, there would be only one attempt to get it right. Unexpectedly, the massive volume of water ripped the Staircase from its steel-reinforced foundations, collapsing certain sections of it. Thankfully, no one was hurt in the take (IMDB).

In the end, I think it’s incredible how much work went into the production design of Titanic. Most of the interiors of the ship were constructed to the exact measurements and looks of the rooms in the real ship. Millions upon millions of gallons of water were used. It’s no wonder the film ended up needing a $200 million budget. But ultimately, this massive budget allowed James Cameron to fully fulfill his vision of the beautiful, ill-fated luxury liner. 


Written by Anthony Watkins

WORKS CITED
IMDB. 2014. 29 March 2014. <http://www.imdb.com>.

Titanic. Screenplay by James Cameron. Dir. James Cameron. Prod. James Cameron. 1997. Special Edition Blu-Ray. Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount Pictures. 2013.

            In recent years, the zombie film genre has gradually developed into a dominant component of mainstream horror, abandoning its previous reputation as an underground cult sensation. In fact, considering its dramatic transformation, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the zombie film has enjoyed a spectacular rebirth, unparalleled by anything else in the history of modern horror. But what is it about the zombie film genre that has captivated viewers and generated enormous success? Ultimately, this question is perhaps best answered when considering the genre’s exceptional ability to provide socio-political commentary on matters reflecting some of society’s deepest fears at various historical points.

            At the point of their inception, zombie films were largely created because of a popular contemporary fascination with Haiti and voodoo, which meant that zombies were often animated by some sort of spell and used as servants to whatever “master” controlled them (Harris). This early approach to zombie films was quite prevalent in White Zombie (Halperin, 1932), which is generally considered to be the first movie to feature zombies by name. However, in terms of the film’s socio-political impact, with the stock market crashing and people falling into debt around the release of White Zombie, the notion of zombies really resonated with the fears of Americans at that time, as viewers considered zombies to be symbolic of the powerlessness of the American workforce.

            This general style of zombie films being heavily rooted in voodoo continued throughout the 1930s and 1940s, but by the 1950s, filmmakers began to play around with some of the established zombie film conventions (Harris). For instance, in Plan 9 From Outer Space (Wood, 1959) and Invisible Invaders (Cahn, 1959), zombies were not controlled via voodoo, but rather raised from the dead by aliens. Likewise, in The Last Man on Earth (Ragona and Salkow, 1964), a virus was responsible for creating zombie-like vampires. Overall, these films were instrumental in making zombies more dangerous, killing machines, which was a trend greatly advanced by George Romero, the father of the modern zombie film.

            With the groundbreaking release of Romero’s Night of the Living Dead in 1968, the zombie film genre underwent an enormous revolution. Building off of conventions established by various films of the 1950s, Romero’s zombies were hostile, flesh-eating monsters that could swell their numbers to pandemic proportions (Brooks). In addition, similar to certain films from the 1950s, the monster’s origins could be attributed to science rather than to magic. Likewise, under the new portrayal of the zombie, the monster could only be dispatched via a scientific solution: to destroy the brain or sever it from the rest of the body. Perhaps most important of all though, Romero’s zombies were entirely driven by their insatiable hunger for human flesh, causing them to attack the living. If bitten by a zombie, the living would eventually become zombies themselves, making the monsters a frightening new form of walking plague that could rapidly collapse modern society and eradicate humanity.

            Despite creating a successful formula for portraying the modern day zombie, for many years after the release of Romero’s film, the zombie film genre’s appeal was largely contained to a small cult following and did not have much success meshing with pop culture. This all changed with the release of Danny Boyle’s 2002 hit, 28 Days Later, which earned enormous critical support while proving to the film industry that there was money to be made from the zombie film genre (Barber). Over the next several years, movies like Dawn of the Dead (Snyder, 2004), Shaun of the Dead (Wright, 2004), 28 Weeks Later (Fresnadillo, 2007), Zombieland (Fleischer, 2009), and most recently World War Z (Forster, 2013), have confirmed the zombie film genre’s established significance to pop culture and suggest that the genre will continue to thrive for the foreseeable future.

            With that said, what is it about zombies that has made them so popular in society today? Ultimately, I believe that this popularity can be attributed to the fact that people have a lot of anxiety about the future and are afraid that the system is breaking down, making apocalyptic scenarios plausible in their minds. This reasoning is supported by Max Brooks, the author of World War Z, who explained that the zombie story really succeeds because it enables people to enter a “’safe place’ to explore their apocalyptic worries,” since these stories “give people the opportunity to witness the end of the world they’ve been secretly wondering about while, at the same time, allowing themselves to sleep at night because the catalyst of that end is fictional” (Barber).

Works Cited

Barber, Nicholas. "Why are Zombies Still so Popular?" BBC. 25 Oct 2013. <http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20131025-zombie-nation>.

Brooks, Max. "The Movies that Rose from the Grave." The Guardian. 9 Nov 2006. <http://www.theguardian.com/film/2006/nov/10/1>.

Harris, Mark. "Zombie Movies 101." About.com. 25 Oct 2013. <http://horror.about.com/od/horrormoviesubgenres/a/zombies.htm>.