cje
Full Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by cje on Jun 9, 2014 23:13:55 GMT -5
One of the joys I have gotten over the years has been to see how color and light have been used in John Wayne's move, "The Alamo." One example of this would be how we see the Alamo Church as it appears throughout the movie. Just to highlight a few. 1.) The scene where Bowie and his men ride into the Alamo. We see the scene open with a shot of the Southwest corner and main gate. A small artillery piece is being pushed by some men and I believe a fella is handling some horses. Then we see our first view of the Alamo Church looking at the wooden wall Crockett will defend with the Church in the background with a view of its front to the rear (one of the few shots of the rear of the church in the film.) Note the color of the church. Then Bowie's men ride front right to left of the camera. 2.) In another scene it seems like the chapel is "White" in color and not the "sandy color" we have seen earlier. This color comes from the raid for cattle as the cattle are driven through the Main Gate towards the North Wall. We can see the Alamo Church in the background. The clouds up above are cloudy grey and I have noticed how light and clouds bring out different colors to the Alamo Church. 3.) When Santa Anna makes his frontal attach, there is a picture that has appeared in a Children's mini book shot from in front of the position Crockett and his men are defending with the arched entrance into what would be called, the "Convent Yard," and the front of the Alamo Church. The Church seems "White." 4.) In other scenes throughout the movie, the Church has that "Sandy" color. I could get into how the church looks during various scenes at night and the effect of shadows and light with fires bringing out the various features of the Church. Just a reflection and an appreciation. CJE
|
|
|
|
Post by sgtstryker53 on Jun 12, 2014 6:44:06 GMT -5
William Clothier's great cinematography. A beautifully filmed movie. You can't beat film for texture end depth of field. You lose that with digital. I wish they still made movies in technicolor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 15, 2014 16:42:15 GMT -5
The artfulness of John Wayne's The Alamo is tops for the era (or any era, IMO). Let's not leave Alfred Ybarra out of the picture. This was John Wayne's art director (today, he would be called a production designer). He was internationally renowned before he joined Batjac Productions. He would have an image in his mind, already in complete color, and create paintings (called "concept art") from which the sets were then blueprinted and constructed. Bill Clothier would then take it from there and determine (through pre-production film and laboratory tests) how best to photograph the sets as well as costumes and makeup.
Interestingly, I see one major difference in design concept between Ybarra's and Michael Corenblith's equally powerful and artistic production design for Ron Howard and John Lee Hancock's The Alamo in 2001-2003. Both designers took liberties with placement of sets, but Ybarra's facing the Alamo church east instead of west like the real Alamo was totally for the purposes of fitting it visually into the awesome background on the Shanan Ranch location. Corenblith's turning the Alamo church to face south instead of west was for lighting continuity.
If you watch the first scene you described above (Bowie's men riding in and the flag-raising), you will see the face of the Alamo church go from (1) full front lighting to (2) noon lighting with long shadows to (3) total shadow, all during that 1-minute scene that took several hours to film. Folks tend not to notice because they are watching the action, not the background. The goal in this case was not lighting oriented but was having Pinto Mountain in the background in perfect photographic composition with the church facade in the foreground. In Michael Corenblith's case, with the background not mattering as much, the benefit was having the facade always in sunlight after about 11:00 A.M.
And yes, sunlight from different angles does wondrously different things with the seeming color of the stone. This is very true for both movie sets as well as the real Alamo, much in the same way that the Grand Canyon plays with color as the day goes on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 15, 2014 16:51:33 GMT -5
John Wayne's art director Ybarra and cinematographer Clothier were both very following lighting cues from the great western artists Remington and Russell. This was Duke's concept. He even had them duplicate a 19th. century John Singer Sargent painting ("El Jaleo") for the opening shot of the "Raid for Cattle" sequence with the Flamenco dancer on the river bank at night -- even had them all stand in freez-frame position until the downbeat of the guitarist's rhythm.
One could indeed do a huge coffee table book on the design of Alamo movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgtstryker53 on Jun 17, 2014 6:39:56 GMT -5
You are right Rich. I should have mentioned Ybarra. Moviemaking is a team effort and in my opinion the Duke put together a helluva team and produced a beautiful picture, regardless of the artistic liberties taken with the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 18, 2014 17:05:40 GMT -5
Even though I'm partly color blind, I found John Wayne's Alamo visually stunning and brilliant. More than the coloring of the chapel was that Wayne managed to feature it in the background of many of the movie's most dramatic scenes. In many good ways, it haunted my mental images of the film.
It's a shame Republic's "Last Command" didn't used the face of the chapel except for one matte shot. Even Disney seemed to know enough to consistently show the chapel. I read that Hancock built his 2004 Alamo set with an "out of position" chapel that he thought would have a stronger effect as a backdrop. As much as I liked his movie, I don't think repositioning the chapel was a good idea.
Let me add that having a "red/green" color deficiency was not a problem when viewing the John Wayne's brilliant colors of the Mexican Uniforms. I loved all the red, blues, whites and other colors of the Mexican Army. Even though they were apparently historically inaccurate according to some of our Alamo Forum experts, at least I could see them.
Lou from Long island
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 22, 2014 18:38:47 GMT -5
Lou, when John Lee came onto the The Alamo (replacing Ron Howard as director), the set was nearly totally built already. Michael Corenblith (the production designer) takes full responsibility for the decision to move the church up nearly to the front of the long barrack. It was not to provide a better background. It was so that it could be seen from every point in the compound, and thus become a "visual anchor" for viewers during the fast-cut night battle to help orient them.
|
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 25, 2014 18:38:04 GMT -5
Thanks Rich for adding to the explanation why the church was moved. I'm glad Hancock wasn't to blame. As I've said in the past, it was an annoyance, but it certainly didn't spoil, what to me was a great movie and treatment of the Alamo.
I note your mention of the "fast-cut" night battle. Fast cutting is something that seems to be in virtually all Hollywood action movies. Maybe I'm getting old, but these split-second edits often make the action very hard to follow. I often don't know who did what to whom and how. Is it just me, or are other viewers having this problem?
I managed to keep up with John Lee's fast cuts, but I've seen the movies dozens of times, so I'm able to follow the action. But the newer action spectacles leave me breathless, confused and determined never to see the sequels they launch.
Lou from Long Island
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 26, 2014 0:51:52 GMT -5
Fast cutting isn't the issue. HOW it is done is. I think Eric Beason's editing is a lesson in fast cutting expertise. He knows how to build gradually into the fast pace. This is what draws you into a sequence. If it isn't well done, you are left behind. I find his fast paced scenes to be very well done -- seamless. The build in the final battle is just awesome and rivets you to Crockett and Bowie by the time it gets to their final moments. You experience the battle instead of observe it, because he has gotten your brain hopping.
Another thing about HOW a fast-cut sequence is successful. It isn't just a bunch of short choppy shots. Each shot is left on the screen ONLY as long as it takes for a person to see the one thing of importance, never a frame longer. Then on to the next shot. Sometimes shots are edited in for their jumping pace value and become almost subliminal. I promise you that you could run through John's battle scene at half speed and see scenes you had never seen before because they are so short. However, when an editor does this, he will always have some anchor scene that is longer and he will return to it several times in the course of the overall length, and you will see this scene as a continuum. Study the sequence when Bowie's on the bridge with Jameson and Almonte and Travis fires the cannon. Slow it down as much as you can. Watch the staccato rhythm of the clips of film and how Beason keeps returning to the shot of Santa Anna and the building in the plaza when the shell from the eighteen-pounder explodes. It is the returning to that angle that anchors the scene. That is what you see and what you are meant to see. All the other angles flashed in between these are just there to increase the intensity, not to be seen or studied. It is a an old editing technique but has been escalated due to young people actually having a faster paced visual identification ability due to MTV. If not well done in the editing room, it's awful and effectless. The Alamo however handles it very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgtstryker53 on Jun 26, 2014 6:47:25 GMT -5
I believe the advent of Beta, VHS and DVD's has affected the way movies are edited nowadays. Originally movies were made to be shown for a limited period of time at theaters. The average viewer saw the movie once, maybe again on a re-release a few years later. You had to build and keep to the the plot line. Then came television, where the movies were cut for commercials and time limitations. Bad idea. Thank goodness for Turner Classic Movies. Now with DVD's, movies can be viewed and re viewed as many times as you want, with slow motion, reverse, frame advance, directors cut etc. I think the producers, directors and editors take this into account when putting the movie together.
|
|
|
|
Post by rriddle3 on Jun 26, 2014 13:28:45 GMT -5
...It is a an old editing technique but has been escalated due to young people actually having a faster paced visual identification ability due to MTV... While I agree that this statement is most likely correct, it certainly was wasted being used in this movie since it was primarily viewed by an older audiance. Probably would have been better served with old school techniques. |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jun 27, 2014 8:36:39 GMT -5
...It is a an old editing technique but has been escalated due to young people actually having a faster paced visual identification ability due to MTV... While I agree that this statement is most likely correct, it certainly was wasted being used in this movie since it was primarily viewed by an older audiance. Probably would have been better served with old school techniques. Well, I hear your point, and I can't say it's wrong, but John Lee even qualified it at one point by saying, "This is not your father's Alamo." Unfortunately, the way Disney promoted it (or didn't!), it wasn't aimed at the younger audience either. But, in a way, that was a plus creatively. John Wayne (with his blockbuster budget -- most expensive movie ever made in the U.S. up to that time) stocked the tank with every fish that would attract a different element of the box office pond: Wayne for the Wayne buffs, but Harvey and Widmark for those who wanted "acting." Frankie Avalon for the teen audience. Richard Boone to get the TV addicts off their fat couches. Joan O'Brien and Linda Cristal for the women. Carlos Arruza (the most famous bullfighter in Mexico) for the Mexican box office. The movie was peppered with audience appeal. John Lee Hancock made a Film (capital "F"). He created the film he saw in his head (and Ron Howard's head) and cast it accordingly. Then Disney chose to neglect it. "When you don't promote, a terrible thing happens: Nothing." |
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Jun 30, 2014 16:44:21 GMT -5
I guess we'll have to learn to live with modern editing. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere. But don't ask me to suffer through more Transformer movies. Their ilk gives me the feeling of the colossal waste of time they represent.
Strange, but when you first mentioned Disney, my mind jumped to the beloved Fess Parker's version of the Alamo. Then I realized Alamo 2004 was also Disney and benefited by all the Disney virtues and suffered from all the Disney negligence.
Lou from Long Island
BTW - just saw Eastwood's Jersey Boys. Fantastic!!!!
|
|
