Introduction
1. Herb Lightman, “Spielberg Speaks about ‘Close Encounters,’” American Cinematographer (Jan. 1978): 59.
2. Gregg Kilday, “Special Encounter on Effects,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 5, 1977.
3. Betzy Bromberg, personal interview by author, Tujunga, CA, July 9, 2007.
4. For discussion of the use of the term “New Hollywood” (and other terminology such as “American auteurs,” “American New Wave directors”), see Elsaesser, Horwath, and King (2004), especially their three introductory essays. See also Thomas Schatz, “The New Hollywood,” in Collins, Radner, and Collins (1993); and Peter Krämer, “Post Classical Hollywood” (1998). For arguments against the designation of a “New Hollywood,” see Kristin Thompson (1999) and David Bordwell (2006).
5. Rather than become mired in the argument over whether digital technology records an “index” (which I understand as an argument historically situated in the 1990s and early 2000s) and if so, what kind, this study follows Rick Altman’s, Tom Gunning’s, and Jim Lastra’s assertion that cinematic representation always translates “reality” whether captured photochemically or digitally; and likewise, we cannot recover an “original vision” or “original sound” as an aesthetic model (Altman 2004; Gunning 2007; Lastra 2000).
6. Tom Gunning, “The Cinema of Attractions,” in Elsaesser and Barker (1990). Academic interest in cinematic special effects has tended to approach the topic primarily through concerns with the ontological status of the photographic versus digital image. For more on ontology, see Mitchell (1992), Cubitt (1998), Spielmann (“Aesthetic Features … ,” 1999), Rosen (2001), and Doane (2002).
Additionally, according to subject theory approaches to film (by which I mean the loosely affiliated approaches of Lacanian psychoanalysis, cultural studies, apparatus theory, etc.), the matrix of narrative, thematic, technological, and psychic space makes the science fiction special effects cinema an ideal site to play out, negotiate, or soothe cultural anxieties about the human in the face of technology, e.g., questions of real/artificial, human/inhuman, and the power structures that control these relations. For thematic work that “reads” cinematic “texts” in light of cultural anxieties and fixations with new technologies of special effects, especially in relation to the science fiction genre, see Albert J. LaValley (in Slusser and Rabkin 1985); Vivian Sobchack (1987); Sean Cubitt (1992); Brooks Landon (1992). More are collected in Sean Redmond (2004). See also Annette Kuhn’s two volumes Alien Zone and Alien Zone II (1990, 1999) for many examples of the subject theory approach.
For discussions of the role of special effects in light of the change or stability of narrative conventions in blockbuster filmmaking, see Buckland (“Between Science Fiction … ,” 1992), Thompson (1999), King (2000), and Bordwell (2006).
7. Scott Bukatman, “The Artificial Infinite: On Special Effects and the Sublime” and “The Ultimate Trip: Special Effects and Kaleidoscopic Perception” (in Bukatman 2003), and Bukatman, “Zooming Out: The End of Off-Screen Space” (in Lewis 1998); Annette Michelson (1969); Gunning, “The Aesthetics of Astonishment” (1989) and Gunning, “The Cinema of Attractions” (in Elsaesser and Barker 1990); Dyer, “Entertainment and Utopia” (in Dyer 1992).
8. More recently, the theoretical sands have shifted toward what has come to be known as “affect theory” as a way to reconceptualize subject-based theories of spectatorship toward a more sensorally and phenomenologically based approach. This treatment would seem to be an ideal way to consider special effects, with its aesthetic that emphasizes an “extra narrative” appeal to the senses. However, when discussing special effects, affect theory tends to focus on only the most spectacular visible forms and isolated events in the overall film, such as 2001’s so-called “Star Gate” sequence. What I consider the most fruitful examples of this “affect theory” approach—such as Miriam Hansen on the cinema’s “aesthetic-affective” dimension of modernism, Linda Williams’s reading of Psycho as “fun” in a similar way to a rollercoaster, and Richard Dyer on Speed—treat the special effects as part of the aesthetic program of the film as a whole, and also understand the viewing subject as relishing the difference between “real life” experiences and those at the movies. See Miriam Hansen, “Classical Cinema as Vernacular Modernism” (in Gledhill and Williams 2000); Linda Williams, “Discipline and Fun: Psycho and Postmodern Cinema” (in Gledhill and Williams 2000); and Dyer (1994).
9. To demonstrate the intensification of special effects in feature filmmaking since the 1970s, perhaps it may be convincing to look at quantitative evidence. For example, we can examine the traditional way “special” sequences were apportioned in the late 1960s, compared with practice in the 1970s and today, by touting the number of the effects shots in a given film (meaning the number of shots that required the postproduction skills of specialized effects artists). For example, 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968 boasted 201 special effects shots, an enormous number at the time, out of 602 total shots. (For 2001 and Star War’s number of effects shots, see Herb Lightman, “Filming 2001: A Space Odyssey,” American Cinematographer (June 1968): 442; John Dykstra, “Miniature and Mechanical Special Effects for STAR WARS,” American Cinematographer (July 1977): 704.) Star Wars in 1977 nearly doubled that amount, with 365, again, a previously unimaginable amount (out of 2,089 total shots). To emphasize how much things have changed, the recent J. J. Abram’s Star Trek (2009) professed 860 effects shots (Fordham 2009:118). Roland Emmerich’s disaster epic 2012 (2009) claimed an astonishing 1,300 (Fordham 2010: 32). A film like Avatar (2009) could scarcely be considered to contain any shots that are not classified as “special effects shots.” Avatar’s official count: 2,500 effects shots, and in fact, all but 110 shots are classed as visual effects (Fordham 2010:146).
For reference, a famously rapidly cut film like Moulin Rouge (2001) has approximately 3,569 total shots, while in the late 1960s even Hollywood action films like Bullitt (1968) had closer to 1,000. That being said, less action-oriented dramas such as A History of Violence and Munich (both 2005) have closer to 1,200 total shots. All shot totals from cinemetrics.com.
10. See Crafton (1999), Lastra (2000), Spadoni (2003, 2007), and Altman (2004). Also, much like the resistance to sound films in the 1920s and 1930s by prominent critics and theorists, special effects films have engendered a similar resistance from many critics and academics.
11. Stephen Prince, for example, compares the Errol Flynn maritime adventure The Sea Hawk (1940) unfavorably to Master and Commander (2003) as an example for what digital can do that “backlot” studio-era effects could not, suggesting that had Warner Bros. had the same tools as ILM in 2003, the studio would have made more “powerfully convincing images of men at sea” (Prince 2012:178).
13. After Bordwell, Staiger, and Thompson (1985), Bordwell and Thompson have remained the strongest advocates of the “classical” stance, arguing that Hollywood cinema may be in a “mannerist” period now, but this nevertheless proves the flexibility of their classical model. Thomas Elsaesser (in Elsaesser and Buckland 2002) is among the most prominent of the “post-classical” group and argues that Hollywood filmmaking has altered sufficiently (most significantly in terms of its self-awareness and reflexivity) to identify a distinct historical and theoretical shift.
15. Although more research needs to be done on studio-era effects practices, especially from studio to studio, purpose-built effects divisions were not especially common before the late 1920s and early 1930s, and instead cinematographers and camera operators skilled in “trick” photography would complete composites, as well as independent optical houses. As more postproduction and process techniques proliferated in the 1930s, studios began to organize skilled personnel into units, but continued to outsource complex opticals to independent houses. See Carl Louis Gregory, “Trick Photography” Transactions of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers (Sept. 1926): 99–107.
16. The overlap between “visual effects” and feature-length animation is getting blurrier by the year, but for the most part the visual effects and animation production companies remain separate. Pixar and Dreamworks Animation, for example, do not complete effects sequences for live-action films, although ILM’s venture into feature-length animation with Rango (2011) may signal a sea change.
17. Furthermore, at this point, though all are working with digital technologies, professional publications like American Cinematographer make it very clear that the so-called digital “workflow” or “pipeline” (the merging of different areas of production into the final product) is hardly smooth and seamless. For a description of digital workflow problems, see Christopher Probst, “Go with the Flow,” American Cinematographer (Jan. 2012).
18. For an overview of the turmoil in the effects industry, see David S. Cohen, Variety.com, “Ailing f/x Sector Spotlights Creaky Tentpole Foundation,” Feb. 14, 2013.
19. Prince (2012); Manovich (2001:178).
20. See Prince (2012:89, 117). My interpolations to quoted material in this book appear in brackets and include ellipses as well as (for translated material) terms from the original language.
21. See Turnock, “The ILM Version” (2012). As I have argued elsewhere, I believe this 1970s aesthetic holds true through the contemporary digital effects era. While someday there may be a “digital realism” markedly distinct from photorealism, I do not think it has yet emerged, and digital effects still routinely mimic marks of photography, more specifically 1970s cinematography, to cue a realism effect. However, for now, I will largely confine my argument to the 1970s and 1980s.
22. See Thompson (1988:197–217).
23. See the Star Wars “Special Edition” re-release of 1997, then deemed a photorealistic improvement over the 1977 version, but which now seems datable to the technology of 1997. Or, see even how the animation and composites of The Matrix (1999) are also today quite noticeable in the light of more recent styles of historical realisms.
24. Rudolf Arnheim, “Film and Reality,” Film as Art (1957).
25. Also, if special effects realism wanted to replicate what the eye sees in real life, digital technology would easily allow, for example, a view of a climactic battle from a single ideal viewing point, in a seemingly uncut shot, in real time. While such a strategy might provide the viewer a more realistic sense of “you are there,” most filmgoers would not judge this experience as being “more realistic.” Instead, they might be annoyed they were not shown more angles of the action, closer up, and edited for heightened excitement.
27. Douglas Trumbull, “Creating the Photographic Special Effects for CE3K,” American Cinematographer (Jan. 1978).
28. See Hall and Neale (2010). Despite his billions (and despite having sold Lucasfilm in October 2012 to the Disney corporation for $4 billion), Lucas still considers himself “a ’60s, West Coast, liberal, radical, artsy, dyed-in-the-wool” type. Bryan Curtis, “George Lucas Is Ready to Roll the Credits,” New York Times, Jan. 17, 2012.
29. For a canonical discussion of political modernism, see Rodowick (1995). I want to stress that the Expanded Cinema model is not congruent with political modernist notions of the “alternative public sphere” as it is described by Miriam Hansen (following Jürgen Habermas), although it has elements in common. Expanded Cinema as Gene Youngblood formulated it, and as it was generally discussed in its West Coast context, was meant to encourage a collective merged consciousness leading to what he calls “radical evolution,” a cosmic harmony that would leave behind the need for traditional leftist movements of revolution, which simply replace one polarized status quo with another. See Youngblood (1970:50).
30. Bukatman makes a similar argument about Douglas Trumbull’s “kaleidoscopic” effects sequences (such as the “Star Gate” sequence in 2001), but casts Trumbull as an “alternative” aesthetic to mainstream special effects usage, such as that in Star Wars. As will be discussed later, I reposition Trumbull’s and ILM’s special effects within a larger context, finding more commonality than difference. See “The Ultimate Trip” (in Bukatman 2003:112–).
1. Optical Animation: Special Effects Compositing Up to 1977
1. Found in the Stanley Kubrick Archive in University of the Arts archives and Special Collections at the London College of Communication at Elephant and Castle, conducted October 2007.
2. Lucas, quoted in Claire Clouzot, “The Morning of the Magician: George Lucas and Star Wars” (1977), in Kline (1999:58).
3. One of the reasons this kind of effects work has largely been ignored by scholars and effects enthusiasts is that such effects typically met their goal. For example, the files in the Linwood Dunn Collection at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Pickford Center archive, Hollywood, document shot after shot of clouds composited into a background, presumably for composition. Also, although the most thorough account of matte paintings, Mark Cotta Vaz and Craig Barron’s The Invisible Art: The Legends of Movie Matte Painting (2002) focuses most prominently on the more fantastic and elaborate examples, such as the Emerald City at the end of the yellow brick road in The Wizard of Oz (1939), much more common and unobtrusive matte paintings were designed never to be scrutinized, such as those that completed the upper stories of a building or the ceiling areas of ballrooms or mansions, covering the lighting equipment.
4. See note 4 in the introduction.
5. This viewpoint is evident in trade press rhetoric, in Daily Variety articles such as Joseph McBride, “Hollywood Rediscovers an Old B.O. Star: Special Effects,” Daily Variety (Oct. 29, 1974).
6. The extremely popular early 1970s trend of disaster films should not be forgotten, such as Airport (1970), Earthquake (1974), The Towering Inferno (1974), and many others. Aspects of these films will be discussed in the next chapter.
7. This tier of value is a particular problem in Cook (2000).
9. Lev Manovich (2001) most influentially calls for greater prominence to be given to animation in cinema’s image construction. I agree broadly with his contention. However, Manovich sees greater animation of the film image as primarily a mark of the digital. I argue that greater animatability of the cinematic image was already a priority well before digital imaging.
10. To complicate matters in the case of Welles, it is now well known that many deep-focus shots in Citizen Kane (1941) were completed by Linwood Dunn with an optical printer. For example, in the shot where Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore) tries to commit suicide, at least one of the three planes of action (the glass with the spoon in the extreme foreground) is optically printed. See Dunn in Dunn and Turner (1983).
11. Harrison Ellenshaw, “Creating Matte Paintings for EMPIRE,” American Cinematographer (June 1980): 608. See many examples of this contemporary attitude toward photorealism in both American Cinematographer and the Journal of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (hereafter, JSMPTE ; note that “and Television” was added to the society’s name in 1950).
12. Especially before industrial standardization of the optical printer in the 1940s (and frequently beyond), the often jerry-rigged optical printer’s frame advance systems calibration could not be consistently relied on to account for perfect lineup over numerous passes and required refined printing skills that very few operators possessed.
13. See, for example, the special effects fan publications such as Cinefex, Cinefantastique, Photon, and others, as well as Michele Pierson’s (2002) discourse analysis of special effects fan publications.
14. Bordwell (2006:16). See also Bordwell, Staiger, and Thompson (1985), Balio (1993), and Bordwell (1997) for more examples of this approach.
15. How they were to achieve their various effects was often portrayed as a kind of magic, even by directors meant to be supervising them. See two articles by Cecil B. DeMille, “A Director Looks at ‘Process Shots,’” in American Cinematographer (1936) and “Motion Picture Directing,” in JSMPE (later, JSMPTE) (1928), where DeMille recounts that effects supervisor Farciot Edouart, in order to add a cloud effect to The Plainsman (1936), used his “big Optical Printer” but “wouldn’t tell me just how he did it.”
16. In terms of sound technology aesthetics in the transition to talkies, James Lastra (2000) has convincingly described how early sound technicians tested and debated the various aesthetics of sound technology with as much professional diligence as solving purely technological problems with sound. In other words, the aesthetic goal (multidirectional sound) often preceded the technical step, and the technological “results” (where to place microphones) of problems introducing sound were manifold.
17. This tendency to de-emphasize the primacy of the principal photography becomes more evident in the 1980s and beyond, with the renewed development of blue-screen work. Blue screen radically fragments principal photography by “reducing” actors shot in front of a blue screen to just another element to be composited in postproduction, often along with many other separately produced photographed and animated elements.
18. More research is needed to determine each studio’s effects department’s emphasis on particular techniques, which appears not to be consistent across the studio era. For example, MGM effects department head Arnold Gillespie’s unpublished memoir (“Big Ones Out of Little Ones”) at the Margaret Herrick Library describes the MGM hierarchy as favoring physical and mechanical effects and rear-projection composites, while severely downplaying, even disparaging, optical composites. MGM and Paramount were at the forefront of rear-projection research and development. RKO and Universal, however, the home of very talented optical printer operators (Linwood Dunn and John Fulton, later at Paramount), entrusted their optical department with more responsibility, including for films such as King Kong and The Invisible Man (both 1933).
19. In academe, the term opticals cannot be considered a synonym for optics. It is misleading (as to the particular technology at work) that optical effects more or less correspond with “optics” as theorized by Jonathan Crary (1990) or with Jean Louis Baudry’s apparatus theory (Mast, Cohen, and Braudy 1992).
A related misconception many bring to the technology of special effects work is that a working knowledge of a 35mm still camera is sufficient to understand optical effects. Certainly, polemic regimes of vision described in apparatus theory as inherent to the technology can be applied to optical effects. Of course, knowledge of 35mm still technology is a useful starting point. However, the extent of manipulation of every variable of optical technology (lighting, lenses, frame rate, etc.) to achieve a desired result is much more elaborate than in 35mm still photography, as well as the kind of inscription assumed in theories of optics.
20. A forthcoming dissertation from Paul Malcolm (UCLA) very usefully divides special effects into three distinct historical eras, as determined by technology: in-camera, optical, and digital.
21. It is worth noting that early trick films were effected by a variable frame rate, from 16 frames per second (fps), depending on the consistency of the camera operator’s hand-cranking. Mechanized advance systems replaced hand-cranking in the late 1910s. The frame rate was standardizing at 24 fps by the sound era.
22. A sequence in The Sting (1973), for example, re-creating Chicago’s elevated trains, is often cited as a particularly audacious use of in-camera matting techniques. Albert Whitlock, along with Director of Photography (DP) Robert Surtees, had principal photography film the lower part of the frame, matting black the area above where the train would appear. The film was then cranked back, the image meticulously lined up, and the separately captured train footage was filmed on the same negative. This was done in-camera because, with color film, in-camera techniques were still the best way to get a first-generation look in the final negative. Bill Taylor, ASC, and Syd Dutton (cofounders of Illusion Arts, an independent effects company), personal interviews by author, Van Nuys, CA, July 25, 2006.
23. The history of traveling matte technology is complex, especially in the 1920s. For an easy to understand version, see Rickitt (2000:312).
24. To be more specific, the printing steps are: (A) Shoot an actor against a blue background; (B) If it is a color composite, transfer the color to a black-and-white color separation positive. This is repeated two more times with the appropriate filters for the three-color separation process; (C) A high-contrast duplication of the black-and-white negative is generated, producing a negative image of the actor against a clear field; (D) Female and (E) male traveling mattes are generated from C, on high-contrast duplication stock. Now, the printing begins; (F) The male matte is combined with the background, making a black hole for the actor, and (G) vice versa; (H) F and G images are printed together to make the final composite. See Fielding (1968:207–209).
25. George Turner, “The Evolution of Special Visual Effects,” in Dunn and Turner (1983:46). The terms “rear” and “back” projection can be used interchangeably. Three technical elements were needed to bring rear projection to the fore: more sensitive film stock, brighter projection lights, and bigger screens.
26. More research needs to be done on this topic, but for a rare studio example of a shot from a moving car without image stabilization, see William A Seiter’s Chance at Heaven (1933), when Joel McCrea drives toward debutante Marion Dixon, flagging him down on the roadside.
27. They are likely called “plates” because early matte paintings were completed on clear plate glass and placed between the camera and the profilmic action.
28. Bill Taylor, ASC, personal interview.
29. See Fielding (1968:237–39).
30. Another on-set composite technology that had significant effect on the development of process work in Hollywood special effects in the 1920s and 1930s was the “Schufftan process,” a complex mirror and optics-based technique named for former Ufa cinematographer (and Fritz Lang and Max Ophuls collaborator) Eugen Schufftan, which allowed a kind of “set extension” without postproduction compositing. Therefore the Eiffel Tower or Taj Mahal or any other static object could be reflected into the same illusory “profilmic” space as the actors, and the camera registered the separate elements at the same time. Unlike projection technologies, the Schufftan process could not be used with moving-image footage. For more on Schufftan and Ufa special effects, see Katharina Loew (2011).
31. The priority given the introduction of sound technology did slow developments in special effects for a time, but not for long. Both JSMPTE and American Cinematographer published a flurry of articles between 1926 and 1933 lauding the Dunning Process, the Dieterich Process, and others. See Frank Williams, “Trick Photography” (1928); Carroll Dunning, “Some Problems …” (1929) and “Dunning Process” (1931); C. Dodge Dunning, “Compositite Photography” (1929); and William Stull, “The Baker Process” (1932) and “The Dietrich Process …” (1933).
32. The percentage of optical shots in Citizen Kane changes depending on the source, in some cases going up to 90 percent. I decided to cite a conservative estimate. As was the studio’s practice, the head of the department was granted on-screen credit. Therefore, on RKO projects throughout the 1930s, as is true with King Kong, photographic effects department head Vernon Walker is credited, although Dunn or others may have completed the bulk of the optical work: Dunn’s “In Memorium” notice from the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) is vague (“He soon headed his own optical effects department and eventually became head of the photographic effects department … [which] lasted until RKO ceased operations 28 years later [in 1957]” (in the “Linwood Dunn” clip file of the Academy’s Margaret Herrick Library). What likely happened is that when Walker died in 1948, Dunn took over the photographic effects department and likely received his first on-screen credit for Mighty Joe Young in 1949.
33. Arnold Gillespie, MGM’s Special Effects Department Head from 1925 to 1965, certainly had little respect for his own small optical department, which he characterizes with thinly veiled disdain: “Optical’s stumper is mainly due to the fact that tolerances involved are extremely minute. Unless superior craftsmanship, with know-how is tightly welded to a conscientious refusal to do less than the best, these unmet tolerances can and do scream out discordant notes.” Arnold Gillespie, “Big Ones Out of Little Ones” (unpublished manuscript; copyright 1968), Part I, pp. 11–12, in the Academy’s Margaret Herrick Library, Special Collections. Beverley Hills, CA.
34. For more, see Farciot Edouart, “The Evolution of Transparency Process Photography” (1943), reprinted in Dunn and Turner (1983:107–).
36. Dunn and Love developed the optical printer for a wartime military standardization project. See George Turner, “Cinemasters: Linwood Dunn, ASC” (1985:34–42).
37. See Hartley Harrison, “Problems of Background Projection” (1934); Charles Anderson, “Background Projection Photography” (1952); Frederick Foster, “The Photography of Background Plates” (1962); and Herb Lightman, “MGM’s ‘Laced-Process’ … System” (1964).
39. Edouart (1983) and Lightman (1964).
40. See Turnock (2012:157–).
41. This despite claims, such as that of Dominique Païni (2000), that Hitchcock, Sirk, and others were using the dislocating effects of rear projection for deliberate, expressive purposes, notably to achieve a sense of heightened subjectivity. First, it is unclear whether 1950s audiences would have perceived rear projection as anti-naturalistic, which needs more research. But we must then be prepared to assume that Gidget director Paul Wendkos was also using nearly identical rear-projection techniques in the surfing scenes for expressive purposes.
42. I have yet to see any producer note or critical review before 1960 that criticizes the rear-projection work in a film. However, I have found cinematographers in the mid- to late 1950s touting films shot on location with “no interiors” and no process shots, such as Barnett Guffey’s (ASC) work on They Came to Cordura (1959), noted in Arthur Gavin, “‘Not an Interior in the Picture’” (1959:166–).
43. McBride, “Hollywood Rediscovers …” (1974).
44. See the rhetoric justifying the “more real” vérité-style location shooting in films such as Francis Ford Coppola’s You’re a Big Boy Now (1966), Michael Ritchie’s Downhill Racer (1969), and Haskell Wexler’s Medium Cool (1969). See Andrew Laszlo, “The Far Out Photography of …” (1967:402–); Michael Ritchie, “Directing ‘Downhill Racer’” (1969:1055–); and Herb Lightman, “The Filming of ‘Medium Cool’” (1970:23).
45. Of course, the transition to color is usually attributed to the competition from television. I am not claiming that the transition to color was effected solely due to back-projection issues, only that it is another factor in consideration. The topic of the transition to color film is a complex one. For more, see Gorham Kindem, “Hollywood’s Conversion to Color,” in Kindem (1982:136–45).
46. There were a few attempts to revive it, in “improved” form, such as with front projection in the late 1960s. Kubrick’s use of front projection in the “Dawn of Man” sequence in 2001 caused quite a stir in technical circles. However, this trend was somewhat short-lived, since by the 1970s the attention had shifted again to optical work, due in large part to Kubrick’s revivification of optical techniques in the outer space sequences of 2001. See Lightman (1968:442).
47. See Bill Nichols’ essay on the perception of motion in de Lauretis and Heath (1980).
48. As demonstrated by Linwood Dunn in his traveling lecture series, most “camera movement” in optical shots was in fact completed in postproduction on the optical printer, not by the on-set camera, most notably perhaps in the famous tracking shot “through” the skylight to Susan Alexander Kane in the bar in Citizen Kane. Dunn also demonstrated this technique in his lectures with shots from Nocturne (1946) starring George Raft and Flight for Freedom (1943) with Herbert Marshall, which feature extreme long shots that seem to track to medium shots of human figures, in fact joined by invisible dissolves. There were rare exceptions to the “locked-down camera” rule before the 1970s (see Rickitt 2000), but they are very few.
49. As Syd Dutton, matte artist on the film claimed, Earthquake (1974) was a film in which the camera movement was strictly limited by the lack of camera movement in the effects shots. Syd Dutton, personal interview.
50. Although process and optical techniques are distinct approaches to special effects work, usually employing different specialists, it is important to stress that they cannot always be strictly opposed. There is, of course, miniature rear projection, where the moving image is projected onto a matte painting. Also, Ray Harryhausen’s Dynamation technique is an example of a hybrid style (which had its origins in Willis O’Brien’s techniques in filming King Kong) and can be seen in the famous skeleton fight in Jason and the Argonauts (1963). For a more detailed explanation, see Rickitt (2000).
51. American Cinematographer’s coverage of The Towering Inferno, for example, devotes the majority of its pages to the acting unit and the stunt unit, with only a short article on its miniature and optical effects. Charles Loring, “The Towering Inferno …” (1975). See also Mik Cribben, “On Location with Jaws” (1975).
52. John Dykstra, ASC (and founder of Apogee, Inc., an independent effects house), personal interview by author, Los Angeles, CA, July 26, 2006.
53. Dykstra understood he was speaking to a nonspecialist general audience (see Kline 1999:53).
54. Most influentially, again, by Manovich (2001).
55. For more on the development of the animation industry and, specifically, multi-plane animation, see Crafton (1993).
56. It should be noted here when I’m talking about “Disney” I mean the company more than the man. As Nicholas Sammond points out (2005:28), technology developed by others or a team of others was credited to Disney the man as symbol of the organization.
57. Rickitt (2000:139). Lotte Reinger also used multi-plane animation to different effect at least as early as The Adventures of Prince Achmed in 1926.
59. Rotoscoping has gained recent notice not only as an early technical model for digital motion capture technology but also as a digital animation technique. Known as interpolated rotoscope, and used most prominently in Richard Linklater’s Waking Life (2001) and A Scanner Darkly (2006), interpolated rotoscope takes scanned live-action footage and essentially “draws over it” digitally, usually resulting in a kind of stylized animation.
60. Crafton (1993:158). Or, one can just as easily say, motion capture is a later form of rotoscope.
61. Rickitt (2000:54, 141–42). In the early 2000s, rotoscope in digital special effects was typically used to designate digital “cleanup,” such as removing wires in stunts or other unwanted objects in the mise-en-scène.
62. Paul Mandell, “Adam Beckett: …” (1978:19). In the interview, Beckett points out that the light sabers were outsourced from ILM to Van Der Veer Photo Effects.
64. Slavko Vorkapich, “A Fresh Look …” (1972:182; emphasis in original).
66. While I would like to be able to describe Belson’s techniques in detail, he kept his precise working method a guarded secret, even up to his death in 2011. What is known is that Belson resisted the word abstract in describing his films. Since he insisted he filmed actual material objects, he believed the word did not apply. See Malcolm Le Grice (1977:82) and Gene Youngblood (1970:157).
67. Abstract animation has a long history in mainstream cinema. Just as special effects production in Hollywood has long had technical and aesthetic links to animation, it has also long been linked with experimental and avant-garde practices. See the exhibition catalog Visual Music (Brougher et al., 2005) for a brief discussion of this history. Conversely, Esther Leslie’s book, Hollywood Flatlands (2002), discusses animation’s attraction to European intellectuals.
68. New York’s Museum of Modern Art devoted a series to CalArts graduates, “Tomorrowland: Cal Arts in Moving Pictures” (May 25–August 13, 2006), and screened many films by artist-filmmakers who also worked in technical areas of the movie industry, especially special effects. For example, CalArts alumni who worked on Star Wars include Adam Beckett, animation and rotoscope designer; Larry Cuba, computer automation and graphic displays; David Berry, optical printer operator; Robert Blalack, composite optical photography; Chris Casady, animator; Loring Doyle, optical lineup; and Donna Tracy, optical camera assistant. Berry, Casady, and Doyle all went on to work at ILM. Tracy eventually worked at Digital Domain.
69. See Sitney (1979:431). Sitney quotes himself in an identical passage in “Saugus Series” (1986–87:160).
70. Pat O’Neill, personal interview by author, Pasadena, CA, July 19, 2007.
71. Malcolm Le Grice has a more technical/formalist approach to O’Neill, but one has the sense he is not sure what to make of O’Neill’s films, deeming them interested in exploring “the graphic,” but stopping short of more fully explicating the implications that approach might have. Le Grice (1977:114).
72. West Coast experimental filmmakers’ closely intertwined association with the film industry has not helped their critical reception with more high modernist film critics. Not only were West Coast filmmakers considered compromised by “selling out” to the industry, according to Le Grice they were also too heavily influenced by “apolitical,” “unintellectual” concerns with “mind expansion, psychedelia, and McLuhan’s global village concept of televisual communication,” instead of “more rigorously formalist and politicized” New York and European filmmakers. In fact, he judges Belson and Scott Bartlett with Marxist moralism:
The popularization of passive quietist philosophies or religions, whose patterns have been established in stable, caste or feudally structured societies, is ominous when it occurs in the context of the aggressive technology of a Western capitalist state like America. (Le Grice 1977:121)
David E. James has made more favorable arguments for the West Coast avant-garde and questioned the Hollywood/Los Angeles avant-garde split. For example, see James (1999) and in Willis (1994).
73. Youngblood (1970:100). See also David E. James’s (2005) and Moritz’s (2004) work on West Coast abstract filmmakers.
74. For Youngblood, the New Hollywood auteurist or political films such as The Graduate (1967) and Easy Rider had it all wrong: by remaining invested in narrative and only tweaking the conventions of traditional Hollywood filmmaking, they were just reinforcing a mental reliance on those old forms. 2001 is the closest a Hollywood film had come to expanded cinema, but was hampered by what Youngblood saw as its “anti-technology” thematics. Youngblood (1970:59 and 151–).
75. Jordan Belson, Robert Breer, James Whitney, and many other West Coast filmmakers constantly refer to popular spirituality conceptions of yogic and tantric mental states as important for both producing and experiencing their films. See Youngblood (1970) for more examples of this tendency.
76. Usually disseminated through traveling film festivals, including the Genesis Film Productions package and Pyramid Films, “where they’d circulate these film packages that [had] all these kinds of films in them. They’d have fifteen films and they’d go to different colleges, and travel around to different theaters, and they were very popular.” Richard Winn Taylor (Abel and Associates employee, computer animation pioneer), personal interview by author, Marina del Rey, July 18, 2007.
77. Because “off the shelf” optical printing equipment was expensive and hard to come by, many filmmakers found they had to cobble together optical printing equipment to realize their designs. For example, James and John Whitney Sr. first had to purpose-build an optical printer from a World War II surplus model, until they took out a loan to buy a Cine Special (Brick [1972:41]). Pat O’Neill also tells of having to purpose-build optical printing equipment from government surplus (John G. Hanhardt, “A Conversation with Pat O’Neill,” in Lazar [2004:197–98]).
78. Although 1970s auteurist lore claims that unions barred MFA film students in the 1960s and 1970s from the Hollywood industry, USC historically hired industry professionals to teach practical aspects of the film industry. Also, students (including George Lucas) often won internships on studio film sets. These connections did not necessarily lead to jobs in the industry, but the studio system was not as closed to film students as is often claimed by Lucas and others. See Biskind (1998:37).
79. Course descriptions and faculty lists are taken from the USC Cinema Department, School History Course listings, 1960–1969 catalog. Additional information about USC’s film school curriculum appears on the Laserdisc compiled by John Howe and Dick Farber: USC Film School: The First 50 Years. Both sources are cataloged at the USC Cinema Library. Special thanks to USC Cinema Librarian Ned Comstock for help with information on the history of the USC film school.
81. In an interview with special effects artist Robert Blalack (Star Wars, Wolfen), he was asked what brought him to CalArts to begin with. He responded that he had enrolled after seeing an ad for the school designed like a “Soviet Rebel art poster,” which claimed that CalArts “would not be an ‘art school,’ … [but instead] would be a fervent cross pollination of the separated schools of each art,” converging in the center of the “‘Wheel,’ a place called ‘critical studies.’” Though commending the school’s idealism, Blalack claimed that conflict with Disney’s trustees meant the idealism only lasted about three months, and he left soon after. See Levine (1998).
82. In the 1970s, special effects became very visible and spectacular indeed. Yuri Tsivian’s phrase, the “medium sensitive viewer,” from his book Early Cinema and Its Cultural Reception (1994) seems apt to the reception of 1970s special effects–heavy cinema. Robert Spadoni also uses Tsivian’s phrase to discuss sound in early sound-era horror films (Spadoni 2003:6).
83. Although initially only the camera moved, not the model.
84. When developing Close Encounters, Spielberg looked into computer animation, but deemed it too expensive (Lightman 1978:58). Likewise, computer animators from the firm III (Information International, Inc, who would later work on Tron) produced an animated sequence on spec of X-wing fighters in 1979 to show to George Lucas, but he did not hire III for The Empire Strikes Back as they had hoped. See Siggraph video documentary, The Story of Computer Graphics (1999); and Edlund, “Jedi Journal” (1983:12).
85. As an example of someone powerful enough to force through technological changes in industry practice, I point to the future George Lucas, who used control of his own “content” to force theater owners to upgrade sound systems to his THX in the 1990s, and tried to do the same, with more limited success, with digital projection in the early 2000s.
86. The financial failure of Tron (1982) certainly slowed down the investment in CGI technologies for the early part of the 1980s.
87. It also meant that cinematographers (for example, Vilmos Zsigmond, ASC, the DP for Close Encounters) and art directors were charged with making live-action photography a bit more stylized and less stripped down and naturalistically “gritty” than in the late 1960s.
88. See Turnock (2012). From another angle, Garrett Stewart takes up the loss of photographic basis as a theme in his reading of Blade Runner: “Body Snatching: Science Fiction’s Photographic Trace,” in Kuhn (1999).
2. Before Industrial Light and Magic: The Independent Hollywood Special Effects Business, 1968–1975
1. See Cotta Vaz and Duigan (1996:6).
2. That is, the authors work for or are otherwise affiliated with Lucasfilm. See, for example, Smith (1988); Cotta Vaz and Duignan (1996); Glintenkamp (2011).
For more independent voices that nevertheless draw upon more or less the same ILM details and personnel for their primary evidence, see Pye and Myles (1979); interviews in Kline (1999); and numerous articles in the special effects fan magazine Cinefex—for example, Shay, “Of Ice Planets …” (1980); and Mandell, “Tauntauns, Walkers …” (1980).
3. The Hollywood service industry in general (which includes the companies that develop and provide photographic equipment, lab work, lights, film stock, transportation, and many other areas both technical and practical) has been almost completely ignored in academic studies. One notable exception: it is discussed primarily in reference to the 1930s in Bordwell, Staiger, and Thompson (1985).
4. More research needs to be done on this topic. According to the ASC member lists (published in American Cinematographer, such as January 1924:27), most early effects personnel began working individually for slapstick comedy producers in the 1910s and 1920s, before joining early studios or setting up independent houses.
As to Jackman, an Inter Office Communication dated July 9, 1936, in the Warner Brothers Archive at USC lists September 16, 1936, as the last day of his contract. A 1937 article in American Cinematographer declares him back in business after “retirement”; see “Jackman Returns to Business” (1937:137).
5. The publishing world, however, does not lack for special effects books made for enthusiasts and fans. See Bronson (1974), Cotta Vaz and Duigan (1996), Rickitt (2000), Cotta Vaz and Barron (2002), and Klein (2004).
6. This started with Trumbull’s Future General in the mid-1970s, then Dykstra’s effects company Apogee in 1979, continued with Richard Edlund’s Boss Films (when he bought Future General from Trumbull after he changed his focus to Showscan), and on and on up through contemporary filmmaking.
7. Dykstra quoted in Kline (1999:53).
8. See Julie Turnock, “From Star Wars to Avatar” (2010) and Turnock (2012).
9. Lucas quoted in Kline (1999:44).
10. Before computerized motion control, it was difficult but not impossible to get a sense of kineticism with locked-down cameras. As is well known, Lucas had the effects team look at World War II films with aerial battle sequences and actual aerial footage to compose the effects shots and also set the pace for the editing. For a good example of kinetic flying sequences well before motion control, see optical effects artist John Fulton’s work on such films as The Bridges of Toko-Ri (1954) or Strategic Air Command (1955).
11. See the many fan appreciations of King Kong animator Willis O’Brien, for example, in Shay (1973:21). The same applies to Ray Harryhausen, for example in Culhane (1981) or Mandell, “Stop Frame Fever …” (1983).
12. Daily Variety’s review was typical: “[Clash of the Titans] is mired in a slew of corny dialog and an endless array of flat, outdated special effects that are both a throwback to a bad 1950’s picture. Given what today’s audiences are used to, […] it is impossible not to remember how much better it was put on screen in more recent special effects pics.” See “Berg” (pseud., 1981).
13. See Biskind (1998:317, 341).
14. On Disney effects in this era, see Toy, “Anything Possible …” (1972); on Eustace Lycett and the history of the Disney effects shop, as well as on effects work for Disney’s space film entry The Black Hole (1979), see Lycett, “Matte Scan and ACES” (1980).
For more on Albert Whitlock’s special effects shop at Universal, see “Special Effects,” Hollywood Reporter (1981). Also reported by Bill Taylor and Syd Dutton, who worked for Whitlock in the 1970s (Taylor and Dutton, personal interviews by author).
15. For example, Daily Variety touts U.K. special effects facilities in “Brit Technicians …” (1980).
16. See the many times Lucas compares, or is asked to compare, Star Wars to 2001 in interviews, in Kline (1999:32, 44, 50, 81).
18. Douglas Trumbull, “Creating Special Effects for ‘2001’” American Cinematographer (June 1968:452).
19. Kubrick asserts this often in interviews; see Phillips (2001:18, 36).
21. See Michelson (1969). One can argue that Michelson is identifying the reordering of cinematic space that would highlight the importance of special effects films to the reorganization of blockbuster forms.
22. See Bukatman (2003) as well as his essay “Zooming Out: The End of Off-Screen Space” in Lewis (1998).
23. Much information comes from the Kubrick Archive in University of the Arts archives and Special Collections at the London College of Communication at Elephant and Castle, conducted October 2007 (hereafter, Kubrick Archive).
25. Ibid. Kubrick knew traditional traveling matte technology was out “because I feel that it is impossible to get original-looking quality with traveling mattes” (ibid.:443).
26. Raymond Fielding describes contact printing as follows:
The original negative, containing certain image components, which we wish to transfer to the finished scene, is printed to a master positive on a step-printer. The master positive is then threaded into a process camera in bi-pack fashion, with a roll of fine-grain duplicating negative raw stock. The master positive is placed directly behind the aperture plate and the dupe negative behind the master positive, both strips in contact, emulsion-to-emulsion. (Fielding 1968:107–108)
Specifically for 2001, Kubrick described the variation on the standard practice, which was based in the color-separation dupe process in order to build up image density:
We purposefully did all of our duping with black and white, 3-color masters. (…) There were no color interpositives used for combining the shots, and I think this is principally responsible for the lack of grain and the high degree of photographic quality we were able to maintain. More than half of the shots in the picture are dupes, but I don’t think the average viewer would know it. The separations were made, of course, from the original color negative and we then used a number of bi-pack camera-printers for combining the material. A piece of color negative ran through gate while, contact-printed onto it, actually in the camera, were the color separations, each of which was run through in turn. The camera lens “saw” a big white printing field used as the exposure source. (Lightman 1968:443)
29. Documentation and pictures of this device can be found in the Kubrick Archive.
30. Even something that seems as basic as getting the star field to move and look right in the proper perspective took on epic dimensions. Rather than using the expected traveling matte technique, Kubrick instead used labor-intensive, hands-on methods associated with key-frame animation:
Twenty enlargers operated by 20 girls were set up in a room and each girl was given a 5–6 foot segment of the scene. She would place one frame at a time in the enlarger, line up the grid on the frame with the grid on her [animation] platen and then trace an outline of the foreground subject onto an animation cel.
These would serve as the basis for mattes in the master optical printing in the Technicolor lab (Lightman 1968:443).
31. Front projection used powerful lights and the precise alignment of an angled mirror and light-sensitive screens to “trick” the camera into seeing projected material and live-action material as part of the same space (and registering as such). Front projection was thought to create a more convincing joining of the foreground and background than back projection. The larger screens and powerful lights meant that the picture quality of the background plates registered better, and the foreground figures meshed more seamlessly with the background. MGM had invested heavily in process work research and development, so it is not surprising that Kubrick would want to take advantage of their technology. Bill Taylor, ASC, personal interview; see also Edouart (1943).
32. See Lightman (1968:420).
33. Kubrick was bitter about the attention Trumbull received for 2001, which he believed was exaggerated and diminished his own contribution. He went so far as to run an ad—sixteen years later, in the Hollywood Reporter (“An Open Letter from MGM/UA and Stanley Kubrick” [1984])—that attempted to turn the spotlight back to himself (and the other effects artists) and away from Trumbull, emphasizing Trumbull’s place as one of a team, not the effects supervisor.
34. He did direct the modestly successful Silent Running (1972) and the trouble-plagued Brainstorm (1983).
35. Along with Showscan, which will be discussed more thoroughly in chapter 8, Trumbull built a number of ride films, including for the Luxor Casino in Las Vegas, and served as the president of IMAX in the 1990s. See “Some Pin Exhibition Hopes …” Daily Variety (1982).
36. For example, see “Douglas Trumbull’s Brave New World” (1986) and Jack Kroll, “The Wizard of Special Effects” (1977:99).
37. In personal interviews, Syd Dutton, Richard Winn Taylor, and John Dykstra all reference 2001 as an important influence.
38. Including Mark Stetson (Superman Returns, 2006), Mike Fink (The Golden Compass, 2007), Hoyt Yeatman (Underdog, 2007), and Scott Squires (Transformers: Dark of the Moon, 2011).
40. See “The Honor Roll: Farciot Edouart” (1974:776); and “After 52 Years with Paramount, …” (1967).
41. L. B. Abbott was named director of all special effects for Twentieth Century Fox in 1957 and held that post until retired in 1970. “Obituary: L. B. Abbott” (1985).
42. Gillespie worked at MGM for forty years and, before that, at Goldwyn studio from 1923. He retired in 1965. “Obituary: Arnold Gillespie” (1978).
43. See the Variety article, “Brit Technicians … ,” (1980).
44. Personal interview with Whitlock protégés Bill Taylor and Syd Dutton.
45. Personal interview, Bill Taylor.
46. Quoted in Harwood, “Film Effects Men Turn Trick … ,” (1977).
47. “Sensurround” (1974:1312–).
48. See McClay, “Earthquake” (1974:1289).
50. Downplaying the composite effects is a long Hollywood tradition, consistent with the notion that knowing about them diminishes the cinematic magic, a practice that the post–Star Wars films would reverse.
51. See, for example, Manohla Dargis, “In the Studios’ Shadow, …” (2004), about Pat O’Neill’s work for Lucas.
52. According to Bill Taylor, personal interview.
53. A number of Southern California “farm schools” trained students specifically to enter particular entertainment job markets. Most prominent were CalArts (funded primarily by Disney in 1961 as an industry training ground), Cal State Long Beach, and Art Center College of Design in Pasadena (known for its slick industrial design, primarily automotive.
55. For an account of one of these events, see Stephen A. Kallis, Jr., “Motion Picture ‘Magic’ Demonstrated …” (1972:188).
56. Many older houses competed for feature work with the new houses in the late 1970s and early 1980s (but did not really adapt well to the changed landscape). Many went out of business in the reorganization of the effects business in the 1980s, but many are still active with a revised business model, such as Pacific Title, Graphic Films, and others.
57. Bill Taylor, personal interview.
58. Dunn retired in 1981, and Film Effects Hollywood was sold to Coppola’s American Zoetrope. It reportedly failed due to Coppola’s neglect or poor management. See Bob Harris, “The Reel West” (1984).
59. Dunn and Love developed the optical printer for a wartime military standardization project. Though it is unclear in my research thus far specifically what optical printers were used for in wartime, the military played an important role in developing equipment that would be important to later effects work. See Turner (1985:34–42).
60. See, for example, Linwood Dunn, “The Cinemagic of the Optical Printer,” in Dunn and Turner (1983), for more examples of optical printing in Citizen Kane. As in the case with The Best Years of Our Lives (Wyler, 1946), John Fulton completed some important optical printing work that masqueraded as deep focus (for example in the nose of the plane in the beginning of the film). See Paul Mandell, “Making Miracles the Hard Way: John P. Fulton, ASC” (1983:42–). Gregg Toland published a number of articles on deep space photography, but was conspicuously silent on the contribution of the optical printer operators for his deep-focus effects.
61. According to his unpublished autobiography, Dunn began his production career as DP (on a hand-cranked movie camera) on silent Pathé serials in 1926 in Hollywood, as well as a freelance cinematographer on feature films. Linwood Gale Dunn, PhD, ASC, “Biography” (written in the 1980s), in the “Linwood Dunn” clipping files of the Academy’s Margaret Herrick Library.
63. Bill Taylor, personal interview. In fact, Kubrick and his team borrowed the 70mm optical contact printer from Film Effects and had it sent to the U.K. for 2001, which they named the “Linn Dunn Printer” in his honor. Thanks to Bryan Loftus, optical printer operator on 2001, for this information, personal interview, London, Oct. 25, 2007.
64. Film Effects Hollywood service brochure, Kubrick Archive.
65. Ibid. The brochure was apparently sent to Stanley Kubrick when he was scouting effects companies for 2001: A Space Odyssey.
66. I also argue that Dunn’s constant stressing of the elaborate optical techniques in Mad, Mad World, as well as the broader coverage the film received in publications such as American Cinematographer, was instrumental in bringing optical techniques back to the attention of the technical filmmaking community. Since realizing problems with color rear projection, technicians had been casting about for composite techniques as an alternative to color rear projection.
67. Bill Taylor, personal interview.
68. Anderson was a beneficiary of studio equipment sell-offs. See “Special Effects Specialists Are Once Again …” (1978).
69. Kirk Honeycutt, “Optical Trick King …” (1977).
70. Van Der Veer Photo Effects was mostly known for traveling matte blue-screen work, had its own matte painting facility with a matte artist (Lou Lichenfield, who had worked at Fox and Warner Bros.), and L. B. Abbott was an in-house consultant. See “Van der Veer” (1979).
71. Other similar companies included the Westheimer Company, founded by Joseph Westheimer in 1955, who got his start in the motion picture unit of the U.S. Army Air Corps, and then worked for Warner Bros. and Eagle-Lion in their special effects departments. Westheimer mostly worked on ads and for television shows such as Star Trek, The Outer Limits, The Wild, Wild West, The Twilight Zone, Charlie’s Angels, The Love Boat, Dynasty, and Moonlighting until his retirement in 1989. See “Obituary: Joseph Westheimer” (1998).
Richard Edlund, said that, while at Westheimer: “I did everything. I was a cameraman, I hand lettered titles, I set up weird trick shots like those marching Gillette razor blades and the ones showing how all those tomatoes squeeze into a bottle of Hunts ketchup.” See Pat Broeske, “Wizardry of Edlund …” (1986).
72. Many independent production companies, such as AIP (Meteor, The Swarm), hired Van der Veer. Most unhappily for Van der Veer’s future reputation, they did a great deal of work for famously thrifty Dino de Laurentiis, including the 1976 King Kong, Orca (1977), and Flash Gordon (1980). De Laurentiis hired them because they would work economically, often after firing a more expensive house, as was the case in 1983 for Dino de Laurentiis’ production of Dune (1984). He had originally hired John Dykstra’s house Apogee, but the deal fell through due to “conflicts over location shooting.” See Alex Block, “Special Effects Industry Small, …” (1983).
Van der Veer’s reputation also suffers due to being caught up in a special effects industry scandal relating to the 1976 Oscar for Visual Effects. The visual effects committee, chaired by stop-motion animator and matte painter Jim Danforth, had decided not to award a Visual Effects Oscar for that year (as had also happened in 1973), since the main candidates were not considered worthy. The award was nevertheless given for King Kong and Logan’s Run (both for which Van der Veer did the major effects), allegedly under pressure of de Laurentiis. Danforth and other committee members, including Al Whitlock, resigned in protest. See Honeycutt (1977) and Joseph McBride, “2 More Quit Acad …” (1977.
73. Filming miniatures at a faster frame rate gives them the illusion of greater weight, so that they appear to be moving at a speed appropriate to their size. For more information on this, see Fielding (1968).
74. To be fair, Van der Veer’s firm worked on many other films and projects now more highly regarded in the special effects community. For example, it completed a good deal of outsourced rotoscope and animation work for Star Wars (including much of the work on the light saber) as well as for 1941 (1979), Spielberg’s follow-up to Close Encounters. Because it had built up a reliable track record, Van der Veer was for a while a serious bidding rival for feature projects to the post–Star Wars houses that had sprung up after 1978. However, by not pursuing the new standard for meticulously rendered integrated photorealism that was the trend after Star Wars, Van der Veer did not keep up with the direction the industry was heading. Van Der Veer also seems to be the only house whose phone number the New York Times had on file (or who would talk to them). In immediate post–Star Wars articles about the “new” special effects, Van der Veer (which the Times misspells as Van de Vere) is the main informant in regard to the state of the industry. See Carolyn See, “Hollywood’s Secret Star …” (1977).
75. John Swallow (former employee at Apogee and special effects producer, Universal Studios), personal interview, Universal Studios, CA, July 21, 2006.
76. The priority given to building cinematic environments over structures favoring stricter narrative causality as an important way contemporary Hollywood cinema narrates (a rare area of agreement between Thomas Elsaesser and David Bordwell) could, and probably should, largely be credited to Trumbull. Note also Bukatman’s essays suggesting the implications for Trumbull’s encompassing cinematic worlds in science fiction and fantasy films since the mid-1970s. See Bordwell (2006); Bukatman, “The Artificial Infinite: On Special Effects and the Sublime” (in Bukatman 2003); and Bukatman, “The Ultimate Trip: Special Effects and Kaleidoscopic Perception” (in Elsaesser, Horwath, and King 2004:75–); Elsaesser (2006).
77. Kevin Thomas, “Technology’s Impact on Society …” (1971).
78. Don Shay and Jody Duncan, “2001: A Time Capsule” (2001:81).
80. Douglas Trumbull, “The Slit Scan Process as …” (1969). According to John Whitney Jr., his father coined the term “motion graphics” as a term of art. John Whitney Jr. (independent filmmaker and producer, computer animation pioneer), personal interview, Hollywood, CA, July 20, 2007.
81. John Whitney, Jr., personal interview.
82. Ibid. Also, Whitney talks about the incident obliquely, without naming names, in Brick (1972:58).
83. Whitney Sr. described his animation mechanisms in an article for American Cinematographer, directly in response to a reference made to his work in a previous article on 2001: A Space Odyssey. See Whitney, “Animation Mechanisms” (1971:26–).
84. According to Bill Taylor, “[Cascade] could do anything with a TV commercial. [ … ] They couldn’t have been more different in emphasis than Abel, which was the home of super backlit graphics.” Bill Taylor, personal interview.
85. Specific information about Cascade is scarce, but peer-reviewed professional message boards fill in some gaps in the record. See, for example, stopmotionanimation.com, a website that mixes professional discussion on animation with amateur enthusiast discussion.
86. For an (albeit brief) academic account of the stop-motion cult in the 1970s, see Michele Pierson’s account (2002:66–77). For a colloquial, but more “insider” account, see the documentary produced for the Criterion DVD (Disc 2) of Dennis Murenn’s Equinox (1967).
87. This is in contrast to creature animation, which tends to be less anthropomorphic or whimsical and is more concerned with dynamic movement in line with the logic of the creature’s physical structure. It can also be contrasted to puppet animation, which is equally anthropomorphic and whimsical, but is not reliant on photographic technology (specifically stop motion) for its aesthetic effect.
88. The precise details of the story occasionally change, but is told this way in Mandell (1980:5).
89. Tippett’s position, though central, was always a bit more independent than the others. Although the others were full-time ILM employees, Tippett typically worked at ILM more as a freelance contractor or consultant, starting his own influential effects house, Tippett Studios, in the mid-1980s.
90. Richard Edlund, “Special Visual Effects for Empire” (1980:552). Edlund explains the ILM philosophy behind the aesthetics of motion control, that a more mathematically perfect motion-control shot is “so perfect that it is not interesting,” and requires a “human element to it” (565).
91. Or, more properly, a “Go-motion” creature. Go-motion technology will be discussed more thoroughly in chapter 7.
92. Dennis Muren explains the relation between the Go-motion and the motion-control units in “Effects Photography for Empire” (1980:572), in the same issue of American Cinematographer where Mandell covers in detail the whole tauntaun overhead shot, as well as the Go-Motion program for Empire (1980:4–).
93. Myrna Oliver, “Obituary: Robert Abel” (2001).
94. Abel’s ads cost $1,500–2,000 for every second, two to four times the industry average. But clients apparently believed he was worth the money: Abel had the top clients, 7UP, Chevrolet, ABC, CBS, Max Factor, Zenith, Levis, and won thirty-three Clio Awards. See Jeffery Kaye, “Abel Neglex Trex Effex” (1979).
95. When asked, “When did you first get your hands on a motion-control system?,” Richard Winn Taylor (no relation to Bill Taylor), one of the original effects supervisors at Abel, replied: “At Abel studios. […] We built a one-of-a-kind camera system there that had a computer, we called it HAL9000 or something, It ran with punch tapes, and it controlled Selsyn motors that ran the camera down the track, and ran the follow focus cam, and controlled the exposure, timed the frame, all that. It was motion control, this was before Star Wars, roughly 1973, that was “Bubbles” and we were using it then.” Richard Winn Taylor, personal interview.
97. Richard Winn Taylor started working professionally developing the filmed visuals for the traveling light and music show “Rainbow Jam.” Richard Winn Taylor, personal interview.
98. According to Abel, fantasy was defined in terms of surrealists, such as “Magritte, Chagall, and Dali” (James Delson, “The Future of Special Effects” [1979]). Abel liked to cite nonverbal communication gestalt theory and surrealist painting as the bases for his approach to ad work. He said he wanted images that would “reach directly into the subconscious where images and ideas are held for long periods of time.” John Purvis, “Levis to Star Trek: …” (1978:39–).
101. Don Shay, “Star Trek: The Motion Picture: …” (1980).
102. “Obituary: Robert Abel,” The Hollywood Reporter (2001).
103. Ibid., and The Story of Computer Graphics (Siggraph video documentary, 1999).
104. Untitled report of a rare post-retirement public appearance by Abel. Hollywood Reporter (February 18, 1998).
105. Besides TV advertising, other frequent clients for the independent effects houses were the independent filmmaking outfits, which formed a parallel production schedule to the big-budget Hollywood films—forexample, John Carpenter’s Dark Star (1974) and Howard Ziehm’s Flesh Gordon (1974).
106. In New York, R/Greenberg Associates was especially prominent, best known for opening title designs and designing logos for films, but later moved into the movie special effects field with Ellen Burstyn’s Resurrection (1980). They billed themselves as “Offering an alternative to traditional [effects] generated at Pinewood and Shepperton in England, as well as ILM (Lucas), EEG (Trumbull), and Apogee (Dykstra).” Dick Smith, “Special Effects Looming Larger …” (1984).
108. Pierson (2002:66–77).
109. As reported in several trade publications in the mid-1970s—for example, in McBride (1974); also in James Harwood, “Earthquake’s Al Whitlock Bemoans …” (1975); and “Special Effects Booming, but …” (1978).
110. A list of Dunn’s appearances, circa 1974, appears in the “Linwood Dunn” clipping files of the Academy’s Margaret Herrick Library.
111. Document from Film Effects Hollywood, circa 1974, in the “Linwood Dunn” clipping files (ibid.).
113. A videotape of Dunn’s presentation, with audio of Dunn talking over it, can be seen in the Linwood Dunn Collection at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Pickford Center archive, Hollywood.
114. Undated document in the “Linwood Dunn” clipping files: “Special Effects Film Presentations and Lectures Given by Linwood G. Dunn, ASC. President, Film Effects Hollywood, Inc.,” which lists the locations of ninety programs given between 1965 in San Diego and June 2, 1976, in Los Angeles (SMPTE).
115. Other studio old hands did their part as well. Besides appearing with Dunn, Arnold Gillespie also gave lectures at film schools and, at the suggestion of a USC student, wrote an informal how-to book (“Big Ones Out of Little Ones,” unpublished, but on deposit at the Academy’s Herrick Library), per McBride (1974). L. B. Abbott published a long article, “The Cameraman and Special Photographic Effects” (1975:1150–), enumerating and explaining the technical details of traditional special visual effects techniques for both cinematographers and special effects camera operators.
116. Filmex (L.A. film journal) announcement of Dunn’s program, April 7, 1974 (which also included Art Cruickshank, Howard Anderson Jr., Paul Lerpae, and CSC representative Wally Gentleman).
117. Museum of Fine Arts/Boston, Lecture Series on “The Future of Special Effects and Animation,” Oct. 25–27, 1974. featured “History of Animation” by Chuck Jones, “The History of Special Effects of the Still Image” by Dr. Carl Chiarenza, “Animation and Special Effects in the Independent Cinema” with Robert Breer and Pat O’Neill, “The History and Future of Special Effects in the Cinema” by Linwood Dunn, “Image Synthesis from Slit-Scan to Raster-Scan” by John Whitney, “The Relationship of Special Effects in Film and Video” by Ed Emshwiller (sci-fi illustrator and technician of independent cinema), and “25 Years from Now: The Future of the Audio-Visual Environment” by Isaac Asimov.
118. Howard, “Special Photographic Effects” (1974).
119. According to Syd Dutton (personal interview): “Up in San Francisco I had gone to a Linn Dunn lecture and that was the first time I ever learned anything about matte painting. I was amazed by it.” Bill Taylor (personal interview) contacted Dunn about job possibilities and that’s how he ended up at Mercer’s. Dunn was reportedly happy to give career advice to anyone who asked. Anecdotally, many filmmakers and technicians have cited Dunn’s lectures as an inspiration, including Trumbull, Dykstra, Muren, Edlund, Randall Cook, and more. Dunn visited the set of Star Wars at the behest of Twentieth Century Fox, and was greeted as a “beloved dean of special effects” by the crew. See Don Shay, “Of Ice planets, …” (1980), an interview with Richard Edlund on The Empire Strikes Back.
120. “I saw [Dunn’s program] quite a few times, because we happened to be on touring in similar cycles, so I’d go to different cities and look at it.” Pat O’Neill, personal interview.
121. See note 21 of chapter 3.
122. See, for example, “John Dykstra” (1978:45–) (on “Battlestar Galactica”), and Dykstra on The Empire Strikes Back in American Cinematographer (June 1980) and Cinefex 3 (1980).
123. See Mandell (1978:19).
124. Pat O’Neill, personal interview; and Edlund (1983:15, 67).
125. See, for example, the series of special inserts in American Cinematographer (May and August 2007, and forthcoming) called “Authoring Images,” which explore how digital imagery and manipulation (especially the digital intermediate) has affected the “creative triangle” in pre-production, filming, and through to postproduction.
126. See, for example, Jack Kroll, “Star Trekking” (1977); Chris Hodenfield, “Masters of Illusion” (1978); and Delson (1979).
127. See .“Howard Anderson Sees Another Jump …” (1967); McBride (1974); Harwood (1975, 1977); and See (1977).
3. The Expanded Blockbuster: The Auteurist Aesthetics of 1970s Special Effects–Driven Filmmaking
1. Lucas, quoted in John Seabrook, “Letter from Skywalker Ranch: Why Is the Force Still with Us?,” in the New Yorker (January 6, 1997), reprinted in Kline (1999:202). Lucas has also said that in Star Wars he was “going for emotions over ideas,” which may be another way of saying he was more interested in affect and sensual engagement than what he called the “literary.” See Biskind (1998:343).
2. Pauline Kael, “The Greening of …” (1977:177, emphasis added).
3. For a rehearsal of auteurism critiques, see, Staiger, “The Politics of …” (1985).
5. Kline (1999:60). Lucas then claims that, after his experimentations with narrative in what he called the “sequence films” of THX-1138 (1971) and American Graffiti (1973), Star Wars was for him an experiment with “old style narrative.”
7. Again, the major surveys of 1970s filmmaking, namely Cook (2000), and influential economic accounts of the era, such as Wyatt (1994), Maltby (1995), and Prince (2000), or narrative discussions like Bordwell, Staiger, and Thompson (1985), typically make surprisingly brief reference to Star Wars. The more recent Will Brooker book on Star Wars (2009) is an exceptionally detailed study of the film. Brooker also excellently sums up and cites the academic “embarrassment” over Star Wars (8).
9. Such as MCA buying Universal in 1962 or Gulf & Western buying Paramount in 1966, per Cook (2000:2–3).
10. See, for example, Wyatt (1994), Maltby (1995), Thompson (1999), Cook (2000), Elsaesser, Howarth, and King (2004), Bordwell (2006). Whether you see blockbuster production as an “intensification” of the classical style (as Bordwell and Thompson do) or as a shift to a new paradigm of “post-classical” filmmaking (as in Elsaesser), it is hard not to argue that Star Wars and Close Encounters, among others, emphasize sensation and “attractions” over tight narration and character.
11. Biskind, writing from the vantage point of the late 1990s, is one of the most vocal anti-Lucas and Spielberg critics: “When all was said and done, Lucas and Spielberg returned the ’70’s audience, grown sophisticated on a diet of European and New Hollywood films, to the simplicities of the pre-’60’s Golden Age of movies” (Biskind 1998:343–44). Biskind even provides a good roundup of others who share his opinion, such as Pauline Kael’s later charge that the new blockbusters were “infantilizing the audience, reconstituting the spectator as child, then overwhelming him and her with sound and spectacle, obliterating irony, aesthetic self-consciousness, and critical reflection” (344). Director William Friedkin likens Star Wars to McDonalds: “the taste for good food just disappeared” (344). Biskind even quotes Marcia Lucas, ex-wife of George and editor of many of his films: “Right now … there are so few good films, and part of me thinks Star Wars is partly responsible for the direction the industry has gone in, and I feel badly about that” (345).
As a representative example, academic arguments against what Star Wars wrought are often somewhat implicit (though not subtle). To cite a few prominent instances: David Cook calls the “Lucas-Spielberg juggernaut” “juvenile” and “conservative” and links them to Reaganite economic policies (2000:xvi–xvii). Likewise, Robin Wood in Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan (1986) links Star Wars to political conservatism. Richard Maltby quotes (by way of agreeing with) Thomas Doherty’s charge of blockbuster filmmaking’s “juvenilization of American Cinema,” in Richard Maltby, ‘‘ ‘Nobody Knows Everything’: Post-Classical Historiographies and Consolidated Entertainment,” in Neale and Smith (2000:34).
12. See Maltby, ‘‘Nobody Knows Everything,” in Neale and Smith (2000:27).
16. Ironically, it was often said about the 1980s that the most interesting “filmmaking” was happening in the TV commercials. As discussed in chapter 2, most often it was said about Abel and Associates’ “candy apple neon” style ads. For example, see Purvis (1978:39–). Also, Stanley Kubrick unsarcastically praises the “complex … visual poetry” of TV commercials in Phillips (2001:199).
17. See Wyatt (1994:26–28).
18. No doubt the long-standing academic mistrust of aestheticization in part derives from Frankfurt School critics (such as Max Honkheimer and Theodore W. Adorno’s attack on the culture industry in Dialectic of Enlightenment), and especially from Walter Benjamin’s often-quoted call against the aestheticization of politics at the end of his “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility” (1936). What troubled Benjamin was not aesthetics as a category, but that certain kinds of aesthetics could be put toward fascist uses. Elsewhere in the same essay Benjamin argues for the role of specifically cinematic aesthetics as a way to break away from old idealist artforms. See Benjamin (2002).
19. Gunning, “The Cinema of Attractions,” in Elsaesser and Barker (1990).
20. Which is perhaps in retrospect not so surprising, as 2001’s slow-paced, enigmatic intellectualism perhaps requires some hindsight to gain critical approbation, while Star Wars’ pleasures are more immediate. This is reflected in the contemporary critical reactions. Roger Ebert gave 2001 a mixed review (“it fails on the human level but succeeds magnificently on a cosmic scale”) (Ebert 1968), but for Star Wars: “I found myself feeling a combination of admiration and delight. ‘Star Wars’ had placed me in the presence of really magical movie invention: Here, all mixed together, were whimsy and fantasy, simple wonderment and quietly sophisticated storytelling” (Ebert, “Star Wars,” 1977). Variety likewise says of 2001: “A major achievement in cinematography and special effects, ‘2001’ lacks dramatic appeal to a large degree and only conveys suspense after the halfway mark. Despite the enormous technical staff involved in making the film, it is almost entirely one man’s conception and Kubrick must receive all the praise—and take all the blame” (“2001,” Daily Variety 1968). But: “‘Star Wars’ is a magnificent film. George Lucas set out to make the biggest possible adventure fantasy out of his memories of serials and older action epics, and he succeeded brilliantly. […] The results equal the genius of Walt Disney, Willis O’Brien and other justifiably famous practitioners of what Irwin Allen calls ‘movie magic’” (Murphy 1977).
21. See Canby, “Star Wars” (1977), and Canby, “An Encounter That Is Out of This World” (1977). Both Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel gave both films positive reviews: Ebert, “Star Wars” (1977) and “Close Encounters” (1977); and Siskel, “Star Wars Flashes …” (1977) and “Close Encounters Is a First-Rate Entertainment …” (1977).
Stanley Kauffmann was not enthusiastic about Star Wars (“Innocences,” 1977), but was surprisingly positive about Close Encounters (“Epiphany,” 1977).
22. See Phillips (2001:90).
24. See Kline (1999:19, 22, 43); and Friedman and Notbaum (2000:13, 79).
25. Olivier Assayas, “SPFX News,” Cahiers du Cinéma 315–318 (1980). Assayas also cannily points out that many of these new kinds of productions, which he imagines should require directors with a totally complete set of filmmaking skills, are often directed by the most traditional of “interchangeable” Hollywood directors such as Robert Wise and Richard Donner.
26. As suggested strongly by Biskind (1998), and at least implicitly by Pye and Myles (1979), as well as by Stephen Farber’s “George Lucas: The Stinky Kid Hits the Big Time” (1974), originally published in Film Quarterly, in Kline (1999).
27. Lucas: “We calculated that there are something like $8 million worth of science fiction freaks in the USA and they will go to see absolutely anything with a title like Star Wars.” Quoted in Kline (1999:80–81).
28. Siskel called it a “hip updating of … the Flash Gordon serials” (May 27, 1977). Also see reviews, for example, by Vincent Canby (May 26, 1977:66) and A. D. Murphy (1977).
29. See Lightman (1978:42).
30. Trumbull, quoted in Kilday (1977).
31. The USC Cinema Department Student Guide from the 1960s at the USC cinema library lists courses and professors but, unhappily, not syllabi with film screenings. See also Biskind (1998) and Pollock (1999) for their take on the atmosphere of USC in the 1960s.
32. See Kline (1999):207).
33. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Potemkin at least was widely shown (Spielberg and Kubrick both make somewhat negative reference to the film in Friedman and Notbohm (2000:66) and in Phillips (2001:103–104), along with comments about other Soviet filmmakers (Vsevolod Pudovkin and Lev Kuleshov). There are also many anecdotal accounts of seeing Potemkin around this time in commercial theaters, such as cinematographer John Hora’s (Gremlins, 1984): “We [Dennis Jakob and I] saw Battleship Potemkin together at the Cornet theater [in Pasadena], and I was reborn.” Hora, “ASC Close-up” (2007:112).
34. See Youngblood (1970:75).
35. Vorkapich (1972:223).
36. Thompson (1999); Bordwell (2006).
37. In the case of traditional animation, this plasticity is more potential than actual. The Fordist assembly-line industrial efficiency of most animation meant the splitting up of different elements, much of which was automated and repeated, such as the background. See Crafton (1993). However, the single hand animator and the experimental animator working alone were examples of the “plasmatic” flexibility that Eisenstein so admired in Disney’s early animation. See Eisenstein (1988).
38. The “Special Edition” of Star Wars in 1997 supports this claim, since one of the major changes made was to add more individual CGI elements to the frame, increasing the density of figures and motion. Also, the tendency toward greater density is especially ramped up in Lucas’s Star Wars prequel trilogy, but especially Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith (2005).
39. The heterogeneity extended to the narrative of Star Wars as well. As many have noted, Star Wars is a mashup of mythological ur-narratives and 1950s sci-fi serials as well a meta-filmmaking narrative about the struggle of the independently minded filmmaker (Brooker 2009). Aesthetically, it combines disorienting and kinetic “moving into infinity” hyperspace and spaceship battles (experimental filmmaking), graphic in-frame montages of spaceship models (2001, Flash Gordon serials), fast-paced montage editing (Soviet montage), gritty “documentary” location shooting (1960s New Hollywood filmmaking), as well as sets designed to look aged and dirty.
40. Bukatman begins his discussion of Trumbull’s emphasis on the spectatorial relationship to the effect/environment by differentiating it from Dykstra’s in Star Wars and Firefox (1982): he calls Dykstra’s films “all hyperkinesis and participatory action” as opposed to Trumbull’s “especially contemplative” work. See Bukatman (2003:95).
41. I am grateful to Tom Gunning for this suggestion.
42. See Eyman, “Trumbull the Magician” (1978:24).
43. Again, see reviews by Vincent Canby, A. D. Murphy, and Roger Ebert (see notes 20 and 21).
44. The one place all the elements did cohere and ultimately fuse with the narrative was the bed of the optical printer. After all the various elements of live-action photography, projection plates, animation, and miniature photography are planned, designed, shot, and developed, they are finally joined together, on one strip of film, in the final optical printer composite. The optical printer has the effect of streamlining all the crazy-quilt material. In other words, it is the optical printer that made Star Wars into a viable feature film. Close Encounters, on the other hand, employed optical printing toward a more unified-looking aesthetic. It builds its disorientation and awe in a way that appears more controlled and purposeful.
45. Jay Cocks (critic, screenwriter, and friend of Lucas), quoted in Kline (1999:207).
46. Trumbull, quoted in Kroll, “The Wizard of …” (1977:99).
47. Lucas’s famous Eisenstein poster has been pointed out by many interviewers—for his supporters, to lend him an artistic sheen; and, one suspects, for his detractors, to create an ironic/unflattering juxtaposition. Again, I am less concerned with rehabilitating Lucas as a “proper” auteur and more interested in tracking his past rhetoric and self-presentation in relation to his influences and models.
48. Elsaesser, Horwath, and King (2004:39).
49. See Biskind (1998:340); Friedman and Notbohm (2000:86). They have been in business together at least up to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). “Points” refers to “back end” deals to pay out percentage points of the final gross.
50. So much so, that Kenneth Anger accused American Graffiti of being a “rip off” of his work, probably Kustom Kar Kommandos (1965). Anger’s entire review is worth replicating here:
Why have I been back to see CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND six times, braving lines, wait, cold, and four-buck-fifty admission price?
Can it be I love the movie? Listen, I have been back to see Close Encounters of the Third Kind six times to see if I have been ripped off. I mean SCORPIO RISING [1964]. The toys, the kid. I mean. LUCIFER RISING [1973–1981]. The saucers. Subject dear to my heart.
Other movies that have ripped off Kenneth Anger, AMERICAN GRAFFITI (music), ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE (theme) I’ve stayed away from. Not Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I’ve been back to see it six times.
Then there’s the matter of my name (abbreviated) on the track. There it is, Dolbyized, and it sounds just like kenanger in the bust of static at the start of the Indianapolis control room scene.
Is that punk hustler Spielberg trying to tell me something like: Haw, haw, ripped you off!?!?
See Anger, “A Short Review …” (1978:54).
51. “On the other hand, Star Wars is a classic story and old-style narrative, even blatantly old-fashioned. I wanted to know if I could do it. … It’s really what I wanted to do: be the sole architect of a traditional story where everything was linked by cause and effect.” Lucas, quoted in Kline (1999:60).
52. To see how many times Spielberg’s story gets repeated, see, for example, Friedman and Notbohm (2000:28, 38).
53. For a more gossipy account of Spielberg’s position among the New Hollywood filmmakers, see Biskind (1998).
54. The American Zoetrope under discussion is Coppola’s first corporate iteration under that name, which was funded in a joint venture by Warner Bros. as an independent mini-studio in San Francisco in 1969. However, the financial failure of Lucas’s THX-1138 and films forced the studio to revoke promised funding for later pictures. Zoetrope continued on as Coppola’s production company, known for its technological innovation rather than as a mini-studio. For a concise account of the American Zoetrope story, see, for example, the documentary “A Legacy of Filmmakers: The Early Years of American Zoetrope” on the THX-1138 (Director’s Cut) DVD.
55. See Lightman (1978:58); and Steven Spielberg, “The Unsung Heroes” (1979:68).
56. According to Richard Edlund, he consulted many of the visual effects masters, including Farciot Edouart, Hans Koenkamp, Winton Hoch, and Linwood Dunn, for Star Wars, so “I wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel.” Edlund, quoted in Ron Magid, “Forward Thinker” (2008:59). Also, according to Richard Edlund, Fox sent Dunn and Cecil Love to check on the Star Wars effects team; see Shay, “Of Ice Planets, …” (1980:15).
57. Lucas, quoted in Kline (1999:50).
58. See Bukatman (2003:82).
59. “John Dykstra” (1978), emphasis in original. See also Brad Dunning, “Lights, Camera … Praxis!” (1984); and Kroll, “The Wizard of …” (1977). Further, as the writer editorialized, “Doug Trumbull sees no reason not to expect that, as with the stars of the golden era, special effects artists will soon have their names above the titles.” Hutchinson, “The Incredible World …” (1978:62).
4. “The Buck Stops at Opticals”: Special Effects Technology on Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind
1. Lucas, quoted in “Behind the Scenes of The Empire Strikes Back,” American Cinematographer (June 1980): 546, about getting the funding from Twentieth Century Fox for Star Wars.
2. Lightman (1968:442); Dykstra (1977:704).
4. “Behind the Scenes of Star Wars,” American Cinematographer (July 1977): 747, 757. Dykstra also had worked in flight simulation, creating a system for pilot training with computerized cameras (in Kline 1999:58).
5. This is according to Edlund, albeit thirty years after the fact (in Magid 2008:60).
9. Although it is important that most “virtual” digital camera moves in live-action films—most famously David Fincher’s (such as Fight Club [1999] or Panic Room [2002]) or the Spiderman films (Rami [2002/2004/2007])—use as their basis pre-filmed photographed “plates,” which are then built upon and modified digitally. See for example as well the digitally extended shots of actual Chicago turned into expanded Gotham for Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins (2005).
12. Trumbull (1978:72). I do not know yet how the Freddieflex was used. The self-mocking tone of Trumbull’s comments suggests that the professional rivalry is more friendly than rancorous. Trumbull used a version of the Dykstraflex system on Close Encounters, and he and Dykstra worked together again shortly thereafter on Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). It is also worth noting that Trumbull’s description comes after Dykstra had received such acclaim for the results of his Dykstraflex system.
On a related note, the “flex” in all these camera names refers to reflex cameras, which use a viewfinder with a mirror attachment to allow the camera operator to see exactly what the lens is “seeing,” rather than the slightly offset “non-reflex” camera viewfinder. This is especially important in visual effects shooting (and principal photography shooting that will have visual effects material added to it), where precise lineup requires knowing exactly what the lens is “seeing.”
13. Lucas in interview on Star Wars widescreen collector’s edition (1995) VHS, Empire Strikes Back.
14. Lucas interviewed in Kline (1999:81–82).
15. Dykstra (1977:702). Dykstra’s reference to aerial dogfights in World War II movies is important in large part because it alludes to the cinematic impact of earlier effects work and the simulation of camera effects, not anything with a pretense to actual aviation.
18. In the Kubrick archive in London, the effects work documentation carefully logs the activity of the “Linn Dunn” printer, as the crew named it.
19. “Behind the Scenes of Star Wars,” 747.
20. Robert Blalack, “Composite Optical and Photographic Effects for STAR WARS,” American Cinematographer (July 1977): 707, 708; and Mick Garris, “Richard Edlund: 2nd Effects Cameraman,” Cinefantastique 6–7 (1978): 17.
21. See Jay Hoben, “A Complex Web,” American Cinematographer (May 2007): 32; and David Heuring, “The Dream Thieves: Inception,” American Cinematographer (July 2010): 29.
22. Trumbull, quoted in regard to Showscan (in “Big Screen Test” [1981] and “Some Pin Exhibition Hopes on Technological Advances” [1982]).
23. In Phillips (2001:201), Trumbull’s “Letter to Editor” (1971), and Kroll, “The Wizard of …” (1977).
24. Kubrick avoided duping, using contact printing as much as possible, but used three-color separation to maintain image density. See Lightman (1968).
25. Scott Higgins, Harnessing the Technicolor Rainbow: Color Design in the 1930s, 23–27.
27. The Williams traveling matte process used black-backing, but unlike earlier in-camera mattes like those Méliès used, were composited in postproduction. The Dunning Process of the late 1920s used blue- or black-backing and an orange-lighted set to make in-camera composites. These two techniques were eventually combined, modified, and refined, resulting in the blue-screen technology still in use.
28. For more on this attitude, see the interviews in American Cinematographer and Cinefex with Richard Edlund and Dennis Muren on the preparation for The Empire Strikes Back. Both obsess about the matte lines that made it through in Star Wars. By the amount of time and energy they spend on it, they clearly had been given a very strong directive to eliminate that problem. See Edlund (1980), Mandell (1980), Muren (1980), and Shay, “Of Ice Planets, …” (1980).
29. The ILM team solved the shrinkage problem on The Empire Strikes Back by asking Eastman Kodak to make filmstock 5247 on a tougher Estar (rather than acetate) base, to prevent shrinkage and distortion. Bruce Nicholson, “Composite Optical Photography on EMPIRE,” American Cinematographer (June 1980): 571.
30. Mandell (1980:13; emphasis in original).
33. Shay, “Of Ice Planets, …” (1980:12).
38. The 1973 version was called 5247 100T Process ECN-2. The 1976 version, more specifically, was called 5247/7247 100T. 5254 was introduced in 1964, as 5220. See “Four New Motion Picture Films Introduced by Eastman Kodak,” American Cinematographer (Nov. 1964): 634; and E. E. Gregg Snazelle, “How the New Color Negative Film Will Create Potential for More Production,” American Cinematographer (Sept. 1974): 1074.
39. Cook (2000:369); and Vilmos Zsigmond, “Lights! Camera! and Action! for ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind,’” American Cinematographer (Jan. 1978): 64–65.
41. From the 1990s to the 2010s, cinematographers (or whoever is choosing) have a variety of film stocks to select among for different purposes. As David Cook claims in Lost Illusions (2000:370), until 1980 when Fuji released its own film stock that Hollywood cinematographers felt could compete with Kodak, filmmakers did not have that many film stock choices. They had to use what was available, crossed with what the production could afford (35mm and 70mm were much more expensive). One advantage touted for the new Kodak stock was to allow better resolution for films shot on 16mm to be blown up to 35mm, and therefore cut the price of many productions without losing image quality). “Kodak Introduces Improved 5247/7247 Color Negative,” American Cinematographer (Jan. 1973): 96.
5. A More Plastic Reality: The Design and Conception of Star Wars and West Coast Experimental Filmmaking
1. “Behind the Scenes of Star Wars” (1977: 700–701).
2. Earlier films that used models and miniatures, matte composites, and other photographic techniques were often very convincingly and seamlessly achieved (for example, Strategic Air Command [Mann, 1955] or The Fountainhead [Vidor, 1949]), but did not attempt the same kind of intensified layering of the 1970s.
3. Lucas himself acknowledged the impossibility for perfection on Star Wars’ budget (in Kline 1999:50).
5. John Dykstra, Chris Casady, and Pat O’Neill, personal interviews by the author; Chris Casady, Larry Cuba, and David and Diana Wilson in Alternative Projections Oral Histories (by various interviewers); and print interviews with Adam Beckett and John Dykstra (by Paul Mandell), as well as Dennis Muran, Richard Edlund, Ken Ralston, and others in Cinefantastique’s special Star Wars issue 7.1 (1978). Chris Casady, Alternative Projections Oral Histories, interviewers Adam Hyman and Mark Toscano, Dec. 4, 2009; Larry Cuba, Alternative Projections Oral Histories, interviewer Andrew Johnston, July 23, 2010; David Wilson, Alternative Projections Oral Histories, interviewer Mark Toscano (date unknown, c. 2010); Diana Wilson, Alternative Projections Oral Histories, interviewer Mark Toscano (date unknown, c. 2010). Transcript of the event “Infinite Animation work of Adam Beckett,” interviewees Dave Berry, Beth Block, Chris Casady (Director), Richard Edlund, Jules Engel, Jon Erland, Roberta Friedman, Bruce Green, Peter Kuran, Richard Taylor II, Pat O’Neill, Pamela Turner, David Wilson, at the Linwood Dunn Theater at the Acadamy’s Pickford Center, Hollywood CA, Jan. 19, 2010.
6. Though Lucas long claimed that Campbell was an inspiration, in interviews he did not put it front and center of his influences until considerably later, and especially not until the late 1990s when ramping up publicity for the prequel trilogy.
7. “Behind the Scenes of Star Wars” (1977:700).
10. “Francis [Ford Coppola] is the arty director. He’s the one who likes psychological motivations, Brecht and Albee and Tennessee Williams. I’m more drawn to Flash Gordon. I like action-adventure, chases, things blowing up, and I have strong feelings about science fiction and comic books and that sort of world. [ … ] I’m very akin to a toymaker. I like to make things move.” Ibid., 43.
12. As is well known, it is increasingly difficult to see the 1977 version of Star Wars since 1997’s “Special Edition” theater and DVD release, which digitally added, subtracted, and cleaned up elements of the 1977 version Lucas was not satisfied with. Lucasfilm will not allow prints of the original release to be screened in repertory, and the 1977 version currently exists only in an out-of-print laserdisc, VHS, and as a “bonus disc” on the 2004 DVD release, also currently out of print. Various fan websites chronicle the different versions and what many fans consider Lucas’s suppression of the 1977 release. Many fans consider the unrestored 2004 “bonus disc” version to be of intentionally poor quality, in order to boost the reputation of the various digitally altered versions. See, for example, secrethistoryofstarwars.com and savestarwars.com. I am working from the “bonus disc” billed as the 1977 version on the 2004 DVD release, as well as the 1995 widescreen VHS release.
13. “Behind the Scenes of Star Wars” (1977:701).
14. To this end, he also hired as Director of Photography Gil Taylor, cameraman on Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Kubrick, 1964) and A Hard Day’s Night (Lester, 1964), which he called “good, eccentrically photographed pictures with a strong documentary flavor” (ibid., 700–701).
15. See Pye and Myles (1979), Biskind (1998), and Brooker (2009).
16. Lucas in fact admired Reggio’s later Koyaanisqatsi (for which Coppola served as an executive producer), and later Lucas served as executive producer for Reggio’s follow-up, Powaqqatsi (1988).
17. As seen on After Film School, What? (KCET [1967], recorded October 20, 1967), at the UCLA Film and Television Archive. A poor-quality version of the film can be seen on YouTube.
18. Lucas’s student films can be seen at the USC Cinema Library, and some of them on YouTube.
19. The tendency to refer to himself as an experimental filmmaker, rather than a traditionally auteurist filmmaker, seems to have become even more pronounced as time goes by. As he recounted in 1997: “After I did American Graffiti my friends said, ‘George you should make more of an artistic statement,’ but I feel Star Wars did make a statement—in a more visual, less literary way. People said I should have made Apocalypse Now after Graffiti, and not Star Wars. They said I should be doing movies like Taxi Driver. I said, ‘Well, Star Wars is a kid’s movie, but I think it’s just as valid of an art film as Taxi Driver.’ Besides, I couldn’t ever do Taxi Driver. I don’t have it in me. I could do Koyaanisqatsi but not Taxi Driver” (Kline 1999:211).
20. So successfully, that John Whitney Sr. said (sincerely, it seems, in spite of the fact that the streaking technique was based partially on his own, though a few stages removed) of Star Wars’ hyperspace streak effects, “It would be impossible to find a more exact visual dramatization of this purely fictional idea of a time warp. I expect it will be used again and again.” John Whitney, “Motion Control: An Overview,” American Cinematographer (Dec. 1981): 1243.
21. Both Betzy Bromberg and Pat O’Neill expressed this sentiment to me in interviews. Bromberg: “Honestly, I feel like what was tapped out of me was a lot of time, energy, skill, but every drop of skill that the industry got out of me, I got twice as much for my own films.” Bromberg, personal interview by author, Tunjunga, CA, July 9, 2007.
22. This is also substantiated by Lucas’s film school experience in editing and experimental filmmaking and work experience in areas of animation, title-making, and optical camerawork.
23. Pat O’Neill, personal interview by author, Pasadena, CA, July 19, 2007, and Chris Casady, personal interview by author, Hollywood, CA, June 21 and June 24, 2010.
24. Although they could have worked (and did) for independent effects houses. Bill Taylor, personal interview by author, Van Nuys, CA, July 25, 2006, and Syd Dutton, personal interview by author, Van Nuys, CA, July 25, 2006.
25. The USC Cinema Department Student Guide from the 1960s at the USC cinema library lists courses and professors but, unhappily, not syllabi with film screenings.
27. For example, as Biskind put it, “Lucas’s genius was to strip away the Marxist ideology of a master of editing like Eisenstein, or the critical irony of an avant-garde filmmaker like Bruce Connor, and wed their montage technique to American pulp. Star Wars pioneered the cinema of moments, of images, of sensory stimuli increasingly divorced from story, which is why it translates so well into video games” (Biskind 1998:343).
28. Pat O’Neill, personal interview; Betzy Bromberg, personal interview; and Roberta Friedman, personal remarks to author, Los Angeles, CA, Nov. 12, 2010.
29. Julie Turnock, “The True Stars of Star Wars” (Jan. 2015).
30. Pat O’Neill, personal interview; Chris Casady, personal interview; and Larry Cuba, Alternative Projections Oral Histories.
31. Legends of the formation of ILM (such as Cotta Vaz and Duigan [1996]) concentrate on the core ILM team, led by John Dykstra at the original ILM facility in Van Nuys. However, by the final months of production, Lucasfilm needed to farm out a good deal of optical work in order to complete the film on time. As Adam Beckett, experimental animator and core ILM rotoscope artist on Star Wars put it, “just about every optical house in town worked on Star Wars” (Mandell 1987:19).
32. O’Neill, personal interview.
33. Pat O’Neill, personal interview; Syd Dutton, personal interview; and Chris Casady, personal interview. For a description of Dunn’s presentations, see Kallis (1972). The Linwood Dunn Collection at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Pickford Center archive also has several versions of Dunn’s various presentation reels, some with his recorded voice speaking over the clips.
34. As Bromberg said, “The experimental film community can look down on people who work in the industry. There’s a whole thing. Students look down on industry a lot of times. Which to me is insane” (Betzy Bromberg, personal interview). Casady expresses similar sentiments (Chris Casady, personal interview).
35. O’Neill, Bromberg, and Casady express similar sentiments. Pat O’Neill, personal interview; Betzy Bromberg, personal interview; and Chris Casady, personal interview. Remarks by Robert Blalack in interview in Levine (1998).
36. Betzy Bromberg, personal interview.
37. As was the case with John Whitney Sr., who did not work on Star Wars or Close Encounters, but played an important role in developing techniques that were used in both.
38. Pat O’Neill, personal interview.
39. Mandell, “Adam Beckett” (1978:20).
40. Betzy Bromberg, personal interview.
42. Pat O’Neill, personal interview.
44. Mandell, “Adam Beckett” (1978:20; emphasis in original).
45. Cuba generated the simulation using the Grass system at the University of Illinois, Chicago Campus, a system developed by Tom DeFanti at Ohio State, according to http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/timeline.html. Many other technicians with a background in experimental filmmaking at art schools like CalArts worked on Star Wars, such as Peter Kuran, David Berry, Chris Casady, Loring Doyle, and Donna Tracy. For more on these artists in the special effects field as well as their experimental work while at CalArts and beyond, see Turnock, “Not Just a Day Job,” as well as the website for the MoMA exhibition, “Tomorrowland: CalArts in Moving Pictures.”
46. Pat O’Neill, personal interview.
47. Mitch Tuchman, “Pat O’Neil in All Directions,” Film Comment (July 1976).
48. Sitney (2002:431). O’Neill agrees that investigating in “gerrybuilt perspectives” is a central project of his work. Pat O’Neill, personal interview.
50. Brougher et al. (2005).
51. Mandell, “Adam Beckett” (1978:18–21).
52. Chris Casady, personal interview.
53. Some moving-image footage of these explosions was shown at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ tribute screening to Beckett, Infinite Animation: The Work of Adam Beckett, at the Academy’s Linwood Dunn Theater, August 17, 2009.
54. Richard Winn Taylor, personal interview; Chris Casady, personal interview; and John Dykstra, personal interview.
55. That is, the authors were or are employees of Lucasfilm. See, for example, Thomas G. Smith (1988); Cotta Vaz and Duignan (1996); and Glintenkamp (2011). These Lucasfilm-sponsored histories make little or no reference to the experimental filmmaking background of any of their core staff and also do not reference the sizable outsourced personnel for the original Star Wars trilogy.
56. Reviewers such as Vincent Canby, Stanley Kauffmann, Gene Siskel, Roger Ebert, and Pauline Kael refer to these films’ visual, graphic, and visceral impact; see notes 2, 11, and 21 in chapter 3.
57. See, for example, articles in journals such as the issue dedicated largely to the artist-technicians on Star Wars (Cinefantastique 7.1 [1978]). Also, the American Cinematographer’s series of articles on the special effects of Star Wars (July 1977) and Close Encounters (Jan. 1978). The special effects fan magazine Cinefex has very detailed technical articles on the making of The Empire Strikes Back (Cinefex 3 [1980]), as well as articles on Blade Runner, Close Encounters, and many others.
58. See Noel Burch on the strength of cinematic movement and sync sound to engage diegetic effect, in “Narrative/Diegesis” (Burch 1990). In light of Lucas’s oft-cited reliance on Joseph Campbell’s world mythologies, we can also make a connection with Belson’s cosmologically inflected notion of his film’s relation to yoga and Hindu mysticism. See Visual Music (Brougher et al. 2005) for more on Belson in this regard.
59. “Behind the Scenes of Star Wars” (1977:701).
60. Surprisingly, studio special effects before 1968 rarely took advantage of animation’s multiplane animation stands to provide a “z-axis” into space. After Kubrick used multiplane animation and slit-scan photography in the “Star Gate” sequence to create movement into the perspectival deep-space distance, that technique became more common. Combined with motion-control movement, the post-1970s film frame featured many more axes to move virtual cameras through.
61. As Brougher et al. (2005) point out, the expanded cinema experience (of which drug use was a nearly mandatory part to get the total effect) could be uncomfortable and distressing in this regard. The job of a Hollywood film is thus to hype a certain level of intensity, but to purposefully resist becoming alarming.
62. As early as 1979, Ebert calls Star Wars’ opening flyover sequence “seminal.” Roger Ebert, “Alien,” Chicago Sun-Times (May 25, 1979).
63. As described variously, by Landon (1992), Cubitt (1998), and Warren Buckland (in Redmond, 2004), as well as Albert J. LaValley (in Slusser and Rabkin 1985), Pierson (2002), and Bukatman (2003).
64. Filmmakers often talk of the necessity of keeping “opticals” on screen for as short a time as possible, since that gives the spectator less time to carefully scrutinize it (Spielberg 1979:68).
65. Bukatman relates the “too largeness” to notions of the sublime, what he calls the “technological sublime” in “The Artificial Infinite” in Matters of Gravity (2003): 93.
66. The “proper narrative” can be seen to begin with the droids R2-D2 and C3P0, and oddly sticks primarily with them for the first twenty minutes of the film.
67. Reported in Biskind (1998:340); repeated in Pollock (1999:197).
6. “More Philosophical Grey Matter”: The Production and Aesthetic of Close Encounters of the Third Kind
1. Spielberg, quoted in Friedman and Notbohm (2000:128).
2. Trumbull, quoted in Thomas (1971).
3. Spielberg, quoted in Lightman (1978:42).
5. Future General became a subsidiary of Paramount in 1974. Future General got a few back endpoints for Close Encounters, which is why, even though Close Encounters was a Columbia film, Paramount made money on it as well. “A Few Million for Par [Paramount] from Encounters,” Daily Variety, Jan. 1, 1978.
6. Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Paramount Press Release (Oct. 1979) at Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Margaret Herrick Library, Beverly Hills, CA.
8. Stories vary as to whether or not Lucas actually did try to hire Trumbull for Star Wars and was turned down or if in fact Lucas never wanted to hire him in the first place. That he hired a Trumbull protégé suggests at least that there was some consulting between them. As we saw in an earlier quote, Lucas says he never wanted him. Trumbull says: “I almost did Star Wars, too, but Lucas was a little leery about working with me. There’s no getting away from it, you’re working with another director, and the major event in moviemaking is the interplay of egos, who’s on top, who’s working for who and who will perform.” Trumbull, quoted in Eyman (1978:24).
9. Trumbull founded a special effects house shortly after 2001 called Trumbull Film Effects (later relaunched as Future General), where Dykstra worked for effects on The Andromeda Strain (1971) and Silent Running (1972). Dykstra (1977:757).
10. Trumbull (1978:72). Trumbull praises Spielberg as a collaborator in Eyman (1978:24–25).
13. Trumbull, quoted in Eyman (1978:24–25).
15. Chris Casady, personal interview by author, Hollywood, CA, June 21 and June 24, 2010; see also Mandell, “John Dykstra” (1978:11, 14).
16. Peter Jackson and James Cameron have recently begun experimenting with high-frame-rate capture and projection systems, which digital technologies make more feasible. Jackson released The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in several formats, including High Frame Rate (HFR) 3D, and expects to release the film’s two sequels likewise. Cameron has announced he will likely shoot the Avatar sequels in HFR. Trumbull has been active in consulting with those filmmakers. David S. Cohen, “Showscan Digital Captures at 120 fps,” Daily Variety (Apr. 11, 2011). See also Turnock, “Removing the Pane of Glass: The Hobbit, 3D High Frame Rate Filmmaking, and the Rhetoric of Cinematic Realism,” Film Criticism (Spring/Summer 2013): 30–59.
17. Trumbull, quoted in Eyman (1978:25).
18. Trumbull, quoted in Kroll, “The Wizard of …” (1977:99).
19. Canby, “An Encounter …” (1977).
20. Jean-Claude Biette, “Rencontres Du Troisième Type,” Cahiers du Cinéma 287 (Apr. 1978): 57 translation mine). Original French: “… il est enfin possible de voir, et avec toute la fidélité dans le rendu et la realization que permet encore aujourd’hui le grand écran, que l’humanité terrestre a un but et que son Histoire, si délirante qu’elle puisse paraître, a un sens. [ … ] … le spectacle—sont, grâce à l’ampleur des moyens et à la beauté des maquettes de Trumbull, partiellement convaincantes …”
21. Though, according to Trumbull, he carefully negotiated the onscreen credit for Close Encounters, so that Spielberg’s would read “Visual Effects Concepts by Steven Spielberg” while his own would read “Special Photographic Effects Supervisor.” That was due to his experience on 2001 in which Kubrick’s credit read “Special Photographic Effects Designed by Stanley Kubrick” and therefore prevented Trumbull from receiving the Academy Award for 2001’s special effects. Dan Scapperotti, “Douglas Trumbull: Interview,” Cinefantastique 6.4 and 7.1 (1978): 36.
23. The UFO miniatures, from the smaller ships to the mother ship (construction supervised by Greg Jein as the miniature department head), were conceptualized and designed by Spielberg, Alves, Trumbull, and production illustrator Ralph McQuarrie (also the production illustrator on Star Wars) to look something like “an oil refinery at night” or “a city of lights.” The ships were made up of neon tubes photographed in a smoke environment to appear self-illuminated. The neon design was carried out by Larry Albright, a friend of Trumbull’s who was also a light installation artist. Trumbull (1978:83).
24. Spielberg uses many sexualized terms for his special effects: “When we lose optical generations in 70mm, hopefully there will be a happy marriage between the virgin 35mm and the deflowered 70mm.” Technicians use these terms as jargon (male and female mattes, for example) and that is meaningful enough, but Spielberg makes several explicit joking references to the sexual analogies. Lightman (1978:39).
25. Bukatman, “The Ultimate Trip” in Bukatman (2003:111–).
26. At least in the original release version. In a featurette extra for the 1998 collector’s edition DVD, Spielberg has said that he “never should have gone inside the mothership” (in the 1980s Special Edition) and subsequently left it out for the 1998 DVD release. “Third Encounter Getting Close,”Hollywood Reporter (Feb. 27, 1998).
27. In Forbidden Planet (1956), for example, the brief representation of the id monster is similarly amorphous, but most of the Krell technology is in the shiny sci-fi tradition. In Close Encounters, it is the human technology that is hard-edged.
28. For more on the culture of psychedelic light shows, see Brougher et al. (2005). Other interesting connections in this vein may include queer disco scholarship, such as Richard Dyer’s “In Defense of Disco 1979,” New Formations 58.1 (2006:101–108). Also camp responses may be useful: Rex Reed reportedly likened the mothership to “One of Mae West’s earrings”; quoted by Spielberg in “Newsweek Roundtable with Ang Lee, Steven Spielberg, George Clooney, Paul Haggis, and Bennett Miller” in Newsweek (Feb. 6, 2006): 67. See also Kenneth Anger’s response in Anger (1978:54), quoted in note 50 of ch. 3, this volume.
29. In a classic Bellourian analysis (Bellour 2002), sequences are marked by narrative and markers of changing time and place. My division is based more on the special effects as markers of the sequence, since that is how they would be marked by the technicians as well.
30. See note 63, ch. 5. However, even the narrative function of the special effects object is not so straightforward. The narrative of the film as a whole is structured around looking, being amazed, and having (naïve) faith in what you see. In this way, the first look at the UFOs far from “stops” the narrative. The stopping, looking, gaping of the characters is well within their narrative trajectory. Further, by manifesting to these people, the special effects object is narrating by confirming the suspenseful, strange phenomena that has been building up.
31. See Nick Browne, “The Spectator in the Text: The Rhetoric of Stagecoach,” in Mast, Cohen, and Braudy (1992).
32. For recent commentary on Flavin, see Jeffery Weiss (2006). Also, as Hal Foster points out in the same volume about Flavin’s fluorescent tubes, they also have a tacky and campy association that I think Trumbull also picks up on, and critics like Canby remark upon as well. See Weiss (2006:142).
33. Kauffmann, “Epiphany” (1977).
34. I discuss these more thoroughly in “‘Designed for Everyone Who Looks Forward to Tomorrow!’: Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and the 1970s Expanded Blockbuster,” in Bob Rehak, Michael Duffy, and Dan North, Special Effects: New Histories, Theories, Contexts (forthcoming).
35. Perhaps most influentially argued by Robin Wood in Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan (1986:162).
36. Youngblood (1970:33). Youngblood was a faculty member of CalArts in 1970.
37. These ideas are further discussed by Pye and Myles (1979) and Biskind (1998), among others.
38. Lucas’s close association with Coppola’s “alternative movie studio/hippie commune” American Zoetrope in the early 1970s suggests this, as do his experimental student films. Spielberg’s involvement was more tangential, through personal friendships with Lucas, Coppola, de Palma, and others associated with the New Hollywood.
39. The Frankfurt School theorists, especially Theodor W. Adorno and Walter Benjamin, have formulated the fear of reification in political rhetoric most influentially.
40. See Turnock, “Designed for Everyone …” (forthcoming).
41. Future magazine, for example, used the rubric of futurism to explore a number of controversial issues (women’s liberation, gay rights) to a readership they assumed would at the very least entertain contrarian or alternative ways of looking at social issues and problems.
42. Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (1970:25).
43. Trumbull, quoted in Thomas (1971).
44. Bukatman, “The Ultimate Trip” in Bukatman (2003:111–). See also Scott Richmond, “Resonant Perception: Cinema, Phenomenology, and the Illusion of Bodily Movement,” PhD diss., University of Chicago (2010).
45. Michelson (1969:54–63).
46. Lucas, quoted in Kline (1999:121, 149).
48. Something that Francis Ford Coppola recognized early. He tried to establish his economic freedom by founding American Zoetrope in San Francisco in the early 1970s, but financial mismanagement brought an end to his dream of a mini-studio in Northern California. Lucas, who worked with Zoetrope during the time of American Graffiti, learned his lessons well from Coppola’s financial troubles.
49. Kauffmann, “Epiphany” (1977).
50. Much like Miriam Hansen’s reading of Griffith’s Intolerance (1916) as his entry into the discussion of film as a “new hieroglyphic” or universal language, Close Encounters could be understood also to be making an argument for cinema, in particular spectacular, highly visual, special effects–driven cinema as the new universal language. In the beginning of the film, the French cannot speak with the Americans who cannot speak to Mexicans without the intervention of interpreters. By the end, the aliens bring a universal language that unites all through sound and light patterns. Miriam Bratu Hansen, Babel and Babylon: Spectatorship in American Silent Film (1991).
51. Canby, “An Encounter …” (1977).
52. Certainly, the political profile of futurism has changed as well. It is interesting to note that the face of futurism has become Newt Gingrich, who frequently calls himself a “conservative futurist,” citing Toffler. However, rather than advocating education and familiarization with technology to ease the shock, as Toffler does, Gingrich exploits the anxieties associated with technology for scare tactics. Paul Gray and Karen Tumulty, “Inside the Minds of Gingrich’s Gurus,”Time, Jan. 23, 1995.
7. Optical Special Effects into the 1980s: A Well-Oiled Machine
1. “Hollywood’s Magician” Panorama (Apr. 1988) (Eastman Kodak promotional publication).
2. Lucasfilm published results of the Theater Alignment Program in 1985, which evaluated the exhibition standards in theaters across the United States. The results found that, overall, projection and sound standards were quite poor. See Kubrick’s comments in Phillips (2001:201).
3. Perhaps surprisingly, makeup and other physical effects were generally not included in these companies. More research needs to be done on this independent sector of the effects community that flourished in the 1980s, including teams led by Stan Winston, Rick Baker, and Rob Bottin.
4. Edlund quotes Lucas as rating the effects on Star Wars as “3.5 out of 10.” See Shay, “Of Ice Planets … ,” (1980:23).
5. It is exactly this characterization of ILM as a well-oiled machine that encourages its champions and detractors. Betzy Bromberg, for example, characterized ILM as “factory-like,” in contrast to the “Mom and Pop” house where she worked for years, Fantasy II Effects. That being said, another effects worker I interviewed, Bill Gilman, who had done freelance work for ILM, admired their organization and professionalism. Betzy Bromberg, personal interview by author, Tunjunga, CA, July 9, 2007; and Bill Gilman, personal interview by author, Los Angeles, CA, July 12, 2007.
6. George Lucas interview, and extra on The Empire Strikes Back (VHS Widescreen Collector’s edition 1995).
7. See Mandell, “Stop Frame Fever …” (1983:29).
9. Muren continues, “Here at ILM most of our spaceship motions are made by hand, instinctively, with a joystick by the camerman himself. It’s fast and allows the cameraman freedom to add his style to the shot.” Muren (1980:613).
14. Shay, “Of Ice Planets … ,” (1980:7).
15. Ibid. Of course, Muybridge’s book is used by many kinds of animators as a locomotion reference, not just stop-motion animators.
18. Muren (1980:588, 592).
19. “John Dykstra,” Fantastic Films (Aug. 1978): 45.
22. Nicholson (1980:562).
24. Thanks to Doron Gallili for this information.
25. Nicholson (1980:571, 612).
26. Quoted in “John Dykstra,” Fantastic Films (Aug. 1978): 45– (emphasis in original).
27. John Dykstra, personal interview by author, Los Angeles, CA, July 26, 2006.
28. As a continuing series of special supplements to American Cinematographer suggest, this integration of the special effects team into the production process is still considered a problem in the industry. See the series “Authoring Images,” Part I (May 2007), Part II (Aug. 2007), and Part III (Mar. 2008). These articles also chronicle the breakdown of traditional production categories in the rise of increasing digitization in all areas of production.
29. John Swallow, personal interview by author, Universal Studios, CA, July 21, 2006.
30. Initially, according to fan magazine Cinefantastique, the plan was to change their name from the Dykstra-coined Industrial Light and Magic to “Magic Light Industries” or MLI. Presumably, once Dykstra gave up the name ILM and took Apogee as his company’s name, ILM could keep theirs. “Star Wars II: Magic Light Industries Formed,” Cinefastastique 7.3–4 (Fall 1978): 70.
31. Though Lucas was already too powerful for Dykstra to too strongly criticize, his position is clear: “George and I are not what you call the best of friends. … I don’t think that our conflict was based on anything other than the fact that we have different interests as people. We had a common interest in the movie.” “John Dykstra,” Fantastic Films (Aug. 1978): 45–.
33. John Dykstra, personal interview by author.
36. Ibid. Dykstra was not specific about these technologies.
38. Apogee’s focus on the process (over the end result on the screen) meant that it had available readymade striking effects created via a new laser or photo process, which could wait for a script to accommodate it. This was the opposite of how the procedure usually worked. For example, for Tobe Hooper’s Lifeforce (1985), Dykstra had previously photographed the effect of shooting a laser through a broken ashtray, and then motion-controlled it in order to generate the look of a force field. The advantage of the approach was “that’s where technology allowed for a certain aesthetic. What we were capable of doing was a direct result on the aesthetic image.” Ibid.
39. John Swallow, personal interview by author.
40. Bill Taylor, personal interview by author, Van Nuys, CA, July 25, 2006.
41. Paul Mandell “The Altered States of ‘Altered States,’” Cinefex 4 (April 1981): 4.
42. John Swallow, personal interview by author.
43. John Dykstra, personal interview by author.
45. Don Shay, “Star Trekking at Apogee with John Dykstra,” Cinefex 2 (Aug. 1980): 55.
46. Pacific Title still exists today (and is very successful in digital postproduction facilities). Mercer and Westheimer did not survive the transition to digital technology. Westheimer retired in 1989. Mercer’s activity seems to have ended in about 1988.
47. See note 58 in chapter 2 for information on the sale of Film Effects to American Zoetrope.
48. Barry Nolan suggests the others—EEG, ILM, and Apogee—get so much more attention because they are “good at public relations.” Nolan, quoted in Block (1983).
49. Janet Maslin, “Dune: Review,” New York Times (Dec. 14, 1984).
50. As Edlund put it, they “could get away with [imperfect matte lines] in Star Wars because shots were very short and fast.” Edlund, quoted in Shay, “Of Ice Planets, …” (1980:12).
51. Don Shay, “Creating an Alien Ambiance, Cinefex 1 (Mar. 1980): 20–.
52. Roger Ebert, “Dune: Review,” Chicago Sun-Times (January 1, 1984).
53. Abel and Associates would eventually become one of the leaders in early entertainment applications for computer-generated imagery through the 1980s—for example, as one of the major effects houses on Tron (Lisberger, 1982).
54. According to Trumbull, Abel’s plans for his computer-programming technique were too ambitious. The technology was not yet streamlined enough for efficient industrial use, in that the computer and camera technologies couldn’t “talk” to each other. It was too steep a learning curve for the time allowed. Trumbull also thought that Abel seemed to focus too minutely on the technology and not enough on what he called “aesthetic judgments,” which can’t be determined by a computer. They did not account for human perception and photographic registration of it, which may also have cut down production time. Shay, “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” (1980:7).
55. Edlund, quoted in Broekse (1986:43).
57. According to Richard Winn Taylor, who was working for Abel on the Star Trek project, the Abel side was much different, and he characterizes Trumbull’s move as more of a hostile takeover. Richard Winn Taylor, personal interview by author, Marina del Rey, July 18, 2007.
58. Shay, “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” (1980:4–6).
59. Shay, “Star Trekking at Apogee …” (1980:51).
61. As stated previously, since Lucas took the “Dykstraflex” motion-control rigs with him in the move to Northern California, Dykstra therefore had to rebuild his own equipment.
62. Don Shay, “Blade Runner: 2020 Foresight,” Cinefex 9 (July 1982): 23–24.
63. Mick Garris, “Survival Run,” Cinefantastique 6.2 (1977): 30; Margo Anderson, “Spectacular Visual Effects for ‘Damnation Alley,’” American Cinematographer (Nov. 1977): 1182, 1184.
64. As recounted by Dennis Muren in Mandell, “Tauntauns, Walkers, …” (1980:29). Muren said he learned from that in a similar trick for the simulated helicopter shot of the Tauntaun in The Empire Strikes Back.
65. For more on the time pressure on contemporary effects artists, see David S. Cohen, “Blockbusters Take Toll on F/XShops: Hollywood Puts Pressure on Techies,” Daily Variety online (May 25, 2007), at www.variety.com/article/VR1117965871.html.
66. Anthony Brandt, “Masters of Illusion,” Quest (June 1980).
67. “SFX Oscar Winner R Blalack Has Formed His Own Company, Praxis Film Works, in North Hollywood,” Daily Variety (Oct. 10, 1980).
68. Betzy Bromberg, personal interview by author.
70. Diane and Stan Levine (1998).
72. According to Nancy Rushlow, Praxis’s executive producer, quoted in Brad Dunning (1984).
73. Blalack’s favored model for wolf-vision was described in Cinefantastique as “experimenting with the use of false color and color substitution. The results … were judged ‘phenomenal,’ but it was decided that it looked too phenomenal for the film’s purposes.” The producer, Rupert Hitzig, said, “We held that the juxtaposition would distance the audience’s subconscious identification with the Wolfen, and in turn, with the picture itself.” Stephen Rebello, “Wolfen,” Cinefantastique 11.3 (Sept. 1981): 39.
75. The producer calls it “alien vision” in the Cinefantastique article because, he believes, wolves have been maligned enough. Rebello (1981).
76. Betzy Bromberg, personal interview by author.
77. Praxis sold its studio facilities to Rhythm and Hues, and Blalack was contracted to make commercials for Rhythm and Hues. “Mount/Kramer, Praxis to make FLIX together,” Hollywood Reporter (July 22, 1994).
78. Marc Ricardson, “Dream Quest: A Dream in the Making,” Cinefex 12 (Apr. 1983): 55.
82. Ibid., 60, 63. However, because they had been shot with a standard, unstabilized camera and not with a special gyro-stabilized mount, the existing plates were too jumpy and therefore unworkable as background effects shots. Dream Quest thus had to reshoot complicated aerial shots over Los Angeles.
83. They also had to roto-in reflections onto buildings in the background plates. For details on the blue-screen work on both Blue Thunder and Firefox, see “Blue Thunder,” Cinefantastique 13.5 (June–July 1983): 8–9.
84. David S. Cohen, “Industrial Light & Magic Goes to Disney with Lucasfilm.” See Variety.com (Oct. 30, 2012).
85. Richard Natale, “Richard Edlund: Magician of the Silver Screen,” Los Angeles Herald-Examiner (Dec. 7, 1984).
86. “Edlund Being Honored in Toronto,” Daily Variety (Sept. 5, 1986).
87. “Special Effects Giant Boss Film Utilizing Talents on 2010 Movie,” Hollywood Reporter (Nov. 14, 1984).
88. Edlund, quoted in “Hollywood’s Magician,” Panorama (Apr. 1988).
89. This argument is described negatively, for example, by Wyatt (1994) and in more positive terms by Geoff King (2000).
90. Adam Eisenberg, “Ghostbusters,” Cinefex 17 (June 1984): 30. As Trumbull asserts in the Close Encounters article in American Cinematographer (Trumbull 1978), the main difference from the Dykstraflex is that the Compsy has more range of motion along more axes.
92. Windel, quoted in ibid., 49.
94. This formula, where both effects sequences and narrative moments increased steadily over the course of the film, held for at least a decade. However, more recently, it has been common to begin with a “bang” of some sort (often a flashback or flash-forward), whether an intense action sequence or spectacular display of effects techniques: see, in the first case, the recent James Bond films (such as Casino Royale, 2006) or the Bourne films with Matt Damon (such as The Bourne Identity [Liman, 2002]), and in the second case, the Matrix or Spiderman films. This strategy may well have begun in earnest with Spielberg (previously the popularizer—though not the originator—of the Jaws strategy of visual withholding of the effects object) or Saving Private Ryan’s (1998) 25-minute Normandy Beach opening sequence. Geoff King (2000) describes blockbuster narrative patterning in more detail.
8. “Not-too-Realistic” and Intensified Realistic Approaches in the 1980s: Traditional Stop Motion and Showscan
2. More research needs to be done on puppetry and makeup approaches, but I would argue that they strongly recall elaborations of earlier techniques and approaches, and therefore were comfortable directions for many productions looking for fantasy subjects and more effects, but that could not afford the optical effects of the Star Wars sort.
3. Later, artisanal stop-motion traditions formed the conceptual basis of CGI creature animation at ILM in its transition to digital effects, most particularly in Jurassic Park (Spielberg, 1993). See Jody Duncan, “Jurassic Park: The Beauty in the Beasts,” Cinefex 55 (Aug. 1993).
4. For more on this, see Turnock (2013).
5. Harryhausen quoted, on more recent animation techniques, in Anita Gates, “The Man Who Wrote, Haltingly, the Book on Special Effects,” New York Times (Jan. 25, 1998:AR33).
6. “Sa poésie, ses anachronisms, son côté forain font du Choc des Titans malgré ses travers un film rare qui perpétue la tradition d’un magie à la Méliès” (translation mine). Olivier Assayas, “Le Choc des Titans,” Cahiers du Cinéma 326 (July–Aug 1981): 63–64.
7. Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture.
8. Vincent Canby, “Clash of the Titans: Mixed Adventures,” New York Times (June 20, 1981).
9. Despite its ardent fan base, stop motion as a special effect was already recognized as in decline by 1981. See Mandell, “Stop Frame Fever …” (1983).
10. Charles Tesson, “Profiles de Monstres,” Cahiers du Cinéma (Feb. 1982): 18.
11. Richard Rickitt recounts the stop-motion dinosaur footage Arthur Conan Doyle showed in public in advance of The Lost World, and newspaper accounts claim audiences believed they were seeing real dinosaurs, but these stories should probably be understood as pre-release hype. See Rickitt (2000:183).
12. “Bige” (pseud.), “Review: King Kong,” Daily Variety (Mar. 7, 1933).
13. Many interviews with Harryhausen retell his story of seeing King Kong at the Mann’s Chinese theater as a boy and how that formative experience prompted his career in stop motion. See, for example, Culhane (1981:47).
14. Ray Harryhausen, Fantasy Film Scrapbook, 19.
15. Harryhausen died in 2013 and did not animate a film after 1981’s Clash of the Titans, although he did act as a consultant on some projects.
16. For example, see the feature article touting Harryhausen as the “godfather of special effects,” with testimonials from directors such as Lucas, Spielberg, and Jackson, and others. Steve Daly, “The Beastie Boy,” Entertainment Weekly, June 11, 2004, 82–89.
17. Or, as one reviewer put it, “Perhaps [Harryhausen] fancies himself Zeus? On a whim, he sets in motion a tidal wave which washes out an entire civilization in one fell swoop.” J. Gartenberg, “Ray Harryhausen: Master of Handcrafted Special Effects,” Films in Review (Oct. 1981): 507.
19. As Ray Harryhausen put it: “The minute you let the technical end take over, it becomes slightly mechanical. But sometimes, you’re trying to express emotions through movements, without even planning them, you’ll get what you want.” Harryhausen, quoted in ibid.
20. Synthesized from statements in Harryhausen (1972); Jeff Rovin, From the Land Beyond: The Films of Willis O’Brien and Ray Harryhausen (1977); Elliot Stein, “The Thirteen Voyages of Ray Harryhausen,” Film Comment (Nov.–Dec. 1977); Culhane (1981); Alain Garsault and Hubert Niogret, “Ray Harryhausen, Artisan, Technicien et Créateur,” Positif (Dec. 1981): 2–11; Gartenberg (1981); and Howard Maxford, “Clash of the Titans,” Film Review (July 1998): 56–61.
21. “Berg.” (pseud., 1981).
22. Of course, as already discussed, Star Wars was only a blockbuster in retrospect.
23. The studio spent $5 million on advertising for its first week, and $1.5 million in the two years leading up to the film’s release. Richard Kahn, vice president of marketing for MGM, claims that, “By the time the movie opened, 62% of the public was aware of Clash of the Titans.” There was also a cross promotion with Mattel, as well as an hour-long TV documentary on the making of the film. Aljean Harmetz, “Titanic Publicity Effort for “Clash of the Titans,” New York Times, June 22, 1981, C13.
It is worth noting that, much like Star Wars, Clash was marketed somewhat on a niche basis, to fantasy/sci-fi enthusiasts and children, which gives it a certain marginal tinge. “Research had shown that science-fiction enthusiasts would be looking for another movie genre, so we positioned ourselves in sword and sorcery quite happily,” says Mr. Kahn (in ibid.). “We started putting stories in space and fantasy journals two years ago. An elaborate 10-page color advertisement was mailed to science fiction groups in the fall of 1979. We went to 60 science fiction conventions all over the world, giving away posters, showing animated displays of our sea monster, the Kraken.”
24. “… sans Ray Harryhausen, Star Wars aurait-il été possible?” (translation mine). Garsault and Niogret (1981:3).
25. Also, the disruption is not Brechtian, or Shklovskian. Unlike Shklovsky (and other models of artistic estrangement often called Brechtian), it does not want the viewer to contemplate the gap between art and life or even to resensitize the viewer to the wonder that is everyday life. V. Shklovsky, “Art as Technique,” in Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis, eds. and translators, Russian Formalist Critique: Four Essays (1965).
26. Interestingly, ILM’s decades-long dedication to the ethos of stop motion has meant it has not been at the forefront of developing the leading trend in creature animation: motion capture. In motion-capture technology, an actor wears a sensor-rigged bodysuit that captures his or her movements in the computer, which then serves as the basis for a CGI-animated character (much like the Fleischer Brothers’ rotoscoped Koko the Clown). It is a technique most prominently developed by Peter Jackson’s Weta team, as seen in Gollum in the Lord of the Rings films and the Na’vi in Avatar.
However, it should be noted that Weta also employs prominent stop-motion animators, especially Randy Cook, as part of its creature animation team, and that motion capture is a translation and representation of human movement, not a facsimile of it. See Joe Fordham, “The Two Towers: Middle Earth Strikes Back,” Cinefex 9 (Jan. 2003), and Joe Fordham, “The Rise of the Planet of the Apes: Render Unto Caesar,” Cinefex 128 (Jan/ 2012).
27. The conflict was over assigning the proper credit for the effects of 2001. “An Open Letter from MGM/UA and Stanley Kubrick,” Hollywood Reporter (Aug. 15, 1984).
28. See Phillips (2001:47.
30. Trumbull, quoted in Kilday (1977).
31. For more by Kubrick on the state of exhibition in the 1980s, see Phillips (2001:202).
32. Kubrick, for example, cites the “Theater Alignment Program” from 1985, what he calls the “Lucas Report,” which was a published study of exhibition practices and conditions commissioned by Lucasfilms. Ibid., 201–202.
33. Prince (2002:293). See also Prince’s account of theater expansion in the 1980s (ibid., 79–89).
34. Douglas Trumbull, “Letter to Editor,” Los Angeles Times (Nov. 28, 1971).
35. Trumbull, quoted in Kroll, “The Wizard of …” (1977). This is a theme Trumbull returns to over and over in interviews. For further examples (such as “We better get our act together [by making 70mm films], or we’re just going to be making TV”), see “Movie Industry Selling Out to Video Industry,” Hollywood Reporter (Dec. 15, 1981), and “Douglas Trumbull: Interview,” Hollywood Reporter (Mar. 1, 1994).
36. Bill Desowitz, “Trumbull Tells Movies to Revitalize to Survive,” Hollywood Reporter (May 2, 1984).
37. “Tripping the Light Fantastic,” Daily Variety (Feb. 23, 1996).
38. As in note 29 of the introduction, one should not confuse “expanded cinema” with Jürgen Habermas’s notion of the public sphere or Miriam Hansen’s understanding of “alternative public sphere,” which tend to favor verbal and visual discourse as an impetus to political action. Instead, Youngblood insisted on what he called a sweeping reconceptualization of leftist revolutionary movements, which he preferred to call “radical evolution.” Rather than continually inverting and reproducing binary positions, radical evolution called for technology to develop a broadening and merging of individual human consciousness into an intermedial, multi-subjective experience of community that would transcend discourse (Youngblood 1970:50). This is also more related to Scott Bukatman’s sense of expanded theatrical space in his essay “Zooming Out: The End of Off-Screen Space,” in Lewis (1998).
39. In 1981, Trumbull claimed that the movie industry was selling out to the video industry and blasted the industry for “allowing itself to become an industry of small screens.” “Movie Industry Selling Out to Video Industry,” Hollywood Reporter (Dec. 15, 1981).
40. Spielberg, quoted in Trumbull (1978).
41. Trumbull, quoted in Thomas (1971). To be the “next Disney” was the 1970s gold standard for many interested in entertainment concepts, as a model for multimarket entertainment diversification. Robert Abel also name-checked Disney as a model (mixed with more “with-it” movements like surrealism): Abel claimed, “We were fans of surrealists like Magritte, Chagall, and Dali, so we created a style that borrowed the fantasy of Disney but took the reality you find re-created in [documentary] films.” Abel, quoted in Delson (1979).
Though I have never seen Lucas liken himself to Disney, journalists often bring it up, as in Kerry O’Quinn’s 1981 interview in Starlog (reprinted in Kline 1999). Lucas himself tends to use “Disney” adjectivally as a synonym for “a kid’s movie.” See, for example, Kline (1999:227). Ironically, in the 1980s even Disney was undergoing corporate restructuring in order to become the “the next Disney.”
42. Bob Fischer and Marji Rhea, “Interview: Doug Trumbull and Richard Yuricich, ASC,” American Cinematographer (Aug. 1994): 56.
43. Of course, many cinema technologies have been introduced with promises of greater “participation” such as the various widescreen technologies of the 1950s, such as Cinerama, Cinemascope, VistaVision, and Todd-AO. For more on widescreen technologies, see John Belton, Widescreen Cinema (1992), Peter Lev, Transforming the Screen: The Fifties (2003), and Ariel Rogers, Cinematic Appeals: The Experience of New Movie Technologies (2013).
44. “Trumbull on Technology,” USC Spectator (Fall 1983).
45. “Showscan: What It Is, and How It Works,” Cinefantastique (Sept. 1984): 108.
47. “A Few Million for Par (Paramount) from Encounters,” Daily Variety (Jan. 1, 1978).
48. “Showscan,” Cinefantastique (Sept. 1984): 108. In light of the interaction between technology developed for the movie industry and technology in experimental filmmaking, Tom Gunning reports a presentation given at SUNY-Purchase circa 1980 by early computer graphics pioneer and experimental filmmaker Stan Van Der Beek, who was at the time very excited about the possibilities in high-frame-rate filmmaking. Gunning believes that Van der Beek may have been working with Trumbull on Showscan, but is not certain. More research needs to be done to establish this connection.
49. “Some Pin Exhibition Hopes on Technological Advances,” Daily Variety (Sept. 17, 1982).
50. “Showscan,” Cinefantastique (Sept. 1984).
51. “Trumbull on Technology,” USC Spectator (Fall 1983).
53. Richard Stevenson, “Bringing the Movies to Life,” New York Times (Nov. 4, 1987).
54. “Showscan,” Cinefantastique (Sept. 1984). No doubt the attentive reader has already begun to think about similarities to IMAX, an already existing Canadian technology. Trumbull helpfully explains the difference, that IMAX’s standard speed (24 fps) against a large frame size means major movement of any fast-moving subject between frames. He says that IMAX is mostly in specialty venues—like amusement parks. Showscan by contrast is compatible with modified 70mm equipment and viable for feature films. “Some Pin Exhibition Hopes on Technological Advances,” Daily Variety (Sept. 17, 1982).
Trumbull would later attempt to merge Showscan and IMAX technologies by buying IMAX with financial partners in 1994. For more on the history of IMAX, see Allison Whitney, “The Eye of Daedalus : A History and Theory of IMAX Cinema,” PhD diss., University of Chicago (2005) (Proquest Online).
55. “Big Screen Test,” Los Angeles Herald-Examiner (May 25, 1981). The account also claims that Night of the Dreams was scheduled to play along with Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg, 1981) at the National Theater when it was to open in the next month, but I have not found evidence that it did.
56. Unhappily, the Times did not not print Ebert’s complete comments. See Stevenson (1987).
57. Interestingly, the description of Showscan in Cinefantastique is similar to rhetoric around medium sensitivity to high definition (HD) images: “when an extreme close up of Christopher Lee’s face fills the screen, we become starkly aware of the detailed Showscan image; the picture is so sharp and crystal-clear that every line and blemish etched into an actor’s face comes into focus. Showscan may even require new makeup techniques as well as new projection systems.” Randy Palmer, “Trumbull’s ‘Showscan’ Is a Hit—Sort Of,” Cinefantastique (Sept. 1984): 108.
Not surprisingly, Trumbull got involved with HD about ten years before anyone else. In “Trumbull Taking High-D Road on Innovative ‘Roses’ Short,” Daily Variety (June 14, 1989) notes that Trumbull’s short ballet film, The Dream of Roses “foresees blend of TV and film.”
58. “Trumbull Returns to Commercial Production,” Back Stage (Nov. 15, 1985).
59. “Douglas Trumbull’s Brave New World: The Special Effects Wizard of Close Encounters Has Reinvented the Movies,” Los Angeles Style (May 1986), provides descriptions of Trumbull’s Showscan films exhibited at Expo 85 in Tsukuba, Japan, including Night of Dreams, New Magic (described as “experimental”), Big Ball (a “thrill film”), and Let’s Go!
61. Ibid. For more on technical change and a discussion of “needed” or “not needed” innovations, here discussed in terms of Technicolor, see Bordwell, Staiger, and Thompson (1985:353).
62. As Stevenson (1987) proclaims, “Movies today boast spectacular special effects, the latest in sound systems and ever-improving color and clarity.” See Prince (2002) about the expansion of the theater business in the 1980s.
63. Including many academics, to judge by the flurry of articles appearing circa 1990. See especially Lauren Rabinovitz “From Hale’s Tours to Star Tours,” Iris (Spring 1998): 133–52; and Erkki Huhtamo, “Encapsulated Bodies in Motion: Simulation and the Quest for Total Immersion,” in Simon Penny, ed., Critical Issues in Electronic Media (1995).
64. “F/X Make Luxor Las Vegas a Sight to See,” Daily Variety (Oct. 18, 1993).
65. Though touted as the future of entertainment, the “special venue” nature of these ride films primarily in amusement parks and a Las Vegas casino meant they never reached the same number of people as a film or a video game.
66. “Trumbull, Partners Pay $100 Million for IMAX,” Hollywood Reporter (Jan. 10, 1994).
67. “Trumbull Ankles a Profitable IMAX,” Daily Variety (Feb. 6, 1997). Although even after stepping down in 1997, Trumbull was still a major stockholder trying to make dramatic features with IMAX. Carl DiOrio, “Trumbull Preps Sci-fi IMAX Pic,” Hollywood Reporter (February 13, 1997).
68. Eric J. Olson “F/X Wiz Bows Ridefilm System,” Daily Variety (Nov. 5, 1998).
69. “F/X Make Luxor Las Vegas a Sight to See,” Daily Variety (Oct. 18, 1993).
70. Fischer and Rhea (1994).
71. For a more elaborated argument on this thematic of cinema depicting other media, see Paul Young, The Cinema Dreams Its Rivals: Media Fantasy from Radio to the Internet.
72. Like Benjamin and his sense of human/technological “innervation,” in the famous 1936 “Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility” essay (second version), Benjamin (2002:101–133). Trumbull appears to tentatively believe that technology can help reconnect us to our bodies and renew our sense of humanness through sensory shocks. For more on the topic of Benjamin and innervation, see Miriam Bratu Hansen, “Benjamin and Cinema: Not a One-Way Street,” Critical Inquiry 25:2 (Winter 1999).
73. Jeff Labrecque, “‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ Tech Pioneer on ‘Hobbit’ Footage: ‘A Fabulous and Brave Step in the Right Direction,’” Entertainment Weekly online (May 2, 2012). See also Turnock (2013).
74. See Richard Maltby, Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction, and Wyatt (1994).
75. Albert J. LaValley, “Traditions of Trickery,” in Slusser and Rabkin (1985:144).
77. All-time worldwide box office data from boxofficemojo.com. Further, with more international outsourcing and affordable digital services, geographic Hollywood does not have a monopoly on effects films any more. Russia (Night Watch [Bekmambetov, 2004]), Daywatch [Bekmambetov, 2006]), Spain (Pan’s Labyrinth [Del Toro, 2006]), South Korea (The Host [Bong, 2006]), China (House of Flying Daggers [Zhang, 2004]), and many other countries such as Thailand and India are making effects-driven films (usually with elaborate multinational coproduction deals) that are deemed exportable back into the U.S. market. Nevertheless, most international effects productions make use of U.S. and U.K. firms for the production of their effects, rather than local companies.
78. As Thomas Schatz points out, for Hollywood this is a good deal because they are cheap. Thomas Schatz, “New Hollywood New Millennium,” in Warren Buckland, ed., Film Theory and Contemporary Hollywood Movies.
79. “Tentpole” is an industry term for a product that serves as the centerpiece of ancillary marketing, thus “holding up” other sectors of the entertainment business, such as toys, video games, and other tie-ins. For an elaboration of the digital cinema argument across several registers, and the discussion of the blockbuster film as a tentpole for the entertainment industry, see Thomas Elsaesser, “Digital Cinema: Delivery, Event, Time,” in Thomas Elsaesser and Kay Hoffman, eds., Cinema Futures: Cain, Abel or Cable?.
Conclusion: World-Building and the Legacy of 1970s Special Effects in Contemporary Cinema
1. Much quoted, but may be apocryphal; quoted in Jerome Agel, ed., The Making of Kubrick’s 2001.
2. As exemplified in the mainly negative reviews for Blade Runner, which, for example, Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin both say some version of the film “looks sensational” but “special effects technology … overwhelm its story.” Roger Ebert, “Blade Runner: Review,” Chicago-Sun Times, June 2, 1982. Janet Maslin echoes that the “effects have run away with it.” Janet Maslin, “Screen: Futuristic ‘Blade Runner,’” New York Times, June 25, 1982.
3. In an article about recent Iraq War movies, critic director and screenwriter Paul Haggis states, “To make a film like Transformers at a time of war is a political act”—by which he of course means a retrogressive political act. Haggis, quoted in Ali Jaafar, “Casualties of War,” Sight and Sound (Feb. 2008): 22. Many others (including the Sight and Sound article just cited) have criticized 300 under similar terms.
4. See, for example, the Cinefex article on Zodiac that enumerates its very extensive digital retrogression of contemporary San Francisco to make the city look like it did in the 1970s. Jody Duncan, “The Streets of San Francisco: Zodiac,” Cinefex 109 (Apr. 2007): 49–.
5. Trumbull, quoted in “Tripping the Light Fantastic,” Daily Variety (Feb. 23, 1996).
6. Lucas, quoted in Kline (1999:179).
7. In the case of Close Encounters, the relation to the frame can have as much to do with Spielberg as Trumbull himself. However, I would argue that Trumbull has more consistently played with the limits of the frame in this way.
9. This quote by Hitchcock is often cited but hard to track down. It is attributed to Pauline Kael, who quotes an unnamed older director’s view (over drinks) on Jaws, but does not name Hitchcock: “He [Spielberg] must never have seen a play; he’s the first one of us who doesn’t think in terms of the proscenium arch. With him, there’s nothing but the camera lens.” Quoted in Pauline Kael, For Keeps, 691. According to another citation, it came from a TV interview with Hitchcock. There it is cited: “He’s the first one of us who doesn’t see the proscenium arch,” which is also applicable to Close Encounters. Quoted in Owen Gleiberman, “Review: The Bourne Ultimatum,” Entertainment Weekly (Aug. 1, 2007). Perhaps it was a quote Hitchcock liked to repeat?
10. Many of the prominent visual effects supervisors working today got their start in the late 1970s at some level of the effects business. The breakdown is surprisingly consistent between those who, on one side, trained and made much of their career at ILM: Dennis Muren (War of the Worlds [2005], Super 8 [2011]), Richard Edlund (Charlie Wilson’s War [2007]), John Dykstra (Spider-Man 1 & 2 [2002, 2004], X-Men: First Class [2011]), John Knoll (Pirates of the Caribbean I–III [2003, 2006, 2007], Pacific Rim [2013]), Joe Letteri (Avatar [2009], The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey [2012]), and Craig Barron (Zodiac).
In the animation group are visual effects supervisors who trained under Douglas Trumbull: Mark Stetson (Superman Returns [2006]), The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn—Part 2 [2012]), Richard Yuricich (Mission Impossible I & II [1996, 2000]), Scott Squires (Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer [2007]), Mike Fink (The Golden Compass [2007], The Life of Pi [2012]), Richard Hollander (Harry Potter 1 [2001], 300: Rise of an Empire [2014]), and John Gaeta (The Matrix [1999], Speed Racer [2008]).
11. Certainly an expected, but insufficient, conclusion would be to ascribe the difference in approaches to the historical problem of what new digital aesthetics should look like: on which precedent (animation or photography) do we base the aesthetic? However, once again, the tendency predates the introduction of digital effects on a wide scale in the early 1990s. By a similar argument, the division can also not be fully explained by separating out the people who entered the business in the 1990s digital effects boom, like Scott Skotdyk (Spider-Man 3 [2007]) or Chris Watts on 300, versus those who got their start with optical effects. Instead, like many filmmaking practices such as editing and sound that have felt the impact of digital technology, the digital helps provide clear examples in special effects of the tendency to choose one aesthetic over another, here where a more animated or optical look is more evident and exaggerated.
12. Lucas, quoted in Kline (1999:115). Other examples of Lucas’s remarks on his films’ polemical stance: “Rather than do some angry, socially relevant film, I realized there was another relevance that is even more important—dreams and fantasies. … It’s fun” (Stephen Zito, “George Lucas Goes Far Out,” in Kline [1999:53]); “When I did American Graffiti, I discovered making a positive film is exhilarating. [ … ] The idea [of Star Wars] is not to be afraid of change. There are bad robots, good robots … Accept that there will be change inevitably. Make change work for you, don’t passively just let it happen to you” (Kline [1999:149–50]).
For his part, Spielberg avoided (and tends to still avoid) making pronouncements about his “worldview.” When asked in 1974, “Do you think you have a view of the world that comes through in your film work?, Spielberg answered, “No, not yet. Ask me that question in ten years.” Friedman and Notbohm (2000:14).
13. Kevin Thomas, “Technology’s Impact on Society Woven into Silent Running,” Los Angeles Times (Mar. 14, 1971).
14. Trumbull makes an astonishing number of Benjamin-like statements. See “Tripping the Light Fantastic,” Daily Variety (Feb. 23, 1996).
15. Don Witmer, “All Together Now,” American Cinematographer (June 2012): 34.
16. A tendency William Brown has characterized as “post-humanist.” Brown (2009).
17. Mark Harris, “Micro Mangling,” Entertainment Weekly, Mar. 23, 2007.
18. An attitude he clings to in an op-ed against James Cameron’s claim that Avatar’s digital performance capture “empowers” the actor. Instead, Harris makes an argument for the irreplaceability of human actors. Harris, “An Avatar for Best Actress?,” Entertainment Weekly, Jan. 29, 2010, 24.
19. However, recent ambitious filmmakers (in Harold Bloom’s terms) “read” and “swerve” from Kubrick with a different cinema in mind than the generation before. Instead of controlling the mise-en-scène with an eye toward a new kind of popular movie experience, they frequently look to Kubrick as an exemplar of a strong auteur’s expressive independence in the Hollywood system.
20. Although it employed CGI for some fire and explosions as well as landscape “cleanup” (removing twenty-first-century artifacts from the landscape, for example), the film went against the grain of contemporary filmmaking by not using a digital intermediate for color correction and the like. See Stephen Pizzello, “Blood for Oil,” American Cinematographer (Jan. 2008): 36–.
21. Patricia Thomson, “Animal Instincts: ‘War Horse,’”American Cinematographer (Jan. 2012): 48–.
22. As I have described more fully elsewhere, filmmakers like J. J. Abrams, Neil Blomkamp, and Alfonso Cuorón have also reacted against the “overly plastic” look of CGI to embrace what Abrams called “the analog and real.” See Turnock (2010).
23. David Kehr, “When Hollywood Learned to Talk, Sing and Dance,” New York Times, Jan. 15, 2010. Or see Benjamin Svetkey, “The New Face of Movies,” Entertainment Weekly, Jan. 22, 2010, 34. Both articles are rather cautious to refer to Avatar more as a potential “paradigm shift” than in more definite terms.
24. See Donald Crafton, The Talkies: American Cinema’s Transition to Sound, 1926–1931.
25. Avatar’s status as live action seems to be an industry designation, and a rather artificial one at that. According to the visual effects supervisor, 2,500 shots were classed as special effects shots, while only 110 shots in the film can be considered non-special effects shots. Therefore, despite the Academy’s designation that to be considered an animated film for awards consideration, “a significant number of the major characters must be animated, and animation must figure in no less than 75% of the picture’s running time,” Avatar was considered in the live-action awards category. DeBruge (2013).
It is also striking that much of the highly touted “real-time” motion-capture technology (in which the director on the set can see low-resolution images of the characters on a monitor during motion capture, and also the live-action characters and characters composited into backgrounds instead of seeing green or blue screen environments) developed for the film is an attempt to move an important postproduction process to the principal photography work flow. The fact that filmmakers are trying to get as much done as possible back on set during principal photography stands as evidence of the huge effort to transition effects work and other digital work to postproduction. Jody Duncan, “The Seduction of Reality: Avatar,” Cinefex 120 (Jan. 2010): 146.