PDF 
by Mike Gray
In an article on Pajamas Media, Ed Driscoll discusses special effects (FX) that really were special. A commonly employed camera trick he discusses is the “matte painting,” a small image superimposed over a background containing a set and the actors.
The undisputed master of the matte shot was Albert Whitlock. It was a money-saving device commonly used in Hollywood until the late 1970s, when George Lucas and his crew almost single-handedly reinvented movie FX by coupling the camera to a computer.
Unfortunately, an indefinable “something” was lost in the transition, Driscoll notes:
. . . the aesthetics of old Hollywood also helped to sell matte paintings. From Gone with the Wind in 1939, to the great MGM musicals of the 1950s, films made during Hollywood’s golden era typically had a softer, more painterly look in general. Contrast this more aesthetically pleasing look to the harsh gritty films that became the vogue in the 1970s after Old Hollywood collapsed.
It wasn’t just the aesthetics that changed, Driscoll notes. He says politics have become a determining factor in the look and intent of the New Hollywood’s product. He quotes from a 2005 article by Brian Anderson:
There’s a simple explanation of why Tinseltown churns out so many commercial duds. Elite filmmakers want to make moola, of course—and they still do, lots of it, though not nearly as much as they could be making. But giving the public what it wants isn’t their prime motivation. More important is their wish for recognition as artists from peers, critics, and the liberal elites. . . .
Further reinforcing Hollywood’s leftish leanings are liberal interest groups that monitor script content for “offensive”—read: politically incorrect—content. This pressure can utterly transform a film project, as Tom Clancy will tell you. In his novel The Sum of All Fears, Muslim terrorists explode a nuke at the Super Bowl. When Clancy optioned the book and the film went into development, the Council on American Islamic Relations got to work. The 2002 film villains: white neo-Nazis, not Muslim fanatics.
Some Hollywood production companies actually have outreach offices that contact advocacy groups ahead of production to vet potential film scripts. “Keep in mind [that] one of the reasons why the FBI or the government or business are the villains is because everyone else has a constituency,” former Motion Picture Association head Jack Valenti points out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Resources:
Ed Driscoll’s Pajamas Media article.
The definitive book about matte paintings, The Invisible Art, on Amazon.com.
The Hindenburg on Amazon.com.
The Sum of All Fears on Amazon.com.
[...] The American Culture [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by S. T. Karnick, Vitun Sharma. Vitun Sharma said: How Did Hollywood Ever Get by Before Computers. http://bit.ly/c0PhqM [...]
This article is so absurdly wrong, I hesitate to comment on it.
But here it goes.
Firstly, traditional matte painting didn’t go away in the 70s. There are films well into the 80s that have them done in the old school manner that was the norm for 40 years. An artist painted something on glass and it was effectively superimposed onto the film frame over and around the actors. ( E.T, Indy 3, and Star Trek leap to mind, but there are more ) Even in the 90s. Artist would do their initial work by hand and then scan it into the computer. (Some artists still work this way)
Secondly, anyone who has the slightest knowledge of film history knows that many of the greatest films were technological leaders as well, “Birth of a Nation”, “The Battleship Potemkin”, “Metropolis”, “Citizen Kane” all were novel in their ability to push the technology forward. These films, if they were made today would unquestionably use computers if they could. The filmmakers had no such grand illusion that technology was bad.
The aesthetics that mark this “golden” time referred to above are in part limits of the technology. Film stocks have improved, cameras have improved, the ability to create more complicated shots have emerged. The broad strokes comment that films post 70s have a grittier look, is somewhat true, but that’s partly because filmmakers have left the studio lot. On location shooting lends itself to a grittier and more realistic look.
One thing that has changed since the 50s is the sophistication of the audience. Fake doesn’t sell. Painting a cityscape on a tarp and putting in behind an actor won’t sell. Putting an actor in a car on the stage and moving it up and down while you project San Francisco on a screen doesn’t look good and isn’t believable. This is technique that should be abandoned. Perhaps you’re very aware when you see a bad fx shot. However, you probably see many more that you are completely unaware of.
Thirdly, Hollywood has always been about making money. Those great films we cherish made in the 30s, 40s and 50s, are but a tiny sliver of the films produced during the era. This is time when the movie going public went to the movies a few times a week. There were so many more movies and the were made a such a faster rate, that some stand the test of time, many do not.
And this idea that Hollywood’s leftist leanings are somehow perverting the Hollywood is crazy. The authors example on ‘The sum of all fears’ may be accurate, but how many films have Muslim terrorists as the bad guys? Tons! Hollywood has always danced with the notion of censorship. The Hays code ( he was chair of the Republican National Commitee 1918-1921) was the first to really clamp down on Hollywood attempting to establish what was morally acceptable for American audiences. Today, the MPAA ‘self polices’ every film in the U.S. When it doles out a NC-17 (which it often does for male nudity, gay themes or any sort of female orgasm ) it cuts a film off at the knees. Censorship lives, but hardly as any sort of liberal conspiracy.