burnt sienna

[thehefner]

So I got a question.

The 70's are widely regarded as the greatest decade for cinema. And for good reason. A generation of unprecedented talent were given unprecedented amounts of money and creative control, and if the 70's wasn't the greatest decade for movies, there's no denying that some of the greatest films and filmmakers all time emerged during that era. And yet, this knowledge only heightens an issue that's been nagging at me for some time:

Why did all the blood look like melted crayons?

Look at some of the greatest films from that era. THE GODFATHER. TAXI DRIVER. AGUIRRE, WRATH OF GOD. DAWN OF THE DEAD. When people get shot or stabbed or cut, they bleed out this opaque bright red/orange fluid that we have to remind ourselves is supposed to be blood. What the hell is the deal? Could people in the 70's not afford red food coloring and corn syrup? And ok, red food coloring is nasty stuff, sure, but come freakin' ON, people! You can't have a serious, powerful scene when someone is hemorrhaging Crayola!

Seriously, what is the deal? That simply can not have been the height of special FX blood technology, can it? Did they think it really looked realistic? Did they think it even looked good?



(as an aside, I think the reason I specifically have melted crayons in my head as a visual is due to a segment in either Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers that I saw when I was little, a video of a tour through a crayon factory. I found the vats of brightly colored molten goo entrancing and slightly disturbing. Weird what stays with you, eh?)

Comments

[interdisciple.livejournal.com]

When you think about special FX that Superman, for instance, pulled off in nearly the same era, it's like, yeah, c'mon. You can do better than the Crayon McMelty.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Exactly! SUPERMAN! STAR WARS! I mean, I can understand if it's a super low budget film like AGUIRRE, WRATH OF GOD, but you'd think even self-funded indie films could figure out decent stage blood.

[interdisciple.livejournal.com]

BTW, you are not the lone bearer of your crayon memories. Nearly everyone I know remembers that crayon factory montage from Sesame Rogers' Neighborstreet and consequently form neat little puddles of spittle at the corners of their mouths upon the mere consideration of a brand new 64-pack of Crayola-brand crayons. (Talk about powerful product placement, and on public television nonetheless... leading to dominoe effects and lifelong addictions... Don't even get me started on the Crayola Caddy.)

Though now, I've seen a 96-pack BIG BOX that dwarfs the once-almighty six-fo'. There's probably a GROSS PACK nowadays -- that's right -- 144 shades of authoritatively-named-waxy-fun-in-a-stick! You'd think after all these enhancements, they'd develop a way to keep them from effing breaking so effing easily (or at least include a repair kit that beats the usual wad of scotch tape or lighter experiments (the latter of which I don't recommend trying at home with kids)).

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Wow, you're totally right. I actually get a knee-jerk reaction of deeply-ingrained glee at the thought of a brand new 64-pack of Crayola-brand crayons.

Of course, I remember the vats my school had, tubs of old used crayons... so filthy, and oh, the smell...

mem-rees...

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

I'll admit, I didn't notice the blood colors. But all of the films of that period have weird coloring to my 21st century eyes. I don't know if it was process or preference but everything had a kind of oversaturated quality, even films intended to be gritty like TAXI DRIVER and GODFATHER.

It really does go to show you that perception is heavily colored by what you expect to see. Take a look at the acting; a lot of really good performances of the period feel too big and chewy today.

I have a hard time watching movies that old. Not all of them, but many of the Great Films of the period just feel wrong to me, and the older they get the wronger it feels.

The AFI's top 100 list doesn't overrepresent the 1970s. I counted 18 films on the list from that decade. I've seen nearly all of them; I missed CHINATOWN and THE FRENCH CONNECTION.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I really have to wonder how it looked then. Because, look, you know I adore Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD. But while I've never first-hand seen blood splattered on a windshield and getting wiped off, I can say with some assurance that it doesn't look like that.

Actually, now that this is brought up, have you seen AGUIRRE? If not, I'd really like your thoughts on that (from a Richard III standpoint, if nothing else). And while you're there, take a look at the blood. It was even more bothersome seeing it on the big screen. Mom asked me about it afterwards and said it distracted the hell out of her.

Wrong in what way? Acting, filmmaking? Every way? Is it harder to watch even older films? How about THE TWILIGHT ZONE?

The AFI might not, but ask pretty much any self-important film buff. And just think of some of the names: Spielberg, Scorsese, De Palma (ugh), Coppola, Carpenter, and those are just off the top of my head. Them and many others, what they did may not have all been good, but they were important and influential.

And many were really damn good on top of that too.

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've really got to see AGUIRRE. I've thrown it on the netflix queue.

You mean the old TWILIGHT ZONE series? Most of the good episodes feel kind of "thin", if you know what I mean. The twist is always lurking pretty close to the surface. And forcing the episodes into 30-minute units did some terrible things to the stories (and God help the season they did as hour-long episodes).

I remember seeing a really shitty horror film William Shatner did about that period. The blood was particularly spectacularly awful. I think it was because it was supposed to be zombie blood or something, but it looked like the bodies were bags of brightly-colored blue fluid in which the bullets pricked holes.

It's interesting that of the names you mentioned, most of them did exclusively their best work in the 70s, and most of what they did after that felt like retreads. Scorsese did finally earn his Oscar, but only Spielberg seemed to get better rather than worse in the period.

But these are the names that are cited by every serious film student. I suspect that they look at films in a different way than I do. They're looking to make films, rather than watch them. I know that for the crafts in which I have skills the creators have a different set of things they appreciate from the audience, even a knowledgable and literate audience.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I totally do mean the old ones. And I think I know what you mean by thin. But I often found the episodes (or what the episodes were attempting to do) rather compelling, even if you could see the twist coming. Sometimes seeing how the twist unfolds is half the fun. Or the twist might have different implications that you might suspect.

But I asked because so much of the acting, writing, direction, effects, etc. are so very much products of their time. I sometimes have to do a bit of adjusting when I watch an episode, but I often still love them.

I wonder if you're thinking of the legendarily-awful THE DEVIL'S RAIN, with Shatner and BORGNINE. Plus, zombie Travolta.

And yeah, what you're saying about making films vs. watching films, that's one of the reasons I don't like most French cinema. They're more interested in the art of film, whereas I'm more in it for the story (not strictly story, but hopefully you know what I'm getting at).

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen one of the original Twilight Zones in years. I was quite fond of them when I was a teenager, but I would have been watching them for totally different reasons. I was a sci-fi junkie then, and it would have been all about the twist, but I would also have been less demanding about the quality of that twist.

I do recall that a few of them were masterpieces of the use of black-and-white medium. There's a lot to be said for the medium, though after a while I get tired of, "Oooh, look at the lovely shadows, look at the magnificent use of contrast." Then again, I could have watched GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK forever.

Like any TV series, especially one as anthologized as TWILIGHT ZONE, it's going to be hit and miss. There were a lot of misses, to be sure. Some of the greats were really great, and a few stand up well today.

[chickenhat.livejournal.com]

Yes, the recipe changed. In black and white, Hitchcock was the one to use chocolate syrup first, because the standard stage blood didn't look right in black and white during the shower scene. Peckinpah used oil and latex paint, which was cheaper by the gallon.

And when they first started using color for films, the whole point was to get as much color into the shot, not realism.

Medical use of fake blood for training scenarios was always too watered down looking for movies, the light hits it differently.

AFAIK, corn syrup wasn't used until Evil Dead, because the fake blood commercially available was too expensive so Raimi and Campbell et al came up with their own recipe.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

And Romero used ham covered in bosco syrup. Oil and latex sounds about right.

Still, by the 70's, color films had been made for a goodly while and realism was coming in full force. I'd surely have thought by then...

Wow, go Raimi, Tapert, and Campbell!

[kali921.livejournal.com]

The seventies are widely hailed as the greatest era of cinema? Man, I'm a cineaste in the extreme, and I've never really heard that sentiment as being the majority opinion.

For my money, it was the forties, by FAR. Please!

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I ain't saying I agree, but the opinion is definitely out there. This book might be a perfect example of that mentality.

[adaptor.livejournal.com]

I remember that one, too! And a Seasme Street special where they went to China and took part in a giant chess game made of people.

(Which means one or two less mistakes involving a giant yellow bird remain to be made.)

[wondermojz.livejournal.com]

I hate to spoil the best thread of the day, but blood-colored blood doesn't read well on film (it looks brownish-black, which looks REALLY fake), so before there was such a thing as post-production, they were stuck with the stuff that reads as red-orange.

BTW, good to see ya last night, kid :-)

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Well how ironic then that what they used instead didn't look any MORE real!

Brownish-black... I wonder if that's why all the blood looked funky in that Kevin Costner Robin Hood movie!

Great seeing you as well, m'dear. A pleasure, as always. Sorry it wasn't entirely under the greatest of circumstances at all times, but I certainly hope the same won't be said when you come to my party. April Fool's Eve, don't forget!