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

[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.