At 29,029 feet, Mount Everest ranks as Earth’s highest mountain and attracts the world’s most seasoned climbers. It was also used as the filming location for a portion of Universal’s Everest.
“It was a very difficult shoot, physically challenging, with weather you couldn’t control. You had to keep adapting,” director of photography Salvatore Totino told The Hollywood Reporter.
7 comments:
I know everyone loves real effects but there are some things that CGI is just better for. There is no reason to freeze an actor and film crew during a storm just for a shot. We have moved past that. I also wonder if there is extra pay for something like that. To get crew like that on the mountain do you sell it as a low pay adventure, or say something along the lines of "hey man this is gonna suck but it pays well so wanna go spend a few weeks on a mountain. I also kinda want to know where they stayed. Do you think they climb the mountain every day or did the whole crew camp out up there. That's some pretty amazing lengths to go to for a shot. I'm amazed no one got injured, and well I am glad that is the case it sort of makes me think is taking a risk like this worth it?
I’m sure there are easy ways to film a certain shot, but an entirely different story when you are working in high elevations, and on the side of the tallest mountain in the world. I’m sure the crew had to be in decent shape at least to haul equipment around. Even with the extra hands that were hired on to help. Having to work with unfamiliar terrain is tough as it is just to hike up. I’ve climbed a few mountains and that was with training plus a 60 pound pack on my back. Then again South Texas training isn’t the same as an actual mountain to train on. Having only a limited amount of time to work in these locations and then trying to exact the same situations in a studio must have been a fun time for the lighting designer. It is true what they say that the air is so much clearer and the sunlight crisper. Just goes to show you’ve got to love what you do to be willing to take large risks. And Isaac, since now is as good a time as any, if it were me, being paid or not, I would just enjoy the opportunity to be on Mount Everest even if it is a for a short time. Everyone there would be wearing the requisite gear, it would be very idiotic if you weren't. This is the type of once in a lifetime experience that you not only get paid for, but get to experience.
Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer is one of my all-time favorite books, so when I had heard they were attempting to make a film adaptation, I was wary, to say the least. Based on the reviews and this article, it seems like my fears were unwarranted. Just attempting to make a film faithful to such a horrific story is a massive undertaking, and the choice to actually film all the way from Kathmandu to the actual mountain is one that shows the filmmakers were dedicated to crafting a genuine representation of what happened on that mountain in 96. The thought of being near frozen in a climate controlled tent, on the actual mountain, as Jason Clarke was, is terrifying. A personal dream is to climb Everest, but the amount of dedication and physical prowess it would take are far beyond my lanky body's scope. Sure, there are expensive tours that claim to take you up the mountain easily, but, as Everest will show, if you don't have experience, you are causing grave danger to not only yourself, but everybody else on your expedition. Just like theatre, huh?
I love nature documentaries and I’m always impressed by the patience and ingenuity it takes to get a lot of the shots they use. Even though it is about a movie, what they mention in this article reminds me a lot of the behind-the-scenes info I’ve seen about nature documentaries. Climbing cliffs is hard enough, climbing them with a camera is undeniably impressive. I also think it is interesting that for movies like this they have some scenes shot on site and some scenes shot in a set, yet by the final movie they blend flawlessly. My guess is that if someone were to see this movie they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between shots on Everest and shots in the studio. The amount of detail that goes into that, especially in terms of set and lighting, sounds very cool. I’d really love to learn more about the process that goes into deciding how to recreate someplace like Everest in a studio. This article did touch on that some, and I wouldn’t have expected them to put in the resources to get real snow, but I think it is really interesting how they did it, and I would love to learn more about that.
Oh man, I would absolutely love that job, shooting a move on the side of a real mountain. Maybe I would like to do expedition safety or guiding, but that sounds like a hell of a time. In the article, the DP says “That’s the worst headache ive ever had” That’s really scary that they made the crew work at altitude without acclimatization, that is seriously dangerous. More dangerous than most working conditions ive ever seen on any site ive been to. I seriously would consider this a huge work safety violation. Consider, you have a PA go from the shoot back to camp to grab some gaff tape, we hasn’t had any water in like an hour, and passes out from altitude. If he doesn’t die from the fall, and lands almost anywhere in the snow, he could be dead in 15 minutes if too much skin is exposed. I am all for shooting on location and would love to work on a project like this, but only with the appropriate safety measures taken.
I saw this film and let me tell you the cinematography was amazing, at first I thought it was fully real, until of course we were actually seeing people fall off the mountain. But he mixes reenactments with actual footage and interviews and it allows for a very connectable experience. More docudramas like these should be made. It appropriately highlight the dangers of climbing a mountain like Everest for both experienced and inexperienced climbers, paid homage to the men and women who died and portrayed the beauty the mountain once had before tourism trashed it. He made sure to show the mountain from all angles, truthful angles. He didn’t hype up the drama of the storms or stage extra dangers. He just let Everest speak for itself and that led to an amazing product. Both the movie and the hike up the mountain were formidable undertakings, I’m glad this man was willing to risk it for the sake of this film.
After seeing the film yesterday I have to applaud the director on the Cinematography because it was a true success. I am happy to now know that the entirety of the movie wasn’t shot in a film studio and instead given real locations in the same kind of environments that exist on Mount Everest. Throughout the movie with always having an appropriate level of spacial distance between the camera shot and the actor’s faces definitely helped with creating the moods of the scenes and making it really feel like a journey the audience was a part of as well. There needs to be a lot of credit given to the sound designer of the production because the emotions could not have felt as real and as powerful if it weren’t for the brilliance of the design. By having the storm blare through the speakers and really surround the audience really drove home the connection being right alongside the actors in the midst of the disaster. If it weren’t for the actors giving the same amount of effort into really embodying the people on their last months of life the story would have felt like just another Hollywood remake of a real life disaster story. With the great risks the whole production team and cast took in the creation of the film, it did the real story a lot of justice.
Post a Comment