Wednesday, November 30, 2016
The Underappreciated Art of the Hollywood Backdrop
hyperallergic.com: When backdrop painters were successful at their jobs, the filmgoing audience didn’t notice their work at all. From the 1930s, up to the emergence of CGI and higher quality photography, painted backings were an essential part of the cinema industry. However, the artists were barely credited, no matter how important their transformation of reality was to a film — whether a colossal painting that transported the viewer to an exotic locale or a fantastic mural for an entirely fictional realm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It is incredible to think that for so many years film goers have thought that they were staring at a million moving images but in reality part of the image created and then projected onto a big white screen is static. There are so many thoughts on how film/television are so different from live theater performances, however, this article argues against that. At first pass, I would think that a blown-up photographic image of a specific place would of course be more realistic than a large painting of the same place, but I learned that my thinking may be wrong! Film and television programs have been using the painted backdrop for now over 100 years over the enlarged photograph because a painted backdrop offers more agility. The painted back drop, the article says, can be nuanced in a way that a photograph cannot. The painted backdrop or even an enlarged photograph (as seen in 'The Rover') are just a few more examples that show that our two different industries are still hugely interconnected.
It makes so much sense but I never thought about how a painting could be superior to a picture. The texture and manipulation skills required are incredible. Just painting a drop is hard as it is but some were done so well that in the example images I recognized I never even knew they were drops. Like the Wizard of OZ, they were so incredibly realistic, its ridiculous. While it does seem like the article was just trying to sell the book The Art of the Hollywood Backdrop by Karen L. Maness and Richard M. None the less it was an interesting read and it served its purpose, cause now I'm fighting the impulse to buying a $70+ book. Its a shame they don't get credit for it but most backstage work doesn't get recognition towards the general public anyways.
The movie industry always amazes me. It is essentially theater on steroids. We make beautiful backdrops; they blow them out of the water (but steroids always have some less desirable side effects). I first saw this book in the extra credit book list on Amazon and then saw it again in Dick Block’s office as he got it as a gift from an Alumni. The book’s point of the under appreciation of Hollywood backdrops is certainty a valid one. I like to think I fit in a fairly small population with theater/movie technicians as people who know just how much work needs to go into a production (granted I am on the inexperienced end of that scale). However, I had never even thought about Hollywood backdrops. Sure I subconsciously knew that there was a lot that was painted detail in Hollywood, but I never really appreciated it until now. And just like all of the work we do, if you don’t really notice it, we did our job. You aren’t supposed to look at the horizon over the water in a movie and think “nice painted drop” because if you do, its probably not the best painted drop.
I have absolutely never thought about backdrop painting in film. I kind of feel like an idiot for not thinking about it before. I guess I had never thought about what film sets did before CGI... It also surprised me that painting backdrops are more versatile than photo print backdrops. What did not surprise me, however, was the lack of credit to the painters. It seems as though designers, or anyone "behind the scenes," have continually lacked the credit they deserve. Although it is sad that credit is not given where credit is due, the lack of credit proves the effectiveness of their work. Designers tend to want their work to blend into the production, not stick out. In this blending credit is often lost. I am glad that this book is published to give credit to these artists.
These painted backdrops are incredibly amazing (the Die Hard one is surreal). I’ve never thought of the significance of having the paintings in the film to create real-life location background but of course they must be done the way they were before digital age or else how else could the movies be made? And painting a huge drop like those requires quite a lot effort. I’m actually surprised that the paintings are still used in today’s film industry (e.g. 2014’s Interstellar) with the digital printing technology being so advanced already. It’s interesting to ponder the comment that the painted images are sometimes more realistic than the photographs because scenic artists can selectively accentuate or play down parts of the painting to support the cameras. But it actually does make sense when you think about it and that is why painters need to be given more credit and appreciation of the masterful work they’ve done.
These drops are beautiful, and it pisses me off that the scenic artists who painted these never got any recognition. However, I bet that in the "golden age of Hollywood" certain scenic artists were pretty well known in the film industry for their art. I also think it'd be interesting to speak to one of these scenic artists about the challenges of painting drops for decades. I wonder if the drop styles had to drastically change from the 70's to the 80's for instance, in order to accommodate the films that were being made? It is a shame that CGI has pushed out the art of Hollywood backdrop painting, even though CGI provides a much more realistic look. I wonder when (year-wise) scenic artists were at their prime in the industry? Either way, I'm intrigued by the scenic artists mentioned in the article and perhaps I'll look into more photos of their art and backdrops.
Post a Comment