For director Christopher Nolan’s World War II drama “Dunkirk” (pictured above), production designer Nathan Crowley went to great lengths to be true to the historical record.
Friday, December 01, 2017
Production Designers Conjure Past and Future on Oscar-Vying Films
For director Christopher Nolan’s World War II drama “Dunkirk” (pictured above), production designer Nathan Crowley went to great lengths to be true to the historical record.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
This article makes a very good point as to how to make rules based on genre and the main elements of technically putting on a production: time, money, people, and space. For big budget Hollywood films, the rules don't usually have to be broken and they can achieve what they want pretty accurately. For smaller budget films, things like clear and necessary time periods are usually under-realized and rather cheap looking. This leads me to ask, why create more problems for yourself, when I see short films or low-budget independent films, I wonder why they didn't just choose a genre or wrote a script that didn't involve them being in France in 1920 or in Cleopatra's palace in ancient Egypt, but people usually just put off the look (or lack thereof) with the excuse of money. It is also important to acknowledge that a proper allocation of resources and rule-making is necessary in any film no matter the budget. A film like Dunkirk with a pretty look and nice sound lacked in quality of its script and had inexpensive talent that relied on schtick for entertainment.
Production Design is something that I am interested in, in both possible pursuing a career, and just an appreciation for movies that have good production designs. Shows and movies that are set in real spaces, or recreated in real studios are often more magical than a show that just uses greenscreens. This view is similar to one of the production designers mentioned in the article, Sarah Greenwood. Another part of production design that the article points out very clearly, is historical accuracy, but still holding onto the opportunity to design within that time period. Looking at shows like Downton Abbey that are actually filmed in what used to be a huge abbey and seeing the theatrical elements that make the space, and as Dick teaches us in class, the importance of being able to tell just from the space what the room is and who it belongs to. There are a lot of aesthetic choices about that, it's just that not all historically accurate rooms have to look the same. Hopefully this year's Oscar voters will take into account whether or not the production design is accurate, how it was created, and how the space fit into the film.
I love the use of miniatures in movies may be my favorite element of production design. I remember when I was about nine, not long after seeing the Star Wars original trilogy, seeing production shots of the Death Star/X-wing battle scenes and the detailed scale model of the Death Star that they used, and developing a slight obsession with figuring out all the production tricks that the production designers on the original trilogy used. My parents had this VHS of the original trilogy with this bonus VHS of the extra footage and "behind the scenes" footage, and I watched that tape more times than I can remember. The use of miniatures, with or without CGI, takes so much dedication attention to detail. I also love the miniatures used in The Grand Budapest Hotel. At the end of last mini, we talked about production design and props design in Props, and the dedication of Props Masters and designers to the craft of dressing a set. I have so much admiration for production designers and props persons.
I’m really glad that more directors and production designers are not relying exclusively on CGI as much as the trend seemed to indicate. There are so many movies and TV shows that have come out in the past few years that seemed to lack soul and I think this was mainly because of the over-use of CGI. Despite amazing artists, incredible computer programs, and tricks to incorporate live action into the CGI effects, there is often something just a little off about too much CGI. This might be because the actors have nothing to act against and so their acting is less than it might be. This might be because there is something that we can see as not quite real- the lighting is wrong, the location is not gritty enough, or the connection between the live action players and CGI does not exactly mesh. But I think the real element that is missing is soul. I don’t mind when they film extras in small batches and replicate them over a huge field. That still has personality. I love when they superimpose characters over actors such as Gollum in Lord of the Rings. That usage is the best way to achieve desired effects. I think the problem is when the entire background is just invented or entire characters are animated. As the production designer for Beauty and the Beast said, “what’s life-action about that?”
I really like this way of thinking when approaching the technical aspects of the show, especially when considering computer generated images. As this article mentions, historical accuracy is vital to period films, but sometimes it is difficult to stay true to historical methods because of a lack of resources or capabilities. It is very easy to green screen the entire film and add in computer generated landscapes in order to capture the true look of the period, but in doing this the film loses its historical authenticity. It can be difficult to find or construct a full set that is period accurate, though, and there are other ways a creative team can stay true to the historical setting. Teams could film on film, like Quentin Tarantino, and use old school methods like casting props or using models instead of full computer generated images. I think this debate will pose an interesting obstacle when I eventually work out in this industry.
I've always been very interested in production design for film, so seeing the thought process and strategies behind recent films, many of which I have been able to go see, is really cool. I think that striking the balance between historical accuracy and creative license is a struggle that exists both in theater and film, but the level of detail that must be thought out in film is far greater, so the creative choices must in turn also be very thoroughly and deeply considered. The challenge of this is definitely appealing to me, as I have always been a detail-oriented person, and I am definitely something of a film nerd. Another point made in the article is the balance of CGI and practical effects. Personally, I have always found movies with impressive practical effects to be far and away the most striking and visually arresting, and though CGI is admittedly a necessity at times, I believe when it is used as sparingly as possible in favor of good practical design, the movie's authenticity benefits greatly. I look forward to exploring these issues further in my theater work, and hopefully in film as well.
I love this approach that theses kinds of artist like , Christopher Nolan, try to take with their film pieces. In theatre a lot of the time we are able to suspend belief and stretch things so that they are far from their actual reality but in film seeing an ultra realistic and true story can be awe-inspiring and keeping these images real and true to what they are only adds to the effect in my opinion. As always the balance that is show is the key to a great movie or production between real and creative expression. The interesting thing is how a film can deal with it though because a-lot of the time CGI and staying historically accurate can be really hard to do and it makes a productions price go way up really quickly. I personally feel that all efforts should be made to try and push these two things as much as possible in the world in order to fully immerse the audience member.
One of the reasons I love designing and theatre is because you get to create a completely different world that must immerse the audience. I think the processes discussed in this article is very important to consider, especially when creating a historical film. Creative license is always taken to serve the story but I believe all decisions must be rooted in research and reality. I find nothing more annoying than when something is designed and created that doesn't fit in with the rest of the world. I think that it completely pulls the audience out from the experience and makes them question the process of the work rather than the work itself. If you go through the effort of creating a whole new world then it might as well be consistent. Even with movies like Star Wars and Bladerunner who do not take place in the world that we exist in, it is important to root our ideas in some reality. The physics and features of our world developed for a reason so the physics and features of made up worlds must do the same to be believable to an audience. I love that the designer for "Blade Runner 2049" made an active decision to maintain the rules established in the first film as, otherwise, the progression of the stories would not make sense.
Playing with time in historical pieces is tricky. I am more interested in what Blade Runner 2049 did, trying to recreate a futuristic world that is set on earth in the near future. It was very important to the original Blade Runner that advertisements were everywhere. And back in 1982 the designers just took guesses at which companies that existed at the time would continue to exist until 2019. They were wrong on a lot of their guesses. But with the new Blade Runner the designers knew that the guesses were wrong, but they kept the world consistent to the original by using the same company names, even if they were no more in the real world. The other interesting thing about how they designed the movie was that they used similar production techniques to stay true to the aesthetic of the original. The use of models, and practical lighting instead of CGI is what makes the atmosphere feel the same.
s Crowley states in the article “I’m not going to miss an opportunity to add texture because it’s a couple of years away.” In general, when designing a show there is a fine balance between what actually existed in that time and place and what you are adding. But I think that is particularly true is in a period film. But also in modern times, there is a fluidity to what’s there and what isn’t. For example, in terms of fashion most people aren’t wearing stuff from 10 years ago, but most people still have items from a couple of years ago. Like just because a decade ends doesn’t mean that there aren’t echoes of that decade. Also I am always intrigued by the costume and production design in period films, because sometimes they are the most beautiful to look at. I think designers face the unique challenge of having to replicate an item that is no longer available.
It is amazing the amount of effort art directors will go to preserve complete historical accuracy on a production, and the amount of detail needed to ensure that every aspect of the design is correct. I was incredibly impressed with the fact that an 18th century French village was constructed as a set rather than using CGI for the live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast. As someone who is interested in production design and potentially art direction, it was fascinating to read about all of the seemingly minuscule details necessary in productions that most people don't think about or even realize that they're there. It was even more interesting to consider how to create a future dystopian world that may or may not be grounded in reality and historical accuracy, and how the production team would portray this world using all of the design elements for a setting that does not yet exist.
Post a Comment