VFX Voice MagazineVFX Voice Magazine: The first two seasons of The Handmaid’s Tale on Hulu utilized a real house to shoot exteriors for the home of Gileadan Commander Fred Waterford (Joseph Fiennes) and his wife Serena Joy (Yvonne Strahovski), to which Handmaid June Osborne/Offred (Elisabeth Moss) is assigned. But for season 3 of the series, production was no longer about to continue to use that location.
7 comments:
One of the coolest moments in this entire show is the scene where Serena lights this house on fire. It’s mind boggling that she stands next to these huge flames that engulf her bed and the rest of the house. Truly, I recall watching this scene in horror and amazement as the fire did not travel quickly enough to hurt any actor, but all the while looking real and dangerous. The fact that they used a combination of on-set practical fire effects and visual effects created by Mavericks VFX is awesome. I did not know what a bluescreen was before reading this article. I am so very intrigued by special effects and the details that Mavericks VFX provided in this interview was wonderful. In addition, I am in shock that they actually ended up burning all of the stuff down. I love that they went for the real thing, because CG fire can only go so far. The fact that they used visual effects for the smoke as well is so innovative and creative.
I love it when films and television do things in the real rather than in the digital! While they didn’t actually burn down the house, which the article was leading you to believe, they did actually use fire to burn down sets and models. I really love this! Fire is one of the few practicals that is concerning because it poses a huge safety issue, but it also is so much more real and accurate looking than most fire digital effects I have seen. They hit a great stride to keep safe but also have the real effect by actually filming the appropriate things burning down but editing them into the scenes rather than placing digital fire in. This is such a fascinating article because it also explains how they went about getting to this real fire effect. This conversation always seems two sided and it appears that it went rather smoothly as the agreement came to real fire but done in controlled spaces and edited in.
There is a movie set in Baltimore called "Ladder 49" about the story of a firefighter in an urban fire department. This was filmed in the early 2000's and they ran into very similar problems, worrying about the fire looking "fake." They also used real fire and there were a couple of awesome tricks that they used. The stage lighting was problematic because the bright round light would bounce off the self-contained breathing apparatus mask. There fix was to put cutouts (I think gel) in the shape of fire over the light. That made it look like it was just other fire in the background from the perspective of the firefighter. The other big challenge was getting clear audio from the firefighters with their masks on. They achieved a great affect by setting the mask in the recording studio in front of the mic. They moved it and the mic forward and back from the perspective of the actor to achieve the effect of being inside the mask, but without muffling the sound.
There is a movie set in Baltimore called "Ladder 49" about the story of a firefighter in an urban fire department. This was filmed in the early 2000's and they ran into very similar problems, worrying about the fire looking "fake." They also used real fire and there were a couple of awesome tricks that they used. The stage lighting was problematic because the bright round light would bounce off the self-contained breathing apparatus mask. There fix was to put cutouts (I think gel) in the shape of fire over the light. That made it look like it was just other fire in the background from the perspective of the firefighter. The other big challenge was getting clear audio from the firefighters with their masks on. They achieved a great affect by setting the mask in the recording studio in front of the mic. They moved it and the mic forward and back from the perspective of the actor to achieve the effect of being inside the mask, but without muffling the sound.
In film and TV, the use of practical effects are highly effective when used properly to create convincing effects. Often, a great deal of additional effort is required to execute elements like these because they can be dangerous. In this case in particular, using fire even in a closed area can be difficult to manage but it makes the final image that much more convincing in the end. It becomes convincing when the actors have something tangible and real to interact with on set but also serves as a good visual representation to build upon in post production after the scene has been filmed. This also required an interesting and careful use of scheduling since the interior set used in the scene was demolished during the filming. It’s the careful combination of the practical elements, scheduling, and clever usage of visual effects in post production that creates an interesting and convincing scene.
- J.D. Hopper
I absolutely love behind the scenes footage. Not just the gag reels of actors having a grand old time on set, but also the process of how directors and creative staff make a scene come to life, be it by special effects or technical direction or something else. I've never been a particularly tech-savvy person, so I don't always understand the jargon of special effects, but it's still very entertaining to watch someone transform a scene from gently aflame to realistically ablaze. I don't feel like technicians and other backstage workers are appreciated enough in mainstream media, and a lot of the work they do is not well understood and, more often than not, taken for granted. That is part of the reason I enjoy articles like these so much—I get to see the nitty-gritty of what's going on behind what's presented on the screen.
It is fascinating - to me - to see how problems are dealt with behind the scenes. Solely using CGI does often make whatever is being generated by the computer (be it special effects, costumes, sets, etc.) look flat. I am not an especially technically savvy person when it comes to media or scenic design, but the intersection between tangible, physical scenic breakdown and digital media is so super cool. I don’t entirely understand the nuances of digital SFX spoken about in the article, but the scene itself was extraordinarily impactful. It’s also nice seeing how much fun can be made out of what was originally an obstacle (assuming that controlled arson might be seen as “fun”). Looking at the “before” and “after” pictures of the interior special effects and those containing the later-“erased” artifacts. Detail-work is always intriguing to me and, on some of the images - if you zoom in - there are outlines where swimming pools, etc. used to be.
--Emily Marshburn
Post a Comment