This may be more of a General Question because it’s mostly about special effects.
I saw the restored version of Metropolis the other night, and was surprised by it, especially the quality of the special effects. Especially impressed because it was made in 1927, and some of the cityscapes looked so real.
So how were the cityscape scenes shot? What about the ones with tiny cars and airplanes moving through them? And how about the elevators that the workers used - did these exist somewhere already, or did the filmmaking crew have to build them? Same thing with the machines?
I’m interested in the segments in which one thing turns into another, like the hallucination Freder has of the machine becoming a giant mouth, or the Machine-Man acquiring Maria’s face. In each one, it appears that one object fades out and another fades in on top of it. As pretty much the only tools an editor would have were the rolls of film and some chemicals, I can’t imagine how they did this.
The fade out technique works like the old Star Trek transpotters film shots worked.
Essentially it is two cameras doing simultaneous filming where they gradually close the iris of one until only the desired image is shown. It is a bit more technical than that but not much.
It has been a long time since I saw Metropolis but I don’t remember cars or such moving in the background when I saw it. Perhaps the “restored” version added in the movement. I could be mistaken though.
The panoramas were acheived using the Shuftan process. Notice Eugen Shuftan is credited with photographic FX for “Metropolis.” Basically, it uses mirrors to combine images of live actors with models & paintings. Very tricky to do, but clearly very convincing.
It’s amazing what they could do in those old movies, isn’t it? I remember being very impressed the first time I saw Nosferatu. Excellent and effective use of special effects there.
IIRC, the cityscape scenes in Metropolis were all models.
This is known as a match dissolve and is typically done in the developing process of the film lab. In early cinema (Melies-era), these types of dissolves were done in-camera (cranking the film backwards and overlapping the exposures) but I imagine by 1926, they could do this in post-production.
As for the cityscapes, they were a combination of matte paintings and miniatures (in addition to what TheeGrumpy said).
It opens here Friday; I’ll be taking Mrs. AG this weekend.
The cityscapes were miniatures. I have some photos that show the film FX guys standing around inside the sets – they’re still pretty big sets. If you look closely, you otice that the irplanes seem to be moving on definte “tracks”, as if suspended by unseen wires (aerial braces) that are moving in off-camera tracks (the monoplane doesn’t “bank” when it turns, which seems to be a giveaway to the tryue nature). The cars on the roads and the crowds on the walkways seem to be moving a little too much in unison, so you get the idea that tracks are built into the roads and bridges.
The cityscapes in the montage are, of course, drawings, but no less impressive for that.
Me, I’m amazed by the ittle touches – the way the clouds move in the background of Freder’s ofice, the slow and fluid motions of the robot as it first moves, the shots of the worker’s underground city as the camera moves down with the workers in the elevator. Great stuff.
The cityscapes were miniatures. I have some photos that show the film FX guys standing around inside the sets – they’re still pretty big sets. If you look closely, you otice that the irplanes seem to be moving on definte “tracks”, as if suspended by unseen wires (aerial braces) that are moving in off-camera tracks (the monoplane doesn’t “bank” when it turns, which seems to be a giveaway to the tryue nature). The cars on the roads and the crowds on the walkways seem to be moving a little too much in unison, so you get the idea that tracks are built into the roads and bridges.
The cityscapes in the montage are, of course, drawings, but no less impressive for that.
Me, I’m amazed by the ittle touches – the way the clouds move in the background of Freder’s ofice, the slow and fluid motions of the robot as it first moves, the shots of the worker’s underground city as the camera moves down with the workers in the elevator. Great stuff.
The cityscapes were miniatures. I have some photos that show the film FX guys standing around inside the sets – they’re still pretty big sets. If you look closely, you otice that the irplanes seem to be moving on definte “tracks”, as if suspended by unseen wires (aerial braces) that are moving in off-camera tracks (the monoplane doesn’t “bank” when it turns, which seems to be a giveaway to the tryue nature). The cars on the roads and the crowds on the walkways seem to be moving a little too much in unison, so you get the idea that tracks are built into the roads and bridges.
The cityscapes in the montage are, of course, drawings, but no less impressive for that.
Me, I’m amazed by the ittle touches – the way the clouds move in the background of Freder’s ofice, the slow and fluid motions of the robot as it first moves, the shots of the worker’s underground city as the camera moves down with the workers in the elevator. Great stuff.
. . . Be sure to check out Sunrise, directed by F.W. Murnau. Some of the most breath-taking visual effects you’ll ever see! The omly drawbacks are Janet Gaynor’s awful wig and her Mojo Jojo hat. Otherwise, top-drawer late-silent filmmaking!
Three other films that will surprise you with how advanced silent films could be:
The Black Pirate (1926). Filmed entirely in Technicolor. Napoleon (1927). Abel Gance’s four-hour epic used split screens and multiple screens 25 years before Cinerama. The Man With a Movie Camera (USSR, 1929). Eye-popping, non-narrative experimental film.
I saw this at the Kennedy Center. I have to say I’ve never fallen asleep at the movies, but this thing… hoo-wee. I’m lucky that I can even post to this thread without zzzzzzzzzzzz…