Why couldn't they just put a camera next to the car?
>>219568420Cameras couldn't take jostling back then.
>>219568420>film has a rear projection during a driving scene Surefire way to know you're watching kino
>>219568420Hitchcock insisted on filming as much as possible in the studio. There's some great location shooting of that chase scene shot from a helicopter but none of that shows the stars - all that is rear projection shot in studio so he could control the lighting and sound.
>>219568420One of many reasons why Breathless was so revolutionary
>>219568420grace kelly had five DUIs and could not legally drive anymore so hitchcock had to do this instead
>>219574549Oh my god. Is that....is that a camera IN the car?
>>219577107>Oh my god. Is that....is that a camera IN the car?
>>219574065Hitchcock is technically sloppy in lots of ways but his use of back-projection is probably the worst. Vertigo, The Birds, To Catch A Thief . . . all really awful, immersion-breaking.>>219574549Orson Welles famously avoided back-projection for the driving scenes in Touch Of Evil (1958). He said that if you could put the camera on or in the car there was no excuse for crap fake-looking nonsense.
>>219578148>Orson Welles famously avoided back-projection for the driving scenes in Touch Of Evil (1958).I know, but it was a very short scene and the camera still jostled like crazy. It was done before Touch of Evil in for example Gun Crazy which Breathless also homages, so Welles lied, but he lied about a lot things.
>>219571666devil post
>>219568420The actual reason is that color film and cameras required enormous amounts of light at the time and it was impossible to properly light a moving car for color shooting. All the movies that were mentioned ITT like Breathless or Touch of Evil are B&W, it's not a coincidence.
>>219578148>all really awful, immersion-breaking.Worst of all is how badly it ages the movies, as the backscreen thing always gives off a really old and cheap movie feel. I understand using it for extremely difficult scenes but some of his uses really have no excuse.
>>219578679green screen gives me the same feelingboth are fake as shit
>>219578871Green screen is even worse since it's a lazy modern invention, especially when used for car scenes. If YouTubers can attach a GoPro to their car and film something cinematic, then why the fuck couldn't some major Hollywood movie? Pisses me off when you know it was done because they were cheap and lazy.
>>219568420This is one of the things that bugged me about The Love Witch. Movies of the period they were aiming for would've been more liable to use a chase car or >>219574549 for the opening scene.
>>219574065Is that Janet Leigh
>>219582293Yes. Anthony Perkins was much suaver and more charming than people think. Also much older.
>>219574065Grace Kelly is just a ridiculously attractive woman. I think she might've been perfect.
>>219574549new wave fucking SUCKS
>>219583663
>>219568420Because that's a kino.
>>219568420That's one of my favourite movies
>>219582293No, but this is (picrel). >>219582459Agreed. She's at her hottest in To Catch a Thief imo.
>>219571557How did they film the back projection plate then?
>>219568420God I want to beat you up
>>2195786001957 Agfacolor, location shooting with zero additional lighting, holy shit Germany, I fucking kneel
