[Login] or [Signup]
Login
Username:
Password:
[Signup]
[Recover Account]

Navigation

Poll


You must be logged in to view polls
Bowie General > Images Vol. 51

You are in:  Forums / Bowie General / Images Vol. 51
Locked
homebrewPosted at 2025-12-06 14:22:57(1 hr ago) (Bowie General / Images Vol. 51)


Uploaded: 152.57 GB
Downloaded: 375.96 GB
Posts: 167

Ratio: 0.41
Location: United States of America


These articles appear just as they were posted in the Usenet group alt.fan.david-bowie by group member Jamie Soule aka AladINSAnE. I have made no attempt to alter the formatting, spelling, grammar or edit in any way.

IMAGES: Part 51

Bowie was back in London for the filming of the Hunger, and once again,
outside of those who had to know, his
whereabouts was "top secret" for security reasons. Keeping Bowie hidden
was not that difficult since most of the film
was shot indoors. "Heaven," a disco located near Charing Cross Station,
was used in the opening scene of the film.
This club is where Deneuve and Bowie lure two others, a boy and a girl,
home with them, obviously on the promise
of drinks, drugs, and sex, and instead they suffer the fate of those who
cross paths with vampires at feeding time. A
house in Mayfair was also used as a set location, along with a country
house in Bedfordshire called Luton Hoo.
Coincidentally, in the original book Dracula by Bram Stoker,  Whitby, a
Yorkshire fishing port, was where Dracula
first set foot on English soil, and also is featured in some scenes in
The Hunger. Those who worked with Bowie on
the film had the usual comments about him, in that he was wonderful to
work with, took direction well,
unpretentious, was willing to learn, and he always tried extremely hard
to do things right. Screenwriter Michael
Thomas personally found Bowie, although quiet, to be the most confident
person he had ever met, believing that he
"could do absolutely anything and succeed at it." Although Bowie had,
has, continues to, and probably will forever
take on roles in some films that should have received  awards and
acclaim under the categories relating to
"FOOLISHNESS," one thing can always be said about him, and that is that
he puts effort  into every role he accepts,
like no other. Bowie does not accept imitation in  his music, acting,
his written articles, painting, or anything else that has his name
attached to it. He sent out for three mandolins to record Fantastic
Voyage, rather than use a synthesizer, he waited for Fripp while
recording Heroes so he could get the "right" guitar sound. rather than
settle for what he
and Alomar could accomplish, he studied the speech patterns of palsy
victims so his voice would be right for The
Elephant Man, Luther Vandross and David Sandborn were used to create
"Plastic Soul," Nile Rogers to create
"Ultimate Pop," the hand claps in Station To Station are real, and so is
his management ability. That is why it should
have come as no surprise to Michael Thomas that Bowie would learn to
play a cello for the movie, which he did.
Those who have seen the film will remember the scenes with Deneuve,
Bowie, and the girl from across the street,
sorry I can't recall her name, playing music in the sitting room. Bowie
was seated playing a cello in these scenes
which were short, and definitely not crucial to the plot. Now, Bowie did
not really play a cello, however rather than
going through the motions of playing  to "fake" the scene, he picked the
instrument up and practised until he was half
way proficient with it. This caused Thomas to later comment, "Most
actors would have faked it. Not David. He fucking learnt how to play the
cello. He worked like a bastard until he could play a decent Bach
cantata." This is the work ethic that those who have followed Bowie's
work over the years, take for granted, but we have it to thank for being
the motivator behind his best work. The film, as you know, called for
Bowie's character to age rapidly at the beginning of the film. Bowie's
day started at six thirty in the morning when those scenes were shot. It
was off to the set, and then to make up, where he sat anywhere from
three to five hours each day getting his character ready, before one
frame was shot.


There was never, and still isn't really, a lot of fanfare surrounding
this film. It just kind of appeared, and then just went away.
Personally, I don't really know what the general opinion of it is among
Bowie listeners, I do know however, that I never hear it come up in any
discussions. I may be mistaken, but I do not remember a lot of buzz
about the film in critic's circles when it was released, but nowadays it
seems to be treated kindly, judging from current reviews. I like the
film, and it is my opinion that the reason it does not get the
recognition I feel it deserves, is that it has been grossly mislabelled
by the media. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I am
concerned The Hunger does not qualify to be categorized as a "horror"
movie, like it was. I am sure that calling it a horror movie must have
turned many people away, who may have otherwise seen it. This is another
classic case of people, journalists this time, opening their mouths and
giving their "expert" opinions on things which they know nothing about.
It works like this, they hear the word 'vampire," then they
automatically think "vampire, horror movie." Simple. Simple minded that
is. You see, when most people hear "horror movie," they start conjuring
up feelings that accompany real horror movies, such as getting the shit
scared out of you, or they start visualizing an overabundance of severed
limbs. The is one more thing that goes along with with these two, and
that is a inane story line. Horror movies, save the real quality films
such as The Exorcist or Rosemary's Baby, rarely deal with any real
issues, therefore they do not require scripts that would have much
depth. In many films today the scripts  consist of four letter words
which are used as filler between mutilations. It would have been nice to
have seen a writer who actually paid attention to the film when they saw
it, if they ever did see it that is, and had enough intelligence to
notice the underlying theme. The Hunger was also categorized by
journalists and critics as being a "vampire" film. This may be really
stretching it in your opinion, but I wouldn't really label The Hunger as
a "vampire" movie either, as the focus of the film was not about
"vampires," they just happened to be the characters that the bigger
issue focused around. The Hunger deals with much deeper issues that that
of the undead running around creating havoc until someone manages to get
them trapped with a little sunlight, and then serves them some stake, of
the pointed wooden variety that is. As far as the story line goes, when
the general public hear the words "vampire movie," that is exactly what
they think, as they are basically all the same.  This label, I am sure
would have dispelled even more people from seeing it. Yes, you are
right, the classic vampire story materialized in The Hunger, but it was
superficial. The real issue which was dealt with, and magnificently if I
may add, was death. It was not just the issue of mortality either, the
film dramatized extremely well the very sudden shock, and rude
awakening,  that comes when death becomes a "REALITY," and must be
confronted.


David Bowie's character, John Blaylock, a vampire, and the ultimate
symbol of immortality. He is also a mirror image of a person in their
youth. They both have something that makes them inseparable, a bond,
that bond being the belief that they somehow have an immunity, one which
protects them from the disease called life. Immortal and invincible. The
young never age, and like John Blaylock, accidents and death are
unfortunate occurrences which happen to others. Confusion, disbelief,
denial and desperation, were the emotions Bowie displayed beautifully
through his character, when he realized that the impossible was
happening to him, he was going to die.  The myth that accidents  just
happen to others was shattered in the scene where John Blaylock is
crossing the street on his way home from the clinic, and his immortality
almost comes to an abrupt end underneath four wheels. In my opinion, one
of the best moments in the film is one which has no dialogue, and  a
scene that could easily go by unnoticed.  The scene I am referring to is
the few moments before Blaylock, now close to death, murders the little
girl in the sitting room. This room was once happy, when she used to
come over and he would play his cello in accompaniment to her violin,
but that feeling has departed. He now despises the girl that once
brought a smile to his face, because of what she represents. This scene
is a masterpiece, and taking into consideration all of Bowie's films, it
rates as one his greatest, and most powerful moments, proving that given
the right roles, he has a marvellous ability to reach an audience
through this medium. In this scene the girl is bursting with energy, her
smile beams, there is no fear in her, only the peace that comes from
true happiness. Her youth fills the room. Bowie doesn't say a word, he
doesn't have to, it's all in his "look." It is the look of want, a
desperate want of what one can't have. It is the look of suicide, when
one changes their mind seconds after stepping off that ledge. It is the
look of need to be what a person once was, but will never be again It is
the look of waking up after the accident, and told that you will never
walk again. It is a look of hate and jealousy. The act of murdering the
girl was not for any real need, it was an act of revenge against the
world, committed in self pity. What that girl represented was the one
thing John Blaylock despised more than anything else in the word, and
that was youth, and those who had it. There was one moment in the film
that brought attention to a deep rooted fear that most of us have
experienced, and that is the terror we would experience being buried
alive, as John Blaylock was when he was laid to rest.  The only
difference,  John Blaylock was sentenced to be buried alive for all
eternity.


In terms of substance, The Hunger had something to offer. Of course
anything which required though was instantly to many, especially the
journalists. What did they write about The Hunger? What was the reason
that they gave to see the movie? Well, it wasn't because of anything so
ridiculous as a well made movie, great acting, and writing, that apart
from most films, actually had some depth to it. To them, the value of
The Hunger as cinematography, could be found in a "lesbian" love scene
between Susan Sarandon and Catherine Deneuve. Wow, imagine that, sex in
a movie. Gee, I wonder what they will think up next. Maybe they have a
point though, I mean, where else can you go and see something as kinky
as two girls getting it on. Maybe I'm fucked up, but looking at images
concerning sex, just isn't that big of a deal to me anymore, and it
certainly isn't something that would motivate me to move very far, let
alone drive to a theatre to pay for. Now, I want to set the record
straight here. This lesbian love scene between Sarandon and Deneuve, is
not a lesbian love scene between Sarandon and Deneuve at all. What it is
in reality, is a display of ignorance, and another brilliantly showcased
example of those who speak in a tone of authority, yet have absolutely
no clue about what they are talking about. The terminology that is most
commonly applied to these individuals, are words that best describe
fools and idiots. Oh, pardon me, I forgot. Please also include morons.
Sorry.  The love scene that got these fools excited, causing them to
rant, rave and write endlessly about the once in a lifetime opportunity
to see these two alluring females in bed together never happened. The
truth is that the people you saw in action on that bed were not Deneuve
and Sarandon, as they both used "body doubles," or "stand ins" for that
scene. Since this is the case, I guess there isn't any reason to see the
film, and think of all those people who were cheated out of their hard
earned money because they didn't know. Maybe I shouldn't have opened my
big mouth and said anything, now poor Dave, Sue and Cathy are probably
going to get sued. Hey, this might be the end of BOWIEZOIDNET!  What
about The Hunger picture wise? You don't hear much, but the
cinematography in this film is far above average, and if compare to your
typical horror flick, it rates as excellent. Just to let you know, I do
not consider Dracula, Interview With A Vampire or Sid And Nancy as your
typical horror flick, they were well shot too. Some of the shots in the
film, especially those taken at the top of the stairs in the house,
where their were white drapes blowing in the wind and doves flying about
were spectacular.  Maybe it stems from his ability to make award winning
commercials, but director Tony Scott has an obvious talent for finding
the right shot. As evident in the scene with Bowie in the sitting room
just prior to committing the murder, the visuals in The Hunger quite
often speak louder than the dialogue. To have labelled this film as a
horror movie about vampires featuring a lesbian love scene between Susan
Sarandon and Catherine Deneuve is a fucking travesty, and one that I
should be used to by now, considering the treatment the critics and the
general idiots, er, I mean the general public gave to Heroes, Low and
half a million other things done by Bowie. At least The Hunger seems to
get some of the respect it deserves now, twenty years later is about
right too, as this is usually how long it takes those "others" to clue
in to Bowie's work.


What is it with this incessant need to label every fucking thing in
existence, separate it all,  place it all into nice neat categories,
along with sub classifications within each category, and then assign a
style of clothing to it. Truthfully though, I put things into categories
myself, but I don't have to many, and they are fairly basic. For
example, I classify things which are on the radio, or come out of a
record store as either music, or fucking garbage.  They are very easy to
remember as well. Then there are categories for truth and bullshit,
right and  wrong and good dope and bad dope, and all told, you don't
need much more to keep life manageable. I'm not alone on this either.
As it so happens, Peter Murphy, from Bauhaus, seems to dislike the act
of labelling everything as well, in fact, he has a real problem with it.
This dislike of his became painfully obvious to one journalist, who had
somehow deluded himself into believing that not only was he rather
intelligent, but far more educated and well read than Murphy. This was
his first error in judgement. The second was when he mistook his own
ignorance and stupidity for wisdom, and defined the work of Bauhaus,
placing it into a nice neat category. Comparing the interviewer to
Murphy, on the intelligence scale, one would notice a minor edge in
Murphy's favour, a distance best measured in light years. I thought I'd
share part of it with you here, as it is rather humorous to see just
what happens when a know it all music journalist has the misfortune of
demonstrating just how smart he really is, in the presence of an
intelligent man, and a very talented artist.

Interviewer: (speaking of recording "My Last Two Weeks" and "Subway)
When you were recording this, you had to have known that some of your
"gothic" fans, the fans of the "Bela Lugosi's Dead" era, might have a
problem with this new approach.

Murphy: Nobody's gothic, who's gothic? I mean, what is gothic?

Interviewer: You should know, you practically invented it.

Murphy: Wait a minute, wait a minute. I invented gothic music, what are
you talking about? You tell me what gothic music is, and then I'll
answer you. That way, we can be more specific.

Interviewer:  Well...

Murphy: First, I want to tell you, gothic is not Anne Rice, it's not
Marilyn Manson, it's not Nine Inch Nails. Gothic was an architectural
movement [hence, "Bauhaus" -- SS], it was a post Renaissance, European,
cultural aesthetic; it was Jean Cocteau, the Surrealists... if you're
talking about the American,  Tupperware sort of gothic rock, well, what
is that? There's lots of kids out there who might call themselves
"gothic-industrial," but they're more than that. And if you start
calling members of my audience who wear black or whatever, if you start
labelling them "gothic," which may infer some sort of geeky, stupid kid
-- well, that's insulting... and outrageous. My audience are not
"Columbine killers," they're the sort of people that are looking for
alternatives to boring, sterile, middle-class culture. They're into
things like poetry or looking into other realms of themselves. Now,
that's not to say there aren't hard-core sorts of "goths," who are into
"occult" sorts of activities and call themselves "Anti-Christs" and all
that sort of stuff. But that's all children-play, and it's dangerous and
they might hurt themselves. But, what are you calling "gothic"? Tell me.

Interviewer: Well, the way I see it, "gothic" is a sort of modern-rock
interpretation that you more or less started...

Murphy: No, you started it. The press started that. That's what annoys
me, this sort of media bollocks. Because Bauhaus never had an idea that
we were gothic, we were just, ah, surrealististic bastard-geniuses, do
you know what I mean?

Personally, I was in fits of glee when I first read this, and the
interviewer got exactly what he deserved for being so musically
retarded, and trying to plunk Bauhaus into some foolish genre. My wonder
is why would you even consider fucking doing something so stupid? My
opinion on the whole matter is this, Bauhaus stands ON THEIR OWN as a
worthwhile band. They are not fucking "GOTH," they are "BAUHAUS." It's
the same situation with the "BOWIE" and "GLAM ROCK" association. As far
as I am concerned, and anyone else who has followed Bowie's work long
enough to make any sense, is that any fucking idiot, or moron for that
matter, who lumps Bowie in with the superficiality of the "Glam Rock"
crowd is just that, a moron, and an ignorant one at that. A severe lack
of knowledge is the only thing demonstrated by anyone who wishes to
categorize any of Bowie's artistic output as "Glam." Furthermore, it is
an insult to Bowie's depth and creativity as an artist to think that the
makeup and the costumes were born out of a need to be outrageous, or
that they can be attributed in any way to the mindlessness of "Glitter
And Glam." Who would even dare to think that a mind like Bowie's would
ever resort to a level so blatantly foolish for ideas to incorporate
into his efforts to successfully combine theatre with his writing, in
order to create a multi media performance on stage. Does anyone see any
similarities in the quality of Bowie's music, compared to the "Glam
Rock" bands?  Can someone show me perhaps where any of these Glam Rock
bands were dealing with themes in their lyrics, that would somehow be
equivalent to the ones Bowie was dealing with at the time? Whereas the
conceptual ideas for visuals presented on stage by the Glam Rock bands
came from their mother's, or sister's make up drawer, Bowie's were
derived from the knowledge he had gained while entertaining a passion of
his, Kabuki, traditional Japanese theatre. It is a blend of Japanese
puppet theatre, and traditional theatre from the Noh period, to be more
specific. The point is that DAVID BOWIE, is DAVID BOWIE. Therefore, in
logical succession, THE HUNGER is not a horror movie about vampires
featuring a lesbian love scene between Susan Sarandon and Catherine
Deneuve, THE HUNGER, is THE HUNGER!


In The Hunger, the introduction to the film with Peter Murphy trapped in
a cage to the sound of Bela Lugosi's Dead  is absolutely  brilliant. I
hope some of you will remember this particular series of advertisements
which ran for Maxell tapes. The ad features a guy sitting in a chair in
his living room facing a set of speakers. The sound coming out of the
speakers is so powerful that it is blowing the man's hair straight back,
his tie over his shoulder and he is gripping the arm rests of the chair
holding on for dear life. I think most of you have probably seen it, as
it has run frequently, appearing in a wide assortment of advertising
mediums. Although new to North America, this advertisement is not new,
it is actually a remake of an ad that was made in England twenty years
ago, back in 1982. The  man sitting in the chair in the original
commercial was none other than the former Bauhaus front man himself,
Peter Murphy. The version of the Maxell ad that was made into a
television commercial won numerous awards, and the company behind it all
was Ridley Scott & Associates. The commercial was shot under the
direction of Howard Guard. who was working under contract for the
company at the time. Around the same period of time, director Tony Scott
was in the process of lining up the cast for The Hunger. One of the
things he was also looking for, was a band that would be appropriate for
thenightclub scene at the beginning of the film. Tony happened to
mention one day to Howard Guard that he was looking for a band, and
Guard mentioned Murphy and Bauhaus. Tony went and saw the band, and it
didn't take too long for him to figure out that he had  exactly what he
was looking for.  Howard Guard went on to direct a couple of videos for
Bauhaus, the better known one being "She's In Parties."


Here's something that isn't thought of very often. Go to the movies
these days and you just can't help being overwhelmed by some of the most
incredible things imaginable that appear on the screen, due mostly to
the advances in special effects technology. This is especially true
since the computer became small enough, powerful enough, and cheap
enough to be used to create many of these remarkable effects. They are
no longer confined to the big screen either, as we are constantly being
exposed to them on regular television. It is primarily for this reason
that it is quite easy for us to forget that there once was a time when
they did not exist. Now, to put things in perspective we are talking
twenty years ago.  These days it is not cheap to make a movie, for
example,  Lord Of The Rings had a cost $270 million,  Moulin Rouge was a
steal in comparison, costing only a paltry $50 million, and Spiderman
was in the midrange costing $120 million. Take those figures and compare
them to The Hunger, which cost a whopping 13 million. I know as well as
you, that when you compare the special effects in The Hunger, to what we
have today, they are nothing, but remember, we are not talking about
today. There were three main parts in the script which called for some
elaborate handy work in the use of special effects. At the beginning of
the film, David Bowie's character had to age two hundred years, and at
the end all of Catherine Deneuve's former lovers, which were all by then
just a collection of grossly malformed semi human shapes, had to crumble
to dust. Finally there was  Deneuve herself. She would have to go
through a variety of changes that needed to be visual, when her
character physically decays after she falls over a railing to her death.
Scenes such as these could be done today with a minimal amount of
effort, and virtually no difficulty. The equipment however back then was
not yet good enough to create the optical and visual effects necessary,
and what was required to make these parts of the film work, were thought
to be so complex,  that they were  thought for a time to be unfilmable.
In order to find some way to get the effects they needed, by finding
some sort of solution to the impossibilities they seemed to be facing,
they searched for the best help they could find. The help eventually did
come, in the form of a man named Dick Smith., a brilliant, and an
extremely talented make-up artist. Now, whether Smith is the very best
in his field is a mute point, it doesn't matter, because one look at his
resume gives you an idea very quickly of just how capable  Dick Smith
is. These are some of the projects he worked on before The Hunger, along
with the responsibilities he had for each film..  The Godfather (make-up
artist) 1972, The Exorcist  (make-up effects) 1973,  The Godfather: Part
II  (make-up artist) 1974,  Taxi Driver  (special make-up) 1976,  The
Sentinel  (special make-up) 1977, and after the Hunger he continued to
work, and some of the most recognizable  films he had a part in were
Starman, Amadeus, Poltergeist III and Tales from the Darkside: The
Movie, to name but a few. Now, just in case you happen to believe for
some reason that I am exaggerating , and think that there were problems
with the special effects on The Hunger, but not to the degree I have
indicated, well, I can tell you that nothing I have said has been
overstated.. To further illustrate the situation, look at it this way.
Anyone who has seen this movie knows that with the exception of Bowie's
ageing, none of these scenes are very lengthy, and you can see by this
man's credentials how capable he is. Taking all of these factors into
consideration, Dick Smith had to work SEVEN MONTHS STRAIGHT on The
Hunger so Tony Scott could get shots he wanted.


One of Smith's favourite projects on the film was the work he did on
Bowie's character. The swift ageing  of John Blaylock had to be
believable.  In the early stages, when  Bowie was beginning to age,
Smith was not really involved. The only thing that was used to make
Bowie appear older, up to about age fifty five, was make up, and this
was applied by the on set artist. Smith took over just after the scene
where Bowie leaves the waiting room of  Sarandon's office. Dick Smith
had earned a reputation throughout the industry as an expert in the
design  of old age and character make-ups. Much of this came from his
work on the films LITTLE BIG MAN, THE GODFATHER series, THE EXORCIST,
and MARATHON MAN. Having an idea of how to make Bowie look up to around
age ninety did not present much difficulty, however, after age ninety it
ws all imagination. The reason for this is that there aren't a lot of
one hundred and fifty year old live subjects running around to get any
ideas from. As often happens when you get two talented professionals
involved in a project together, especially where are both
perfectionists, conflicts between the two can arise, and then erupt. I
have given Bowie credit for this before many times, he  is a
professional, talented, the ultimate perfectionist, and is also an
exception to this rule. His demeanour in fact, is just the opposite, he
works extremely well with others, and has done so throughout his entire
professional career. This however, can not be said about the working
relationship between Tony Scott and Dick Smith. The problems between the
two started almost immediately, stemming from disagreements about would
could, and could not be done, and what would, and wouldn't work. Two
prime examples of this were Scott's insistence that Bowie wear lighter
coloured clothing in the film, and that for realism, the character
display facial hair in the form of a five o'clock shadow. Smith's
argument was that it was nonsense to put light coloured clothing on a
character with a face as heavily made up as Bowie's, the contrast would
be far too great, leaving  Bowie's face looking made up and destroy the
integrity of the character. Furthermore, the make up would rub off of
Bowie's face and would show up instantly on light coloured clothing. As
far as the facial hair goes, well, according to Smith the make up
required to accomplish this would render the effect unbelievable in
close up shots. In the end,  Smiths objections went nowhere after of
course they fell on deaf ears. Tony Scott was the director, he was going
to get his light wardrobe and his five o'clock shadow, and that was it.
There was nothing more to really discuss after that. Scott probably knew
all along that he was going to get what he wanted.  I say this because
Tony Scott knows full well how extremely talented professionals think,
especially in the film industry,  therefore he knew fucking well that
anyone with a reputation like Smith had, there was no way he would ever
fail, and risk anyone ever saying that there was something that he
couldn't do. Whether he knew in advance or not isn't really that
important, as  Smith delivered on both counts. The unwillingness of
Scott to soften his demands ended up benefiting the entire film industry
in the end, because out of this came two revolutionary new products for
the special effects industry. In order to eventually solve the problems,
and give Scott what he wanted, Dick Smith developed a series of very
finely detailed add on features, that could be used to alter an actors
appearance when developing the look of a character, Bowie's five o'clock
shadow being one of them.. In the process Smith ended up actually
inventing an  adhesive paint that will not rub off on an actors costume.
This paint he invented worked so well that it eventually became the
standard for the industry.


The look of Bowie's body resembling that of an old man was achieved
using foam pads under his clothing, giving him a hunched over look.
Bowie's character was around the age of ninety when he murdered the
little girl. Her name, the one that I could not remember, is Beth
Ehlers. Interestingly, up to this point and beyond in the film, no masks
at all were used to create the image of the ageing  John  Blaylock,
instead individual prosthetics were used on Bowie's face, and his hands
as well. It was not until Bowie's character reached the approximate age
of one hundred and fifty that the prosthetics were replaced by a very
finely detailed foam latex mask. The mask was especially useful for the
scene where Catherine Deneuve has to carry Bowie's character, who is by
now so decrepit that he can't move any part of his body by himself, up
the stairs to his final resting place. For this scene all they did was
put the mask  over the head of a light weight dummy. With the ageing of
Bowie taken care of, came the next problem. These were the scenes where
Deneuve's harem of ex lovers all rise from their places of rest, and
motivated in unison by revenge, they all converge on Deneuve causing her
to fall over a railing, and after they all crumble one by one as they
turn into dust. There were several different sources that were utilized,
in order to get some of the ideas which were eventually incorporated
into the original design of these characters. One of those sources that
was used was Nosferatu The Vampyre, director Werner Herzog's absolutely
stunning remake of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau's 1922 classic film
Nosferatu.

Once they had decided on the various designs for these characters, they
next had to build them, which wasn't that much of a concern, it was once
they were built that the real problems started, because then you had to
actually make them move. It was imperative that these last few scenes,
as difficult as they would be to shoot, had to look realistic. It would
have been a real loss to all of those involved in the picture, who had
contributed their best efforts, to have the film work well all the way
through, only to have it all fall apart at the end. If you put an actor
in a monkey suit to play the part of a monkey, the end result is that
the monkey looks like they had an actor put on a monkey suit to play the
part of a monkey. Likewise,  If you put an actor in a rubber suit to
play the part of an alien, the end result is that the alien looks like
they had an actor put on a rubber suit to play the part of an alien. It
was for this reason that there was a real problem, as they knew that any
audience was surely going to find it quite laughable, should it appear
that Deneuve's former romances were just a series of rubber suits.
After exploring all of the alternatives to shoot this scene, and get it
right, reality set in. Reality  you see, in this case, comes in the form
of a rubber suit. Remember, this was long before the era where computer
animation had crossed the medium to cinematography, so it was not an
option, but if it had, this problem would not be a problem for long.
Since this was the case Scott and Smith were left with two things, they
had an actor, and they had a suit. There was nothing else.   Since they
could not change the fact that they had to use an actor and a suit, it
was a waste of time trying to figure out ways to change the things which
could not be changed, time was better spent looking at what could be
changed.  It was when they took this new approach to the old problem
that a novel idea emerged. What they did, using  foam latex  as a
material is design several full scale body suits that you stepped into
and they zipped up in the back. This next part will sound rather
illogical, but believe me it makes perfect sense. Since they could not
get rid of the suits, as you know, they looked at how they  may be able
to alter them in an effort to solve the problem, and this when the idea
came. The idea was to ADD MORE to the suit, so you would SEE LESS of the
suit! Sound foolish? I know it does, but it worked, and here is how.
What they did is build up the physical features of the characters that
protruded out from the suits as much as they could. These areas would
include the cheek bones, the top part of the chest, the nose, the
ribcage and so on. These areas were  built up with a design to reflect
the available majority light when the scene was being shot. The hope was
that by doing this the lack of light would make sure that the real
proportions of the actor inside the suit would not be visible. It
worked, and very well at that.

The script next called for these characters to literally crumble into
dust after Deneuve falls to her death. Before they could shoot these
scenes, model doubles of each individual character  had to be made.
There were two major issues that had to be addressed. First of all,
before they could even start construction on the model doubles  a
suitable material had to be found to make them with.. The material would
have to be strong enough to hold it's shape prior to the scenes being
shot, and it also had to be capable of crumbling on cue. Second, the
models had to fit in.  It was Tony Scott who choreographed the final
scenes of the movie, which were very focused, and with the movements of
the characters, and dispersed with brief moments of intense action, it
became quite complex.  It was very important at this stage, with several
action scenes taking place at the same time, that everything fit
together.  They basically ended up stumbling  on the material they
needed to make the models with, and I mean that literally. The models
were made from poorly mixed batch of polyurethane foam which had been
discarded, and left lying on the floor in the make up lab. Since the
ingredients used to make the foam were not the right consistency it made
it very weak, and this weak foam was used to create the basic structure
of the models. To make sure that they did not start falling to pieces
too soon, they were given a bit of additional support with a layer of
wax and micro balloons, which are microscopic  glass bubbles. Once the
wax was applied it was used as a base to carve finer detail into the
models, in an effort to make them even more realistic. The scenes that
showed Deneuve's former lovers crumbling to dust were  accomplished by
juxtaposing shots, placing side by side, of the actors in their suits
moving or falling on to pre set marks with inserts of the rod-controlled
foam models in the same spot. These scenes were very tedious and they
took and they took a long time to shoot because everything, down to the
smallest detail had to be staged to maintain continuity.

The scene in the movie where Catherine Deneuve's character dies, after
her fall, demanded some  real creative thinking, because it had to be
spectacular. The reason is that this scene was going to be singled out
by a lot of people in the audience, and it was going to receive critical
attention from these people, and their judgement can either help, or
hurt the film at the box office. You see, in almost every film which has
a vampire in the script, the vampire is killed, and the scene when the
vampire dies is always eagerly waited on by the audience, because this
moment is always one of the highlights of the film. It is not the
killing of the vampire that people are waiting to see, it is what
happens to the vampire just after it is killed. They all seem to go
through a rather lengthy process of "decay" as they return to dust,
often going through several human, animal, and demonic physical
transformations in the process. Directors have always personalized these
scenes with their own unique special effects. Movie audiences have grown
to expect it, and will often judge the worth of the entire movie based
on these few minutes.  Tony Scott was no different. The problem? Neither
was Dick Smith. As you can see, this has all the makings of a showdown.

AladiNsanE

To be heaped upon later..................


""I don't begrudge any artist for finding an audience"
- David Bowie abt. 1987
Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 
homebrewPosted at 2025-12-06 14:43:11(1 hr ago) (Bowie General / Images Vol. 51)


Uploaded: 152.57 GB
Downloaded: 375.96 GB
Posts: 167

Ratio: 0.41
Location: United States of America


I have made no commentary (have I?) about these articles but this portion if today's installment got me going. Not in anger or disagreement but as in "Hell Yeah!" and bears repeating. I had long felt this way but until I read Jamie's words those many years ago I had no words of my own to describe it. Bowie was glam only in the sense that he was in close proximity at the birth of the concept.

In case you haven't read the entire installment here is the portion in question...

Quote:

It's
the same situation with the "BOWIE" and "GLAM ROCK" association. As far
as I am concerned, and anyone else who has followed Bowie's work long
enough to make any sense, is that any fucking idiot, or moron for that
matter, who lumps Bowie in with the superficiality of the "Glam Rock"
crowd is just that, a moron, and an ignorant one at that. A severe lack
of knowledge is the only thing demonstrated by anyone who wishes to
categorize any of Bowie's artistic output as "Glam." Furthermore, it is
an insult to Bowie's depth and creativity as an artist to think that the
makeup and the costumes were born out of a need to be outrageous, or
that they can be attributed in any way to the mindlessness of "Glitter
And Glam." Who would even dare to think that a mind like Bowie's would
ever resort to a level so blatantly foolish for ideas to incorporate
into his efforts to successfully combine theatre with his writing, in
order to create a multi media performance on stage. Does anyone see any
similarities in the quality of Bowie's music, compared to the "Glam
Rock" bands?  Can someone show me perhaps where any of these Glam Rock
bands were dealing with themes in their lyrics, that would somehow be
equivalent to the ones Bowie was dealing with at the time? Whereas the
conceptual ideas for visuals presented on stage by the Glam Rock bands
came from their mother's, or sister's make up drawer, Bowie's were
derived from the knowledge he had gained while entertaining a passion of
his, Kabuki, traditional Japanese theatre. It is a blend of Japanese
puppet theatre, and traditional theatre from the Noh period, to be more
specific. The point is that DAVID BOWIE, is DAVID BOWIE.




""I don't begrudge any artist for finding an audience"
- David Bowie abt. 1987
Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 

<< Prev  1   Next >>

Locked
You are not permitted to post in this forum.

Latest Forum Posts
Latest Topic TitleRepliesViewsAuthorLast Post
Images Vol. 51111homebrewby homebrew
2025-12-06 14:43:11
Bowie: Leaked Songs That Have Never Been Officially Released?204961EarlMahagersby ayres
2025-12-03 00:15:26
Images Vol. 502188homebrewby homebrew
2025-11-29 18:58:59
Rocky Horror Documentary6456homebrewby strangeways
2025-11-28 14:26:38
Images Vol. 490223homebrewby homebrew
2025-11-22 16:06:06
I Can’t Give Everything Away355763Portlandbillby professormouse
2025-11-19 18:46:55
Images Vol. 481335homebrewby dag97
2025-11-18 07:08:29
Images Vol. 472507homebrewby homebrew
2025-11-13 19:54:13
DONATIONS15140678Steveboyby Steveboy
2025-11-12 15:41:46
David Bowie - NMC BBC SESSIONS 1969 1972111175john1981by Steveboy
2025-11-11 14:49:56
Images Vol. 460530homebrewby homebrew
2025-11-01 13:54:26
Bowie - explains Ashes To Ashes lyrics0553imperialby imperial
2025-10-29 19:35:45
Images Vol 450763homebrewby homebrew
2025-10-25 18:01:19
Images Vol. 442696homebrewby homebrew
2025-10-23 19:22:44
Images Vol. 431848homebrewby professormouse
2025-10-13 23:55:17


Online Users

Newest Members
Modified by JanErik |- Page Generated In 0.058257 secs.
-|- RSS Feed -|- Feed Info
Theme Base By: Nikkbu | Modified by: paperdragon | Graphics by: MossGarden
Email: bowiestation(AT)bowiestation.com