 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 22, 2014 - 8:28 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Cooper
(Member)
|
The matte paintings created by Albert Whitlock are also discussed. It seems though, that Susan Turner gets the credit for the determination of how the crashed ship looks from Whitlock's output due to her input. Whitlock himself makes an appearance. As he talks, he appears to be shaking uncontrollably - a sign of Parkinson's disease.
I was looking for where I read this, but Carpenter said that at one point Whitlock told him--with regard to his contribution on The Thing--that he never once used his brush (paraphrasing), implying he left the whole thing to his underlings. He was almost gleeful about it, and Carpenter felt he held little regard for the material.
I'll keep looking for that interview...
Found it:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/57456
Capone: You mentioned you had this incredible cast that a lot of films of this genre didn’t have. Did it feel at the time like this was a turning-point film for you, in terms of the caliber of the actors, the bigger budget?
JC: It was an opportunity. This was a chance to work with Universal on a bigger film with all of the accouterments that working for a studio provides you; it’s really nice. In those days, it was really nice. They had a real studio there. They had different studio departments to do different things. They had [legendary matte painter] Albert Whitlock there, although I must tell you the truth is he never painted a thing for my movie, his assistants did it. The old piece of crap. I think he thought he was above our movie, yeah I think so. He was an arrogant little British guy, and I complemented him on some shot--I think it was the guys walking to the saucer or something--and he says, “I didn’t put paint to brush.”
Capone: And he’s proud of that.
JC: “You didn’t? You piece of trash. I can’t believe it.” He’s done some great stuff, but he was such a disagreeable little man. You had to visit with him and have tea with him. Oh man!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 22, 2014 - 9:54 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
Thanks for your interview post, Cooper.
Susan Turner confirms she dropped off the saucer miniature she constructed to Whitlock's department at Universal, so there's no reason to assume Whitlock executed the paintings himself, though I would have expected him to be there to supervise.
In the YouTube post above, Whitlock refers to the shot with the exposed saucer in the upper frame and the chopper at the top left with the actors approaching the rectangular volume of ice the "crazy swedes" hacked out. He says he didn't like to use a tower and referred to the live action as being filmed on the back lot, which is clearly seen in the online movie. Again, it may have been that Whitlock was only supervising the work. The mattes have always stuck me as being quite impressionistic and obvious, yet they cut into the film really well given the extent of the fakery. The shots also feature impressions of variable light crawling along the saucer - a Whitlock traditional feature of his mattes - to bring them alive - in this case, by suggesting overhead clouds are scudding by. In other words, the matte paintings are not absolutely static and before Carpenter gave his approval, Whitlock would have had to be satisfied with his department's own contribution. And since Whitlock died of Parkinson's, there is also the possibility the reason he didn't use a paintbrush was because it would have been physically impossible in any advanced state of the disease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is just the same as the mythology surrounding Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
The "Purists" insist that Michelangelo did it all by himself, but the historians know that the man had a crew of "assistants."
Given all of the information here, it seems apparent to me that Albert Whitlock worked with a highly trained crew of painters who understood his technically rigid, yet highly creative techniques.
That simply makes good business sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 23, 2014 - 1:04 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Cooper
(Member)
|
Thanks for your interview post, Cooper.
Susan Turner confirms she dropped off the saucer miniature she constructed to Whitlock's department at Universal, so there's no reason to assume Whitlock executed the paintings himself, though I would have expected him to be there to supervise.
In the YouTube post above, Whitlock refers to the shot with the exposed saucer in the upper frame and the chopper at the top left with the actors approaching the rectangular volume of ice the "crazy swedes" hacked out. He says he didn't like to use a tower and referred to the live action as being filmed on the back lot, which is clearly seen in the online movie. Again, it may have been that Whitlock was only supervising the work. The mattes have always stuck me as being quite impressionistic and obvious, yet they cut into the film really well given the extent of the fakery. The shots also feature impressions of variable light crawling along the saucer - a Whitlock traditional feature of his mattes - to bring them alive - in this case, by suggesting overhead clouds are scudding by. In other words, the matte paintings are not absolutely static and before Carpenter gave his approval, Whitlock would have had to be satisfied with his department's own contribution. And since Whitlock died of Parkinson's, there is also the possibility the reason he didn't use a paintbrush was because it would have been physically impossible in any advanced state of the disease.
Looking forward to checking out the video. I didn't get much beyond Whitlock/Carpenter when I recalled reading about JC's choice words for Albert in that interview...
As Christopher suggests above, it's probably not unusual for a lead craftsman or artist in a certain department to get sole screen credit while many may have toiled under them to get the work done in their trademark style. What is striking here is Carpenter's bluntness; he hated the guy. We have only his take to go on, but it sounds as if Whitlock wore his disdain for The Thing on his sleeve. Or maybe Carpenter was being hyper-sensitive; I certainly have no dog in that fight...and reserve judgment. But that kind of candor is kind of impressive, almost shocking. It would have been something to be a fly on the wall...
That said, I've always been impressed with the variable light technique on the saucer shot; it really does give life and dimension to the painting in that scene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
