OT - Where are the camera negatives for Rio Grande?
MKJessup
the camera negatives or original prints of John Wayne's 1950 movie,
"Rio Grande". As silly as it may sound, there is a scene in this movie
that would appear to show a UFO. However, no one is sure whether the
scene was shot on a sound stage or if it as truly shot on location. It
seems the only way to clear up the controversy is to review as near the
original footage as possible.
Knowing how many experienced researchers we have on this forum, any
suggestions on how best to conduct this search would be much
appreciated.
Thanks!
MKJ
Robert Lipton
MKJessup wrote:
> I am wondering if anyone here would know what entity has possession of
> the camera negatives or original prints of John Wayne's 1950 movie,
> "Rio Grande". As silly as it may sound, there is a scene in this movie
> that would appear to show a UFO. However, no one is sure whether the
> scene was shot on a sound stage or if it as truly shot on location. It
> seems the only way to clear up the controversy is to review as near the
> original footage as possible.
And what has the Unidentified Flying Object been identified as?
Bob
FredT
news:1111356917.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
What's the scene/time?
StormChaser
http://j-walkblog.com/blog/index/P18391/
"FredT" <fw...@hotmailDELETETHIS.com> wrote in message
news:2qqdnU6hUqp...@comcast.com...
Bruce Calvert
the UFOs didn't crash into the scenery.
Bruce
"StormChaser" <ring...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iRp%d.16424$qf2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Richard Roberts
I believe the camera negative and/ or original materials on RIO GRANDE
are housed at the UCLA Film and Television Archives and are now the
property of Paramount Pictures.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
J. Tati
FredT
The "UFO" is actually there in the few frames before he enters that shot.
That scene is in the studio; the lighting and the painted background give it
away. The scene immediately following it, when Wayne walks away alone is in
the studio in front of a rear projection screen.
As for what the "UFO" is, it's hard to tell. It could be something in the
gate during shooting, or--more likely--an emulsion scratch on the print, or
a really small indoor flying saucer.
Fred
"StormChaser" <ring...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iRp%d.16424$qf2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
mikeg...@gmail.com
the print theory, but as soon as I saw it I felt it was something else,
go back and look at it with this in mind and see what you think.
I think it's light reflecting on a wire hanging back in the back of the
set, which was assumed to be far enough back, small enough and out of
focus enough to be invisible. Maybe the wire is for making the trees
move ever so slightly or something, I don't know what its purpose is.
But the way I see it, a light just happens to highlight a section of
the wire, and as the wire tightens or slackens, the highlight moves up
the wire, elongating slightly in the process, seeming to split in two
at one point (maybe something is in front of it at that point, like a
branch). The behavior of the UFO seems entirely consistent to me with
reflected light on a gently moving wire.
Jim Beaver
"MKJessup" <renfield...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111356917.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> the camera negatives or original prints of John Wayne's 1950 movie,
> "Rio Grande". As silly as it may sound, there is a scene in this movie
> that would appear to show a UFO. However, no one is sure whether the
> scene was shot on a sound stage or if it as truly shot on location. It
> seems the only way to clear up the controversy is to review as near the
> original footage as possible.
Having spent much of my adult life on soundstages, I can assure you that
this scene from "Rio Grande" was shot on a soundstage. The lighting is all
wrong for "day-for-night" and the "mountains" are a recognizable backdrop
from the Republic studios scenery shop. The "UFO" spotted in the film is
therefore present in a scene filmed indoors. Furthermore, the "zoom"
version of the clip on website which initiated this urban legend clearly
indicates that initially the "UFO" is passing in front of the trees just
behind Wayne and not high in the "skies" behind. From motion and from the
way light hits the object, I feel pretty sure that, if it's not a video
artifact of some sort, it's most like a moth. It happens. We had an owl
flying through a hotel room set on a soundstage the other night. Probably
chasing that moth.
Jim Beaver
Stott
Jim Beaver wrote:
> " We had an owl
> flying through a hotel room set on a soundstage the other night. Probably
> chasing that moth.
>
> Jim Beaver
Reading that makes the silent era feel closer- thinking of the early films
where you can see the wind blowing through the "Indoor" sets- even Cleopatra's
tomb!
Stott
Eric Grayson
I note that Maureen O'Hara is still alive and was clearly on set at the
time. Since she remembers everything that ever happened to her, has
someone approached her to ask about this? She could at least verify
that this was a soundstage (even though it almost certainly is).
I'd dearly love to know what she said about the UFO theory. I doubt it
would be printable.
Eric
earlyfilm
> "Rio Grande". As silly as it may sound, there is a scene in this movie
> that would appear to show a UFO. However, no one is sure whether the
> scene was shot on a sound stage or if it as truly shot on location. It
> seems the only way to clear up the controversy is to review as near the
> original footage as possible.
http://j-walkblog.com/blog/index/P18391/
MK,
That scene is clearly studio.
It looks like someone with a flashlight was shining it on the back of
the painted backdrop during a take. I'll bet the cluck never worked for
John Ford again!
A more logical explanation might be an open window, vent or door and
something reflected light on the back side of the backdrop, as I don't
think a flashlight would be bright enough to do this. We are clearly
seeing light from some source on the back side of a painted backdrop.
Post the same question on Rec.Arts.Movies.Tech or on one of the
newsgroups for cinematographers and you'll get the exact same reaction.
Earl.
mikeg...@gmail.com
flashlight or similar intentional light source. However, your idea of
an open window or door does make more sense, because you can easily
imagine that producing the thin, moving shape we see on the back of the
backdrop.
I agree that nobody needs to get the negative out, anyone who's seen
enough old movies can tell this is a studio scene. I'm sure with
enough effort you could find multiple shadow directions, but all that
would do is confirm the obvious.
MKJessup
---
When viewing the clip, the first thought that occurred to me was that
the scene was shot on a soundstage. However, the mention in the film's
credits that says it was filmed entirely on location gave me pause. It
might still be interesting to see whether the object appears in any
original prints or whether it is an artifact introduced when the movie
was transferred to video.
Thanks to all who replied!
MKJ
mikeg...@gmail.com
And the very expensively insured actors did all their own stunts.
And they conducted a worldwide talent search before casting the
producer's mistress in the female lead.
And it Sets a New Standard For Screen Greatness. The trailer says so.
Lincoln Spector
<mikeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111377445.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Lincoln
MKJessup
be true???!!! ; - )
MKJ
David Totheroh
not actually be true." It requires that individuals exercise some
degree of independent and intelligent analysis, and not be mindless
robots who would automatically accept either that Bush is a liar OR
that the Iraq invasion was not about oil. It's not always easy, but
whoever said the job of being an intelligent human being was easy?
Jim Beaver
> When viewing the clip, the first thought that occurred to me was that
> the scene was shot on a soundstage. However, the mention in the film's
> credits that says it was filmed entirely on location gave me pause.
Don't be fooled by statements that "such-and-such movie was filmed entirely
on location." It's happened, of course, but usually it merely means
"exteriors for this film were shot entirely on location." Even if all
filming is done while on location, interiors are routinely shot inside real
or makeshift soundstages.
THE LIFE OF DAVID GALE, for example, was filmed "entirely on location." We
shot at the Texas State Penitentiary in Huntsville. To my knowledge, none
of the film was shot at an actual studio in Hollywood or New York. Yet it
abounds with soundstage shots. The production company built soundstages on
location, in local warehouses, an abandoned airport, etc.
Jim Beaver
Stephen Cooke
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Jim Beaver wrote:
>
> "MKJessup" <renfield...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1111422337.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > When viewing the clip, the first thought that occurred to me was that
> > the scene was shot on a soundstage. However, the mention in the film's
> > credits that says it was filmed entirely on location gave me pause.
>
> Don't be fooled by statements that "such-and-such movie was filmed entirely
> on location." It's happened, of course, but usually it merely means
> "exteriors for this film were shot entirely on location." Even if all
> filming is done while on location, interiors are routinely shot inside real
> or makeshift soundstages.
It's like when McDonald's claims it uses 100 per cent ground beef.
What that actual "use" might be is anyone's guess.
swac
Jim Beaver
"Stephen Cooke" <am...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.105...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca...
Right. "We use 100 per cent ground beef" literally means the ground beef
used is ground beef. The unspoken part is that the fillers used are 100%
filler, the hormones are 100% hormone, the dyes are 100% dye. Now if they
advertised "Our hamburger patties are beef, 100%". . .well, they wouldn't,
because that would leave no wiggle room.
Plenty of wiggle room in "Filmed entirely on location," something, btw, I
don't actually recall seeing in connection with RIO GRANDE's original
publicity. The "entirely" part, I mean. The fact that somebody on a DVD
says it doesn't mean it's true.
Jim Beaver
Lincoln Spector
> We shot at the Texas State Penitentiary in Huntsville. To my knowledge,
> none of the film was shot at an actual studio in Hollywood or New York.
> Yet it abounds with soundstage shots. The production company built
> soundstages on location, in local warehouses, an abandoned airport, etc.
location.
Lincoln
mikeg...@gmail.com
milk cows as opposed to a muscular steer in the prime of his life. It
may be 100% ground beef, but it isn't exactly the same meaning of the
term as when you order a steak at Smith & Wollensky.
Jim Beaver
"Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:HkI%d.149$FN4...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
But not in film industry parlance. In film jargon, a location means "away
from the home studio." A soundstage thus CAN be a location, if it is built
or rented at some place distant from the home studio. But despite being a
PHYSICAL location, a soundstage on the grounds of the home studio is not a
film location. Films are either shot "at the studio" or "on location." And
I can't think of a ready example of when the twain might ever meet.
Jim Beaver
Stott
"mikeg...@gmail.com" wrote:
Well, when you're going to process it and grind it, it doesn't matter quite
as much. In fact tough meat can have a more pronounced flavor.
Stott
Paul Penna
Grayson <filmspam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ah, but her being there at the time would make any testimony from her
suspect, don't you see? Obviously, the aliens would have excercised
some form of mind control over anyone present, and your questions to
Miss O'Hara would be greeted with vacant stares and monotone denials.
--
Paul Penna
StormChaser
It looks like the result of an assistant aiming a light incorrectly
for a few seconds. The re-shoot was no doubt too expensive
and they figured, hey no one will notice.
At that time, what we see as outright breaches of film ethics (ripping
into negatives for scenes, shots, etc. and patching that piece of negative
to another film negative, actors changing hats, shirts, buttons, drinking
glasses, shot for shot) was not noticed by the audience members then.
The Hollywood Style done by the major studios required many people
but ensured a smoothness close to perfection. Mistakes were usually caught
before they left (or entered) the gate. Most people then just saw a movie
once, and never thought they could own it.
In the age of the VHS and DVD player, one can play a shot or scene
over and over again. Movie fans having access to this technology
would make a person think that The Hollywood Style has been
improved by Mach 10. Mistakes are still made.
This in turn has spurned the profession known as Gaff-Spotting.
Remote-Control Men (or Keyboard Cowboys) spend hours going
through a movie finding inconsistencies and writing books about their
findings. No discovery since the Dawn Of Time can excite a gaff-spotter
more than finding incorrect lipstick color on Elizabeth Taylor.
Too bad these guys weren't available before the fact.
In case if you think I am a skeptic, a photo I saw in a paperback
book on the UFO phenomenon in the 70's was one I couldn't
easily explain. It was from a frame of film that showed a clapboard
from below and in the process of being withdrawn. In the sky
far above it but still noticeable is a craft one would associate with
what a UFO looks like. The UFO did not appear to be the subject
of the shot. The picture may be from the 60's. I was
reading the book in a library but I never forgot that photo. I guess
the fact that it was from a movie, a clapboard was present, and it
was shot from an odd angle made it seem as if it was caught by accident.
Mark
(who knows that access to studio 35mm materials for this purpose
is impossible if they are hard to access for simple viewing
or printing purposes)
"MKJessup" <renfield...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111356917.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I am wondering if anyone here would know what entity has possession of
> the camera negatives or original prints of John Wayne's 1950 movie,
> "Rio Grande". As silly as it may sound, there is a scene in this movie
> that would appear to show a UFO. However, no one is sure whether the
> scene was shot on a sound stage or if it as truly shot on location. It
> seems the only way to clear up the controversy is to review as near the
> original footage as possible.
>
Robert Miller
two years, as background for my next book, (after many previous years of
daily watching American films from the same time period) I must say I'm
really struck by how much more often the Brits seem to have included, as
final-takes, shots with extremely obvious MICROPHONE SHADOWS!
It can't just have been a factor of tighter budgets and shorter shooting
schedules, because the practice is quite prevalent in both the
quota-quickies and the aimed-for-export, major features with imported
Hollywood talent.
Perhaps the studio ceilings were lower and the lighting grids were smaller,
making shadows harder to eliminate or fill.
Then again, maybe the Brits just weren't as obsessive as the Yanks about
doing call-back retakes.
Sort of like how the Europeans, particularly the French and the Italians,
don't seem to have been much concerned about post-syncing dialogue with
precision, even up through the 1960s and 1970s.
"StormChaser" <ring...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> The re-shoot was no doubt too expensive
> and they figured, hey, no one will notice.
>
Bill Vermillion
Maybe the 100 per cent applies to the term 'ground' and not what
follows :-)
Old joke:
Cust: This coffee tastes like mud
Waitron: Well it was ground this morning.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Eric Grayson
<tter...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Ah, but her being there at the time would make any testimony from her
> suspect, don't you see? Obviously, the aliens would have excercised
> some form of mind control over anyone present, and your questions to
> Miss O'Hara would be greeted with vacant stares and monotone denials.
I would LOVE to see Maureen O'Hara give a vacant stare and a monotone
denial! That would be proof positive that the aliens have arrived!
It's such a departure from character that I find it difficult to
imagine she has it in her.
We need to test this out!
Eric
Robert Lipton
Stephen Cooke wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Jim Beaver wrote:
>
>
>>But not in film industry parlance. In film jargon, a location means "away
>>from the home studio." A soundstage thus CAN be a location, if it is built
>>or rented at some place distant from the home studio. But despite being a
>>PHYSICAL location, a soundstage on the grounds of the home studio is not a
>>film location. Films are either shot "at the studio" or "on location." And
>>I can't think of a ready example of when the twain might ever meet.
>
>
> When a film is set in a movie studio?
>
When it's STAND-IN or THE WINGS OF EAGLES.
Bob
Bill Vermillion
StormChaser <ring...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Personally (IMHO) I agree with the wayward light theory.
>It looks like the result of an assistant aiming a light incorrectly
>for a few seconds. The re-shoot was no doubt too expensive
>and they figured, hey no one will notice.
>At that time, what we see as outright breaches of film ethics
>(ripping into negatives for scenes, shots, etc. and patching that
>piece of negative to another film negative, actors changing hats,
>shirts, buttons, drinking glasses, shot for shot) was not noticed
>by the audience members then. The Hollywood Style done by the
>major studios required many people but ensured a smoothness close
>to perfection. Mistakes were usually caught before they left (or
>entered) the gate. Most people then just saw a movie once, and
>never thought they could own it.
The audiences have become better also :-). In the mid-50s and
forward for many years until taping became de riguer we had a lot
of live TV. And cutting from camera to camera for the same scenes
was mandatory. Once you became accustomed to seeing that then you
notice the old films where the continuity didn't match.
[Not to say that modern films don't have a problem. Indian Jones
and The Temple of Doom was horrible in that aspect. I think I saw
one in Ray, but have not watched the DVD to see if it was true or
just my imagination.]
The extremely quick cutting for video that pretty much started
with Laugh-In did a lot for viewer perception - eg they learned
to watch faster and more closely.
>In the age of the VHS and DVD player, one can play a shot or scene
>over and over again. Movie fans having access to this technology
>would make a person think that The Hollywood Style has been
>improved by Mach 10. Mistakes are still made.
>This in turn has spurned the profession known as Gaff-Spotting.
>Remote-Control Men (or Keyboard Cowboys) spend hours going
>through a movie finding inconsistencies and writing books about their
>findings. No discovery since the Dawn Of Time can excite a gaff-spotter
>more than finding incorrect lipstick color on Elizabeth Taylor.
And that is taking things to extremes. There are plenty of
mistakes made the first time through that you can see without
having to re-watch over and over frame by frame.
Eric Grayson
>
> And that is taking things to extremes. There are plenty of
> mistakes made the first time through that you can see without
> having to re-watch over and over frame by frame.
I have only seen Being Julia one time, but I can attest it's got the
shoddiest editing I've seen this side of Ed Wood and some pretty lame
direction.
Interesting film, though.
Eric
StormChaser
"Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote in message
news:glR%d.9616$ZB6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "StormChaser" <ring...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:dyM%d.1430$S46...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
> > At that time, what we see as outright breaches of film ethics (ripping
> > into negatives for scenes, shots, etc. and patching that piece of
negative
> > to another film negative, actors changing hats, shirts, buttons,
drinking
> > glasses, shot for shot) was not noticed by the audience members then.
>
>
> Jim Beaver
>
>
To put it in a "less absolute" way, if they saw it, they didn't care.
The "ripping into negatives' was a practice in the 30's and 40's
that took a scene or shot from an existing movie and inserted
into the negative of a new movie. The skyscraper shots in THE
CROWD (1927) are grainy in modern prints because the shots
were extracted from the ON to put in a talkie from the early thir-
ties. Stock shot insertion exists today, but the ON is spared.
Stephen Cooke
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Jim Beaver wrote:
> But not in film industry parlance. In film jargon, a location means "away
> from the home studio." A soundstage thus CAN be a location, if it is built
> or rented at some place distant from the home studio. But despite being a
> PHYSICAL location, a soundstage on the grounds of the home studio is not a
> film location. Films are either shot "at the studio" or "on location." And
> I can't think of a ready example of when the twain might ever meet.
When a film is set in a movie studio?
swac
Jim Beaver
"StormChaser" <ring...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dyM%d.1430$S46...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
> into negatives for scenes, shots, etc. and patching that piece of negative
> to another film negative, actors changing hats, shirts, buttons, drinking
> glasses, shot for shot) was not noticed by the audience members then.
Huh?
Jim Beaver
mikeg...@gmail.com
only-in-the-silent-era* shots where they track backwards along the
table, showing all the drinking and debauchery. Anyway, at the very
beginning you've got the most obvious shadow of the whole camera on the
actor's chest-- he's practically in darkness from it and it's this very
clear, boxy shape that moves backward with the shot. I guess they just
thought people who didn't know much about filmmaking wouldn't get what
it was.
* I say that but now I have a sudden memory of one in either The
Scarlet Empress or the '35 Anna Karenina, or both...
George Shelps
>I say that but now I have a sudden
>memory of one in either The Scarlet
>Empress or the '35 Anna Karenina, or
>both...
Both.
Lincoln Spector
"Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote in message
lying. We're also talking about flying saucers on the set of a famous
western, which pretty much means this isn't a serious discussion.
Lincoln
Bill Vermillion
>Interesting film, though.
Ed Wood the director, or in Ed Wood the movie? I'm assuming the
films of Ed Wood.
As many probably have on this list I've watched so many films over
my lifetime - in theatre and on video - that'll I'll mentally edit
things. I'll think "that scene was about a second too long" or
"they may think that is an 'arty' camera angle' but it takes you
from the flow of the film".
Then there are other films that just grab you. I was The Red Shoes
on it's initial release - I had to 13 at the time. All the other
kids liked Westerns and couldn't see what I saw in a film about
ballet [but I grew up in a musical household].
I had to wait about 40 years before it made it's first appearance
on home video - and exclusive on the RCA CED system. And I
finally got when it came out on better things later too.
And there have been about 2 or 3 commercial releases that I gave up
on in the theatre and walked out - and I'm notoriously cheap so you
can imagine how bad those had to be :-)
Eric Grayson
> In article <220320051941198625%filmspam...@earthlink.net>,
> Eric Grayson <filmspam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >In article <IDrK7...@wjv.com>, Bill Vermillion <b...@wjv.com> wrote:
> > >I have only seen Being Julia one time, but I can attest it's got the
> >shoddiest editing I've seen this side of Ed Wood and some pretty lame
> >direction.
>
> >Interesting film, though.
>
> Ed Wood the director, or in Ed Wood the movie? I'm assuming the
> films of Ed Wood.
No, the films of Ed Wood.
> As many probably have on this list I've watched so many films over
> my lifetime - in theatre and on video - that'll I'll mentally edit
> things. I'll think "that scene was about a second too long" or
> "they may think that is an 'arty' camera angle' but it takes you
> from the flow of the film".
Being Julia had those shots that take you out of the action because you
say, "Wait a second... wasn't he OVER THERE?" or some such. Axis
violations, 180 degree rule violations, etc.
I just saw The Life Aquatic this week and it had a different feel to it:
"Do you REALLY want to shoot Anjelica Huston that way?"
"Do you REALLY want to shoot Owen Wilson from the side and make his
nose look funny?"
I liked the photography (nice and sharp) but the choice of camera
angles was pretty shoddy. If I'd been Owen Wilson or Anjelica Huston
I'd have had a hissy fit, because they look just plain bad in some
sections here...
Interestingly, Michael Gambon (who never sleeps) was in both The Life
Aquatic AND Being Julia.
Eric
Bill Vermillion
SNL had David Spade made up as Owen Wilson with a nose-piece that
looked like a penis. They thought no-one would probably notice
this take on Owen Wilson's nose.
I just checked and you can go to http://www.broadcastingcable.com
and enter 'penis' in the search all sites, and then click
on the link SNL Tries Penile Implant