The Past, Present and Future of Special FX in Horror, Sci-Fi and Cult Cinema
Make-up FX legend, Tom Savini
Imagine spending 15 hours on a film set, long after most of the production crew has called it a day, inventing new ways to make the decapitation of a human head look as real as possible… without it actually being real. What will the brain-matter be made of? Chewing gum, rotting apple cores, ground beef? What will you mold the facial features out of? Latex or foam prosthetics? Oh the possibilities!
Your office is a studio filled with fake cadavers, 100-gallon buckets of fake blood and a refrigerator chock full of special-ordered pig entrails (rancid stench included). You work from the break of dawn into the wee hours of the night until your grotesque masterpiece is complete. You’re your own boss, in charge of producing mind-shattering, vomit-inducing creations for film. It is your mandate as special effects artist to design and fabricate the most visceral and visually appealing innards, gore wounds and grotesque creatures, which can sometimes be damn near impossible to pull off.
Throughout a century of cinematic evolution, effects artists have been re-inventing the wheel—conjuring up new ways to make people look older, younger, sicker, ghastlier and otherworldly—all with the application of makeup, prosthetics and fake skin, hair and nails. But with the new millennium providing grounds for the unabated technology wave that has eclipsed the Western world, film fans are growing weary with the exorbitant use of computer-generated imagery (CGI) in film—particularly in the genres that once thrived on displays of realistic visuals produced from raw materials and the diligence of special effects artists. Many of these artists have tackled the complex nature of robotics, animatronics, mechanics, clay molding, constructing of miniatures and an array of other effects elements throughout the past several decades to see their unique visions come to life, before the camera lens and before their very own eyes and the eyes of film audiences all over the world.
Present day cinema and CGI has left the unique talent that is special effects creation very limited in terms of employment options. Effects gigs have been replaced with graphics programs, keyboards, mouses and a generation that knows very little outside of the technological world.
Actor Simon Pegg, best known for his role as Shaun in the popular zombie-comedy (or “Zomedy”), Shaun of the Dead, believes, “CGI is a wonderful thing and the technology is fantastic and ever-growing, but [it’s] sometimes overused and where it’s really good is where it just augments what already exists”.
Zealous fans of horror and sci-fi cinema would agree.
History of FX
Film audiences and enthusiasts often look past the true nature and origin of special effects. In the 1700s, magicians used ancestral methods of special effects to create illusions and trick their audiences into seeing something that wasn’t physically possible in the realm of realism. Magicians and illusionists created an effect known as spiritism—projecting ghostly images of the deceased on large pieces of cloth or clouds of smoke by using a box with a light source and a semi-transparent slide. In that time, it was a one of the few sure-fire ways to captivate an audience.
It wasn’t until the first motion-picture projector was introduced to the public in 1896 that the very first special effects in cinema were presented to audiences in a silent film titled, The Motorist. The short film was shot in Europe’s first film studio—constructed in 1897, and equipped with the most basic and antiquated film production equipment: a dolly track (a specialized piece of mobile film production equipment that allows for quick and smooth movement of a camera), as well as trap doors and bridge.
“The Golden Age of Cinema”, taking place from the 1930s to ‘50s (although this is often a topic of debate amongst film historians), was a revolutionary period for both special practical and visual effects film effects. Artists had to design, engineer and create illusions to produce effects and ultimately provoke audience response. This was long before the concept of digital design was introduced in film.
The matte painting technique allowed filmmakers to avoid having to spend much of their budget on location shooting and extravagant set design by using realistic landscapes painted on large pieces of glass for backgrounds. Sections of the glass would be left unpainted so that a real set could fill those empty spaces. The painting would be hung in front of the camera, positioned in such a way that the camera would capture the set behind it. This was the prevalent method of creating complicated sets and locations for film. It lasted for several decades up until the inception of digital effects and CGI. The popular sci-fi/fantasy franchise Star Wars is an excellent example of the use of matte painting in modern cinema.
The term “stop motion”, a commonly used and reportedly tedious sort of special visual effect, came to fruition in French filmmaker Georges Melies’ 1986 short film, The Vanishing Lady. It is noted in AMC Filmsite’s “Visual Special FX Milestones” column that when Melies’ camera had gotten jammed during filming, he came to discover that the freezing of the objects in one frame and the altered position of them in the next frame made for a unique, previously unheard of camera trick. Stop motion has since been used is various genres, prominently in the horror, science-fiction and fantasy genres, in popular cult films such as Robocop, Transformers and The Evil Dead. The original King Kong film (1933) is a superlative example of stop motion, long pre-dating the aforementioned examples. Alas, this skilled method of shooting has arguably become obsolete with the breakthrough of CGI and post-production enhanced digital effects in film.
The Dawn of Special Makeup FX
Makeup , an essential and invaluable element of special effects, was first recognized in the primeval era of cinematic horror—the 1920s. As noted on FilmReference.com, “makeup helps express narrative elements, and a makeup artist decides how best to convey this information.” Art and costume designer Albin Grau’s portrayal of the vampire in F.W. Marnau’s Nosferatu (1922) is one of the most terrifying creatures of its time. Although minimal information regarding the design and creation of Nosferatu is available, the creature went on to be the inspiration for blood-sucking fiends in cinema for the decades that followed. Revered makeup artist Jack Pearce created some of the most memorably macabre portrayals of Universal Studios Monsters from the 1930s to ‘60s. He was the magic behind the classic ghouls of cinema—the Wolfman, Frankenstein, Dracula, the Mummy and the Phantom of the Opera.
In documentarian Kevin VanHook’s look at the art of makeup effects in his film, Starz Inside: Fantastic Flesh, popular 80s horror film direction John Carpenter says, “there’s always been makeup effects, in one way or another. Every time you see a trick on the screen, like a monster, somebody had to design it, make it up, make it work, and throughout the years, it’s evolved with cinema.”
Wes Craven, also a revered director of popular horror films, A Nightmare on Elm Street and The Last House of the Left, believes that there is an enormous power behind a human being in a mask or underneath makeup, stating, “[that power] goes way back in history”.
KNB co-founder Greg Nicotero
1980s: Golden FX Era gives Birth to Big Talent
Towards the end of the 1970s, many talented aspiring young special effects artists began to surface in the film industry. In the 1980s, practical film special effects flourished in sync with the burgeoning horror and sci-fi genres. A then 22-year-old Rob Bottin was brought on board to do the awe-inspiring creature effects for director John Carpenter’s sci-fi/horror magnum opus, The Thing (1982). Although the film faced tremendous failure at the box office and received negative reviews upon first being released, it has crept to the top of cult film favourites lists of film fans and critics all over the world, and it known as one of the greatest displays of practical special FX in the history of cinema.
Bottin is also the mastermind behind the makeup and creature effects for cult films such as Roger Corman’s Piranha, Joe Dante’s The Howling, John Carpenter’s The Fog, Paul Verhoeven’s Robocop and many other timeless film favourites.
Ken Crane, founder of No CGI FX—a new-age effects company that operates on the strict mandate of using only practical effects—notes Bottin as one of his childhood heroes and Carpenter’s, The Thing, as some of the greatest effects work of all time. Crane and his company recently received a number of awards and honourable mentions at festivals across North America for the outstanding practical FX in their debut feature-length film, The Millennium Bug, which is now being screened at select independent film festivals and theatres around the world. The film is a striking example of what “great” horror films used to be made of before technology and digital effects took over.
Crane also mentions Gregory Nicotero as one of his major influences as an effects artist. Nicotero was offered the opportunity of a lifetime in his early 20s when he was hired to apprentice under acclaimed effects guru, Tom Savini, on the set of granddaddy of the zombie sub-genre, George A. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead follow-up, Day of the Dead. In director Kevin VanHook’s retrospective documentary on special makeup effects, Starz Inside: Fantastic Flesh, Nicotero talks about his first time meeting Romero, part of the fuel that ignited his fiery passion for special effects. Nicotero has since gone on to build an impenetrable reputation for himself as one of the most skilled artists to arise from that gemstone era of special effects—the ‘80s. Not only has Nicatero’s work been featured in such influential horror films as From Beyond, Bride of the Re-Animator and Army of Darkness, but he has also been the talent behind big studio mainstream film favourites, Dances with Wolves and The Chronicles of Narnia installment, Prince Caspian. In 1988, Nicotero joined creative forces with two other huge industry talents, Howard Berger and Robert Kurtzman, to assemble KNB EFX. The company did the effects for several big studio blockbusters such as Robert Rodriguez’ film adaptation of Frank Miller’s acclaimed neo-noir comic book series, Sin City, and Cameron Crowe’s rousing mystery-romance, Vanilla Sky.
Jeremy Selenfriend, owner of and effects wizard behind Monster in my Closet FX , says, “while the field gained its respectability in the film industry in the ‘60s and ‘70s thanks to legendary artists and pioneers like Jack Pearce and Dick Smith, no era for practical effects will ever top the ’80s.”
“Computers and robotics had evolved enough to allow for massive advances in computer-controlled animatronics,” Selenfriend says. “New advances in materials and mediums had been discovered and the effects artist was heralded like a rock star on set. It was in this era that some of the greats of the industry became known outside of the film world.”
Selenfriend lists the Empire Strikes Back, Ghostbusters, Predator, The Thing, American Werewolf in London and Total Recall as films that had showcased massive advances in practical effects. “They still hold up and look incredible onscreen some 30 years later. That is something CG will never do.”
Canadian independent filmmakers Tim Rutherford and Cody Kennedy of Angry Octopus Films also highlight the ‘80s as the era that really pushed the envelope in terms of what audiences would tolerate. “The early ‘80s definitely pushed it to a new level of what the audience [would] accept… A lot of times, even still, there are movies where people are like, ‘that’s too much, you took it too far…’ So I think the ‘80s and early ‘90s horror push definitely did a lot to see what the audience would accept as far as how disgusting and realistic you could be.”
The Appeal of Practical
The realistic nature of the creatures, ghoulish characters and gore in horror and sci-fi of the ’80s and ‘90s is what possessed film viewers and genre fans to place practical effects on the pedestal to begin with. To this very day, practical still firmly holds its position. In an interview with special effects artist, Mario Soucy, featured on the Hour.ca website, some concern is raised over the fear that has overwhelmed special effects artists about the future of their career in a world where CGI is the prevalent choice of effects for filmmakers.
“CGI takes increasingly more space, but it’s still lacking in realism,” Soucy says. “We want the ‘wow’ factor and a good story… Ultimately we’re magicians, we create illusions. Our first pay cheque, really, is seeing the expression on people’s faces when we make an illusion possible.”
There is an irrefutable essence about practical effects that digital just cannot muster. Film fanatics have a deep appreciation for it, moviegoers stare in awe and zealous horror and sci-fi lovers have an insatiable hunger for it. The element of realism that accompanies special effects in film cannot be mirrored by digital or CGI. Josh Foster and his wife Corinne Foster of Synapse FX both agree that practical effects have a much greater impact and visual appeal.
“[Practical] is gorier!” Josh says, “It’s more like, ‘Oh my god, I just saw that guy’s head blow up and goo come out!’ It’s a lot more hands on and creative, you have to be really mechanical, you have to figure everything out. There’s a lot more thought and creativity put into it. I think practical elements have a lot more soul and passion to them because you’ve got this starving artist trying to make this thing look amazing.”
Corinne Foster raises a legitimate point about the actors and their interactions with practical elements. “I think mainly it’s the reality of acting… Things are a lot smoother and you have more of an awe-factor of wondering how something was done.”
Selenfriend of Monster in my Closet reiterates that aspect of realism. “No matter how good a CG creation is, it isn’t there. There is no physical presence and weight on set. No matter how good an actor is, it’s much easier to convey terror when a monster is actually chasing you down a hall, than when a man in green spandex is chasing you.” Selenfriend makes note of Sigourney Weaver’s reaction to the alien queen in Ridley Scott’s, Aliens, describing her as being in a state of absolute terror with the alien whipping it’s jaws and tail all around her.
Kennedy and Rutherford of Angry Octopus make mention of how much more powerful practical effects are than CGI. “There’s the magic of it and the trick behind it,” Kennedy says.
Director, producer, screenwriter, and SFX creator Robert Kurtzman
Cost Appeal
In addition to the sense of realism that practical effects convey, and the awe-factor that they provoke, the cost of materials is also a prominent appeal. In the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, when many of who are now considered the true special effects mavens of twenty-first century cinema were first dipping their fingers in the fake blood and liquid latex, their pursuits were made as an extension of their sheer passion for the art. Income was likely the furthest thing from their minds while delving into their creations. There isn’t a lot of money in the industry for aspiring young special effects artists. The guys of Angry Octopus have experienced this downfall first-hand, but never allow it to ruin the joy of what they do. They emphasize the importance of thinking outside of the box when it comes to overcoming budgetary obstacles, and utilizing the reasonably priced resources that are accessible to them.
“You can creatively overcome things if you do a lot of research in what you want to do and you’re able to find things on discount,” Kennedy says. “It’s [more] about the work behind it. Practical effects can be really creative because you’re trying to overcome certain obstacles. Maybe [something] doesn’t work [a certain way], so you have to try and make it [another] way.”
No CGI Films, one of the rare companies that strives to use practical and only practical effects in films, also knows how important to the creative process cheap material costs are for independent artists.
“Right now we are not paying ourselves, so all the money that we get goes to materials, which are really not expensive—plaster, clay, false wood, all that stuff in really not expensive at all,” Crane says.
“It’s always the labour that’s expensive.” Crane reiterates the significance of having a knack for making practical effects, as it saves on the cost of labour—hiring others to do the work—which is usually very expensive.
Josh Foster also believes that visual FX can be quite a bit more expensive than practical, noting that visual or digital effects artists can make between approximately $45 to $70 starting out in the industry.
A Future for Practical?
It is evident that the special effects skill set is a dying forté in modern cinema. Even considering the advancements in mechanics, animatronics and makeup materials, filmmakers are choosing to save time and produce something with less of a sense of realism. With the rate at which digital effects, such as CGI, are climbing in modern cinema, people who possess the intricate skills of creating practical effects are losing jobs. However, there are few independent companies—such as No CGI, Synapse and Angry Octopus—that will see to it that practical will always have a place in the camera and on the big screen. Crane sees a niche market hiding around the corner in the future.
“Our audience is small, we recognize it, we brand ourselves, and I think that’s where practical effects could conceivably come in—it could be a sub-genre onto itself. I think that people will seek that stuff out. That’s what we’re hoping.”
But even the film fans are a bit skeptical as far as a new movement of practical effects goes. Kennedy says that he thinks it all depends on a budgetary level.
“I don’t think Hollywood would go for it, but I think it’s really going to take a few good projects to really show a new and good way of shooting and incorporating practical FX… I definitely think the technology is there.”
Like Crane, Kennedy and Rutherford also believe that there will always be a market for practical effects.
“Hopefully there’s a bright future for them,” Rutherford says. “I think it’s going to become a very tight business, so to speak. There will be a lot of people doing practical effects, especially with things like YouTube tutorials and that kind of digital media interface… but I think it’s going to be a very competitive business [for actual artists].”
“It’s an art,” Kennedy says.
“It’s the love of filmmaking,” Rutherford adds.
