When writer/director James Gray started showing his new film, We Own the Night, to friends, they wanted to know how he got stuntpeople to agree to shoot a complex car-chase sequence in the pouring rain — an insanely dangerous proposition. "Mark Romanek said, 'Don't tell anybody how that's done. You're going to ruin it,'" Gray recalls. "But it was already in the press notes. The cat was out of the bag."
The chase scene, a centerpiece at the conclusion of the film's second act that serves as a turning point for Joaquin Phoenix's character, was shot on a sunny day. The downpour you see in the film was created by Digital Domain in a painstaking, months-long process that involved layer upon layer of water effects. Gray says the rain was important because the story needed an elemental component — he wanted it to have a supernatural force, suggesting Greek gods having their way with the mortals below. The result is very nearly seamless — it would take a very good eye indeed to peg the scene as a largely digital creation. Film & Video sat down with Gray in mid-August to talk about pulling off that trick, as well as his thoughts on sound mixing, and how he feels about the pros and cons of digital filmmaking tools. (Hint: if he has his way, you may have to pry his 35mm camera out of his cold, dead hands.)
From top: Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Wahlberg, Eva Mendes, and Robert Duvall
Comments (8)
1.
These articles are nice but need VIDEO included showing the FX you write about.
Posted by A.C. Farley on Thursday, October 11, 2007 @ 04:46 PM
2.
Ditto. I'd like to have seen a video clip -- preferably before and after FX. The process outcome seems to be an amazing accomplishment.
Posted by David H. Deans on Thursday, October 11, 2007 @ 09:18 PM
3.
Your wish is our command.
Posted by Bryant Frazer on Thursday, October 11, 2007 @ 09:58 PM
4.
There is a huge employ by Digital Domain...but there's ONLY ONE Sascha Michelle Flick...our daughter ! She's the Commercial Div. top gun.Go Little Hop! From Tulsa to the DMZ via Santa Clara Uni.
Posted by Michael E. Flick on Saturday, October 13, 2007 @ 08:45 AM
5.
Excellent article. And he's dead right about digital.
Posted by mikeo on Sunday, October 14, 2007 @ 04:40 PM
6.
I find the directors attitude towards effects, DI and shooting digital to be smarmy, uneducated and unprofessional. He criticizes the very things that saved his movie. He strikes me as an art school snob, one who would benefit from understanding the technical side of his craft a bit better.
Posted by Chris on Monday, October 15, 2007 @ 09:20 PM
7.
Where do you get the idea he's criticizing his effects or his DI? He says he loves Digital Domain and he was wrong about the DI. Big deal.
Give this guy five years, he'll find a digital camera he likes.
Posted by Todd on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 @ 10:51 AM
8.
There is no such thing as a film snob, just uneducated sob. More and more there are directors that are more disposable than a bad PA. I can't believe that such an ignorant person is able to attain the helm of this sort of budget. Only in the film biz can we believe in narcissism over value, let's hope this film is good despite the director's contribution. Old School technique and New School tools will always prevail, but so few directors are as good as the writing, producing, editing or sound and vfx. What's gray and floats?
Posted by CJ on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 @ 08:52 PM