Battle Scenes Depicted in Moving Pictures Before C.G.I.

March 10, 2024 6:50 AM

"When one shuts out the fact that the British infantry are mainly decked out in nylon tunics, and that some of the then historical detail regarding the battle has since been proven incorrect, nevertheless the action scenes, directed by Douglas Hickox, are remarkable in showing panoramic views of the battlefield ... In fact, no more than about 4,000 extras were used, but each part of the attack jig-saws very well together in showing the immediacy of each moment as it could well have been for those involved at the time."
posted by cupcakeninja (33 comments total)

This post inspired by seeing Dune: Part Two yesterday and thinking about how epic battle scenes have changed since the advent of CGI.
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:55 AM on March 10 [3 favorites]

I saw Dune 2: Arrakis Boogaloo last night as well and had the same thought: it's the year 10,919 and there's still a dude running through the battle with a flag like it's Braveheart?
posted by chavenet at 6:59 AM on March 10 [3 favorites]

Yeah.... it was intended to be stirring, and I did feel stirred, but I also thought it was one more item on the tottering pile of inexplicable space medieval biz. None of which, of course, stops me from wanting to see epic CGI Masters of the Universe battles, or a Thundarr Cinematic Universe with epic guerrilla Mok-v-Lizardmen engagements...
posted by cupcakeninja at 7:20 AM on March 10

This is the sort of site that you're happy to run across if for no other reason than to marvel at the work that went into it.
posted by tommasz at 7:27 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]

In the pre-CGI era, most combat scenes could have been adequately replaced by a title card saying "There is a big fight." In the CGI era, this title card could adequately replace all combat scenes.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:28 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]

Alternatively, scenes where people are talking could be replaced by a title card saying "A discussion occurred."
posted by cupcakeninja at 7:32 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]

A sexing occured. It was life altering.
posted by Jacen at 7:36 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]

They came. They went.
posted by chavenet at 7:48 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]

and there's still a dude running through the battle with a flag...

Well, you could be running through battle with a pug. Which would be cool.
posted by ovvl at 8:18 AM on March 10 [16 favorites]

Caught a few minutes of Lawrence of Arabia on cable TV at my in-law's house last night. It wasn't a battle scene, but it was an enormous crowd scene out in the desert. We started discussing how difficult that must have been getting everyone in costume, out on location at the right time, doing the right "clamoring" or whatever they were doing at the right time when the cameras rolled.

Very loud PA systems and lots of assistant producers, we guessed.
posted by SoberHighland at 8:19 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]

Forgot to add: Thanks for this post. I am not a major film buff, but I do like reading about things such as this. I've done some work on TV commercials (I apologize and shudder...) in the past and know the intricacies of even small productions.
posted by SoberHighland at 8:28 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]

I was a little disappointed that the author stopped before looking at Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, which I thought generally did a good job of portraying medieval battles the way that they probably were, i.e. filthy and chaotic.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:31 AM on March 10 [11 favorites]

Agree, and ditto ancient battles. I try to remember to keep my standards realistic when watching older films or low-budget TV, when it comes to portraying the realities of things. For all its flaws, Gladiator did I thought a reasonable job of portraying the chaos of legionary battles, from the mud to the blood and chaos. The common complaint about it and other battle scenes that "I couldn't see the fight choreography" is valid, and it also misses the point of capturing the subjective experience of being in a battle.

See also, though you may laugh, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles' version of Verdun. The huge budget for that show meant they could have a large cast, large sets, and subjectively capture the chaos of gunfire, gas, and (the first use in battle of) flamethrowers. Absolute Hell, and a small miracle they could do it on screen.
posted by cupcakeninja at 8:52 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]

We just watched Napoleon which has some truly mammoth battle scenes. Really well made movie that felt like it had no soul. But truly epic war bits, if you like that kind of thing.
posted by hippybear at 8:58 AM on March 10 [3 favorites]

Ha, I was thinking of Lawrence of Arabia as well.

As far as the Soviet War and Peace is concerned: the small photo's in the article really don't do it justice. And it's not only the orchestrated troupe movements. There's also the coördinated artillery fire going off. The resulting smoke drifting across the landscape creating these patches of shade among the sun.
I found it so beautiful I kept making screen captures.

I also made a lot of screen captures for Barry Lyndon. Not the artillery smoke. But somehow the colour gradients made for similarly beautiful scenes.
posted by jouke at 9:04 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]

I would like to add more about the Soviet War & Peace. The director, Bondarchuk, had access to the Red Army as extras for those huge battle scenes, but despite the aerial footage of the whole battlefield, he concentrated on getting down and dirty and really depicted the chaos that the soldiers experienced. Yes, war is hell.
posted by njohnson23 at 9:21 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]

My father attended Hollywood High in the early 40's. He and his mom were really, really poor, so he worked the whole time. His two jobs? Caddy at the country club and extra in all the propaganda films being churned out for the lead up to the war and early years. He was in ROTC so looked somewhat believable. I have some of his old pay stubs for $2-4 a day. He said once when he did a marching scene, they marched by, ran around behind the cameras and marched by again. He graduated in '44 and enlisted right away.
posted by agatha_magatha at 9:30 AM on March 10 [10 favorites]

> Well, you could be running through battle with a pug. Which would be cool.

Lynch's Dune!
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:50 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]

Halloween Jack

Branaugh's H5 was the first thing I thought of when I saw the post topic. I think its a truly exceptional depiction of a Medieval battle scene, a writhing mass of mud-covered struggle.
posted by supermedusa at 10:19 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]

Henry Fonder though.
posted by biffa at 10:27 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]

‘Every film about war ends up being pro-war.’ --François Truffaut
posted by chavenet at 11:07 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]

The only battle scene worth watching is the one at the end of Blackadder Goes Forth.

There was no CGI, there was not even enough room for them to actually run toward the camera -- and the result is a heartbreaking ending to a series I had not thought capable of such poignancy.
posted by basalganglia at 11:08 AM on March 10 [11 favorites]

CGI certainly lets them make big armies bigger. But it's not necessarily the case that battle and fight scenes have got better. For instance here's historical weapons guy Matt Easton reacting to Ivanhoe (1950) where he points out that in some ways it's a lot more accurate than most modern movies. I think CGI can let filmmakers get further away from the reality of people actually hitting each other with weapons.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:17 PM on March 10 [5 favorites]

The Soviet War and Peace is so good overall, far better than the terrible US version. Agreed on how Bondarchuk practiced well there, then took things farther still with Waterloo.

I appreciate how the linked article digs into some films from other sources, like Yugoslavia.
posted by doctornemo at 12:26 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]

‘Every film about war ends up being pro-war.’ --François Truffaut

This was probably true when he said it. There is a visceral thrill to most onscreen violence. But I think films that focus on the not-fighting part of war can be anti-war. Grave of the Fireflies is the first example that comes to mind, but I'm sure there are others.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 12:44 PM on March 10 [3 favorites]

The German All's Quiet On The Western Front from the past year or two is pretty fucking close to having fighting and being anti-war. Mildly traumatizing.
posted by hippybear at 12:56 PM on March 10 [4 favorites]

"The irony of Kolberg is that during the Second World War, and soon after the film was completed, the town itself was once more under siege by the advancing Red Army. It fell to the Russians in March 1945 and many of its citizens were deported. Kolberg is now part of modern Poland and as been renamed Kolobrzeg."
posted by clavdivs at 4:02 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]

The Soviet War and Peace is so good overall, far better than the terrible US version.

I think they're both worth watching and comparing if your'e interested in this kinda thing. The Soviet version is better, it's more like a miniseries so it has more depth and scope, and includes more of the subplots from the novel. The attention to detail (using vintage 19th Century decor for the ballroom scenes) is impressive, as are those awesome battlefield sequences.

The 1956 De Laurentiis/Ponti/Vidor version is still worth a look. They also spared no expense on spectacle (squeezed into a mere 208 minutes) but with classic 50s Hollywood star-power (Audrey Hepburn really is great casting for Natasha, Henry Fonda uh... yeah okay). The duel scene is quite interesting.

In both versions the central love triangle is the main focus of the plot.

In both versions, Andrei has a really big hat.
posted by ovvl at 5:57 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]

He said once when he did a marching scene, they marched by, ran around behind the cameras and marched by again.

This was an actual battle tactic during Union General George B. McClellan’s Peninsula Campaign during the Civil War:

The Confederates understood McClellan’s cautious nature as a commander. Taking advantage of this, General Magruder continuously kept his troops on the move to give the impression of a large field force. In just one example, he marched a single unit along a road visible to Union observers and then into a thicket where their movements could not be perceived. They would then go back to the start of their march, unseen, and move along the same road. The whole operation acted as a conveyor belt. McClellan was thrown by the tactic, which appeared to confirm his belief that the Confederates outnumbered him.

McClellan landed on the peninsula with 121,500 men. Magruder had 11,000 men.

"Cautious nature" is doing a lot of work.

The immediate problem with McClellan's war strategy [I mean, every single time] was that he was convinced the Confederates were ready to attack him with overwhelming numbers. On August 8, believing that the Confederacy had over 100,000 troops facing him (in contrast to the 35,000 they had actually deployed at Bull Run a few weeks earlier), he declared a state of emergency in the capital.
...
McClellan in fact rarely had less than a two-to-one advantage over the armies that opposed him in 1861 and 1862.

posted by kirkaracha at 6:24 PM on March 10 [2 favorites]

He said once when he did a marching scene, they marched by, ran around behind the cameras and marched by again.

Isn't there a second season episode of Babylon5 where they obviously did this with background characters? I seem to recall noticing that the same woman had walked from left to right like two or three times in the same scene.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:42 AM on March 11

McClellan in fact rarely had less than a two-to-one advantage over the armies that opposed him in 1861 and 1862.

Maybe he just didn't feel like fighting? "Oh my god look how many of them there are! Two!! Let's just hang out an march instead. Play some D".
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:14 PM on March 11

Telegram to George McClellan, April 9, 1862.

"There is a curious mystery about the number of troops now with you. When I telegraphed on the 6th saying you had over a hundred thousand with you, I had just obtained from the Secretary of War…making 108,000 then with you…[Y]ou now say you have about 85000…[H]ow can the discrepancy of 23000 be accounted for?"

Reads like a early Twitter spate.
posted by clavdivs at 5:38 PM on March 11

“If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it.”

— Abraham Lincoln
posted by kirkaracha at 12:36 PM on March 13