Hollywood in Astoria
As I type this, a movie is being shot a block from my apartment. It's obvious from the typical signs: trucks line the whole length of one side of the street; cones block access to thru traffic; cops stand around doing nothing; lights illuminate the night. This last one is what intrigues me the most about the presence of Hollywood in Astoria, Queens.
The street I live on runs under Hell Gate Bridge, the lengthy railroad corridor that runs through Astoria and roughly parallels the Triborough Bridge about three blocks to the south. For whatever reason, the filmmakers have lit up the underside of the bridge, a concrete barrel vault that's an impressive presence (something I'm guessing they were drawn to) even without the lights. The strong uplights might be required because of film's relatively low light sensitivity (compared to the human eye), but to me it points to Hollywood's tendency to exaggerate.
What intrigues me the most, though, is how Hollywood actually presents a place. Watching a movie that's shot on location, a certain level of authenticity comes across, making the story more believable to us. But is it an accurate representation of the place? Is it really authentic? If the film down the street from my apartment is any indication, the answer is no. While the exaggerated lighting doesn't necessarily lie, the overhaul of an adjacent building (unfortunately I didn't get a good photo of it) obviously does.
What the filmmakers have done to the adjacent building is change it from a home for a Greek organization (Astoria is VERY Greek and littered with Greek restaurants, stores, businesses, etc.) to a home for what appeared to be an Indian organization of some sort. Numerous extras and actors milled about in what I'm guessing was traditional dress. I have no idea how all this fits into the film's narrative, but what the filmmakers are ultimately doing is using the location for its formal attributes, and then going not one (the lighting) but two steps further by modifying that formality to fit the story. In other words, they're treating a real place like a studio or stage set and using it as a canvas for manipulation.
Nevertheless I was extremely pleased to see the lights under the Hell Gate Bridge and couldn't resist taking these photos.
The street I live on runs under Hell Gate Bridge, the lengthy railroad corridor that runs through Astoria and roughly parallels the Triborough Bridge about three blocks to the south. For whatever reason, the filmmakers have lit up the underside of the bridge, a concrete barrel vault that's an impressive presence (something I'm guessing they were drawn to) even without the lights. The strong uplights might be required because of film's relatively low light sensitivity (compared to the human eye), but to me it points to Hollywood's tendency to exaggerate.
What intrigues me the most, though, is how Hollywood actually presents a place. Watching a movie that's shot on location, a certain level of authenticity comes across, making the story more believable to us. But is it an accurate representation of the place? Is it really authentic? If the film down the street from my apartment is any indication, the answer is no. While the exaggerated lighting doesn't necessarily lie, the overhaul of an adjacent building (unfortunately I didn't get a good photo of it) obviously does.
What the filmmakers have done to the adjacent building is change it from a home for a Greek organization (Astoria is VERY Greek and littered with Greek restaurants, stores, businesses, etc.) to a home for what appeared to be an Indian organization of some sort. Numerous extras and actors milled about in what I'm guessing was traditional dress. I have no idea how all this fits into the film's narrative, but what the filmmakers are ultimately doing is using the location for its formal attributes, and then going not one (the lighting) but two steps further by modifying that formality to fit the story. In other words, they're treating a real place like a studio or stage set and using it as a canvas for manipulation.
Nevertheless I was extremely pleased to see the lights under the Hell Gate Bridge and couldn't resist taking these photos.
Hasn't it always been thus?
ReplyDeleteRemember when the Illinois Nazi's chased Jake and Elwood all over Chicago? Except that a good chunk of the chase was actually filmed in Milwaukee. They shot off the end of an unfinished freeway in Milwaukee and plunged into lake Michigan close to the LSD bridge over the Chicago River.
John,
ReplyDeleteI saw this scene last night when I walked back to my home.I was amazed by the lighted bridge arch, too. I cannot wait to see the movie. Just to find out what happen in the movie at there. I am glad that you actually found out the movie title.
RA - Yea, I remember seeing SOM's white building - the one with the X-braching - in the distance as the car fell from the sky. The difference between that example and mine is that John Landis is passing off Milwaukee as Chicago, while Griffin Dunne (director of the film down the street) is passing off a modified version of New York as New York. There's probably scenes in Blues Brothers where they had to modify the context to suit the plot, though I can't think of an example now. One part of that movie that kinda makes me laugh is a shot from the roof of City Hall towards Daley Plaza near the end of the film. You can clearly see the huge crowd of onlookers pushed to the perimeter of the block. I'm guessing that what was actually a crowd watching the film being shot was rationalized as a crowd watching the cops going after the Blues Brothers.
ReplyDeleteTJ - I saw the film name on signs posted to telephone poles. It looks like something the city requires with a (partial) street closing.
John,
ReplyDeleteGood point. I do remember a few years ago when the film "A Stir of Echoes" built the facade of a typical Chicago tavern on an empty lot in Wicker Park. To see it from the front it was so real you would not look twice at it. It was bizzare to see it while commuting one the Blue line, it was just a wall with some bracing in back. I think the el was the reason they built it, so they could have it in the background. Of course everyone in Chicago lives wihtin a block of the el. Then there was the awful number they did on the IBM building when they filmed "Mercury Rising". They turned that pristine Mies interior into a po-mo'd retread. As one of my coworkers said to me, "Aren't there at least a dozen buildings like that just over the river, why did they have to f*** up this one?"