
The Movie Mistake Mystery from “Revenge of the Sith” by CharlesW
Movies are handmade, and just like any other art form, sometimes the seams that hold movies together become visible to the audience. For movie fans, these moments are very exciting. Catching a glimpse behind the scenes is an exhilarating experience. My favorite kind of “movie mistake” is the kind that is hiding in plain sight… but the casual viewer missed it upon first viewing. Or perhaps even the second viewing, or even the third.
I’m particularly obsessed with moments that reveal the craft and artistry of the magic trick of a shot that slightly shatters the illusion of cinema. These revealing moments have been in movies since the dawn of cinema, and are everywhere (if you know exactly where to look).
One of my favorite films of all time also has one of the funniest revealing mistakes I’ve seen. Edward Zwick’s “Glory” (1989) takes place during the American Civil War, and this scene has a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it reminder of the film’s very modern production:
Because the audiences’ eyes are firmly fixed on Morgan Freeman’s character in the center of frame, very few will ever pick up the little kid with the extremely modern wristwatch that enters frame on far screen right. Sometimes the on-set teams that work with featured extras—as well as the costume department that dress the extras—will occasionally miss a modern piece of jewelry on an actor.
Here’s a fun one from Martin Scorsese’s masterpiece “Goodfellas” (1990), in one of the closing shots of a nail-bitingly tense scene where Karen nearly walks into an ambush:
The period-appropriate “movie” license plate dramatically dangles then completely falls off the car in the middle of the take, revealing the actual 1990-era license plate of the car used for the scene. This is an accidental and hilarious glimpse into the detailed hard work that goes into making a Hollywood period piece (this portion of the film takes place in 1980), where every license plate of every car in the movie needed special, detailed work to make them period-appropriate.
The finale of James Cameron’s epic “Aliens” (1986) features the android Bishop (Lance Henriksen) getting severed in half, but still functioning enough to save Newt (Carrie Henn) from getting sucked into the vacuum of space. The action-packed scene features an absolutely wonderful accidental reveal of how the cut-in-half android was accomplished on the set:
“Aliens” (1986)
The amazing makeup effects applied to Henriksen’s body covers the bottom half of his body which is hidden through a hole in the set. But in order to get that little bit of extra athletic stretch to grab Newt, Henriksen popped his body out of the hole a little too far, revealing the classic stage trick. However, I’d gather that 99% of the audience has never noticed this little reveal of stagecraft since our eyes are fixed on Newt on screen right, sliding toward the airlock, and not on the ground contact of Bishop’s half-body, which had already been firmly established in the scene.
Avoiding reflections of the crew appearing to camera is a constant struggle for filmmakers. In Steven Spielberg’s first masterpiece “Duel” (1971), David (Dennis Weaver) gets into a phone booth to make a call, with the front glass face of the booth aimed directly at the camera, and if the audience’s gaze drifted off of Weaver’s face, they could catch a glimpse of the crew:
“Duel” (1971)
In the reflection, we see a few crew members on screen left, the camera itself, and director Spielberg on the right (he’s the one shuffling left and right, who lowers his head in the middle of the take). Again, like all the examples I’m providing in this article, hardly anyone would ever notice these moments. When a viewer catches these brief moments, the illusion of the movie is briefly broken, but for fans of the filmmaking process, it’s a joyful reminder of the overall magic trick. The most intimate movie scene with only two characters in a desolate, isolated environment actually was created by dozens and dozens of crew members standing slightly out of frame.
Look for another accidental ‘crew caught on camera’ moment in the reflection in a car window in the ‘leave the gun, take the cannoli’ scene from “The Godfather” (1972), one that very few people ever notice.
Here’s a super quick revealing mistake from “The Dark Knight” (2008) that is a true “you’ll never see this in real time” moment:
Although “The Dark Knight” example gives the audience a much clearer look at the camera operator, the focus puller(?) and the camera itself reflected in the interrogation room’s mirrors, the shot is a lot harder to see the crew members and equipment in real time due to the chaotic and energetic camera movement, as opposed to the locked off nature of the “Duel” example.
“The Abyss” (1989)
Amazingly, many folks who watch that clip from the dramatic drowning sequence cannot consciously see the bit of filmmaking that literally blocks the actors in an intimate moment. This is my favorite example of a movie’s incredible emotional power — the scene is so dramatic and intense that most viewers cannot consciously see a giant cloth wiping away water from the lens of the camera in the middle of a shot.
Incidentally, some of these revealing mistakes are being erased from cinema history due to overzealous restoration projects — the process of “cleaning up” a film for newer formats like Blu-ray and 4K — which is deeply wrong. This is a much bigger topic on which I have very strong thoughts and the hottest of takes. Just look at what modern restorations have done to two of these revealing mistakes from “Goodfellas” and “Aliens”:
Painting out these movie mistakes as part of a restoration is wrong. What’s in the movie is in the movie, and altering the movie to this extent is a form of revisionist history. Cinema is worse off when over-aggressive restorations alter the action within the frame. To me, this is equivalent to swapping out an actor’s performance with a different take, or changing the music score during an action sequence, or replacing a puppet creature with a computer graphics version of the same creature decades after release. But I digress.
• • • •
Like I said at the start, movies are handmade, and that’s true even in today’s landscape where digital visual effects are a prominent part of filmmaking. In the same way that physical crews use physical tools to build sets, construct costumes and craft props, visual effects artists use digital tools to craft an image. And with the hand-made nature of any art form, the lack of c
9 Comments
the_af
I have to agree with the article's author that what he calls "overzealous" removal of movie mistakes seems wrong. It wouldn't matter so much if the original movie was still readily available, but it's often the case that only the latest "fixed" version remains available.
With Star Wars in particular, Lucas' incessant meddling has long have gone far past the point of diminishing returns, and frequently making the movies worse.
More in general, I like watching the original movie, warts and all. I often disagree with the corrections, especially when they restore scenes that were left out for a reason, make color correction choices I disagree with (e.g. Blade Runner's "green tint" is inferior to its original bluish tint), etc.
615341652341
Finally! I’ve only been casually following this over the years, so this is a great write up!!
vmilner
I noticed watching the recent 4K release of The Terminator that the garage attendant in the final scene has a piece of paper in his top pocket with "There's a storm coming“ written upside down on it.
p_ing
> Painting out these movie mistakes as part of a restoration is wrong. What's in the movie is in the movie, and altering the movie to this extent is a form of revisionist history.
How many times has Lord of the Rings been revised? Dune? <Insert other long-lived actively managed novel>. Is the active management of these novels "wrong"? Is fixing grammar, spelling, or clarifying story beats "wrong"?
I personally don't think so, and I'd rather read something which has been corrected, especially if done for story clarity.
_wire_
The only one I've ever noticed on my own in a long life of watching movies is the compressed air tank to overturn a chariot in Gladiator (2000).
I was told about the pole that causes the truck to flip in Raiders of the Lost Ark and now I can't unsee it.
—Warning to those who enjoy 2001 A Space Odyssey with their blinders on…—
2001 made a big impression on me as a kid and I've seen it many times. There was a point when watching for the Nth time in middle age that I first noticed that all the anti-gravity shots show the actors bodies carrying their own weight. Especially in the aisle scene with the floating pen, which itself is rotating about the center of the sheet of clear plastic it's attached to rather than its center of mass. Later in the same sequence, food trays are brought to the bridge after the long scenes of a flight attendant, who picks up trays as they slide downs from a dispenser, and as she hands the trays to the crew, one of them instinctively puts his hand out under the tray to helpfully catch its weight. In the next scene an officer joins other crew by coming up from behind them, leaning over and resting his arms on their chair backs as the scene cuts to details of anti-gravity meal consumption. Finally Floyd stands in front of a toilet reading a 1000 word hard-printed list of instructions after the viewer has been shown electronic displays used everywhere else. The self-consciousness of that clip provides a lovely relief from all the previous cognitive dissonance. I'm not able to unsee any of this now and it detracts from the spectacle. But at the same time, it makes the orchestration and ideas of the movie seem all the more artistic, so nothing lost except innocence. There are many other oddities to find in the movie working on different planes of awareness, including proprioceptive assumptions about reality, intelligence, progress, and spirituality.
alganet
Toasty!
crazygringo
> Painting out these movie mistakes as part of a restoration is wrong. What's in the movie is in the movie, and altering the movie to this extent is a form of revisionist history. Cinema is worse off when over-aggressive restorations alter the action within the frame. To me, this is equivalent to swapping out an actor's performance with a different take, or changing the music score during an action sequence, or replacing a puppet creature with a computer graphics version of the same creature decades after release.
It's really not the equivalent though. I don't see anything wrong with fixing a license plate or removing a reflection or a modern-day wristwatch.
It's the equivalent of fixing a spelling error in a novel, or a wrong chord in sheet music. None of the filmmakers wanted those things there. They weren't done with intent. They were just mistakes.
Changing music or replacing a puppet with CG, of course I'm against. That's changing the art of it. Different music makes you feel different. A CG creature has a different personality. Just like you don't want to replace vocabulary in a novel to make it more modern-day.
I think it's usually pretty easy to distinguish the two. The first ones would have been corrected at the time if they'd noticed and gone for another take. They take us out of the movie if we notice them. The latter category is a reflection of the technology, resources, and intentional choices. They keep us in the world of moviemaking as it was at that time.
haunter
I hate editing mistakes more. The Aviator has quite a few of these where for example in cut A two characters talk by walking side by side, in cut B they stop and turn towards each other (still talking), and in cut C they continue the talking but you can see cut A and C are the continuation of each other and cut B was inserted in the middle https://files.catbox.moe/dljiiw.mp4
And that's just one example that film is full of those. Here is another jarring one https://files.catbox.moe/9m3gjq.mp4
Despite that it won the Academy Award for Best Editing…
jonathanlydall
I watched Aliens at least half a dozen times (still one of my all time favourites), and only noticed it when a friend pointed it out to us as it was playing at New Year’s party.