Clint Eastwood filmed in Spain for the first time in 1964 and the impact was lifelong

In 1964, Clint Eastwood agreed to travel to Spain to shoot a low-budget film that, in his own diagnosis, “was probably going to be a total failure.” What he found when he arrived (an international team in perpetual chaos, actors and director unable to understand each other without an interpreter, a tree stolen through deception and a crane obtained thanks to a bishop) only confirmed his worst suspicions. Several decades later, he still remembered it. For a handful of pesetas. ‘A Fistful of Dollars was not a high-risk project, but quite the opposite: it cost around $200,000, co-financed by Italy, Germany and Spain, and Eastwood (then a television actor with no relevant film credits) was paid $15,000. Sergio Leone did not even sign his name: in the credits he appears as “Bob Robertson.” Ennio Morricone, as “Dan Savio.” Why Spain. The choice of Spain was not an aesthetic whim. The Franco regime had been facilitating the presence of foreign productions in Spanish territorypartly because of the economic benefits and partly because the presence of international stars served to soften the external image of the dictatorship. And for the production companies it was a bargain: the costs were much lower than those in the United States, the army provided extras when necessary and the landscape of Almería (one of the poorest provinces in the country, with very high unemployment) functioned as a perfect substitute for the American West. A single hat. Conditions on the set were, to put it mildly, spartan. There was no electricity or trailers with basic services and Leone and Eastwood did not speak the same language (one Italian, the other English), so they communicated through specialist Benito Stefanelli. Filming was done completely without sound: this was added in post-production, and Eastwood did not dub his own voice into English until the film was released in the United States in 1967. Your own clothes. Eastwood himself explained in 2007 who arrived with his own wardrobe to the filming: the black jeans he had bought on Hollywood Boulevard, the boots he brought from the series ‘Rawhide’ and the hat he got in Santa Monica. They bought the poncho in Spain. And that hat, unique and irreplaceable, sums up the project’s production philosophy well: “If I lost it, it was finished. There was no way to replace it.” They don’t shut up, they don’t shut up. What caught the most attention, however, was not the material precariousness but the atmosphere: off-screen people were playing frisbeetold jokes, talked non-stop. “They were not used to the silence of a shoot, where sound is important,” he recalled. He ended up using the need to play his part in the middle of that revelry as an exercise in concentration. There is no tree. Decades after filming wrapped, Eastwood still remembered two anecdotes as if they had happened weeks before. The first happened when they needed a specific tree for a hanging scene, they couldn’t find a suitable one and the only one available was on private property. Leone counted that the technicians convinced the owner that the tree was dangerous. In the version that Eastwood told in 2007, the alibi was different: they introduced themselves as highway department workers. There is no crane. The second anecdote that Eastwood remembers is from the filming of another film, ‘Death Had a Price’. The team needed a crane that they couldn’t afford. A company near the filming location had one, but it was a religious holiday and that company could not work. Leone went to see the local bishop and explained that his company was Jewish and therefore not subject to the Catholic holiday, so the bishop gave him permission to work. With that permit in hand, he went to the company with the crane: they couldn’t use it that day, but the Italians could, and they lent them the material. In Xataka | The 25 best movies on HBO Max: a selection of masterpieces and modern classics brimming with the best cinema

In 1953 Hollywood filmed a blockbuster in front of US nuclear tests. It was the most radioactive movie in history, literally

Year 1953, during a nuclear test in the Nevada desert, several Las Vegas hotels offered their guests privileged views of the mushroom cloud at dawn as if it were a tourist attraction at Disneyland, with cocktails included and terraces full of spectators. The scene, which is difficult to imagine today, reflected the extent to which certain risks were perceived very differently in the midst of the nuclear age. Filming in the Cold War. In the mid-50s, The Conqueror It was born as a historical blockbuster that from the beginning involved decisions that were difficult to justify, such as choosing John Wayne to play Genghis Khan himself under the production of Howard Hughes. Filming moved to locations in Utah, an area that offered spectacular landscapes but was, at the time, close to areas where the United States was filming atmospheric nuclear tests. The context was not a secret, but its risks were not fully understood either, since public and scientific perception of radiation was much more limited than today. That combination of cinematic ambition and geopolitical moment left a scenario that, seen with perspective, is much more disturbing than what it seemed like then. The real environment. This perfectly documented that nuclear testing in the Nevada desert generated radioactive fallout that moved to populated areas, subsequently affecting known communities as “downwinders”. It is also proven that the filming team worked in one of those regions, and that part of the surrounding material was transferred to other sets, potentially expanding exposure. This context is neither a theory nor a subsequent reconstruction, but a historical fact recognized by investigations and official organizations that have studied the consequences of those tests. The passage of time and the uncomfortable statistics. What happened? That, over the years, a significant part of the cast and production team developed cancerincluding figures such as John Wayne himself (who died of the disease in 1979), Susan Hayward and Dick Powell. The most cited figure that gives an idea of ​​the possible impact speaks of more than 90 cases among about 220 people linked to the production, a fact that has fueled the fame of the filming as one of the most disturbing and cursed in the history of Hollywood. Even so, we must remember that this number comes from of informative accounts and not from controlled epidemiological studies, which requires treating it with some caution despite its impact. What is proven and what is not. The line between facts and story is key in history. It’s proven that there was exposure to a potentially contaminated environment and that several team members developed serious illnesses over time. What is not proven is a direct causal relationship between filming and these cancers, since factors such as personal habits (including smoking) and the lack of comparable clinical data, facts or causalities may enter, making any definitive conclusion difficult. Therefore, the case remains an ambiguous terrain: perfectly plausible in its approach, but not scientifically confirmed. From failure to modern myth. Upon its release, the film was received quite coldly and criticalremaining in the popular imagination as another failure within the industry. However, as the decades passed, his memory has changed completely, transforming into a story that combines Hollywood, Cold War and invisible risk. What at the time was simply a bad creative and logistical decision ended up being reinterpreted as an episode from the world of celluloid. loaded with symbolism about the limits of knowledge and (i)responsibility. The context changes everything. Because the story of The Conqueror lies not only in what happened during filming, but in how that same filming fits within an era in which exposure to nuclear risks formed part of the everyday landscape. There is no doubt, what seemed acceptable then is today perceived as true nonsense, and this radical change of perspective is what turns the case into something more than a movie anecdote. It wasn’t just a problematic shoot, but an example of how seemingly normal decisions can take on a completely different meaning. with the passage of time. Image | RKO In Xataka | The day a man dared to go further than anyone else: a real fight with Bruce Lee where there were no limits In Xataka | One of the most iconic scenes from ‘A Clockwork Orange’ had an infallible trick: the pain you saw in the scene was not fiction

In 1987 a death was filmed so savage that people had to cover themselves. The trick to achieve it turned RoboCop into a cult work

In 1987, the film director Paul Verhoeven gave a twist to action science fiction with RoboCop. In reality, that was a cocktail very much to the director’s liking where there was satire, cyberpunk and police thriller. The difference was that he did not limit himself to telling the fall and rebirth of a hero: he decided to win over the viewer with emotional hammer blows, with a death. so cruel and excessive that it was impossible to look at without feeling uncomfortable. The scene that changed everything. Alex Murphy, the protagonist, appears up to that point as a good cop thrown into a corrupt world, but the film doesn’t have time to build him up calmly, so it does it by the most brutal way: literally, it tear apart in front of the viewer so that, when he returns converted into a machine, he understands that what has been lost is not only flesh, but humanity. Verhoeven explained it with an almost religious and at the same time tremendously cynical idea: “if you want to resurrect Murphy as an all-powerful RoboCop, first you have to crucify him.” And that crucifixion, instead of being symbolic or elegant, is filmed like a physical nightmaredirty and painful, one designed so that the viewer cannot avoid the impact. The slaughter as a narrative. The sequence It is constructed like a public execution, with the criminals laughing in the background, and that is possibly the key to its violence: it is not just that it unlockis that along the way they humiliate him, turn him into a broken toy, and torture him as if the gang were enjoying the show. The scene is escalating until it seems impossiblewith the protagonist trying to understand what is happening to him while his body stops obeying him, and the band acting like real madmen. There is the moral trick of the director of RoboCop: The villains were absolutely grotesque, yes, but the film removes any sympathetic veneer from them and turns them into a total social menace. Thus, when the final shot arrives that puts an end to the execution, the viewer is no longer watching the typical “80s action” film, he is seeing the point of no return that makes the entire film, from that minute on, a story. of loss and revenge. The old school of effects. It is impossible to talk about this classic without mentioning what makes it unique. The how was filmed: no less than under the orders of the legendary Rob Bottin with an artisanal obsession that today seems unthinkable based on meticulously designed prostheses, molds, fake parts and physical tricks. In order for the mutilation to work without putting the actor at risk, a a fake hand From a real mold, it was reconstructed in fiberglass and divided into sections so that it could be “popped” with compressed air and stage blood without the need for explosives near the face. It wasn’t just an effect, it was a device home engineering: internal blood tubes, pressure control, parts that could be assembled and disassembled, and a repeatable explosion pattern to always nail the same result. “Death” was also filmed with a staging designed to hide the real and sell the fakewith raised floors, holes through which to put the real arm under the stage, and a member of the team moving from below a false arm attached with Velcro as if it were a living limb. The underground trick. Plus: Murphy’s death is supported by a secret choreography that the viewer never saw: operators out of shot, hidden mechanisms and an absurd number of hands working to make a second of screen seem like an organic nightmare. Not only that: a foam arm in disguise with a police uniform, a metal structure to hold it, hinges at the “elbow” and even a support anchored to the false floor so that everything could resist the violence of the effect. While the actor was dying and staggering above, below there was a team of professionals pumping blood by hand and adjusting compressed air. Even the shots that “break up” the armor were reinforced with simple but brilliant physical details, such as small charges of talcum powder to simulate fragmentation, a very cheap solution that, in camera, added texture and turned the scene into something tactile, with dust, impacts and material that seems to fall off the body. The Peter Weller doll. Another stroke of genius came with the moment of the auction: for a final shot that in the released version lasts a sigh, a Murphy’s full torsoa sophisticated doll with a latex face made from a mold of the actor, an internal fiberglass skull and mechanisms to move the neck, jaw and body. It was not a static mannequin, it was a creature manipulated by cablescapable of opening his mouth in a silent scream, leaning, trembling and reacting to the shot as if there was still life inside. The execution was designed so that the back of the head “jumped out” with a controlled explosionwith pieces pre-cut to break in a specific way and with the interior prepared with blood and soft fragments, so that the horror felt mechanical but compelling. In addition, the “sweat” detail was added with water sprayas if the doll was breathing for the last time, and a motor with vibration so that the body seems to tremble with fear, an almost obscene trick due to its human nature that returns to artifice. Censorship as an enemy. The most incredible thing is that, even so, what was seen in the rooms was a cropped version. RoboCop’s violence clashed head-on with the rating system of the time, and the film was given an X rating several times, forcing reedit, cut and sacrifice material until a commercially viable qualification is achieved. Paradoxically, the cut that helped save it was one that its own creators considered “shabby” or too obvious, the moment in which Murphy’s arm flies off pulled by a … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.