American Cinematographer - August 1983 - 59

for

a crystal spider, each leg joint was
made of perspex ball joints. We
couldn't insert black metal into the

crystal legs, without giving the secret
away. When we made these special
little joints we covered them with
fiberglas hair so they would be invisi¬

jerk along? We tried thinking of all
kinds of ways to get away from ani¬
mation, even thought of making a me¬
chanical spider or a puppet, but
eventually we settled on animation as
the best technique. We got a film on
spiders and studied their movements,

doing something entirely different. To
this problem we got a ta¬
rantula from a zoo and photographed

overcome

it with

Then
this

manner

to no avail. It didn't matter how many
times we looked at it, we could never

of

He had worked the best

really figure out what legs moved
was not like studying how a
horse moves. Because there are only
four legs, you can actually see the
pattern in slow motion. When a spider

moves

with

an

part of his life

Ray Harryhausen, and joked that

he had

never

before animated any¬

thing with more than four legs.
The director and producer were
worried about the spider looking "ani¬
mated." Would it move smoothly or

when. It

walks

we

found

we

Peter Yates
I think there

would watch two

legs while the other three or four were

on

are

differences and

one

could

from the stills.

We gave

the animation an acid test
by bringing in an Australian spider ex¬
pert. His opinion, after seeing the film,
was that our spider was a knockout.
At first he thought it was real!
Then, of course, we had yet to put

to know a little bit more about the

is

new techniques that have been de¬
veloped over the last few years.
There are so many advances in
technology, most importantly the

new

fast film stocks. Also ad¬
in cameras and equipment

cial effects, in this case, Derek

vances

Meddings.

like the Louma

realized before KRULL

into the
making of a film. On KRULL we
couldn't do any research because
it was all make-believe. Therefore

was a fantasy story, that the pho¬
tography have an enormous qual¬
ity to it. I think what Peter
Suschitsky contributed to the film

up with something that is not
related to anything you may have
seen in another film. The reason is
come

because there

are

certain

au¬

diences that

frequent films of this
kind, it is potentially a very large
audience, and they are very so¬
phisticated about what they have
seen already and what they will
accept.
The

light and all the sensitive things
that looked pretty on the screen.
Special effects films are often lit

thing that does please me
people
work. That is very difficult in a spe¬
cial effects film, so often the people
are overshadowed by the effects. I
believe by playing the characters
slightly theatrically the audience
will be more aware of the people

rather flat because of the amount

and therefore be involved with the

was

a

lot of shadows and back

of

about KRULL is that the

duping involved, on KRULL I
cleverly brought the stan¬
dard of special effects photog¬
raphy up to normal photographic

able to concentrate

on

ter rather than the

big effect that

standards.

was

think he

So much has been done with

special effects, science fiction and
fantasies that you have to try and

AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER, AUGUST, 1983

crane.

It made all

sorts of

how much research goes

you have to reach into your imag¬
ination. Not only does the director
use his imagination, it is necessary
to have the designers, cameramen
and everyone concerned use their
imaginations also. We were con¬
cerned with making effects that
were not of this world.
I felt it was important, because it

the sequence

one path of many for
filmmaking. What fas¬
cinated me about working on
KRULL was the opportunity to get

pre-produc¬
tion and planning. You have to, by
necessity, work very closely with
whoever is responsible for the spe¬

never

see

leg movements. Steven then
quickly worked out the series of

the future of

the need for detailed

I

it walked.

think that it is

are

differences in

some

camera as

KRULL

really no enor¬
doing a special
effects picture than doing other
pictures. Basically, you are telling a
story all the time. Obviously there
mous

movie

blew up

each frame to an 8 x
10, tacked them up on the wall and in

animator, Steven
Archer, who animated the spider legs.

I found

ble.

a

we

story. Peter Suschitsky also helped
respect enormously. He was

in this

If I

the charac¬

to be carried out.

came up with another idea for
special effects film, or if I was
offered one, I think I would do it. I
a

things possible that would
not have been in the past. Equally
as important to a film like this, are
the new methods of travelling
matte and front projection sys¬
tems. Also different ways

to use
models and hide them in such a
way that they are indistin¬
guishable.
The trouble with this kind of film
is that you have to pick a
between people saying,

fine line
"that's

ridiculous" and "well that could

happen." You have to create1 your
own reality.
I don't think people really have
any fear. It is something very diffi¬
cult to work up. You have to lay
down the ground rules so the au¬
dience understands them. They
have to know when the hero is in

jeopardy, they have to know that
he can't cope with the situation. If
he always deals with those situa¬
tions by bringing a trick out of a
bag, I think the audience starts to
tire. They are being tricked every
time and they know it, so they get
tired. You just can't keep tricking
them, I think you have to be more
clever than that.

■

57
American Cinematographer - August 1983

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - August 1983
