Young Frankenstein

[Raffinator]

Just saw an archival print of "Young Frankenstein" (1974) in San Francisco recently and was struck by the beautiful b&w cinematography, not to mention the great perfomances. Much of it really looked like the best of the horror films of the 1930's, and, being a Mel Brooks film and a comedy, I thought it was a fantastic choice to go for the classic contrasty, dramatic look, rather than the usual "high key" comedy look. It was shot by Gerald Hirschfeld, ASC who apparently did a lot of television, including "Fail Safe". Does anyone know what stock it may have been shot on?

 

Raffi Kondy

[John Sprung]

I don't know about the stock, but I do remember that Brooks was asked in an interview what was the hardest part of making Young Frankenstein. His answer was that it was punching all the little holes in the edges. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Edited April 15, 2005 by John Sprung

[Guest Ian Marks]

Ah - one of my all-time favorite movies ("No, it's FRONK-en-steen") and one of Brooks' best. Nice camera work, but I remember being distacted in two or three places by obvious "optical zooms" - that is, zooms done optically in post rather than in camera. Funny, funny, movie, however ("what hump?").

[Raffinator]

Nice camera work, but I remember being distacted in two or three places by obvious "optical zooms" - that is, zooms done optically in post rather than in camera.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, especially the one at the end (on Gene Wilder). The shooter in me cringes at seeing that, but the audience member in me thought it was funny. Overall, I guess what struck me was seeing all these great actors that I know and love from contemporary films in a film that (aside from the story and the optical zooms) looked to me that it was made in the 1930's - softer looking lenses and overall lighting, sets, etc. From a photographic standpoint, contemporary black and white films never seem to capture that old look the way this one did (even something like Deakin's "The Man Who Wasn't There", as much as I loved the way it looked). We are all so trained to see in color, and black and white is a totally different language.

 

Raffi

[Guest fstop]

I can't offer any specs on the production (was hopin' someone else would :) ) but I have to agree, this is a pretty little film. I for one love the optical zooms and think second generation b/w always looks better in comedies, almost artistically motivated! I second your praise Raffi regarding period accuracy- Young Frankenstein isn't just a well photographed genre spoof, it actually contains some of the best photography seen in the very genre it is spoofing! I was particularly always impressed with the way the rain was lit in the movie too - no obvious bleeding backlight, skillful stuff given the contrasty nature of b/w.

[Matt Pacini]

I love everything about this film.

One of my all-time favorites!

Great screenplay by Gene Wilder too.

 

Matt Pacini

[Raffinator]

A few interesting factoids that I recently discovered on the web:

"Young Frankenstein" has the same aspect ratio as the original (not quite sure about that one), and even some of the same sets. Director Mel Brooks tracked down Kenneth Strickfaden, a designer of sets for "Frankenstein", and was able to borrow the sets (laboratory, etc) that Strickfaden had kept stored in his garage for over forty years. Maybe that's why it looked so damn good.

 

Still looking for info on the photography... maybe the dvd has got some commentary.

 

Raffi

[David Mullen ASC]

There was an article on the film in the July 1974 issue of American Cinematographer. Hirschfeld also discussed it in an AFI Seminar, transcript published in the June 1978 issue. He also talks a little about it in his book on filters, "Image Control".

 

From the 1974 article:

 

"I requested that the exposure test be processed at varying gamma from .65 to .85. The effect of forced development of Double-X Negative #5222 gives an effective film speed increase from one to two stops and also greatly increases the visual contrast...

 

...I settled on a gamma of .80, which more than doubled the film speed to approximately ASA 500. This extra film sensitivity was put to good use in filming the dark gray, thirty-five-foot-high walls of the castle sets. At an average of T/4, I required a minimum of lighting equipment; to be exact, 40 foot-candles more than sufficed. About a week after we began filming, the lab and I settled on a printer light of 21, almost the mid-point on a range of 50 printer lights; we stuck to it throughout production."

 

I recall from the other article (I don't have it in front of me) that Hirschfeld said that after he timed the movie, Mel Brooks ordered an overall brightening of the prints, which apparently he did after every DP he ever worked with timed the movie.

 

On the other hand, it was Brooks idea to shoot the movie entirely in b&w, and he had to convince Hirshfeld this was a good idea. Hirshfeld first assumed that they would only start the movie in b&w and transition to color. But Brooks was insistent on doing the whole movie in b&w and Hirschfeld eventually agreed with him.

[Ryan K]

As I understand it he was almost fired from the film because Brooks didn't think he was doing the business! Apparently it took a bit of convincing from Gene Wilder to keep him on the picture and the whole thing was later resolved as Brooks not properly explaining the look of the picture to the D.P. There's another semi-interesting factoid for you all.

[Raffinator]

On the other hand, it was Brooks idea to shoot the movie entirely in b&w, and he had to convince Hirshfeld this was a good idea. Hirshfeld first assumed that they would only start the movie in b&w and transition to color.  But Brooks was insistent on doing the whole movie in b&w and Hirschfeld eventually agreed with him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow! I would have thought he would have jumped at the chance to shoot in Black and White. I guess shooting in B&W back then wasn't considered the "novelty" that it is now. Then again most of his career was probably B&W work. I will have to check out his book "Image Control". Great stuff. Thank you so much for the info, David.

 

Raffi

[Raffinator]

As I understand it he was almost fired from the film because Brooks didn't think he was doing the business!  Apparently it took a bit of convincing from Gene Wilder to keep him on the picture and the whole thing was later resolved as Brooks not properly explaining the look of the picture to the D.P.  There's another semi-interesting factoid for you all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for the additional factoid, Ryan. Gene Wilder saves the day again. To me he was always the best part of a Mel Brooks movie.

 

Raffi