As a child of the 1980's the slightly awkward stop motion distanced me from these movies and films like clash of the titans have always come in the category of films I want to like rather than actually enjoying. However, seeing that skeleton again reminded me of the effect it had on me, with its evil gaping eye holes.

Harryhausen is the king!



I've seen Jason & The Argonauts about at least 30 times. The magic never diminishes.



Few names in film carry such weight as his who never acted or directed (a feature anyway).



Thanks for the tip Dr Kermode, I will stroll down to the Film Museum before watching Five Easy Pieces at the BFI tomorrow afternoon....

The Skeleton Fight is my favourite piece of cinema EVER. I still think Harryhausen is under rated and over looked by today's audiences.



All Hail King Harryhausen

Dr K thanks for bringing back some lovely childhood memories for me . These films never fail to entertain even after all these years and when they are re-run I always tune in time and time again to revel in the mixture of nostalgia, and sheer excitement that they still command. Aside from the more obvious offerings, Gulliver, The Valley of Gwangi, and Mysterious Island,which are not shown so much but are still great examples of Mr H's extraordinary vision and imagination.

Trailers From Hell have been pushing this exhibition on Twitter and for some reason I assumed it was in the USA. I wish I had the money to get up to London on the train...ah well!

Ray Harryhausen's movies were a huge part of my childhood (ahem...cough...and anyone else whose around my age...cough!) It was such a big deal in our household when one of these movies was on, with the whole family sitting down to watch.

I agree with @SFord and @ruddyrutherford Jason and the Argonauts is epic!

I could not wait but at the same time was also terrified to see the skeletons as they rose up out of the ground from the hydra's teeth like hideous plants to do battle with Jason & his Argonauts! Terrifying and thrilling at the same time! Another scene that also sticks in the mind is the battle with the giant bronze statue of Talos that comes to life, just incredible, defeated by Jason unplugging a hole in his Achilles heal!



In my opinion these scenes still hold up today (as does King Kong) proving what a great talent Harryhausen was in his film making days. These movies will never die and rightly so :D

Went to this exhibition last week, thought it was magnificent, Anyone who has any interest in Moviemaking should visit Immediatly.



Incredible Work.

I was talking to a workmate about the latest Clash Of The Titan the other day and we both concluded that for all of the technical innovations since, the original is still vastly superior in terms of special effects and simple storytelling. Harryhausen was able to portray more wonder and menace through stopmotion than anything in the new version.



The problem with modern films is that it's so easy to have huge CGI effects on screen that most filmmakers now don't stop to think about whether it is wise to visually overwhelm the audience.



Come to think of it that's the reason why the battle/fight scenes in a film like Revenge Of The Sith, for all their technical brilliance, simply aren't as good as the similar scenes in Return Of The Jedi. The space battle in Sith is a mess with far to much happening on the screen to take in, the space battle in Jedi is large but portrayed close up so you only catch glimpses of the larger conflict. The lightsaber fight in Sith is technically better but again is overwhelmed by the needless special effects of the setting. In Jedi the fight is carried out in atmospheric darkness with only the humming lightsabers themselves to focus on. Jedi wins on both counts. Less is more.

Very interesting, may head off and try see this exhibit.



Would be nice to see recognition for the unsung heroes of stop animation, such as Ladislas Starevich (Władysław Starewicz), to which I'm sure Harryhausen must have owed a deep debt of gratitude in terms of inspiration. Was a bit miffed that the special on Wallace and Gromit and stop motion a while back didn't even mention Starevich at all, even though he's one of the early pioneers. The Cameraman's Revenge is still a classic, even if a bit macabre. Terry Gilliam also lists "The Mascot" as one of his ten best animated films of all time.

I seem to racall that Nick Park got the inspiration for Gromit's eye-brows from Harryhausen's Mighty Joe Young.



That's quite an accolade...

You can throw all the money and CGI effects you want at a movie but it still doesn't beat one man moving a tiny figure "just a little bit" and then "just a little bit" and then "just a little bit" :D

These films were indeed a marvel when they were first unleashed,as was Jurassic Park when CGI first made its first giant sized footprint on the silver screen.I can't help but feel that special effects don't feel that special anymore. Films like Moon and Let The Right One in have reminded us how powerful cinema can be when effects serve the story rarther than the reverse. I would however,rarther see an actual physical model,that someone has taken the time to mould and paint than some computer drawn dragon or robot with about as much soul as a Michael Bay production meeting.

Wish I could got to the exhibit.

I think the real magic of Harryhausen was the way that he imbued his creations with personalities. They weren't necessarily the 'stars' of the film, but they were given enough screentime for Harryhausen to imbue them with their own tics and idiosyncrasies. His monsters exhibited as much melodramatic acting as any of their real actor adversaries. He also tried to adhere to the laws of physics. Whereas most of the CGI monsters of today move at gravity free/ludicrous speeds and without any weight to them, Harryhausen's creatures always moved accordingly. A good example for me was in The Golden Voyage of Sinbad when Koura, the evil sorcerer, brings the (wrongly named) statue of Kali to life, but instead of immediately being ordered to kill Sinbad and his crew, first went through a whole dance routine for its creator (Koura &/or Harryhausen). The head movements of Kali was the kind of thing that set Harryhausen apart from other FX creators. For me, anyway...

Not sure I agree with the implication from #11 that using models shows someone has taken time, and that computer generated dragons and robots are by contrast somehow easier and without soul. In Ghost in the Shell II: Innocence, there was a single scene that took over one year to design (the parade scene), and there are countless other films where the CGI really has been a labour of love, with impressive attention to detail. I also consider Gollum to be an amazing achievement as well.



I think part of the problem is that it's becoming cheaper to do average special effects rather than the the problem being CGI itself.



The future (I hope) is going to be a happy medium between using physical objects that have been CGI'd, a la Where The Wild Things Are, where CGI was used afterwards to enhance the physical puppets.

#7 - And ironically, one wasn't concentrating on the moment (as suggested by Qui-Gon Jinn) during Sith's climatic lightsaber duel; knowing how it would end, and really counting down the seconds 'til it arrived - Anakin's (undeniably well-executed) maiming & combustion, which was notably cut-down by ITV recently for its premiere of the film.

Many years ago I met Ray Harryhausen when he gave a lecture in Grimsby believe it or not. I always loved Jason and the Argonauts plus Sinbad. And seen the great man himself and his 'creatures' was a big thrill. He was a real gent. It was clear he loved what he did. Alas CGI has robbed us of that era. I think Robocop was the last major film to use stop motion in a live action film. And even that is a classic creation now.

I couldn't agree more with Dr. K,





The stop-motion has always had an 'actuality' that (aside from Jurassic Park) CGI creatures lack.



Even if a slick CGI model moves more 'correctly' in terms of science, a stop-motion character has much more of a personality than a high-priced CGI equivalent.



The reason is that a 3D model is flawed. It has all the small intricate flaws and misgivings that help build it's personality.



A computer-generated-model is by its very nature flawless. It's a perfectly designed and well-oiled machine and is much better for creating cars, space-ships and other 'designed' objects in movies.



But this very aspect goes against the idea of a living character as an animate object is never perfect and ALWAYS flawed!



A 3D model is organic and this (no matter how great the simulation) does not translate to CGI.



It's interesting that Dr.K brings up Peter Jackson as you would at least of expected him to realize this BEFORE creating his all powerful but ultimately cold King Kong movie.





It's a technically brilliant film but it Kong still seems too good to be true and you are always aware that he's a brilliant CGI creation.



The Ray Harryhausen creatures were again obviously fake, but somehow the personality they had seemed to allow the audience to suspend their imagination more effectively so that they accepted them as 'real'.



Also CGI always looks way too clean and it's hard to get the kind of depth and texture that comes instantly with 3D models.

I went along to that exhibition a couple of weeks back. It was great to see the actual models that were used. Some of them are in amazing shape considering the age of some of these models. Everyone should see this show. Just a shame no photos can be taken in that particular section of the exhobitions

Ha ha MargeGunderson, totally agree!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YlEpI00ouU

@Rich Indeed

Awesome...That's the clip I was looking for to illustrate my point. Cheers!

I saw this a couple of weeks back, and was really pleased to see some of the props from his slightly less well known films like Earth Vs The Flying Saucers there. He really really was a master.



Also the Chaplin exhibition at the LMOF is great.

if i could own any one piece of art from all time, it would be a Harryhausen skeleton from Argonaughts !

@Craig S



I'd never heard of Starevich before so thanks for posting about him. His film 'The Mascot' is available at the Internet Archive for free (legally) here https://www.archive.org/details/The_Mascot_Complete Good call on mentioning the Gilliam Top 10 Animations too, found that and will try to watch all the things from the list I haven't already seen...



Good post btw....

As much as I love 2D animation and CGI animation, stop-motion will always be my favourite, it's believable in a way that goes beyond physicality, to me, and always gives the film a dream-like quality, the movements always seem more beautiful, whether it's The Clangers or Evil Dead 2. It's a real shame to see this kind of technique dying down, but films like Zathura (which mixes several types of animation and special effects) and The Fantastic Mr. Fox (which I know you didn't like but you're dead wrong) make me maintain my faith that there are at least SOME people who still like it, and who knows, maybe one day the novelty of CGI will wear off and people will start using the technique that's best for the job again.

@S Ford: Glad you found my post useful. There's a (fairly average) Lithuanian documentary done on Starevich in English called "The Bug Trainer" that explores his life and influence. Here's the trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RriigIWRIcs

I loved watching Jason and the Argonauts as a kid and was, like many others, terrified of the skeletons. Even though the films may not have aged well against the modern technologies, they still hold something magical about them - really making you feel like a part of the film. Not just through the amazing creatures but also through the music which just added to the excitement and terror!



I suppose any film that warrants a song by The Hoosiers is worth its weight in gold......wait did I mean that?!

Not wanting to put Harryhausen's excellent work on Jason, Sinbad, Clash etc down or be critical of the obvious time and effort he took creating his creatures I'm sure at the end of the day most were always fully aware they were simply scaled up painted clay or plasticine models.



They can't be compared to todays' special effects artists whose use of prosthetic makeup applied on top of foam/latex models plus sparingly and well placed CGI has really taken things on many steps further eg as in Guillermo Del Torro (Pan's Labrynth or Hellboy).

Love those old films, they had such an effect on me as a boy. The skeleton fight from Jason is one of my most memorable moments in cinema.



But for every Harryhausen gem I am sure there were a dozen turkeys, just as now for every Hellboy there are a dozen effects heavy story light dissapointments.



I don't think that things have changed too much with CGI over old school effects (except maybe the budgets). There will always be film makers who strive to tell a story in the best way they can, as will there always be film makers who think that effects are more important than a story.



As an afterthought, if you were a money man in the film industry and had a choice of cutting a dialogue scene or a multi million dollar effects scene, which would you cut?

I think the juddery movement just adds to the creepiness of the creatures.

They even did a stop motion section for the end of "The Thing", but they cut it in the end. Can you imagine "The Thing" as CGI? Pants.

Parts of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" and "Drag Me to Hell" I felt were let down by use of CGI instead of real make-up or locations.





Jan Švankmajer is also a genius.

One of the scariest films I've ever seen was 'The Sandman', a 1991 stop motion short film by Paul Berry. Paul later went on to work with Tim Burton on The Nightmare before Christmas before his untimely death in 2001.



You might be able to find the film on Youtube, but better to not let any children see it, they'll have nightmares for weeks!

It's not just that the models/creatures are so much more wonderfully tactile than their CGI equivalents, their manually created movements are unique and unreproducible. CGI could create a hundred skeletons, but they would likely be moving by the same template (or a distinctly finite set of variations), and they could re-do the same moves ad-infinitum.



I always found the Harryhausen films stilted, but you'd sit there waiting for the cool bits. I never cared that I knew how it was done, or that it didn't look more real, it was great to look at. It was magical, and you could have chucked the films and shown me the show reel a few dozen times. Despite the creakiness of the movies around the effects set pieces, I think it's clear that Harryhausen cares about storytelling, which is why he imbues his creatures with such character, a hard act for mere flesh and blood actors to follow.

His films often mixed amazing visuals with stunning use of sound.

Even today, the coming to life of the bronze giant Talos combined with that eerie metal screaching noise still mesmerises me. Totally.



Whilst everyone highlights the skeleton fight, for me I think Talos is the greatest Harryhausen creation.

@Trevor



I remember that so well, the Talos scene was great with all the grinding and screeching going on as he moved. I can picture it now, with Talos, sword in hand looking around for someone to smush.

I grew up watching the films made by him and none stands out more than Jason and the Argonauts and the fantastic skeleton fight...outstanding much better than the common place CGI that we have now as it felt real!



i watched the latest version of Clash of the Titans in 3D and then again on DVD I felt let down both times and would prefer to watch the original any day of the week!

On a related topic I just saw the Tim Burton exhibition at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image at Fed Square, Melbourne. I could have done with more movie memorabilia and fewer Burton doodles on a sketch pad but it is worth a look. The costumes are amazing. I suppose that much of the movie memorabilia is owned by studios and producers rather than Burton himself. Unfortunately it simply threw into relief the wonder and magic of something like Edward Scissorhands compared to the dreck of his later movies. One thing that really struck me was how important the music is in conveying the Burtonesque sensibility and how much less striking the visuals would be without the mood music. I think his composer deserves more credit.



Back on topic - Harryhausen rulz. Please bring this exhibition to the colonies. As the recent Clash of the Titans shows, Harryhausen's magic touch cannot be bested.

I'd like to echo everything said here about Mr Harryhausen's work - my favourite has always been that Sinbad film with the sabretooth tiger and the friendly Cyclops (him and the Eye of the Tiger?).



I'm very anti the over exposure of CGI in films. CGI can often complement a film that already has a detailed story and multi-faceted characterisations. Alas, CGI alone (e.g. Transformers, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow) does not a good film make.



Stop motion *can* still have a place in film. Compare its use in The Empire Stikes Back (AT-AT Walkers on Hoth) and Return of the Jedi (the Rancor in Jabba's palace). The former has aged very well - the latter not so much.

Clash of the Titans came out the month after I was born. I probably saw it for the first time around age 5, and after that not a Sunday went by without me frog marching my father to the rental store for anything and everything that had that look, the creatures, the models, the way the impossible looked possible. Harryhausen and others enriched my life, I wish I could say 'creature features' nowadays do the same but they just don't. I don't want to blame it completely on modern CGI techniques, it's probably just because I'm not a child anymore, however watching the older films for the 1000th time still gives me that feeling of wonder, and creature features of recent years simply can't compete.



Death to 3D!

Physical special effects have always had the greater effect on me. I still get chills when ever I think about the head-spider in John Carpenter's remake of The Thing. Even though I was a kid I was always conscious of the slightly jerky, fake look to the thing, but it was just so bloody real...



euurgh.......

Lets not forget the men in rubber suits technique ;) while simultaneously trying to forget the bits glues onto lizards technique.

Happy Birthday Ray, thanks for not sueing warner brothers arse for Clash Of The Titans 2010, even though i am no fan, i love his early work, and its very practical and unique, i love Jason And The Argumorts and all best for your 90th have a drink on me and a nice old cake

13.Craig S. I'm not saying that CGI isn't impressive.I'm saying that it has lost it's wow factor.I was more impressed with the mechanical effects in Inception,than the computer effects.If we look back at SFX over the years,and ask people to tell us their favourite moments in film involving special effects, mechanical or CGI,i would lay a heavy bet that most people would remember a mechanical effect.The reason? It looks real.It is real.It's there in front of you.No computer effect has ever and i repeat ever,fooled me into thinking it was there,in the scene.

AxlRhodes ... thanks for the clarification. I tend to agree, to an extent, but no computer effect? Not even the tears in Blood Diamond, the manipulations in Where the Wild Things Are, or even Pan's Labyrinth? Maybe I'm just easily fooled, or suspend disbelief too readily, because those all fooled me. CGI has its place, and when done well, it is excellent. It's all about using the right tool for the job, unfortunately it's not always used in such a way.

Craig S. Yes,i'll give smaller effects such as tears in Blood Diamond.I haven't seen Where The Wild Things Are and in Pans Labyrinth,i was aware it was CG yes.That said Pans Labyrinth was a great film.And infact,a lot of great films feature CGI.Having CGI in them doesnt make them bad films but i think it can sometimes cheapen,and bring you out of the moment.I'll always prefer the physical effects to those drawn on a computer.I'm not saying there isn't skill involved in that stuff,i'm just saying it doesn't look as good. If James Cameron made Aliens in 2010,we'd have CGI critters all over the place and it wouldn't look as good. I wonder which way Ridley Scott will go with his prequel?

The skeleton fight in Jason and the Argonauts rate as one of film makings legendery scenes. It could never be bettered.



In some respect CGI does work (Lord of the Rings). CGI is good for EPIC.



Give me old school everytime. Lets Models and actors in costumes :D.

Ray Harryhausen. The man who defined my childhood. Love the man, love his work.

Everyone seems to agree that CGI does have its place, but that you can't beat a good old model!



Someone above mentioned how the obsessive use of CGI will impact on the apparently 3D Alien Prequel that I'm looking forward to as much as dreading, and I'm absolutely convinced that any Alien glory will be lost amid a flurry of idiot pixels and razzle dazzle. Let's hope not.



I don't think anyone has mentioned Godzilla here yet, but some of those old school Zilla monster battles are just phenomenally brilliant and such fun to watch. The CGI Godzilla was by no means the only thing wrong with Emmerich's dreadful monster mess in the 90s, but it was a big, big factor. Monster lover that I am, I eagerly await with atomic breath the new Godzilla movie that is apparently stomping its way towards us for 2012 (in 3D and IMAX!?), but all I can say is I hope it will have the right mix of models and CGI. It won't, of course, but we live in hope, eh?



I've ranted about this new Godzilla before: https://pablumbiolab.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/newgodzillamovie/

One of the movies I love to put on to relax to and forget the world is 'Monsters Inc'. It's just great; I understand Mark loves it too. Well, I was glad to see the makers had the courtesy to pay tribute to Ray by naming the Japanese restaurant 'Harrihausens' :D



All those old great monster flicks will always have a place in my heart precisely because of the time, effort and skill it took to make them. In fact, tying into Mark's most recent blog, I think my fondness of those films is also because of where and when I watched those films in my life: at the time I was a kid, so I was deeply impressionable. And those films and their monsters certainly made an impression (the Gorgon, Medusa, for example). I think kids growing up today are far harder to impress; they're more cynical, which is a shame. A sense of wonder seems to have been lost among all the polygons and pixels.