MovieChat Forums > Royal Wedding (1951) Discussion > Tap Dancing Special Effect

Tap Dancing Special Effect


I am sure that all of you Royal Wedding connisuers have heard this question before, so here it goes again. How was the tap-dancing sequence accomplished in the movie? Thanks.

reply

While I'm not sure I think MGM constructed a rotating room. The camera angle rotated along with the room so the room appeared to be motionless and Fred Astair was the one moving. In the parts where he is on the ceiling both the room and the camera are turned upsidedown and Fred Astair is the only thing upright. It's amazing how they did it all in one continuous shot. Fred Astair is a genius!

Dream like you'll live foever, but live like you'll die today~James Dean

reply

After Fred Astaire dances on the walls and ceiling, and then he goes
and sits down and holds a picture up, who is the girl in that picture?

reply

The woman is Sara Churchill. In the movie she is Anne Ashmond, Fred Astair's French love intrest.

Dream as if you'll live foever, live as if you'll die today~James Dean

reply

Sara Churchill is also the daughter of Winston Churchill and I thought she - the character Anne Ashmond - was Fred's English interest.

reply

It was indeed a rotating room. If you want to see an explanation of how they did it, check out the documentary "What a Glorious Feeling" on the 2-Disc DVD release of Singin' in the Rain. It's a great documentary, and it devotes a few minutes to "Royal Wedding."

reply

Right DVD, wrong documentary. The special features disc of the 2 disc edition of Singin' In The Rain includes two documentaries. The first one is What A Glorious Feeling and it focuses on the making of Singin' In The Rain and events leading up to it. The 2nd documentary is called Musicals Great Musicals (MGM!) and it tells the story of MGM from The Broadway Melody to Gi Gi. This is the documentary that spends a few minutes dicussing Royal Wedding.

And speaking of Royal Wedding, is there any new news on a Warner Release? I've never seen the film, but I'm very interested in seeing Fred's famous dance on the ceiling in the context of the movie. (BTW, I believe this scene served as inspiration for Lionel Richie's "Dancing On The Ceiling")

reply

I hate to burst your bubble but if you look very carefully you will see there are some very subtle editing going on. But still a great scene to watch.
signed
david G

reply

No I think it is actually a rotating room. You can just tell by how fred moves. Sometimes he even looks as though he is sliding forwards along the wall.

reply

I am not saying its not a rotating room, i am saying it was done with at least 3 shots not 1 continuous shot
signed
David Guillot

reply

At first, I thought that there were four rooms, each with a different wall on the floor. When I thought this, I convinced myself that I could see the editing when Astaire was between walls. When I learned that a rotating room was used, the editing seemed to be all in my head. There are points when Astaire is on a corner still for a moment when you might say could be an editing point. I don't know. I think that it would be very hard to get this particular technically complex scene as smooth as they did with several takes. Who knows. Stanley Donen is a genius, and he may have pulled a fast one on us all.

reply

3 pages later...

The rotating room is called a gimbal effect*. And a similar gimbal was used in 2001, only
- the room in question is massive and round
- the room feature two actors, one walking the walls and one stationary in a chair.
- The camera is inside the room

At a cost of over $750,000 the massive forty-foot diameter structure could rotate like a ferris-wheel. With the actors either standing, walking, or even running at the bottom of the set, cleverly thought-out camera angles made it appear that the actors could stand upright at any angle around the circular set.

http://www.andiamnotlying.com/2008/foolproof-and-incapable-of-error-ph oto-of-kubrick-directing-2001/

* I'm utterly indifferent to this dance number. I watch Astaire for great dancing ideas, and there are precious few to be found in this gimmick-driven number. There is no room on any of the surfaces for him to execute any footwork. I find the dance with the coatrack much more impressive.

reply

With respect, I beg to differ. This shot was discussed in great detail in a special on TCM, and they made a special point of saying that it was done in one continous shot, without benefit of editing.

And, the room indeed did move (rotate), all of the props were nailed into place, the camera was centered and mounted, along with the camera operator, in a cage, while revolving along with the room. The room was a 20 feet-in-diameter squirrel cage.

And Fred Astaire danced through the entire scene, appearing to climb walls and dance on the ceiling. He spent quite a long time in rehearsals, and they had to work out the timing with whatever the machine was that spun the room. It had to spin at a certain fixed speed, and match up with the music and choreography, which was painstakingly worked out in advance by Stanley Donen (Director), Fred Astaire and Nick Castle (Choreographer).

I saw this recently, when last it played on TCM. I really love the musical and dance numbers in this movie! Fred Astaire was brilliant!

"If GOD Had Wanted Me To See The Sun Rise, HE Would Have Scheduled It Later In The Day!"

reply

Whitelion43 is right. The editing is skillfully done, but it's there.

reply


In That's Entertainment, Gene Kelly claimed that "film buffs are still arguing" about how the scene was filmed. I chuckled because I figured out the basics as an eight year old. This is my guess:

Imagine a hamster wheel, but instead of being round, it's square. The square's sides make up the floor, ceiling and two side walls. The square "wheel" is mounted on an axis, with one end hidden behind the wall facing us. The camera is mounted on the other end of the axis, aimed at the wall facing us. The camera turns with the room, so when the room is upside down, so is the camera. Basically, Astaire is always upright (or on his side). When he is dancing on the ceiling, for example, the room is actually upside down. All furniture and props are of course glued down. When Astaire lifts the photo frame at the end, it's an attempt to make viewers think that things were not glued, but held down naturally by gravity. The chandelier's "dangling" cord was actually a stick so that the cord looks taut even when the room was upside down.

I was not overly impressed by the effect. What did amaze me however was the camera work. In my setup, the camera is mounted tightly on the axis to rotate with the room. The scene, however, was not static; the camera panned across the room and there might have even been zooming. With the robotic and video technology available in the 70's onward, it's easy to operate the camera remotely and see what was being filmed via a monitor. But I don't know how it was accomplished in the movie. Was a cameraman mounted behind the camera, rotating with the room? It must have been dizzying. Perhaps I'm wrong about pans/zooms and they were merely closeups. If so, that could have been accomplished by having multiple cameras aim at various areas and then assembling the final footage from the all the film.

reply

Sdc, it was simpler than your last line...it was indeed a rotating room with a single camera and a harnessed cameraman locked into place.

I also don't believe it was edited from multiple takes...IMO, it was a single shot.

reply

It is definately edited from multiple takes.
Also, the same rotating room effect was used for the stewardess on the flight to the moon in Stanley Kubrik's 2001 A Space Odyssey-another MGM film.

reply


In That's Entertainment, Gene Kelly claimed that "film buffs are still arguing" about how the scene was filmed. I chuckled because I figured out the basics as an eight year old. This is my guess:

Imagine a hamster wheel, but instead of being round, it's square. The square's sides make up the floor, ceiling and two side walls. The square "wheel" is mounted on an axis, with one end hidden behind the wall facing us. The camera is mounted on the other end of the axis, aimed at the wall facing us. The camera turns with the room, so when the room is upside down, so is the camera. Basically, Astaire is always upright (or on his side). When he is dancing on the ceiling, for example, the room is actually upside down. All furniture and props are of course glued down. When Astaire lifts the photo frame at the end, it's an attempt to make viewers think that things were not glued, but held down naturally by gravity. The chandelier's "dangling" cord was actually a stick so that the cord looks taut even when the room was upside down.

I was not overly impressed by the effect. What did amaze me however was the camera work. In my setup, the camera is mounted tightly on the axis to rotate with the room. The scene, however, was not static; the camera panned across the room and there might have even been zooming. With the robotic and video technology available in the 70's onward, it's easy to operate the camera remotely and see what was being filmed via a monitor. But I don't know how it was accomplished in the movie. Was a cameraman mounted behind the camera, rotating with the room? It must have been dizzying. Perhaps I'm wrong about pans/zooms and they were merely closeups. If so, that could have been accomplished by having multiple cameras aim at various areas and then assembling the final footage from the all the film.

reply

"In That's Entertainment, Gene Kelly claimed that "film buffs are still arguing" about how the scene was filmed."

On the surface, this line seems silly as it appears to be fairly obvious to anyone that it was done with a rotating room. It's the simplest answer and certainly the most logical.

So what do film buffs have to argue about? For me it would be how Fred Astaire could make something, which had to be extremely difficult physically, look so freaking effortless?
Once he's on one of the walls, it's just dancing - what always fascinates me is how he handles the transitions between walls - it's almost perfection, and I have to imagine that having a room rotate under you, and having your center of gravity shift like that would be really, really hard to do. Astaire makes it look like nothing is happening at all.

My fav part is during the last 1/4, right after he puts the picture down on the back of the couch. Those transitions are really quick and seamless.
Absolutely brilliant!

reply

So..You like to repeat yourself?

Oh GOOD!,my dog found the chainsaw

reply

[deleted]

As amazing and incredible as this scene was then.... it still is today.

The studio has never made public the information on 'how' this scene was created, and that was probably for the best. A half century later, we're still wondering.



["It’s never too late to do the right thing."]

reply

Having just watched this movie on TCM, I'd like to attempt to clear up the editing issue. While each revolution is a single take, the sequence is made up of (at least) 5 shots:

#1: "Regular" Room, begins as close-up, then dolly out to medium view. We know this shot is different than subsequent shots because Astaire picks up the photo frame that is later firmly attached when the room rotates. Astaire begins dancing on the floor in this shot.
#2: First revolution: Far view, counter-clockwise dancing direction (floor, right wall, ceiling, left wall, floor)
#3: Second revolution: jump cut to Medium view, clockwise dancing direction (floor, left wall, ceiling, right wall, floor)
#4: third revolution: jump cut back to far view, counter-clockwise dancing direction (same as #2 above). This is the most commonly-seen shot of this scene, which features Astaire bouncing off the chair onto the right wall.
#5: "Regular" Room again, begins as medium, then dolly into close-up view, and he again lifts the picture frame, perfectly book-ending the sequence.

Hope that helps!

NEW RULE: Anyone who says "It's Just a Movie" has no business posting at IMDb.

reply

It's apparently public domain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzdYsxfIJLQ

Can you imagine when audiences first saw this sequence? I would've loved to have been a fly on the wall during opening night -- imagine the conversations in the theater lobby afterward!

And we're still talking about it today. =)

reply

Inception did the same effect in a larger scale.

reply

I still can't decide which rotating scene I like better: Inception or Royal Wedding. But it is not one continuous shot in Royal Wedding. At the start of the song/dance he's sitting on a desk chair that he moves around. Once the box starts rotating that chair would have had to be fastened down. Also the camera cuts suddenly from a close up of Fred to a view of the whole room. But still, the dancing is seamless and looks absolutely smashing even today.

Sometimes fear has the appropriate response.-1 from 9

reply

Both movies make impressive use of this trick. Inception shows that you dont need CGI to pull off convincing special effects, and Royal Wedding shows that you can create special effects and make it look like magic.

reply

[deleted]