MovieChat Forums > Shane (1953) Discussion > Stunt Double Face Time

Stunt Double Face Time

posted 8 years ago by gory_reer
5 replies | jump to latest

Have just watched this film remastered, looks as impressive as I suspected from my grainy old dvd... what's also been highlighted however is the poorly disguised use of stunt doubles in both the physical fight scenes- neither the double for Ladd nor Heflin could be considered lookalikes and are practically paraded in the bar scene. In fact they're sometimes in shot when there's no fighting/action- Heflin's is standing around in a shot long enough to make expressions!

Is it a long shot to think anything could ever be done about this? Can't really hack chunks outta the scenes when the score is playing over them. Would slow-moing shots of the actual actors seem too out of place in a chirpy old western?

Maybe I'm just neurotic, but for a film that seems to divide folks judging by it's middling rating on here, the doubles are it's only flaw for me (well, except the car but that's been fixed). How phony could fake fighting between the actors look that George Stevens thought it better to flaunt these unconvincing doppelgangers so much.

How I envy folks who can retain their suspension of disbelief when the cast so blatantly transforms!

[–] turtletommy 8 years ago

Grainy old DVD???!!! My how standards have changed over time I guess! (-: I think there's several factors at work here, but first yes it's quite noticeable about the stunt doubles and I agree they aren't the best match possible. That said.... most if not all actors in that era and before were doubled in fights- I challenge anyone to find a fight or action scene that doesn't have stunt doubles for the actors at some point; high definition formats have brought increased clarity so as to make it easier to point out examples of a miss-matched stunt double, as well as from the time of home video (VHS) the easy ability to stop, slow or freeze frame film. People like me who came of age in the era of SHANE maybe have a better ability to suspend disbelief when as you put it "the cast so blatantly transforms".

Taken as a whole it's the story, the acting, cinematography etc. that transcends criticism about obvious stunt doubles, and IMO this is one of The Classics. "Middling IMDb ratings" notwithstanding of course..... The question you ask about if anything could possibly be done about it I'd answer with: I hope to hell not! Why not change the way any work of art or history is portrayed if someone finds anything wrong with it? LOL. My god they have already digitally removed the wires which the stagehands moved the Cowardly Lion's tail with in THE WIZARD OF OZ because apparently too many people bitched that now they could see the wires oh my god! Lost in this is maybe some people LIKED to see an example of how they accomplished this neat movie trick- a historical artifact. So what if you could see the dang wires. You mean Bert Lahr didn't move his own tail??

What's maybe lost in this particular post of yours is I and I would guess many others think the fight sequences (the shooting angles, sounds, and physicality) in this film are some of the best ever depicted, regardless of the stunt double issue.

Interesting, you're a member for 9 years and this is your first post?

[–] gory_reer 8 years ago

Yeah, forgot I ever made an account, can't quite remember why I did. For a long while I've preferred to witness other folks batting opinions at one another rather than joining in.

Remastered Shane inspired me to type as it's a candidate for my favorite film and I agree that OTHERWISE the fight scenes are effective and enthralling! Thus why I feel the Double Face Time doesn't stop far short of being an objective flaw- don't worry, though I imagine some others feel the same way I'll never consider my hopes of it being 'Fixed' majority opinion (let alone universal) as unlike camouflaging the Cowardly Lion's tail aid this would require structural alterations... or else, heaven forbid, a helluva lot of photoshopping to transform Shane and Joe Starrett back into themselves! Nope, much as I neurotically NEED some kinda changes I can't think of any I could tolerate. Guess I'm stuck watching the film in a state of ambivalence, feeling both chills and itches.

The Wizard of Oz alteration doesn't tick you off too much though, does it? The old Warts 'N' All version still exists, it surely couldn't be completely phased out of existence in this day and age. I doubt Manyone involved in creating the picture wanted the strings seen, not even those operating them! For folks interested in how it was done... well, extras? Releasing discs containing both versions? Hmmm, perhaps a little extravagant for the sake of a Strings/No Strings matter of preference.

I also dread letting people footer around with art- where will it end, photoshopping Eastwood's face onto Ladd as more people like the Spag-Wests best? Maybe not, but everyone's got their own irks. However, you don't mind that there's no longer a car in "Shane", do you?

(Oh yes, though perfectly watchable that 'old' DVD was grainy... my telly isn't all that grand yet I could still count the pixels! DVD wasn't that big a step up from VHS in terms of PQ, was it?).

[–] turtletommy 8 years ago

Yes that was an argument for the removal of the wires for the Lion- the piano wire wasn't intended to be seen originally in the days of celluloid film and was very hard to see before the digital age brought increased resolution- but my argument still stands that it is what it is and shouldn't be messed with now- for purely artistic reasons. Honestly I've never noticed most of these background things some people seem to like to bring up in films. I consider it part of the charm and inexact science in life and movie-making over time. I marvel in how much they got RIGHT with movie-magic!

[–] js5905 8 years ago

i'm surprised that George stevens, given his attention to detail, kept the scenes with the doubles faces in, especially in the bar fight. i'm also surprised ladd and Heflin used doubles, as the scene was not really dangerous. but I guess they had to for insurance purposes.

[–] turtletommy 8 years ago

I agree that sometimes it's perplexing why in certain scenes actors weren't allowed to do their own "stunts", maybe it was for other reasons beyond liability issues such as the stuntman union (they need the work too!) or ?