Filmed in Africa? Not!


Three of the four "Trivia" notes talk about Gordon Scott interacting with Masai natives, a wild giraffe and a lion, respectively. Only the last does not make filming with the actor in Africa a high probability, as there is both a lion and Scott on a sound stage set in his first scene. Having just screened the picture on the Turner Classic Movies channel a very few hours ago, I can tell you two things with absoljute certainty:

1. There is a credit line, "Filmed in Associated British MGM Studios," presumably the then-name for what is now better known as Borehamwood, in England, and nothing to the effect of, "And on location in Africa."

2. Almost everything with the actual actors seems to be on sound stage sets, including the previously mentioned one with Scott and a lion (BTW, that cat is simply lying in the background; if there is any truth to that note's claim that the actor worked with him "for over a month," then most of the lion's footage wound up on the cutting room floor). A few shots with them do look to be genuinely outdoors, but no more or less like Africa than many shots with star Johnny Weissmuller and other actors in Columbia's "Jungle Jim" B-features. They were probably done on the Borehamwood back lot.
Yes, there's a lot of African wildlife and/or scenery footage that's clearly real, but there's also this credit: "African photography by Miki Carter." I think that's the way it was structured; anyway, a credit to that effect is here, too. So I'll wait a few days for someone to claim and support that real Masai tribesmen and/or a giraffe were brought into the British studio, and failing that will move for the deletion of one or both (depending on the results of subsequent discussion here) of those two Trivia notes and the addition of an explanation that the main cast never left England. In any event, there needs to be an attibute added to the studio's credit as what's here is Borehamwood rather than reflecting what's actually on screen, but I'll wait for this to be settled and do only one collective submission, even if that's the only actual change to be sent in. Any takers?

UPDATE: One week later, TCM has aired Tarzan and the Trappers, a repackaging of what was shot to be the first three episodes of a television series that never sold (if that's correct, then there was a two-parter, as there are only two stories here, one twice the length of the other). Aside from the fact a fairly tropical jungle-looking outdoor location (an L.A. area place called Iverson Ranch, according to the IMDb's page on that film) was clearly available to the production team this time, Miki Carter gets a credit here similar to hers on Safari. There is footage of African animals on what looks like the plain known as the veldt, one shot of which has Tarzan (Scott or a stunt double, I couldn't tell) mounting and riding a giraffe, very suggestive of one of the "Trivia" notes I've disputed above. However, the note has Scott doing this to win a bet, not for the film, and it is the only shot in either of these movies that gives any appearance of the actor being on a genuine African location; it doesn't figure into the plot here, either. Nevertheless, it does indicate that there might be some truth to that note, however little. All of this second-unit looking stuff might have been left over from the African shoot for Safari, but why is the giraffe bit the only thing in either film with Tarzan (whether Scott or a double/stand-in) on real location? How can he be in only one, very brief shot?

UPDATE 2: I checked the film with frame-by-frame advance, and it is genuinely Scott who rides the giraffe. Furthermore, there are a couple of shots immediately preceding this with Scott on very similar terrain walking toward the camera, with the editing's implication that he is approaching the giraffe. The giraffe shot is less sharp, as if on lower quality film stock than the preceding footage, so that clear material might yet be on an American plain. There is also much later footage of Scott looking down on waterfalls and the river below, as well as climbing on large rocks to reach the vantage point, but I can't guarantee the falls and river aren't in California, and the rocks look much like L.A.'s Bronson Canyon and the like. So while I have placed Scott genuinely in Africa, it still may well be restricted to only the one shot. I still request any input from others, while awaiting this Saturday's TCM showing of Tarzan's Fight For Life, with Eve Brent (who passed away just late last month) and Rickie Sorensen replaying Jane and Boy (this time reportedly called Tartu[?]; we'll see) respectively from the compilation of unsold TV series pilots, ...Trappers. [New comment added the same time as #3 below: BTW, given that origin, and no theatrical release of any kind indicated in any source I can find (I therefore intend to add "(TV)" to its title here), why the hell is TCM's version letterboxed?]

UPDATE 3: TCM just ran Tarzan's Fight for Life (no letterboxing!), with Brent and Sorensen again (oddly, Tarzan calls him Boy but to everyone else he is indeed Tartu!), and it's pretty much studio bound as well. However, the location footage seen in ...Trappers turns up here too, now in color, with a credit to Carter again. Scott's loin cloth is a fairly light shade of brown there, but is a very dark green in the studio work. Also, the giraffe shot is at least from a second camera if it's not an entirely different take. Furthermore, the location stuff includes shots with Scott-as-Tarzan conversing with natives, intercut with studio-filmed semi-close ups, which might well justify ...Lost Safari's remaining Trivia item, about the actor and the Masai tribe. I'm just about convinced that those notes should be for ...Life instead. Again, any comments?

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

reply

Yes, agreed, this was certainly a worthy effort in the TARZAN series of movies, and a good transitional film (the first color TARZAN movie) from the old-fashioned black & white movies which were so cheaply made without any effort at realism in the interest of Hollywood entertainment.
Yet what spoils this movie for me is its painfully obvious studio-bound sets at MGM Borehamwood UK intercut with location shooting by a 2nd Unit in Africa. I saw this movie in 1957 when it was first released when I was a boy of 10, and although I enjoyed it then, with Super-Tarzan Gordon Scott in a memorable performance, the rest of the film all falls flat with its lack of real outdoor location shooting.
For me, the best classic TARZAN movies are both TARZAN'S GREATEST ADVENTURE (1959) and TARZAN THE MAGNIFICENT (1960) both starring Gordon Scott, and both filmed mostly on location in Africa.

Dejael

reply

For me, the best classic TARZAN movies are both TARZAN'S GREATEST ADVENTURE (1959) and TARZAN THE MAGNIFICENT (1960) both starring Gordon Scott, and both filmed mostly on location in Africa.


What about "Tarzan and his Mate"?


My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

reply