MovieChat Forums > Un flic (1972) Discussion > Model Train Set

Model Train Set

posted 16 years ago by TheKGun
14 replies | jump to latest

When the big dopey blond guy got on the train, did anyone notice the exterior shots of the rail cars once they were in motion?? I couldn't believe that they used a model train set. It was SO obvious that it made me angry. This was shot in 1972, they could have done a better job.
Also, when they put the helicopter in the same shot, it makes it even more obvious that it was a model train. When Crenna is looking down at the train, they show from a distance, a tan coated ?something? in the chopper which is hovering over the train. The entire time that tan thing does not move at all.

I am sorry, I am just venting at such an obvious piss poor prop. It looks like someone wanted to play with army men.

[–] Bruno Antony 15 years ago

I agree. I love Melville, and I really liked this movie (even if it's not quite Le Samourai or Bob the Gambler), but the train & helicopter looked like they were right out of mid-60s Godzilla movie. In fact, they were so obviously fake that I actually thought we were watching Crenna plan out the heist using a model before carrying it out--I didn't think it was actually real until they showed a shot from the inside of the helicopter. What's kind of mind boggling about it iss that there's nothing complicated about the shot--it was just a train running through the countryside and a helicopter flying overhead. They'd already paid for the helicopter, since we see if land later, so why not just shoot it flying over a train, and even film it day-for-night if they had to? Hell, they could have just used stock footage of a train and composited in a helo and it would have looked a hundred times better. It was incredibly glaring and unfortunately takes away from what's an otherwise excellent film.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] silver-surfer1 14 years ago

there are other fake sets in the film as well.

the nights street were fake. you can see the Arc de Triomphe is painted on canvas. the very next shot shows a painting in an art museum, which is also fake. the museum hall with its colums is also painted on canvas.

Paris at night behind the police car also was painted on canvas.

this CANNOT be just "poor props" - I think director Melville wanted to SAY something with it.

maybe: life is an illusion, or something? or: crime is an art, just like film making and painting?

[–] spatgo 11 years ago

---
this CANNOT be just "poor props" - I think director Melville wanted to SAY something with it.

maybe: life is an illusion, or something? or: crime is an art, just like film making and painting?
--

Yup I like this.

jc

[–] LCShackley 15 years ago

It made me think of Gerry Anderson's "Thunderbirds" TV show.

[–] Mr_McLaurel 15 years ago

It's an embarrassing sequence in an otherwise fantastic movie. Oh how I wish Melville had had access to more than one helicopter!

What's the Spanish for drunken bum?

[–] DrGlitterhouse 14 years ago

Something that bothers me almost as much as the obvious use of models in the train is the lack of cars in the opening sequence. Did all the people in the bank, except the robbers, take the bus there? Crenna's obviously walking through a parking lot; where are the cars?

Also, when the cops interrogate Michael Conrad, they ask for his three accomplices. How did they know there were four robbers? They had one in the morgue, and I think they only bought three tickets at the train station.

I enjoyed the movie overall, but it is seriously flawed.

"How could you cheat on me? I was so hot."

[–] euanzooom 14 years ago

AAAARgh!

I really really rate this film, dont think it is his weakest at all. Love the atmosphere, the subtle piano soundtrack, the style of camera work with the zooms, pull outs etc BUT the train sequence really does stick in the throat.

[–] Didisha 14 years ago

Verfremdungseffekt.

[–] pamina716 12 years ago

Hitchcock did this same sort of thing all the time: glaringly artificial process shots. One expected to see such moments in Hitch. (Most French "auteurs" revered the beloved Hitch.) I think Hitchcock was perfectly aware that such effects looked hokey---probably wanted to introduce a note of artificiality, distancing technique. (It's only a movie, Ingrid!)

[–] albrechtcm 11 years ago

Maybe this was a case similar to the old Benny Hill gag. He was supposed to be an art-cinema director being interviewed on TV. As the interviewer tried to discuss the brilliance of switching to black and white for the last half of the film, Benny, the French Director, said, "No no, you see, we ran out of money...so we 'ad to switch to black and white, you see."

[–] Paedogeddon 11 years ago

The shots of the helicopter's POV over the train weren't too bad -

[–] MetalWorks 11 years ago

Look, its an old film, you gotta coop with that
On the other hand, what a great opening scene!

[–] slokes 9 years ago

The model helicopter hovering over the model railroad really is jarringly bad. I don't see the other flaws the commenters point out, except the art gallery backdrop with its clearly painted-on columns which could easily be explained away as a wall painting that was part of the museum decor. The other items are more in line with the sort of conventions we see in the kind of '40s American crime films Melville liked so much and was influenced by. Ever notice those guys never have trouble finding a parking space, either?

But the train shot was bad, and must have looked so even then, before anyone heard of CGI. My guess is Melville wanted the rain and the train and couldn't get anyone to fly a helicopter over a real train in a cost-effective way. He knew the train heist was going to be a major part of the film, and compromised realism more than he would have otherwise (and Melville did like to play with reality in his films) in order to keep the film on the tracks, so to speak.