what happened to BD Wong?

FX includes items such as wigs, hair extensions, make up. A continuity error remains that - a continuity error. No amount of rationalizing can cover up what is plainly a goof.

And watch it with the insults.

Watch it with your own insults, toots. I mean stuff like this:

"You don't know much about industry FX then (and I don't just mean CGI). Poor continuity of any kind is inexcusable. That kind of glaring error is a mark of shoddy workmanship by *whoever* is directing, nothing more, nothing less."

You're the one with the patronizing attitude and the cocksure use of the wrong terminology to make the wrong accusations. We'll get to your little theory that "poor continuity of any kind is inexcusable" at the end of this post (and you're not going to like it when we do), but in the meantime, kindly don't play the injured party.

It's a flaw in the continuity, not necessarily a "goof." In this case, almost certainly not a goof, since the length varies consistently between two sets of scenes shot at different times. A goof would mean that they failed to be aware of the difference in his hair between the first shoot and the second, even though it involved every single new scene.

Welcome to the world of indies. If Gale Harold is wedging in re-shoots between other things, it may be that the employer who has him under contract for "The Unit" or "Deadwood" won't excuse a breach of a hair clause in his contract, and will subject him to fines. An example of that is ready to hand. Normally an actor will audition for a part looking as much like the character as he can manage. Gale had to audition for Andrew Barrington (as Lee says in an interview) in a full beard, for a project (presumably "The Unseen") that he was doing at the time.

I have offered, not a "rationalization," but a theory of what happened -- that it was, regrettably, not under their control. It's a theory that fits the facts and doesn't strain credulity, unlike your own theory that not a soul connected with the production thought about Gale's hair when they tried to match new footage with old.

And no, Gale's haircut is not under the category of "special effects." There is indeed a category called "special effects makeup," but unless Gale is playing the Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas, neither his hair nor his makeup are likely to fall under it. The only "goof" here, as I see it, is your ostentatiously inappropriate use of the term "FX."

I happen to have seen the movie on Friday, since our original exchange, and personally, even though we'd already had this conversation, I barely noticed the changes in the length of his hair. Not everybody is equally attentive to the same details. If I had known none of the movie’s history, I’d simply have thought he had a lot of different looks.

And even admitting it's a continuity flaw, there are others much more important. For example, when did Harold’s character meet Cho’s character, who approaches him so familiarly at the Gatsby Ball? And why is the dress Grace is fitted for not the same one she tries on in the shop? These things may not be "goofs" either, but bits of bad luck. Maybe they couldn't re-shoot Gale's meeting with Cho because one of the two wasn't available within a contracted reshoot period. Maybe the original dress had been released from wardrobe back to Shanghai Tang and sold. Or maybe both of these continuity problems really were just plain old errors.

But the fact that there are continuity flaws doesn’t mean one can’t enjoy the movie. These are not make or break, not by a long shot. Compared to the confusion in “The Big Sleep,” “Night Moves,” and “The Conversation” (all highly esteemed films), this is absolutely nothing. And the suggestion that we should all fold our arms and refuse to like the movie because of Gale Harold’s hair is beyond preposterous. I’ve spent my entire life watching Judy Garland’s weight go up and down from scene to scene in “A Star Is Born,” and I’ve never seen it send anybody screaming from the room.

This site has continuity flaws in the listings for large numbers of mainstream Hollywood films we all know and love. You want the list for "Casablanca"?:

* A knight on the chessboard disappears momentarily in the opening chess game.

* The man who is shot escaping from police dies next to an arch where a woman suddenly appears.

* Rick's tie is suddenly knotted differently when he sees Ilsa in the bazaar.

* When Rick gets on the train after standing in the rain, his coat is completely dry.

* The Venetian blinds in Victor's and Ilsa's hotel room.

* While chatting to Captain Renault outside the Café Américain, Rick lights a cigarette, then in the next shot, lights another.

* At the airport, the epaulets on Major Strasser's coat disappear and reappear between shots.

* An extra (elderly man with white goatee and hat) is shown being herded into the police station along with other "usual suspects" and in the very next shot is seen along the street peering upward at the plane landing from Lisbon.

* In the hangar scene at the airport, the bottles of "Vichy water" on the shelf below the table change positions between shots.

* When Rick receives the transit documents from Ugarte, he pockets them in his inside right pocket. When he gets them out and puts them on Sam's piano, he gets them out of his left inside pocket.

* When Victor goes to get the papers from Rick, he takes off his hat and stands with his arm by his side. A second later he is suddenly holding his lapel, and subsequently lowers his arm again.

* Early on in the movie, from the perspective of the band, you see that Sam has his piano facing towards the band. When we see it again a few moments later, the piano is facing away from the band.

* When Rick is listening to Annina explain the situation in Bulgaria with his back to the camera, we see him take a drink of Brandy. The shot switches before he put his glass down. But in the new shot with the camera facing him, Rick only has a cigarette in his hand and the Brandy glass isn't visible.

* When he enters in the Rick's, Ugarte passes through the people who are in the doorway and turns to his right. The subsequent shot shows him walking to the left, behind Rick.

* When Major Strasser talks with Rick about Laszlo, he leans his elbows on the table and crosses his fingers. In the next shot he is raising his right hand to join his left. And after, between cuts, he appears with both arms leaning on the table.

* Laszlo enters Rick's and sits down with Ilsa on his left-hand side. Soon after, when a woman begins to play guitar and to sing, Laszlo appears sitting with Ilsa on his right side.

* Ilsa sends the waiter to call Sam. Sam pushes the piano to Ilsa's table. When Rick comes to reprimand Sam for singing "As Time Goes By," he is standing next the piano, which Sam has pushed away from the table. In the next long shot, Rick is a little ways from Ilsa's table, which has changed places.

* When Laszlo enters Rick's for the first time, he puts his hat on a chair next to the one he sits in. Later, before Capt. Renault sits on the same chair, Laszlo picks up the hat and puts it on the floor. When Laszlo leaves, he does not pick up his hat. But when he leaves Rick's, he is holding his hat.

* When Carl sits with a couple of friends, he finishes pouring the brandy and rubs his hands together. In the following shot, his right hand is resting on his left arm.

* When Rick has a discussion outside and they are regularly bathed with the lighthouse light every few seconds the time for a full turn varies due to cuts in the scene.

* During the discussion between Rick and the police captain in the captain's office, the cigarettes keep changing - sometimes missing, burned at different lengths, etc.

* When Rick places the letters of transit under Sam's pile of sheet music on the piano, the sheet music is on the right side (from the back) and Sam's ashtray and drink are on the left. Later the drink and ashtray are on the right and the sheet music is on the left.

MGM wasn't exactly an association of amateurs, and Michael Curtiz was neither an amateur nor inexperienced. With that list of continuity errors, any one of which you claim is "inexcusable," I guess the Best Picture of 1942 is off your list. But if that's your attitude, I think we can pretty much dismiss your personal pretensions to industry knowledge or cinephile sophistication, those of us who haven't already done so.

As for those of us with more open minds and more circumspection, maybe we'll go a little easier than you on Fay Ann Lee, the "shoddy workman" who delivered this highly entertaining little film. The audience I was a part of absolutely loved it. A large auditorium at Loew's Lincoln Plaza was practically filled, the crowd laughed at all the right places (the Chinese-Americans, in particular, seemed to love the movie), and applauded at the end. Almost everybody stayed for the Q&A afterwards, where not a single negative question was asked, and the audience was, indeed, big with the compliments. And you know what? There were plenty of people there from the film industry who presumably know what "FX" means, and not one of them screamed "shoddy" or "inexcusable" at Ms. Lee.

reply share

add reply

formatting help