No Film of Actual Walk? - Man on Wire (2008) Discussion

[–] KAnnD86 15 years ago

I thought the same thing. They had footage of everything else. I guess getting on film wasn't on top of their list of priorities, probably for the best. Better to be concerned with the rigging and safety measures than a video camera.

Tomorrow's just your future yesterday!

reply

[–] SteelyDanLuvr 15 years ago

Yeah, that's a real shame they didn't bring a video camera up there. I'm surprised they bothered to film him practicing wire-walking when his friends were bouncing the wire around and they even filmed when they were just sitting around planning, but they didn't think to film the actual walk. Oh well, at least there are still photos.

reply

[–] Dutchyfirst 15 years ago

My idea as well. But bear in mind that the footage of the practicing and preparations was a (very well done) reconstruction. And I don't think they had hand-held video cameras in the early/mid 70's, but an 8 mm film camera would have been an option for sure.

reply

[–] flick11 15 years ago

The early 1970's footage in France of them preparing and practicing the walk was real and not a reconstruction. There were no actors here.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] azncuzin202 14 years ago

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/summer2008/manonwire.php

4th to last question should explain everything.

reply

[–] a-movie-fan 14 years ago

'StrongCarl' -

Simply put, you tried to correct someone, but your correction was in error.

Good luck trying to tell 'The-Movie-Buff' he's wrong in any way, shape or form, regardless of how SIMPLE you put it. He considers he knows all and the rest of us are just a mob of "twits, dimwits, liars, sad and his favorite, Trolls!" Just a few of the incredibly intelligent names he's felt the need to throw at me, I'm sure thinking in his infinite wisdom I'd be hurt, upset... uh, think again! I feel sorry for him if the only way he can communicate with people is via his way or the highway. When you see his name, think of the 'Ignore User' button!!

I am about to watch this movie now and was interested to see what some people thought about it.

~ "Creativity requires the courage to let go of certainties." ~ Erich Fromm

reply

[–] pafilms 14 years ago

"I could care less" is a meaningless phrase and you should probably stop using it. "I couldn't care less" is what you should be saying.

http://www.RedOneRental.net/

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JaniceMarieFoote 14 years ago

I felt the same way, which is why I gave it 9 stars instead of 10.
Though in retrospect those video cameras back then were too clunky :-O

~ Check me on IMDb at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3072171/ - Carpe Diem - Janice Marie Foote ~

reply

[–] jacowium 13 years ago

As others mentioned above, there were no VCR's in those days - not even clunky ones. Those only came 10+ years later.

The only viable option were 8mm movie cameras, which is a somewhat different prospect when it comes to amateur or on-the-spur filming - they were not as automated as analog and especially digital equipment. They were easy enough to use in more familiar settings of course, which is why we have adequate footage of their preparations. Lugging a fragile 8mm movie camera up to the roof of the WTC (besides the heavy-duty equipment they already had to contend with) would have been an extra logistical headache, no matter how small a problem that was in comparison to the cabling and the big scheme of things. Thinking back to 1974, I know I'd have opted for just a regular 35mm picture camera too, had I been involved.

Of course, it seems odd in this era when we're used to cellphones capturing even news material, but priorities were different to this wire-walking crew.

reply

[–] gogolit 15 years ago

yes i thought it was strange. although it wasnt the age of youtube.

reply

[–] hugh1971 15 years ago

I also wondered why they sent the walkie-talkies over the wire in a bag. Why didn't both sides just carry their own?

It was also odd that with all the planning, they hadn't worked out a proper visual signalling system. They could have used morse or semaphore etc.

reply

[–] youngian67 15 years ago

Petit and his friends' story telling abilities were so exciting that I was encapsulated anyway.

reply

[–] craighan 8 years ago

They used a wired phone because they wanted to be radio-silent.

reply

[–] EvilHomeStere0 15 years ago

Funnily enough I didn't seem to notice the lack of video footage until after it finished, I guess I was just so pulled in at the time.

Tied my leg to a barricade, with a plastic hand grenade.

reply

[–] lips_are_important 15 years ago

I didn't see this film (I want to) but I did see the last part of Ken Burns' documentary, New York, which devotes a considerable amount of time to this. I could have sworn I saw video footage of him walking ....

reply

[–] rph3664 15 years ago

That was probably from the news coverage, which was very extensive.

reply

[–] willy_donka 15 years ago

you must remember... "video" cameras did not exist back then. only film cameras. and film cameras in the mid 70's were very expensive, large and heavy.

reply

[–] DeepFriedJello 15 years ago

I wasn't aware that the footage from them practicing was a reinactment. It doesn't look like 8mm but could be 16mm movie film.
There was video of him on the Sydney bridge, especially in the special features.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cpuller-642-329716 14 years ago

It clearly isnt a reinactment when they practice the people have exactly the same faces as now when they are older.

But some "old" film parts were reinacted so there is room for confusion.
In the reinacted scenes the characters look very different.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [Card] 15 years ago

It seems odd that with all their planning and preparation they never thought to bring a camera with them.

This was done in 1975. According to Wikipedia, a sound version of Super 8 format had just been released 2 years earlier. Betamax was invented in 1975, VHS came "soon after". My guess is that the prices were too expensive for the team to even consider such a thing.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dzersim 14 years ago

You are very misinformed. I came of age in the 70's, and for a while my dad helped run our local public access station. The cameras were big, bulky, ran on reel-to-reel and were quite expensive. What your uncle had is the same thing I made my home movies on back then - an 8mm movie camera.
A few wealthy stars like Elvis and, notoriously, Bob Crane had access to home taping equipment in the late 60's-early 70's, but this was a novelty. Affordable consumer electronics only started in the mid 80's.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dgates64 14 years ago

You're just too young to know the difference, that's all. 8mm and 'video' is not the same thing.

reply

[–] carlin4737 14 years ago

They did take a video camera up there but the guy who was going to film it was to tired after having to pull the rope up he could no longer lift the camera anymore so he just took some still photographs

------------------------
When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

reply

[–] BKinzeys 14 years ago

You are misinformed about the difference between a video camera and a film camera. Video is a wholly electronic process. Film has chemical processes.

While it is common for people to interchange the terms you were being technically specific and as such you are incorrect.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BKinzeys 14 years ago

"I'm sitting here watching video from 1969-71 taken in Vietnam with my uncle's handheld video camera. Consumer handheld video camera's certainly existed in the late 60's, and were very common....

You have no idea what you are talking about. Small consumer handheld 8mm VIDEO cameras were very commmon"

Those were the statements you made. When someone corrected your use of the word video instead of film you could have accepted that. It was a small mistake, many people make it. You didn't. You became defensive, threw around excuses, and insulting.

But I'm the *beep*

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lexiii67 8 years ago

I have boxes of film reels in my basement of home movies from the 60's-70's. We were never rich. Clearly these cameras were available.

reply

[–] Nostalgie 14 years ago

I remember reading in Petit's book that in the stress and craziness of it all, Jean Francois had brought a camera with the intention to film but never had the chance.

reply

[–] a-movie-fan 14 years ago

Watching the movie and then hearing what you just said 'Nostalgie,' you'd have to think understandable, yes? After seeing this and the interview with him, I don't think filming it was as important to him as it may have been to others. He just wanted to tight-walk across the two buildings, plain and simple!

~ "Creativity requires the courage to let go of certainties." ~ Erich Fromm

reply

[–] emo_ville2002 14 years ago

There were no video cameras back then. There were home movie film cameras for consumers, but they were very bulky.

I was actually wondering why none of the local NYC TV stations actually sent a crew up to the top of the towers. They had film crews and reporters on street level, why no access to either tower's roof during the walk? They finally got up there after PP ended his walk? I guess lack of cell phones was one reason?

Very bizarre indeed!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mr_Wolf_80 14 years ago

I was searching, too, expecting to find several videos, but I could only find photos! That's weird

I'm Winston Wolf, I solve problems

And no dream is ever... just a dream...

reply

[–] shoobe01 10 years ago

You don't even have to have lived through this era for the repeated comments about "but they were very bulky" to be demonstrably untrue. On my shelf of collectible cameras is an 8 mm from the early 1960s that is smaller than the SLRs next to it. It was a fairly common, inexpensive camera and people shot birthdays under available candle-light with them. Poorly, but it worked.

They chose not to spend their effort on documentation. They also had to invent the line throwing system instead of using one of many off-the-shelf options available at the time (etc.) so they clearly lived in their own little world and don't have the same priority or understanding of some equipment others do, or did.

reply

[–] stefan-79-235442 9 years ago

The lack of footage killed the docu for me. He was walking for Hours so the cameraman must had the strenght to film at least a couple of minutes

reply

[–] aoliver-5 9 years ago

To clarify....

There was a video camera that was marketed as a consumer camera, but it never really caught on. It was sometimes referred to as a prosumer camera. It was the Sony Porta Pak. Some may say it was too bulky, but I used it at my first job out of college and was easily manageable by single person.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portapak
http://www.experimentaltvcenter.org/sony-av-3400-porta-pak

reply

[–] daschristoff 14 years ago

According to Philippe Petit's Wikipedia entry:
"Although movie cameras were on the roof during the walk, the person who was supposed to film the walk did not do so, apparently due to exhaustion."

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] frankzappayay 14 years ago

Like I said, what a prick. An eccentric mind-blowingly awesome one who dared to make his dream come true backed by talent and group support but how on fcking earth could he not have wanted her as his soft place to land and to celebrate that with? Hope he's a lonely old fart now walking his tightrope in his backyard who misses the love of his life. Who by the way looks 110% times better than him and is still beautiful. Shame on him.