PS: the French wikipedia article on the movie has a picture of the explosive bolts they used: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corniaud#L'accident_de_la_2...
https://youtu.be/0z-FtAMg6Vw?si=zGsEnyt4NKtsMnLb
Even though I’ve seen many different versions of this gag, they are all still funny to me.
If its "outrageously small but can still take you and a goose to market", Citroën have a tiny little electric vehicle, the Ami, today.
If its "something simple enough that a farmer can weld the panels themselves", I fear those days are long gone, in the same way that the OG Land Rover Defender is no longer a car you can wrench on. The spiritual heir of such cars is probably a toyota hilux(?). Modern safety standards and the presence of complex electronics beneath every surface, to say nothing of the more complex sheet metal shapes, probably stop that idea in its tracks.
Google Translate: “Ah well now it’s going to work a lot less well, of course!”
Deepl:
- It's going to work much less well.
- It's going to run much less smoothly.
- It's going to run a lot less smoothly.
None of these suggestions sounds good to me (in case it isn't clear I'm not a native English speaker).
“Ah well, now she'll work a lot less well, of course!”
Since you mentioned Google and Deepl, here's O1:
“Ah well, obviously she’s gonna run a lot less well now!”
“Ah well, looks like she’ll be running a lot less well, naturally!”
My own thoughts on google were replace work with run, replace it with she, and I wasn't sure about of course, versus, say, naturally. My own would have been:
“Ah well, now she'll work a lot less well, naturally!”
The context is that the 2CV driver is fussing to the Rolls driver who bumped him to make it fall apart. It keeps the Galois humor of a 2CV running well ever, and the naturally rhymes with that.
// English native, FSL here
"a lot less well" is the awkward part, a more natural construction would be a negation "is not going to run well" or something like that.
Similar (albeit a bit heavier from the all paperwork) explosive bolts are user for stage separation in launch vehicles (rockets).
I had no idea that explosives were involved!
From Wikipedia: Garry Moore recalled, "I asked (Keaton) how he did all those falls, and he said, 'I'll show you.' He opened his jacket and he was all bruised. So that's how he did it—it hurt—but you had to care enough not to care." This would have been in about 1955, when Keaton (born 1899) was an old man and well past his heyday of really dangerous stunts (he once broke his neck during an early stunt).
And he usually had an amazing commitment to film in a lot of other ways. The first time he was shot in a film he took a camera apart to figure out how it worked, because he really cared about every detail (though in the middle of his career this really hurt him, as execs wanted to just trot him up in front of the camera as a high paid celebrity - they didn't want him wasting his valuable time fussing over details, or risk their investment letting him do stunts).
And a great Every Frame a Painting film essay on his work: https://youtu.be/UWEjxkkB8Xs?si=n-4ZNr_cMnYVKijs
He was truly an innovator that makes today’s “films of people talking to each other” look amateurish.
A few months ago the local theatre was playing Sherlock Jr. with a live band, and it was awesome. Try to see it in similar circumstances if possible.
I feel you could have said the first part without attempting to critique films with a different aesthetic aspiration.
I just watched Eisenberg's "A Real Pain" last night, and there is no way that any of the things Keaton was good at would have improved that film at all. Which is not to say that Keaton was not an innovator .. just that there is more than one aesthetic goal for films, and room for all of them.
AFI in Silver Spring?
It reminds me of the glass eating trick by David Blaine, where the trick is to… just eat glass. It makes it quite bittersweet, as after all, those men are trading some of their wellbeing for some of their fame. Not sure how to feel about it.
I don't want performers to risk their safety, health and life for my entertainment. Obviously I cannot stop it, but I can stop watching those who engage in things like this. (And I don't just mean the stunt performer, but the director, the producers, the studio and the franchise.)
I have unsubscribed from youtube channels when I felt that they were pushing themselves in dangerous directions. It is not like that alone will stop them, but if I would keep watching I would be complicit in the harm which might befall them.
There is the principle attributed to Houdini by Penn Jillette that a performance/trick should not be more dangerous than sitting in one's living room. Especially when it appears dangerous. I don't know about the exact line though. Strictly interpreting the "not be more dangerous than sitting in one's living room" definition would disqualify any performance where the performer had to drive (or be chauffeured) to the location of their performance. And that would be a bit ridiculous.
Houdini died from a rather trivial stunt he performed many times before. A hit to the abdomen before he could flex his muscles most likely ruptured his appendix. Keaton died of lung cancer well past the end of his fame.
You can manage the danger of stunts, you can reduce it and prepare for anything that could go wrong. You can never completely avoid it and sometimes a single error is all it takes.
I mean, they pretty much all do to some degree. It's not healthy on your body to do eight Broadway shows a week. Or to be constantly switching between all-day and all-night shoots on a TV show. And performing a role of high emotional trauma every day for weeks or months takes its own kind of toll too.
Obviously nobody should be at risk of life or of permanent injury, that goes without saying.
But getting bruises while doing stunts, that's just what being a stuntperson is. Nobody is forced into it. And this is why there are stuntpeople in the first place -- it's not just for skills. Sometimes the regular actor could do it fine, but there's no time in the schedule for their body to recover afterwards.
During the filming of the Civil War movie The General there are images of Keaton doing things that even the bravest of stuntmen wouldn't do these days and we'd now rely on film animation and tricks to make the scenes work.
For instance, Keaton—who obviously was very fit and agile—is filmed sitting on a cowcatcher of a moving locomotive whilst removing rail ties that were placed on the line to impede the train's progress and then tossing them aside.
I read somewhere that Clyde Bruckman the film's director gave instructions to the cameraman "to keep filming the scene until finished or until Keaton is killed" or words to that effect.
I can't remember whether Bruckman was referring to this scene or another such as when he's running across the locomotive's tender (the comment could equally have applied to many other scenes I reckon). Others who are more knowledgeable could perhaps fill in the details.
I like this movie, Keaton was a great performer and his movies are a testament to that.
"The railrodder" (1965)
Kenton died 1966
That the movie showed the Confederates in better light than the Yankees wasn't appreciated much when it was released. Back then, there were Civil War veterans who were still alive who criticized the film which contributed to its poor ratings. Also, keep in mind the film was based on the story The Great Locomotive Chase, changing it to having the Yankees as the main subject just wouldn't have been feasible.
Nevertheless, the film's stature has grown over the years and has developed a bit of a cult status:
https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/the_general_film...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(1926_film) (read 'Legacy')
Oh, and I just noticed on the Wiki page there's even an image of Keaton riding the cowcatcher.
I'm not a film buff so I'll let those comments/reviews stand on their own merits.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/battling-butler-the-ge...
https://youtu.be/QfN1GRqKXpM?si=-4Mwmipl5sCFtCWN
This practical effect took weeks to set up.
I can't find documentation specifying any special techniques used to create this version of the car. I recall reading an interview naming the builder who set it up, and how no one on set was allowed to touch it except the actors, John Belushi and Dan Ackroyd. Only one take. Can't find that interview now.
Also looking at it closely, you can see at the camera angle change that the car is not the same (roof shape cut, rear door a bit open, ...), and that it is not standing on its wheels with supports appearing below
Today that's replaced by crappy CGI done on a crunch by a sweatshop.
I actually watched the video linked in the comments with his greatest stunts and also one short movie together with my kids (5 and 8 years old) just the other day. They laughed their heads off!
So if you can hear me, Buster, wherever you are: Your films are holding up a hundred years later. That is quite a feat.
Cars were also much simpler to take apart. A few bolts here and there and a couple people could remove an engine. A few more and the roof came off too. Today, it is all spot welded and tight tollerances. Removing any substanial part of a modern car, anything beyond the seats, requires planning and specialized tools.
Wonderful little read. Thanks!
