MovieChat Forums > Grand Prix (1966) Discussion > Perfect cinematic editing...

Perfect cinematic editing...

posted 4 years ago by cyguration (3951)
4 replies | jump to latest

Talk a bout a film well ahead of its time, Grand Prix is like no other.

Yeah, the movie is definitely long, but the editing of the race scenes are next level.

You get shots of the gear shifts, shots of the braking, shots of the toe-heel clutching, shots of the drivers, their reactions, the motor, the banks, the passing, the draft, the cornering, the danger, holy snaps...

I was just amazed at how well all of that footage was put together for a film made back in 1966. The editing was slicker than most racing films today, which hardly go through the trouble of actually showing us how the vehicles operate, and the skills required to adeptly handle that power under load (then again, a lot of new racing machines are so automated, there's hardly as much skill required to keep from dying like in the old days).

It really makes you appreciate the classical filmmaking techniques, and this film -- much like Le Mans -- did an absolutely perfect job of capturing the dynamics and dangers of racing back then.

Just wow. John Frankenheimer really knocked it out of the park with this one.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

I had recorded this film a few years ago but for some reason it only recorded the first 30 minutes, so I never finished it. But what an incredible opening. I am not even a fan of racing and I was completely blown away by it. I need to go back and watch the whole thing.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

Yeah it's definitely worth the watch.

It slows down quite a bit after the first race, but it's necessary to let the audience catch their breath heading into the other races later in the film, especially the heart-stopping finale.

Reading the production notes is almost as exciting as watching the film, learning that the actors were actually racing on the tracks, and seeing those shots of them going blazingly fast was insane.

They literally do not make films like this anymore, and this film just absolutely blew me away with how technically proficient and dangerous it was.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 3 years ago

I largely share your enthusiasm. The split-screen effects set a new vocabulary for filmmaking. The actually put cameras on the front of Formula 3 cars to film much of the racing. I began my F1 fandom as a teenager, custom-building and racing slot cars. F1 was not on TV in the US back then, so I read Road & Track and Car & Driver magazines and got the news 6 months after the event. Graham Hill was my hero—and he was in the movie! Along with other REAL F1 drivers like Jo Sieffert.

Not for nothing, but Sly Stallone’s Driven was written as an F1 movie, but FI would not give Sly access, whereas Frankenheimer had unprecedented cooperation from the FIA. The FIA knew a turd when they saw one. Driven was repurposed to be about Indycar, but the characters of Sir Frank Williams (the team principle in a wheelchair) and Michael Schumacher (Til Schweiger’s character) clearly remained in the script.

But, I submit to you that Ron Howard’s Rush is equally a great racing film. It tells a true story, a great and important story. Niki Lauda, brittle martinet that he may have been, survived a horrendous accident in fire over 600 degrees F, was out of racing for 6 weeks, and only lost the world championship by 1 fucking point.

And then Lauda, in addition to winning ANOTHER world championship, launched a relentless campaign to revolutionize the design and construction of F1 cars that resulted in a spectacular reduction in fatal incidents in the sport. Niki Lauda saved lives, even after his death.

I take issue with your assertion about the automation of the modern F1 car. All automated driver assists are gone. There is no more ABS, which is standard on a consumer road car. There is no traction control. There is no launch (starting from a standing start when the green flag drop). Yeah, the cars have paddle shifters instead of a floor gear shift; so do sporty consumer vehicles.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

But, I submit to you that Ron Howard’s Rush is equally a great racing film.

I don't know if I would agree that it's equally great as Grand Prix or Le Mans; there was still some Hollywoodism that crept its way in. But who could argue with Hans Zimmer's irreplaceable soundtrack to such an entertaining film? The story was definitely a grade above the others, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the racing left something to be desired compared to the other two films. As a standalone, character-driven film about racing, you're right that Rush is certainly worth watching for what it is.

Niki Lauda saved lives, even after his death.

He was definitely an interesting individual, and Daniel Brühl really should have captured an Academy Award for not only his impeccable performance as Lauda, but also for looking like a dead ringer as well!

Yeah, the cars have paddle shifters instead of a floor gear shift; so do sporty consumer vehicles.

I'll grant you some of leeway on the extrication of some of the automation, but this one right here is probably the one thing that gets me more than the rest. I don't mind that vehicles should have anti-lock brakes, and maybe -- depending on the situation -- stability management, but paddle shifters? Ugh, no just no. Every time I see them in a production consumer car attached to an automatic gearshift I cringe, especially for the pony, muscle, and sports cars.

At least some vehicles, like the WRX and Nissan Z, makes manual standard. That's how it should be in F1; stick shifting with manual clutching. Make 'em earn those waving checkers on the pole the way real men used to back in the day.