Knowing that much was written of the digital tricks in Forrest Gump to the Gary Sinise character, does anyone know how this 1981 film accomplished the look of Cutter (the John Heard character)? I just thought it was very impressive to have been made in a "non-digital" period of time.
shareBest films are CGI free
shareIt was done the old-fashioned way, with makeup, and John Heard holding his arm behind him or in front of him, depending on the camera angle. The leg was done simply with a black sock -- in the one scene it's visible, in the bedroom, it blended in with the dark background behind him, appearing like a prosthetic leg.
shareThat's a logical explanation. It is amazing how believable those optical illusions were, much more realistic than the CGI in "Forrest Gump." John Heard did a terrific job playing the disgruntled vet, and this is a much better film.
share
Uh WHAT??? John Heard’s black sock was better than Gary Sinise ’s amputee in Gump? John Heard did a fantastic job, but in terms of special FX there is no contest. Cutter’s Way would have been all over the Gump FX had there been a choice. How disingenuous. I do think CGI is over done and I wish they’d go back to more practical means. But this is by no means a film where I’d say you could make that argument. And Gump has some of the most restrained, tasteful use of CGI period. Why is it you can only prove your fandom for Cutter’s Way by slagging on another perfectly good movie? Childish.
well done.
A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.