MovieChat Forums > The Blood of Heroes (1990) Discussion > Stories from the set - this is interesti...

Stories from the set - this is interesting


Blood of Heroes, Salute of the Jugger
By John Howard Reid


COMMENT: An interesting experience. Unfortunately, the off-camera drama was far more fascinating than the rather superficial, futuristic, action/adventure, grindhouse offering that finally emerged on the screen.

I worked on the film for only four days of a ten-week shooting schedule. But, aside from a brief shot of me in the Red City street as I pass by Gandhi on the right of the wide-wide screen, my part was left on the cutting-room floor. An earlier scene in the street in which I was accosted by a young boy, excitedly telling me that he’d just found a magic stone, was eliminated. Indeed, not only was this scene (and another in which I figured as worshipper in a weirdly colorful religious ceremony at a Red City temple), completely deleted, but the whole sub-plot involving this young lad was removed. He’s no longer in Salute to the Jugger at all. That’s a shame, because he was easily the best actor in the movie. A fine acrobat, a naturally gifted, charismatic performer, handsome as they come, with a captivating personality, he looked set for major stardom. I don’t even remember his name.

I was on the set at the same time as Rutger Hauer, Delroy Lindo, Gandhi McIntyre, Joan Chen, Hugh Keays-Byrne (a wonderful actor in a made-to-order villainous role, which was cut to ribbons in the editing room), and numerous extras in an elaborate opening ceremony to the Red City games. This ceremony was also hacked out of the final cut. And almost as bad as the deletions already mentioned, was the pruning of Joan Chen’s part in the climactic game. She bravely performed her own stunts (receiving many spontaneous rounds of applause from the assembled crowd artists), but all her efforts came to nought. They were scissored too. On the other hand, just about all Glenn Ruehland’s footage was left in. He doubled for Hauer. It’s interesting that the star wasn’t even on the set for most of Ruehland’s vigorous fighting. He came in right at the end for close-ups.

I didn’t see much of David Peoples on the set. The first morning he had a set-to with Rutger Hauer. Peoples wanted to end the star’s first sequence in a Red City street with Rutger turning his back on the camera, walking away down the bustling thoroughfare and being swallowed up by the unknowing crowd. But Rutger absolutely refused to turn his back on the camera. After nearly an hour of fruitless argument, the producer was sent for. We waited another hour, and when the money-man eventually arrived, he adjudicated in favor of Hauer. Peoples walked off the set. The scene was then directed the Hauer way by Keith Heygate. And in the afternoon, when Peoples had not returned, the jettisoned temple scene (in which Hauer didn’t appear anyway) was directed by David Eggby.

Peoples, unshaven, bleary-eyed, returned a few days later. He explained that he’d been working on the script. In the meantime, the climactic games sequence had been directed and painstakingly choreographed by Guy Norris. His principal players were Ruehland (who assisted in “co-ordinating” these scenes) and Joan Chen. While the action specialists were busy rehearsing the juggers, photographer David Eggby in close collaboration with the continuity girl (indeed she took charge as the filming progressed) directed two scenes with the spectators.

Another interesting point was that a second camera was used for all scenes, except those actually involving the games. Eggby had no connection with the second camera, which had its own crew, and was generally set up behind and to the side of the first. Eggby did supervise the lighting of the set and actually operated his camera himself, with the aid of a focus puller. Cross was in charge of the second camera, which had its own operator and focus puller. The second camera crew were completely ignored by both Eggby and Peoples who both acted as if that crew didn’t exist. Cross received his instructions from Keith Heygate. In addition to these duties, Keith also personally directed the placing and blocking of the extras, as well as supervising the special effects men and the animal handler. The main scene that Peoples directed himself, whilst I was on the set, was the opening ceremony of the games, very elaborately staged, rehearsed and choreographed. I also overheard him telling a visitor that the young lad I mentioned earlier was a “great discovery” and that Salute to the Jugger would set the boy firmly on the path to international acclaim.

So there you have it. The credits, even the seemingly endless roll-calls attached to modern films, don’t tell the whole story. Anything like the whole story. Many people still make important contributions without any credit at all. And some people who are credited actually do either very little to earn that name in lights, or contribute far more than the field in which their name appears!

Which brings me to my final point. Salute to the Jugger is a Poverty Row film in reverse. The aim of a Poverty producer is to use every trick in the book to expand his meagre budget so that it looks smatteringly lavish on the screen. Jugger’s editor evidently had the opposite aim. Make the film look cheap. Although filmed on a money-no-object scale, the on-screen Jugger has the appearance of an inferior American-International. You should have seen the Red City street down which I and about two hundred meticulously costumed extras wandered. The shops. Wow! All filmed with the weirdest, most bizarre, most inventively created produce and goods that highly imaginative designers and set dressers could imagine.

And what do we actually see on the screen. Zilch!

OTHER VIEWS: Written in 1977 and originally shown to Rutger Hauer during the filming of Blade Runner, this derivative, low-budget* science-fiction movie suffers by comparison with its obvious thematic and visual sources. The incomprehensible gladiatorial game is clearly derived from Rollerball by way of the Mad Max movies.

reply

Very interesting, I wonder where that extra footage went to. This film was lacking and appeared to have an abrupt end. I hear there is a longer version but it also sounds just as pointless.

reply

[deleted]

Just for the record. The article is written by John Howard Reid. It's not me, I just post it there:)

reply

From the sounds of things, there is a good reason most of that stuff was left on the cutting room floor, as is so often the case with extra footage. Every movie has it. Only rarely does it actually add up to a better movie once you include it back in. In this one it would have confused the narrative and slowed down the movie for what end? More color and potential cheese in a movie that succeeded precisely on being gritty and focused?

reply