MovieChat Forums > Cold Mountain (2003) Discussion > Filming Location is All Wrong

Filming Location is All Wrong

posted 15 years ago by WhiteHeron
41 replies | jump to latest

This movie is supposed to be set in North Carolina but was filmed in Romania. As a Southerner, it was distractingly obvious that this was not filmed in the South. The hills were too big, the tree were wrong, and the light was wrong. The look of the geography competed with the story, lessening my belief in the story.

I'm sure they chose to film in Romania because of cost, but really, how much more expensive could it have been to film somewhere in the South. The cost-of-living and wages are low in the South and there is lots of available land.

Was anyone else bothered by this?

[–] ShadowsGathered 15 years ago

I might have been bothered by it had I realized it, but I didn't... and I live in Alabama!

... the hardest thing in this world is to live in it...

[–] beaupeyton 15 years ago

Well, as someone that lived on the East Tennessee/North Carolina border for nearly eight years, I thought it was very close. If you go up into the mountains around the Smokies, that's pretty much what it looks like.

[–] mathmaniac 15 years ago

I was thinking it was 'Tennessee-like' and I've never even been to Tennessee. Also, I knew, but had forgotten, that it was filmed in Roumania. I'm almost 100% sure that these decisions are cost-driven. Had an American state come up with a sweet deal, I'm confident it would have been made in America!

[–] waful89 15 years ago

yeah... I've lived in Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama and I didn't notice any "competing" with the scenery. I thought it very accurate and beautiful. I've never lived anywhere but the south and never once have I watched this movie and have always thought that it was realistic and beautiful, very similar to the Appalachians.

[–] BrokenBells 15 years ago

Actually, in the extras on the DVD, Minghella says that the decision was not only about cost, but also that they needed large areas that would look authentic for the time period, i.e. "untouched" by the industrial revolution, and too much of the land in America had been developed. So they had to find a place with similar landscape and be able to capture all four seasons within a less than 6 month shooting schedule. After a lot of location scouting they found that Romania was the closest to what they wanted.

[–] Wuchakk 15 years ago

I'm always bothered by inaccurate locations in film. One of the worst examples is "Custer of the West" (1967), which was filmed in Spain while the story takes place in the American East and Northern plains. Needless to say, the Spanish locations looked nothing like the American locations where the story place. It made it impossible for me to enjoy the picture.

That said, I appreciate what SmalaSussie notes above concering the Romanian locations of "Cold Mountain", even while I would have preferred authentic locations. I thought the areas they chose were good stand-ins for the Appalachian South.

[–] JohnnyRed2121 15 years ago

Have you ever been to the Blue Ridge Mountains in western NC? They're the highest mountains in the eastern part of the US. The highest peak is Mt Mitchell in NC, which is over 6,000 ft. The mountains in the film looked very appropriate.

[–] febber87 15 years ago

The Blue Ridge Mountains are not part of the Appalachian Mountains. Instead, they are an ancient line several dozen miles to the east that long predate the main stem of the Appalachians. They are most assuredly not large or high peaks. Mt. Mitchell, by the way, is neither part of the Blue Ridge nor the Appalachians. It is in the Black Mtns, a small, separate stem of mountains.

The mountains and foliage in this film were not very representative of the area the movie was supposed to be based in. The topography was wrong, the predominance of hardwoods instead of pine at the lower elevations, even the soil was dissimilar to western NC where the movie was set. I grew up in central NC and know the Blue Ridge and Smokies quite well. This wasn't them.

As far as the OP question, yes, I found the movie terrain's divergeance from the location it was set in distracting, but frankly it's so common in movies to have unrepresentative terrain and topography that I didn't expect much better. And while I don't agree with the director that finding locations to shoot in NC would have been problematic, with the development of that part of the state I do understand the concern.

Thanks to the internet, now it's much easier to insult people in other countries.

[–] emailraven 14 years ago

They filmed in Romania because the modern South looks NOTHING like the Civil War South. They tried that route at first. It didn't work for them. And the cost of trying to find a Southern locale that wouldn't be marred by a Wal-Mart or a McDonald's on every corner would have been prohibitive.

http://www.allforloveblog.com
A Blogsite Dedicated to Michael Jackson

[–] WhiteHeron 14 years ago

I understand that. I just don't think Romania's terrain looks anything like the part of the South I'm familiar with.

[–] Terrapin2212 13 years ago

Yeah I read that the director and crew did go to North Carolina to scout locations around the real "Cold Mountain" near Asheville but it was all developed. Now I know there are national and state parks that are still all natural, but I doubt the park service would allow these big productions there. Thats with America these days more and more natural land is being developed unless its officially protected.

The funny thing is Last of the Mohicans was made in North Carolina, to stand in for upstate New York because New York state was too built up (that film is about the French and Indian War). Now NC is too developed and they went to Romania. It was pretty though the scenery, usually when I think Eastern Europe I think gray concrete Soviet style buildings, crumbling depressing cities and derelict military bases. Romania actually looks pretty in this, unlike its apperance in all of Steven Seagal's recent films.

There are much worse filming stand-ins like in Transformers 3 when they placed 40 story skyscrapers in Washington, D.C. or in Due Date when they portrayed Dallas as having mountains in the background.

[–] ceace21 13 years ago

I have to agree with the OP - this scenery, although beautiful, does NOT look like NC. I totally agree that the mountains are too high (NC has rolling hills), and that the light is wrong. That is, the light has to do with the latitude, and it is indeed NOT the same sun that shines on Romania as on NC. Please, cut the OP some slack, he knows whereof he speaks. BTW, the idea that the entire state of NY is "too developed" to do Last of the Mohicans is absurd. Once you get out of NYC, instantly you could be back in time - the rural areas of upstate NY are beautiful, entirely suitable for the Mohicans. Let's call this for what it is: a cheap, cost-saving measure on the part of the filmmakers. WHY they chose this, and what it portents for American film, good or ill, I leave to other discussions.

[–] jcorzan 12 years ago

It's a 10 degree difference in latitude. That's insignificant.

[–] jdown-1 12 years ago

FWIW, in the making of 'Far and Away,' they had to film the Oklahoma land run of 1889 in Montana for the same reasons. Montana still has wide open spaces a la OK of 1889, but present-day OK does not.

[–] Coco1997 14 years ago

I saw the movie at the theater when it came out and didn’t realize (back then), that it had been filmed in Romania. At that time, I had never been to the south (I have since been to Georgia) and I thought it was filmed in North Carolina, since I was unfamiliar with its terrain. After later reading that, for budget reasons, it wasn’t filmed in North Carolina (or even in the southern U.S.), I must admit I was disappointed.

Even though I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and still consider it to be one of my favorites, it lost some authenticity for me, because it wasn’t filmed in the south. When I watch it now, I do get slightly distracted with the scenery. Because I am thinking about where it was filmed, as opposed to where it was supposed to have taken place.

Don’t get me wrong, though, I still love this movie and watch it every chance I get! For purposes of believability, I just try to put aside its actual location in my mind.

[–] bryanac625 14 years ago

I didn't like it either that it was filmed in Romania. I think it most certainly could have been done in the US. So many other Civil War films (Gods & Generals, Andersonville, Gettysburg, Glory, the Hunley, the Day Lincoln Was Shot) were filmed in this country. But, it was the producer's decision to make, so it is what it is.