It is interesting from a movie-making point of view which method of portraying a bear attack is more effective; the one used in this movie or the one used in the Revenant.
In this movie you never actually see the bear sink its teeth into the victim, and the shots from below the bear in which the bear towers over with its head pointed up, bloody mouth open, emitting horrible growls I thought were the most fake parts. They do this shot more than once and the head is too still. I just had the feeling (though don't know for sure how they did it) that for that part there was some guy just off camera holding a bear head on the end of a stick. The victims' reactions, I thought, were what made the scene effective. And of course movie makeup has achieved new heights in doing wounds and dismemberment.
In the Revenent's bear attack we have those shots of the bear, while on top of Leonardo, sinking his teeth into him. And, because of the different way it was done, the bear always seems to be there and alive. But, does it always seem like a bear? I don't know. Unfortunately I had read or watched something on how this bear attack was shot, and I couldn't stop thinking about that, which ruined it a little for me. I knew they had filmed a guy acting like a bear and then CGIed in a bear. Wish I had watched the scene without thinking about a guy in a bear suit ("cgi suit"). But still think was a really effective scene and Leonardo was great in it.
Which scene was more effective? I might be prejudiced about judging one scene because I loved Revenant, but I think Revenant's scene way more effective (and probably cost waaaay more, even after deducting Leonardo's salary).
reply
share