Crucifixion!!!

[DEHON]

Hi!, We're in the pre-production of a budget film titled: "One of you must betray me", about five last days of Christ from Judas point of view.
The problem is... CRUCIFIXION...

How could I film the moment in which Jesus is nailed to the cross?, because we want to show, at least, one of the nails in the moment of cross the hand (or wrist)

3D? Some mechanical trick?

Thanks in advance!

By the way, the Official site (in spanish):
http://unodevosotros.dehonproducciones.com

[lpcvideo1]

Actually, we are doing something similar--just some quick shots for a short. I think we will just cut away to suggest it.

You could rotoscope it, with the hammer hitting a metal brace around the wrist.

Or, you could always pay your actor a little something extra, I suppose. :shocked:

[Gopher_Greene]

Make a gel mold and drive a nail throguh it up close then cut back to the wide view of the actor with a fake nail in his wrist.

[DEHON]

Hum! Nice ideas! Someone more?

(When we shot I promise to show it)

Thanks!

[Michael Carter]

Some thoughts if you use a molded hand (a prosthetic or prop one would probably be fine).

Unless you have a real pro supplying you, the odds of looking fake are high; but this could look more real if the hand is smeared with dirt and dried blood (less reliance on good skin tone and translucency, y'know).

Dress your actor's hand with dirt/blood (heck, supposedly JC took a real whuppin' before they ever got out the stanley 2lb framer, right??). Take a polaroid of that, and dress the fake hand as EXACTLY as possible. I assume some badass centurion is holding his wrist/arm down? That could be where you hide the "end" of your prop.

Then, think about what YOU would do when a nail busts through your palm or wrist (gives a whole new take on the "wwjd" thing, huh?) You're going to jerk, your fingers will clench, etc. If there's a DIY way to manipulate the fingers of the fake, maybe with rods from behind, drilled through holes in a prop section of the cross), and then quickly cut to a closeup of a real hand clenching, as a prop hammer strikes the same blow. A couple fast cuts (hammer hits nail in prop hand, the prop hammer finishes the blow on real hand) could be appropriate here, as this will be an emotionally pitched scene and we're used to cameras moving in tighter as tension rises).

Finally, a slow shutter will blur things nicely, add to the immediacy, and mask your tricks. Finish it off with a big, boomy THUMP in your audio... get into protools/etc and create a thunderous boom to sell it; you might want to align this with a beat or stab in the music, too.

Please remember they didn't have Home Depot back then, and nails were more like big chunks of tapered steel. Which should look scarier than modern-nails, too. I imagine hammers were pretty bulky, and the handle was more of a rough stick than today's ergonomic shapes...

(Or go the tarentino route, and have a pressurized hose with about 12 gallons of blood in there somewhere.... PSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTT!) (Sorry, I watched "Kill Bill" last night!)

[tradur]

I would take the other route . Use a real hand, but devise a fake collapsable nail. sort of like the old fake telescopic knife . if shot from the correct angle , even very close up the nail should look real. easy enough to add the blood squirting though the bottom of the nail as it is depressed.. perhaps you could start with an antenna and cut it up , dress it up with solder , paint it etc. I think I could do it, so you could to. every one would be focusing on the hand, trying to see if it looked fake, they will not be focused on a "fake nail".

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I would take a 3rd route.

First I would ask:

Why do I want to show it in the first place / do I need to show that / does showing it have anything to do with my story and whether it does or not is showing it the most impactful way to tell that story?

I would cut to a shot where you couldn't see it and sell it with sound fx and the actors performance.

Unless this piece is somehow about the gorey mistreatment of Jesus's body vs. about the sacrifice he made, how he bore it, or as your title would suggest "betrayal" I can't think of a reason to show it beyond gore as titalation.

Not that I think Jesus is someone whom you could never make a film about where you show him getting beaten and abused in gory detail, it just seems like filmmakers are in a race to win the goriest crucifcition award.

If your story is about Betrayal have Pontius Pilot be unable to watch as the nail goes in and cut to that with a horrific sound effect.

Or since your title says "must betray" ... IF that goes along the tact that Judas was actually being loyal to Jesus by protraying his part in the betrayal, then (depending on how much license you are taking elsewhere) have Judas in earshot of the nailing and cut to him not being able to bear it as we hear the squish and yells of agony, or raise the hammer and then cut at the moment of impact to a seen where Judas is deeling with the weight of carrying out the betrayal (for example)

If you cut away on that in a movie about Jesus I wouldn't think "low budget" or "they couldn't figure out how to get that" ... I wouldn't think twice about it if I was envolved in teh story, but if I did I would just think "restraint" or about whatever you chose to show me instead as it helps to tell your story.

I'm not a gore prude (see Shed on my website in my siganture). When I go see a horror movie there better be plenty of carnage.

But I wouldn't gore up BUddha or Jesus or Mohhamed or Ghandi, etc. unless it hilighted the center theme of my film. You can get "horrible dehumanizing experience" on film without showing anything as per the rape scene in Deliverance.

My 2 ¢.

- Jack

[tradur]

id have to agree wtih a lot of that, sound is very effective and carefully planned scene will convince anyone. I'm amazed when I watch bourne movies. how simplistic and believable each scene is. sound , lighting, acting , writing can do wonders.

[tradur]

a great finish for that shot would also be a drop or 2 of blood hitting the dirt, close up , slowmo , watch the splatter as it deflects off the soil. theres your blood.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Yeah I thought about some thing like that
... what if you had the cross layed out on two work horse like (but period) supports like a table.

Then as the guy begins to work on Jesus, find some way to motivate a downward camera move (or just cut to the ground as you said) and show the blood pooling there or drops of it hitting the floor as we hear the torture.

[tradur]

one more trick you can try also is take a nail and paint the bottom 1/3 to match the color of the hand. when you hold that nail inbetween the 2 middle fingers and shoot from an angle t(where the camera is placed on the side the fingers are pointing) you will see the nail appears to be sticking in the hand, or stopping at the hand. this may help if you want an after shot which shows the nail in the hand. actually sticking in the wood but appearing to be sticking in the hand.

[Baluardo]

if i recall correctly, in "the passion of Christ" they did something much simpler yet effective:
real hand, real nail, real hammer. closeup of the action, and in the moment the hammer would hit the nail, cut to another shot from the bottom of the wood, where the nail comes out.

(they also actually did something pretty ridicoulous there: some amount of blood came out from the other side of the wood..)

Andrea

[Beat Takeshi]

Yeah thats what i was about to post. Have the shot of the nail coming out the back of the wood. I would shoot it from the side though, not straight on because then you can drip some blood down the nail and not get it on the camera.

[DEHON]

Finally, we choose to show the cross from a low p.o.v., then we show the nail breaking wood.
No need to show Jesus hand.
About need or not need to show Jesus "gore"... please... please... his death was gore. Stop politically correction, please.

Thanks to all.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I don't like being labelled P.C.

I was questiong that showing the nail penetrating was the first place you went and asking how it served your story and was wondering why.

...Maybe that wasn't the first place you went, maybe you thought about it extensively ...

-- now you've decided that either another route does indeed serve your story better ... or ... you've just copped out and done something easier.

Nobody ever said his death wasn't gore. Maybe there's a language problem cuz if you read my post carefully you'd have known that.
I talked about a film where a guy gets raped up the butanza and is forced to squeal like a pig and how nothing was shown and its very disturbing.

If you were filmming that scene would you say "We have to show the penis going in to tha man's anus because rape IS disturbing"?

...there's a differnce between being politically correct and knowing who your audience is.

I love it on South Park when Jesus gets in the ring with Santa Clause and has his ass handed to him. Or when Jesus goes up against David Blane and again has his ass handed to him.

Funny, and not very PC at all.

But who's you're audience for this movie and what story are trying tell?
That's what I was asking. But I am being concerned with story and audience - especially given that there are quite a few Christians out there who will be willing to see or picket your movie. I guess when you look at it like that it doesn't matter, one way you'll get audience and the other you'll getr publicity. Man you are so right. Don't concern yourself with this a potentially sensitive subject --

If your audience is an arthouse audience or is the same as southpark then nail away while sticking dildos in each of christs orrifices. Have a blast.

[tradur]

dehon I dont take his comments like that at all. I thought he meant strictly from a deeper point of view. showing a straight shot in a very common scene is hardly doing the deed justice. I felt his input was taking it to a more unexplored level and from a different perspective more related to the theme of your movie. blood and pain doesnt necessarily connect judas to the act . Jack merely thought of a way to tie him in and work around the cleched scene of driving a nail into the hand. Why do whats already been done? why not do it different, more original and creative imo.
jmho

[Baluardo]

About need or not need to show Jesus "gore"... please... please... his death was gore. Stop politically correction, please.

i agree with that, but showing all the internal organs coming to the outside and lakes of blood (in a quite unrealistic way i gotta say) here and there, like mel gibson did, won't make your film better.
I understand you wanna impress the audience, but after 10 minutes of speculation on physical pain, in the Passion of Christ, personally i started getting bored and annoyed..

Andrea

[DEHON]

But don't go labelling people that are trying to be helpful when you come into their forum and ask questions.

P.C. is something wrong?
Oh!, then forgive me...

Ok, you´ve your p.o.v. and I´ve the mine.

Thank you for help me.

Next chance, when I read "Help me to shoot a car crash" I´ll write: "No, isn´t necessary, shoot the family in funeral."

I know is not necessary to shot "gore", but... it´s my film... I only want to shoot below my own style.

But thanks, perhaps my bad english have betrayed my mind.

Thanks again.

Oh!, about P.C.?... I´m P.C., What the matter?

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Well P.C. (political correctness) is a good idea in and of itself.
But, here at least, it also can carry a stigma of being too picky or sensitive.
Also I think we are a little post P.C. nowadays, most black people say "black" instead of "African American" and its not a big deal for a white person to use that term where that wasn't necessarily the case 10 years ago.

We were (I was) reacting the fact that a lot of people put thought into their responses and were coming from a filmmaking and story telling perspective and their responses were seemingly dismissed as being unsophisticated, closed minded, and knee jerk (too PC) rather than actually being concerned with story and the desired effect in the scene.

No big deal though.

Looking at my post now weeks later I overreacted some.

[Policar]

There's a magazine (I forget which but it's a major special effects magazine) that had an issue that outlined all the tricks Gibson used on Passion of the Christ in their er...gory detail. Actually very weird stuff and a lot of greenscreening. I forget the issue, unfortunately, but if you find it it will save you a lot of trouble I'm sure.