What Happened to the Far Flung Locations of Film?
Filed under: Classics, Fan Rant

This is one of those posts that will see me called out as wrong, or state something painfully obvious, but you can't blame a girl for trying.
I've mentioned before that I've been watching a lot of film noir. Naturally, those kinds of Netflix searches lead one to watching a lot of fedora-filled films, and revisiting anything of Alfred Hitchcock's that happens to be online. Watching everything from Gilda to The Man Who Knew Too Much in a very short period of time has led me to jump to a silly conclusion --film locations used to be a lot more exotic. The films of the 1930s, '40s, 50s, and even 60s are set in all kinds of fabulous locations: Brazil, Buenos Aires, Shang-Hai, Istanbul, Cannes, Casablanca. Characters travel languidly and carelessly to all four corners of the Earth without thinking too much of it, which is pretty remarkable in a time when few people left their hometown, let alone their country.
Most of these "locations" are never seen, of course. (A huge exception is always Hitchcock, who plunks everyone right there on the streets of Istanbul or Rio de Janeiro) I don't think there's anything remotely Argentinian about Gilda (the South American casino looks like it reused the walls of Tara), but it oozes exoticism all the same. You never see the Shang-Hai of The Lady From Shang-Hai, but the fact that the blonde beauty speaks fluent Chinese just adds that extra bit of mystery. Plus that film sees them sailing all over the place via the Panama Canal, as if that's something everyone with a yacht does every summer. But even if the exotic locales are nothing more than a name drop or a bunch of stock footage, it makes the film far more sensual than if it's simply set in San Fransisco or Miami.
I've mentioned before that I've been watching a lot of film noir. Naturally, those kinds of Netflix searches lead one to watching a lot of fedora-filled films, and revisiting anything of Alfred Hitchcock's that happens to be online. Watching everything from Gilda to The Man Who Knew Too Much in a very short period of time has led me to jump to a silly conclusion --film locations used to be a lot more exotic. The films of the 1930s, '40s, 50s, and even 60s are set in all kinds of fabulous locations: Brazil, Buenos Aires, Shang-Hai, Istanbul, Cannes, Casablanca. Characters travel languidly and carelessly to all four corners of the Earth without thinking too much of it, which is pretty remarkable in a time when few people left their hometown, let alone their country.
Most of these "locations" are never seen, of course. (A huge exception is always Hitchcock, who plunks everyone right there on the streets of Istanbul or Rio de Janeiro) I don't think there's anything remotely Argentinian about Gilda (the South American casino looks like it reused the walls of Tara), but it oozes exoticism all the same. You never see the Shang-Hai of The Lady From Shang-Hai, but the fact that the blonde beauty speaks fluent Chinese just adds that extra bit of mystery. Plus that film sees them sailing all over the place via the Panama Canal, as if that's something everyone with a yacht does every summer. But even if the exotic locales are nothing more than a name drop or a bunch of stock footage, it makes the film far more sensual than if it's simply set in San Fransisco or Miami.
Of course, that's why they did it. To pre and postwar moviegoers, nothing could be more exotic than a story set in Brazil or Cannes. I imagine few people stuck in tiny Midwestern towns* had even heard of those places prior to the lights going down in their theaters, and they wouldn't even question the authenticity of a setting or the people's business there. They're kind of like the "foreign" scenes of Team America and based purely on stereotypes and myths, and shaped around what audiences imagined those places to be like.
Nowadays, Hollywood doesn't bother with that kind of thing. It's too expensive, for one thing. Why set something abroad when Toronto can stand in for any city in America? Why does it matter? A story is a story. Plus, the world has become smaller, people globe-hop as much as film noir characters ever did (though not with as much style), and moviegoers are more sophisticated. You can't fake Buenos Aires with just four casino walls and an alley. It's also rather fraught with peril. If you set a film in Argentina or Shang-Hai, you better show it, represent local culture, and do it all with reverence or run the risk of having people complain that it insinuated something nasty about the place. Let me stress that I don't want to see stereotypes, but hey, right now most foreign locations are used purely because there is rampant war, terrorism, drugs, and sexual slavery present. Wouldn't it be nice to have a movie showcasing an African or Middle Eastern country that lacked those problems?
But I wish they'd bring back all those lush, exotic locations even if it was just via old fashioned name-dropping. That's what makes the Bond, Bourne, and Transporter films so darn addicting -- they stray from Toronto, London, and New York into genuinely interesting and attractive places. Why not set more stories in Moscow, Casablanca, or Cairo? Even if you had to resort to stock footage and sets, at least it would be different, and be vaguely more romantic than seeing Montreal or Toronto again. It would be nice to see foreign locations that weren't disupted by shaky-cam, disguised into another city, or framing war or the sex trade. People clearly love seeing far-flung locales -- much of the praise directed at Mamma Mia! was because of its Grecian backdrop, same with Under the Tuscan Sun and the recent Angels and Demons. If nothing else, we could stand to see a little more of the world because its getting smaller, and it would do moviegoers good to see something outside of a Chicago street.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
8-17-2009 @ 7:17PM
General Zod said...
District 9
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 8:05PM
JamesRyanHamm said...
I've been thinking the same thing since Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. The first three films benefited from on-location filming, sweeping vistas, exotic locales that lived, breathed, and sweat—while the latest looked awful with its cheesy, CGI-enhanced soundstages.
Some filmmakers are still filming on-location for realistic settings but too many, and many who should know better, seem dependent on the technology.
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 8:10PM
Nicolás said...
Something you can take account is that people from all around the globe sees american movies. They spend money on seeing this movies too, and sometimes is nice to see something remotely familiar to the place you live. Altough it has some risk, like the complete inaccuracy in: settings, story, etc you can see in films like Evita. Also there is, like you say, the fantasy for the exotic and adventure.
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 8:32PM
donutduty said...
Watch "Made in China" which won the Grand Jury Best Narrative Feature at SXSW 09. Shot entirely on location in Shanghai. An indie feature that shows a side of Shanghai that you will never see in any Hollywood production.
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 8:54PM
AgatheAthena said...
But the thing to remember is that Noir and Hitchcock films were unusual in their day for their exotic locations. Most average movies took place in the same locations that most of our average movies do - in an average city or town that could be anywhere. Noir films, because they often were detective stories, lend themselves well to globe-trotting in search of truth. So it is with modern thrillers and spy movies and who-dun-its, Bond and Bourne are world-travelers and so are their movies.
Filming outside of the US can go 2 ways. First way is that it is often pricey because so far out of the way of civilization or so dangerous that studios can't get insurance to cover it (why do you think Morocco stands in for the Middle East so much?). And since it is pricey often only big blockbusters can afford to globe-trot with their locations; so this summer we have seen "Transformers 2" in Egypt & Petra and "Angels & Demons" in Rome.
In the case of a few cities it is can be economical to film abroad because everything is cheap as they are hoping to encourage more movie making (Prague is very popular right now for this reason; that and it looks gorgeous). And so this summer we have seen "The Brothers Bloom" which is a globe-trotting who-dun-it that is filmed almost entirely in Prague, with Prague filling in for all those far-off places. Even "GI Joe", the real American hero movie, was filmed mostly in Prague.
Besides there is a large portion of the population that gets excited seeing their city on the big screen. Part of my interest in watching "The Lookout" a couple years back was that it took place in Kansas City, where I once lived. Unfortunately it was actually filmed in Toronto, and so looked nothing like KC. But I know of others from NY or LA who enjoy seeing their city/neighborhood/burrough up on the big screen.
I'm like you and enjoy seeing the exotic locals, but I'd rather have them as unusual and not in every film, otherwise they would get boring. And we don't want exotic to be boring, do we?
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 9:07PM
NP said...
I dunno, the whole exoticism angle is kind of just xenophobia dressed up a bit, isn't/wasn't it?
While it'd be nice to see some American pictures shot in other locales around the world, I also have to say that part of the joy of watching foreign films is that you get go to a different place, experience a different culture, etc.
Reply
8-17-2009 @ 11:00PM
Astin said...
What Agathe up there said - taking a subset of films that were made to take place in "foreign" countries is hardly a solid basis for an argument.
Besides, as you said, most of those films were filmed in a studio. Casablanca never went farther than Arizona.
The majority of AMERICAN movies are still set in the US, like they always have been. But within the last couple years, there are a bunch of big-name films that have taken place in "exotic" locales. Be they actioners, sci-fi, spy thrillers, war movies, or, like The Brothers Bloom, quirky heist films. I think you may be lamenting the shortage of film noir and mysteries more than the locales they were set in.
If you want to see movies set in locations other than North America or Western Europe, try watching more foreign films. Most of them are set in their own countries. Pick your desired locale, and grab a film made there.
Oh, and I think this is the first time I've ever seen Shanghai spelled that way. "The Lady From Shanghai" doesn't have the hyphen, nor does the government website for the city...
Reply
8-18-2009 @ 9:39AM
CParis said...
"I think you may be lamenting the shortage of film noir and mysteries more than the locales they were set in."
Agree!
Generic bromances, teen musicals, etc don't need an "exotic" setting to make the story work.
8-18-2009 @ 12:29AM
Chupacabra said...
I agree with you 100%, and I have had the exact same thoughts after watching a Bond or Transporter movie.
Reply
8-18-2009 @ 1:08PM
djkorova1 said...
Transformers 2!!!
:)
Reply
8-18-2009 @ 2:19PM
Furious D said...
It strikes me that most of the films that bother to travel and really use their locations are the Bond films. If you look at a lot of old movies there was always a healthy number of European set thrillers where dashing heroes and heroines chase and are chased among exotic locales.
Lately, a lot of films go to foreign locals to blow up, or tear down a landmark for a big FX set-piece, and not much else that appreciates the location.
Reply
8-18-2009 @ 2:47PM
Carly said...
I agree - Lately when a movie begins, I take note of the establishing shots and realize that it is either taking place in New York or in LA (for the most part). I absolutely love being able to recognize my city on the big screen, as AgatheAthena mentions, but I don't always watch movies to be reminded of what is familiar.
Astin's argument to just "watch more foreign films" seems to be missing the point. Typical American moviegoers are only exposed to the big Hollywood hits in their local theaters - which showcase the violence/war/terrorism rather than the beauty of the culture. I think there would be a strong audience of people interested in seeing that joy and laughter exists in, say, Africa, rather than just war and famine and AIDS.
Reply
8-18-2009 @ 5:15PM
eric said...
Many foreign locales no longer look foreign. I've been an avid traveler for 20+ years, and more and more McDonald's, Starbucks etc. have been sucking the unique character out of cities all over the world. I'm still all for movies shooting on location, but paying extra to shoot in Shanghai then having to digitally erase dozens of unsightly Americanizations must seem like more trouble than staying in LA and simply green-screening it.
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 5:48AM
Justin Michaels said...
nice post Elisabeth - I agree with JamesRyanHamm above when he laments the lack of atmosphere in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I always thought Speilberg and Lucas should have brought him back to Europe, the Venice sequence in Last Crusade really gave the film oomph.
However, setting a film somewhere far away does not automatically make it better - Transformers 2 and Quantum of Solace are cases in point, the latter flitted so quickly across the world from location to location that I quickly stopped caring about the story. The last two Bourne films do this well because they spend some time in each location and allow you to soak up the surroundings.
What you seem to be yearning for is more American movies to take you to locations outside America. There is a simple solution to this: just watch some films not set in America.
It is nice though when you see a familiar place on screen - I got very excited recently when I finally got round to watching Withnail And I and realised the road where Richard E Grant shouts out 'Scrubbers!' at some schoolgirls is on my bus route...
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 10:58AM
Paul said...
I agree that most american films rarely stray, but I think that it doesn't take much effort to find recent films that used non-US locations well. In Bruges and Slumdog Millionaire both delved into interesting locations not on the radar of most americans.
And I enjoyed the first 10-15 minutes of the latest Hulk film, which I believe was Brazil. I don't know if they really shot there, but the banks of tightly packed houses made for interesting setting.
But the Bourne films have been the best recently, the Morrocco scenes in Ultimatum where thrilling because of the direction and the location, a perfect fusion!
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 11:22AM
Scott said...
A couple good movies for this would be Wes Anderson's The Life Aquatic and the Darjeeling Limited. Both were shot on location and both locations are a big part of the movies.
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 12:52PM
tj said...
This year: just American films, just those that broke the top ten at least once, working backwards...
Inglourious Basterds
District 9
Gi Joe
Julie and Julia
Harry Potter
Transformers 2
(Year One)
Angels and Demons
My Life in Ruins
Wolverine
Duplicity
Taken
Slumdog Millionaire
Street Fighter:Chun Li
The International
The Pink Panther 2
Benjamin Button
Defiance
Valkyrie
That's essentially one film with some globe trotting in it every two weeks so far this year. How many more would you like before you hail the return of the far flung location? :)
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 12:58PM
tj said...
Oops, "Taken" was French. I'm sure some people will balk at District 9, but two of its three production co.'s were American, so it stays on the list...
8-25-2009 @ 1:47PM
Matter Eater Lad said...
You want an exotic locale in a film?
Watch "Jar City", the first film I've seen from Iceland- a completely absorbing police procedural involving a murder linked to events 30 years past.
As good as the story is, it is the scenery that takes center stage in my mind. Indeliable images of stark, alien-like landscapes.
My comment to a fellow viewer was, "This makes me feel like living on Venus might be a little more fun."
Don't think about it, just see it. Highly recommended. You won't, you can't, forget it......
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 4:37PM
mj said...
Try living in LA. That can really spoil it for you. There is nothing I hate more than watching a film/television show that is supposed to be set in NY or Chicago and seeing a street I recognize or a palm tree lurking hazily in the background. Drives me nuts and yanks me right out of the film.
Funny thing is, film makers seem to think no one lives in any of these places or will recognize them on the screen. I remember Thomas Crowne walking to his office on Wall Street with a view of the Brooklyn Bridge. Unfortunately he walked from the Metropolitan Museum which is up on 96th St and 5th Avenue. Even at a good clip it would have taken most of the morning to get there.
Reply