“The Incredible Shrinking Woman” is a Lily Tomlin movie released most of forty years ago in February 1981. Having learnt of its existence, I had to see for myself whether the reports are true. And the answer, obvious within the first few minutes, is yes; it’s dangerously cheesy. As there would clearly be no higher merits, I adopted the curbivore’s version of I-only-read-it-for-the-articles and settled in to spot cars.
Early on, a white ’78-’79 Chev Monte Carlo belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Main Character made a brief frontal appearance in the background. Something about its headlamps seemed a little off (believe it or don’t, I tend to notice such things). Later the car appeared again, still inconsequentially, but this time in the foreground—that’s the pic you see above; click for larger. Yep, thought so: someone removed the original large rectangular sealed beams and installed small rectangular H4 lamps—whaddya mean you can’t tell what brand? Take a look; they’re obviously Cibié units! Like, duh!—carefully centred in the original location.
Um…what? Why?
The white Monte Carlo was an incidental anymobile. It barely had a cameo role, and could have just as easily been a Volaré or a Fairmont or an Eagle or pretty much anything else. So this was not a modification intended to alter the car in some way relevant to the film. Not like the Wagon Queen Family Truckster’s oct-headlamp system installed for outlandish comic effect in 1983’s “National Lampoon’s Vacation”…
…or the, um, the, uh, the modified station wagons from 1980’s “The Apple”:
Those cars, notably their lights, were clearly modified for purposes of LOOKIT MEEE in their respective movies. That’s not so with the Monte Carlo (or any of the other cars) in TISW, so why?
The only explanations I could come up with are far-fetched from pretty damn deep into the world of vehicle lighting minutiæ: the 2-per-side small rectangular headlamps, 165mm wide × 100mm tall (about 6.5″ × 4″) were first permitted on 1 January 1974, but the 1-per-side large rectangular lamps, 200mm wide × 142mm tall (about 8″ × 5.5″) weren’t allowed until 1 November 1976. Okeh, well, was the movie filmed somewhere in Europe? If so, it’s (barely) plausible that an early-production ’78 Monte Carlo could have been exported before European-type headlamps were available in the new large rectangular size. And Cibié supplied most of the headlamps GM put on European exports of US cars. And exactly this headlamp swap, small in place of large, was factory-done on certain YJ (’87-’95) Jeep Wranglers sent to Europe. But nope, IMDB quashes that idea; the movie was filmed in California.
So maybe the car belonged to some Californian with such a rabid preference for European headlamps that they did this bodge-job rather than wait for large rectangular H4 conversion lamps to sneak their way into the United States? No, that really can’t be it, either. A movie released in early ’81 would’ve been filmed in ’79-’80, when the roads and car lots were awash in ’78-’79 Monte Carlos—no need to pluck some headlamp-fixated owner’s modified unit or accept a not-quite-stock example for a picture car. And besides, the California Highway Patrol took a dim view of nonstandard headlamps at that time; such a car would’ve been a ticket magnet.
So as far as technically-based explanations, I got nothin’ that’ll hold any water or weight. I’m left to guess that The Incredible Shrinking Headlamps were a quiet little contextual joke, an easter egg waiting to be found four decades later by one of the approximately three people in the world who might ever notice and care enough to pick at the thread.
Alright, your turn: what have you seen in the way of unexplained modifications to cars incidentally appearing in movies? While you’re thinking about it, here’s a clearer pic of one of the very-not-incidental Boogelow wagons in “The Apple”:
I’m not a filmmaker but I have heard that lighting is sometimes altered on cars using special bulbs for night shots so the camera isn’t washed out by the strong focused beams of standard headlights. Given this is 1981 and square headlights were still relatively new, perhaps these were the closest fit the studio had to use. There are examples of this where rounds are substituted for rectangular quads around this time too, most notably The Shining with the 78 Riviera Dick Hallorann drove in the snow storm
Definitely not it—no night shots of this car, and all the other cars in the movie have standard lights, even at night.
It still might an explanation.
There are often boatloads of unused footage in a movie, which is where the editors earn their keep. Anything from plot bits that turn out to be non-sequiturs when filmed to studio arguments to film damage can mean entire sequences go west, so maybe there WAS some night scene now forever lost to antiquity (though you’d think a set of Cibies would exacerbate any problems as well as melting the cheese).
Otherwise, I’m buggered if I know. It’s passing strange. Even to a non-US viewer for whom the finer points of a Monte Carlo aren’t familiar, it looks noticeably odd, making the car’s eyes appear tired.
Also could have been used in another movie or show where the retrofit took place.
That’s my guess. I know there are companies that provide film studios with old cars to use in films set in the past, and I’m guessing this car had been used for another movie where there were night scenes with the Monte, and the Cibies were installed so their sharp cutoff would send less glaring light into the camera lens.
I’m not a professional cinematographer, but I am still really sure that’s not it. In the first place, the Monte wasn’t an old car when this movie was made; it was a damn-near-new one. And at distances and angles most relevant to filming, there’s very little difference between the luminance of an H4 headlamp versus a sealed beam headlamp (I haven’t stopped being amazed at how many variants of cutoff mythology exist). Moreover, there have been far too many ordinary, unmodified sealed beam headlamps in far too many movies and TV shows for this change-to-H4s-for-the-camera strategy to be an actual thing. It is amusing, though (okeh, maybe just to me) how the camera makes even pre-halogen sealed beams look like they’re giving off a bright blue-white light.
Anyhow, we’re conflating two questions here; no matter how come smaller headlamps might have been swapped in, why H4s instead of sealed beams? Maybe because an H4 will and a small rectangular sealed beam won’t operate correctly when plugged into a socket originally meant for a large rectangular (or large round, or small round) high/low sealed beam.
Back in the day studios had lots full of a wide range of vehicles for use in their productions. Cars would be recycled, once it was done for a particular movie/show it would go back to the lot to be ready for the next time it fit the need.
Standard intensity headlights do mess with the camera. The reason to use the “euro” H4 bulbs is to allow an easy way to change the lamp to fit the situation and get the desired look(s). Then when done they can easily be returned to functioning if needed.
Just not ringin’ for me; I’m still calling {{citation required}} on this idea that H4 headlamps are somehow more cinemagenic or less problematic than sealed beams. There is an enormous mountain of evidence to the contrary (TV shows and movies containing cars with sealed beams) as well as solid operational theory (no luminance difference between H4 and sealed beam at film-relevant angles and distances). And what are these appearance changes we imagine making to the lamps’ on-camera appearance by swapping the bulb?
I realized right after I entered my earlier post that was a 1979 car in a 1981 film so they’d still be commonplace. Anyway, nothing mythological about the sharp low-beam cutoff if the rectangular Hella H4 low beams I bought in the ’80s (and still have) are any indication; they gave off bright, even illumination that abruptly stopped aways out, unlike the sealed beams they replaced that put out a bright spot with much dimmer light surrounding it, overall looking unfocused. The Hellas looked notably less bright and glaring when viewed from above (especially above and from the driver’s side) than typical sealed beams of the day.
No, of course the cutoff itself isn’t mythological, but this what you’re ascribing to it is (newly added) on the list of things people mistakenly think a low-beam cutoff does.
Simple, dangle a 194 in that housing and it will be lit up but it won’t be putting out so much light that it causes wash out.
Interesting idea. I would be fascinated to learn (from someone who actually did it) that it’s actually been done.
There is an enormous mountain of evidence to the contrary (TV shows and movies containing cars with sealed beams) as well as solid operational theory (no luminance difference between H4 and sealed beam at film-relevant angles and distances). And what are these appearance changes we imagine making to the lamps’ on-camera appearance by swapping the bulb?
If I were to take a wild guess I’d say it’s the difference between filming extras in the background and the stars. Not everyone in the background needs makeup and tailored wardrobe when they’re not in closeups, same presumably applies to lighting. If you’re trying to get a night shot of a car with its lights on and simultaneously see the car close up crisp and clear, this is where low output bulbs or tint films are deemed necessary.
Another example from Used Cars
One just has to look at the pictures Matt posted to see that those headlights are not standard issue, no way would you see the details of the first car he posted if those were standard lights on high beam as they would like you to believe by showing 4 lit bulbs.
Reminds me of something Jason Torchinsky at Jalopnik pointed out about Season 1 of Stranger Things; the kids’ bike headlights had amber gels put in them to alter the color temperature from the characteristic bluish-white of LEDs to the yellowish tinge of the non-halogen incandescent bulbs they would’ve been in the ’80s.
And then the production company left them in for the daytime shots. All of them. And now you, too, will never unsee them. Should’ve done it digitally in post-production…
The Apple is a hoot and a half. It’s a totally bonkers movie which I had no idea anyone else remembered from that long ago.
As a teenage kid in Australia, I truly did not then realize that the family truckster in Vacation was modified! Malaiseville was surely not the finest hour of US styling when such a many-eyed face could pass as credible to the car nut as yet untutored in the finer points of US wheels.
Peter Weir is a successful Australian film director who went on to make Dead Poets Society, Green Card and The Truman Show amongst other things in Hollywood, but began here (natch) with a bizarre film called The Cars That Ate Paris. It’s a quite-compelling oddball horror effort, with many cars modified in ways that certainly give rise to the QOTD.
Might add, Daniel, it’s guaranteed to get your attention for longer than Ms T’s incredible shrinking, and it’s possibly worth a viewing by a number of the Curbsiders here (if you can find It), especially if you have any liking for the original Mad Max.
I tried to watch it—I really did—but I failed.
No doubt.
It’s many, many moons since callow youth when I saw it as a cult film in some late-night flea pit, possibly when I might have been under the influence of a long night preceding….
I sort of expected it to be like “Fritz the Cat” (1972), a movie which brings along its own drugs so it probably doesn’t matter what the viewer has or hasn’t taken.
The Cars that Ate Paris was on TV not so long ago. Very difficult to watch, kept falling asleep. Wanted 2 hours of my life back. The only image I recall was the Beetle with the spikes, something I remember from advertising for the film when it was released when I was very young.
Hard to believe that the same director was responsible for a masterpiece; Picnic At Hanging Rock.
Seen multiple movies with nighttime scenes in which the car turns off its lights and it is immediately apparent that the lights have been tinted or smoked so as obviously not to wash out the film with too much brightness. I think this was the case in The last action hero but not totally sure. The steven king movie Christine substituted what I later found out where aircraft landing lights in the number of scenes with the fury. Regarding the Monte Carlo in that movie what the heck? Not enough to make a non enthusiast notice the difference but a flaming red flag to all of us geeks here
As a medic, I’ve always been fond of the movie Mother Jugs and Speed. While it is pretty cheesy, it’s also fairly accurate as to how EMS was at the time. The ambulance has some extra headlights for effect too.
I know why they did this lighting package (Here comes the biggest pimp in New York), but it’s my favorite movie modification.
oh sh!t! this pic has made the rounds a few weeks ago on social media. I didn’t realize it was from a movie!
My lighting pet peeve is how there is a huge glow coming from the dash that conveniently lights up the faces of the actors as they sit in a car at night. Of course I understand why they do it, but still always strikes me how unrealistic it is.
I remember going to see The Incredibly Shrinking Woman in the theater as a kid. My parents were big Lily Tomlin fans. Needless to say, I didn’t notice the headlights. I’m sure I would today. That screen shot above makes it very obvious to car spotters like us.
I file that dashboard floodlight up (down) there with magic computer screens that project their image onto the user’s face, and magic bedroom lights that change from white to blue when turned off.
That’s right up there with space movies or deep sea movies where the helmets have lights inside the helmet shining on the actors’ faces. You wouldn’t be able to see a darned thing outside the helmet with a setup like that.
I’ll move from headlights to windows for my big one. The 1967 movie Tony Rome starred Frank Sinatra as a Florida private eye. He drove a blue 1961 Ford Galaxie convertible. That, for some reason, was missing the front ventpane windows. Totally removed. Like no car ever.
Close up
They did the same thing on the Sanford and Son truck, no vent windows. I’m glad that guys don’t wear those yachting skipper hats anymore. They were so goofy.
On Sanford and Son (and very likely in Tony Rome, too), the vent windows were probably removed to give the camera an unobstructed view of the stars who were driving the vehicles.
Yes, yes, Mr C, but how good does that look!
The Challenger in Death Proof has framed door glass. The only thing I can think of is that they were added for safety for stunts
These were added for a specific stun that was done in the movie, called “Ship’s Mast”. In the movie, belts are attached to the door frames and the girl climbs out on the roof of the car at speed, and holds on to the belts, slides down tot he hood and rides the car at high speed. Without the door frames added to the Challenger, that stunt couldn’t have happened.
And the reason that the Challenger was used was because this New Zealand girl had always wnated to drive a Vanishing Point Challenger.
…and Carrie Fisher’s Grand Prix in The Blues Brothers has always bothered me. Its barely a 3 year old car in the movie but the front end is torn up. The damage doesn’t look like ‘natural’ Chicago traffic and parking dents and it looks like it was purposely added by the producers as part of the story line but they never show why in the movie, including any of the deleted scenes
I agree, this damage always bothered me too. It is just to artificial and too significant to just be standard road rash. It kind of looks like someone purposely cut out sections of the header. Maybe Carrie Fisher got a little wild with her flamethrower and burned sections of the fiberglass out. Who knows…
If I’m not mistaken, the nose in front of the hood on the 77 Grand Prix was fiberglass which would explain the odd “dents”.
I think it was to emphasise the pyscho nature of Carrie Fisher’s character, as in kill Jake and nothing else matters, least of all panel damage on a car.
BTW I will watch the Blues Brothers just to hear the Dodge and all its four barrels running wide open.
One story I was told and I have no idea if it is true or not was if the car was going to be ridiculed or appear in a movie the automaker mind find offense with is they remove identifying trim and do some minor modifications so they can claim its a generic automobile if the manufacturer screams.
The name “Volkswagen” was never used in The Love Bug and the VW badge was removed from all of the cars used in filming (several of which were reused in the later “Herbie” films). Herbie was always referred to as “the little car,” or summat.
When watched on today’s higher-resolution televisions and a near-perfect signal, Lucy and Ricky’s 1955 Pontiac obviously has no front glass, presumably to avoid glare from the studio lights and reflections. The chrome also appears to have been covered with a matte finish of some sort.
I imagine this was not as noticeable when watched on televisions that were around at the time that these episodes were made. You can also see tape marks on the floor, where the crew marked out where the actors were supposed to stand.
I would guess dulling spray, a commonly used item by cinematographers, was employed to dull the shiny chrome trim. And removing the windshield was undoubtedly done to eliminate unwanted reflections. The car was never shown in motion in that episode, correct?
Since I’m on the topic of the Herbie… movies, all of the prop cars were painted a medium gray on the interior for glare reduction. Dulling spray was likely used on any remaining chrome bits, too.
Well, 210delray, it was barely shown in motion when Lucy was trying to teach Ethel how to drive. And you can see the cable that pulled the car from right to left; again, I don’t think it’s something that was all that noticeable to those watching on smaller, lower resolution screens of 1955.
All of the location and establishing shots in which the Pontiac were used had a different car, I’m sure.
The car was supposedly driven, but is was clear that the car was being towed in a soundstage there were some establishing shots If the car driving in future episode . B it that was probably a duplicate, but I modified car. I can’t forget the car all loaded up for the trip to California. I was obsessed with those episodes as a kid. I watched anything with a car in it.
On Leave It To Beaver, in the opening of the show in the final seasons it showed everyone piling into Ward’s 62 Plymouth and then backing out of the driveway. As the theme song concludes everyone in the car is looking backwards through the rear glass that was removed by the studio.
Really bad…turn down the sound….but anyway…
I can’t recall exactly *which* episode of ‘Leave it to Beaver’ I saw, but it was one from around 1961. You saw the family get into the ’61 Plymouth, then you switch to a view of the boys in the back seat, and behind them you can see the huge tail fins from a ’60 Plymouth! Priceless continuity error!
I never noticed that! I used to watch that show after school and remember the intros well. I believe they did a new intro every season and they all involved the family leaving the house and getting into the family (Mopar) car, to go into Mayfield, where all the cars are also new Chrysler products.
We were probably one of the last families in America to still have just a black and white TV in the 80’s. So that was probably equivalent to the video quality of the average TV when the show was new. I still love that show, being the earliest show told primarily from the kid’s perspective, with stories that revolved around the misadventures of kids. Parents were pretty much just there to play the role of parents, not to be their own people with their own experiences and problems. A lot of the jokes and scenarios are still hilarious!
Ward had a 1957 Ford Fairlane in the first season, before the run of Mopars.
Had to chuckle when recalling Leave it to Beaver. Kids today wouldn’t understand, but this was a huge hit in its day and episodes were never to be missed. And … Eddie Haskell was one of the best TV characters of all time.
If I recall correctly, there were several nighttime scenes in the film “Bullitt” where the 1967 full-size Fords, either taxis or cop cars, had only their lower headlights illuminated (the cars used stacked quads), opposite the way the low-beams were supposed to work. I could never figure out why.
Could it just be that the larger chrome refractor, or whatever it’s called, on the original larger bulb was just big enough to show the filming camera or crew in front of the car?
No. Think about the zillions of cars, trucks, and vans in movies and TV shows with large rectangular sealed beams.
The car wasn’t purchased for the film, being so incidental. Instead, the production assistant just picked some random-looking car from the parking lot and borrowed it for the shot.
It just so happened that the car they picked belonged to the Key Grip. Being a person knowledgeable about lighting, the Key Grip had installed the Cibie H4 headlights in his car for improved night driving.
(No, Paul, I completely made that up) 🙂
I have seen a similar headlight swap in another movie from the same era. In to Live and Die in LA there is a awesome chase scene involving 9C1 Malibus and an Impala, and I remember one of the Malibus having round lights swapped in place of the rectangular lights. Not sure why that occurred, but it always stood out in my memory.
In the movie Fear is the Key, the main car is a ’72 Gran Torino Sport, which was a brand new car when the movie was made. For whatever reason the car comes with no body trim at all, which was not a factory option. It should have had chrome side moldings or if it was a laser stripe car, at least have chrome wheel surrounds. This one had nothing and no laser stripe. The car does get totaled (they probably used more than one car), so the only thing I can think of is it allowed for scene continuity by not having to worry about inconsistent missing trim between the cars? I don’t know.
Here is the Malibu, in the lower right corner:
Here is the Torino:
There were two different cars. If you look closely the damage pattern is different between the two. One ends up banana shaped from the jump onto the ferry, and another has front damage that looks like the clip has pulled sideways.
My theory is they found one Laser Stripe car and one non-Laser car with the trim, so they just removed both and painted them for continuity.
I’m certain Ford supplied the cars for the film given its release date. It’s possible the lack of trim/stripe is preproduction details or maybe even the cars were originally mules for Ford
Once again I believe it was for avoiding camera glare specifically for the scene they entered the tunnel.
Virtually every interior shot of a modern car has the headrests removed (leaving two visible holes at the top of the seatback. Not sure why they do this.
Not as common anymore, but back in the ’70s and 80s they would remove the inside rearview mirror, but leave the little button glued to the glass where the mirror mounts (presumably so they could easily reattach it after filming).
This is done for two reasons.
1) it doesn’t crowd the actor sitting int he seat “visually”.
2) if there are back seat passengers, their faces won’t be blocked by the headrest. Also, it’s fun to see that rear seat passengers will often sit uncomfortably close together, side by side, in the middle. That way their faces aren’t blocked by the actors in the front seats. You see that very often in sitcoms.
Removing the inside rearview mirror requires a small screwdriver and about 15 seconds. Removing the mounting button would require replacing the windshield.
Nuh-uh. Removing the mount button requires a 7/8″ (or thereabouts) open-end wrench and about 2.2 seconds: place wrench across left/right edges of button. Apply hand torque. Button comes right off.
My favorite is this shot from a season five episode of “The Americans” that took place in 1984. Apparently they could only find a newer (1987-) Caprice to use, but while other productions would have likely let it slide, someone actually took what looks like gaffer’s tape to visually separate the car’s flush-mounted headlamps into four distinct bulbs to make the car look “older.” I found this attention to detail pretty impressive.
Yes, kudos to whoever thought of doing this — a simple but very effective workaround. It would be overlooked in most cases.
That is impressive! The car coordinator on that show is probably an OCD car spotter like ourselves. It probably bugged him that the Caprice available was not only too new, but was a trim (Brougham, starting in 1988 IIRC) that wasn’t even available then. The hubcaps, mirrors, grille design and partial vinyl top were different from 1984. He settled for at least addressing the headlights which could potentially be noticed by non-car-nerds.
Paul Henning shows (Green Acres, Beverly Hillbillies, Petticoat Junction) almost always removed the windshields, at least for sound stage shots. I’m pretty sure they had duplicate cars for actual outdoors shots. You can see many instances of Oliver’s Lincoln
where the paint has been severely dulled with something. In the Hillbillies, Miss Jane’s
Dodge convert almost always had the glass in place, since the driveway shots at the mansion were almost always outdoors anyway.
It bothers me when the headrests are removed in movie scenes where the interior of the vehicle is being filmed.
One that always irked me, until I started to read up about trivia and behind the scenes things of movie making, were the headlights on a few of the Taurus Police cars in RoboCop. Most of the Taurus police cars used the factory composite headlamps. But the car that Murphy/Robocop and Lewis drive has the composite headlamps replaced with 4 round lights under clear covers. It always bugged me until I read a piece of trivia about the movie Christine. Christine’s headlights were replaced with aircraft landing lights, to be much more brighter on film than standard automotive headlights. And I’m pretty sure that’s why Robo’s Taurus has the different headlights compared to the rest of them.
Here is another shot of the quad round headlights from the parking garage shootout.
And here’s a shot of the other Taurus police cars using the factory composite headlights.
ooh. Heres one. Movie Gumball Rally, 1976. Prior to seeing this with my dad when it came out, I had read in Popular Mechanics that the producer/director, tired of seeing movies with the WRONG car sound, took most if not all of the cars out a stretch of under construction freeway and recorded. The ferrari/cobra/300SL/and the porsche all sound correct, and the other V8 each sound different.
So what the light connection? EVERY race car is equipped with covered CIBIE auxiliary lights. If i recall correctly viewing a couple years back, there was a “special thanks” or “sponsors” credit at the end listing them.
And Linda Vaughn cuts a nice figure in her small role!
The engine sounds in Gumball Rally are indeed excellent. The scene where the Daytona Spyder and Cobra race out of the LA river is audio bliss.
just looked it up. check this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTT1_JZp2Sg
at 2:12 – 2:18
GR is a fun, silly movie. But it was made by people who like cars. That scene for me is the best in the movie. Its a change in tone and “person”, where the movie says “can you imagine how cool it would be to be in the waking city, and your hear, but don’t see, the magnificent , eerie, scary?, roars of these exotic beasts”.
I dont have the poetry to describe it any better, but I sure liked it.
Oh, y’dig engine sounds in car movies, eh? Me too. Put on good headphones and go watch the second movie in this post.
I can’t remember which episode it was of The King of Queens but I think Deacon is driving a Ford Taurus, with Spence behind him in the back seat. As they show Deacon and Doug talking up front you can see the scenery go by to make it look like the car is moving. As they go to show Spence from the side of the car, the scenery is still moving but you can see enough of the rear wheel to see it is not moving. It drives me nuts every time I have seen it. And don’t get me started on the hundreds of shots of stars driving along with the shift lever in park….
I love the movie, but what bugged me about the movie “Awakenings” (set in 1969) regarding Dr Sayer’s car (played by Robin Williams) which appears to be a 1964 Dodge (and apparently an automatic) which it appears he motions to use a column shift (with his right arm) rather than push buttons (which I think would have been on the left side). He’s reversing from his parking spot outside the hospital in the scene (there are other scenes in the car, but they don’t show the transition of putting the car in gear, just Dr Sayer and Leonard Lowe driving with the car already in motion, or outside the car).
I guess the car could have been a 1965 or later , which would instead have the column shift, but I don’t think so.
You know, I missed this when you posted it. You’re absolutely right—from inside the car we see him get into an automatic ’64 Dodge. Transmission pushbuttons are in a vertical row at the left side of the dash. Then as he turns the key (at least they had the grace to use the correct starter sound!) the camera angle changes; now we’re outside the driver’s door and we see him move an actual, real 3-on-the-tree shift stick into the rearward-upward position, which is Reverse. Then we hear the sound of a manual-transmission car reversing. And then, a few seconds later, we see the shift stick through the windshield and it’s a ’66-up lever and knob, even though the car is clearly still a ’64. It’s bugged me for years.