18/12/2021 – Ray Harryharryharryhausen

While on a personal visit to Edinburgh, my lovely partner made some time for us to go and see the Titan of Cinema: Ray Harryhausen exhibition at the National Gallery of Modern Art. An exhibition focussing on his sculptures/models, and the process of how he created his films.

My partner had watched some of his films as a kid. I had not. So I think we walked in with very different expectations; he was maybe looking for a bit of nostalgia, see how these movies of his childhood were made, and see the creatures in real life (and probably be taken aback by how small they actually were). I was looking for some good old clunky cinema, to see how it must have been revolutionary at its time, and see some cool looking little skeletons – the skeletons were the main focus of the gallery’s advertising after all.

I think the show did meet both of our expectations. In all honesty, I was impressed at how the films were put together using projection and screens to blend stop motion creatures and live actors. I also admired the prolific making that must have went on to create all the intricate little creatures that were enlarged onto the big screen. Big shout out to the drawings that were displayed as part of Harryhausen’s storyboarding, they were so intricate and beautiful, I almost wanted to get back into hefty drawing myself (I probably wont but I did feel it).

The exhibition had a nice flow to it, we were directed through the rooms in a way that charted the development of Harryhausen’s career; it even started with some marionettes made by him as a child. This created a nice map of how his techniques and inspirations developed over his life, how his workings became a golden era of mid-20th century cinema, his cinematic techniques becoming a revolutionary industry standard. It is also explained to us how by the end of the 1980’s, the technology in film was moving so fast, that while Harryhausen’s techniques were revolutionary, and birthed a lot of the further developments of how to use tech to create cinema, his ways of working got left behind a bit, in favour of CGI and other editing effects. A shame, but I imagine it happens to us all at some point, where we get to an age we cant keep up with the technological developments in our fields.

As I said, this flow to the showing was nice, it took us through the work in a pleasant and relaxed way, it did make it feel like more of a museum showing than an art showing though. Which brings me to the question I always have to ask of galleries: Is it just Shit In A Room?

My answer for this one is yes and no. Is it shit in a room by way of just being lots of things to look at? Yes. But it is also not shit in a room by way of it being quite educational. For those of us that didn’t grow up with old cinema, its interesting to see where visual effects started, comparatively to now. Nostalgia also plays a real factor here to it being not shit in a room – nostalgia good or bad makes people feel a connection happen and I saw that, not just with my partner but with other visitors to the exhibition, overhearing them discussing how amazing they thought the films were as children and laughing at how small the sculptures actually are now that they are seeing them in person.

So essentially, I would recommend this exhibition if you have the time, and are interested in cinema, or just curious about what its about. I wouldn’t if you want to see some big art pieces, the kind of things you want to think about for a while- this maybe isn’t the one for you.

Afterword

Just a short section here to mention that after seeing this exhibition we went across to the other building at the National Galleries of Modern Art, where the current exhibition is the new acquisitions. Always an interesting one to go to, as it is a publicly funded gallery so you have to wonder what they chose to spend that sweet tax money on and why.

Some was a bit rubbish, like it was just kind of like okay cool, this would be interesting in another show, where it made sense with everything else going on. Some pieces I really loved. For example: Wangechi Mutu’s Histology of The Different Classes of Uterine Tumours. How I had never came across Mutu’s work before is absolutely baffling to me, her work here, was collages of women-like creatures on top of historical medical drawings of the uterus. That is literally the kind of thing I have been working on/looking at. The collages were also just really captivating, different body parts pasted on top of these old drawings, warping them into something of a grotesque portrait, with limbs and body parts meshing together.

Another mention is Dorothea Tanning’s Primitive Seating. I've been aware of Tannings work as a female surrealist for some time now but this was my first IRL encounter with her work. A chair that has been upholstered with a textile resembling some kind of animal fur, with a tail emerging from the back of the chair. Something about this work is so off-putting yet also inviting? Chairs and soft textiles evoking comfort, an invitation to sit, yet the tail make me question who this seat was intended for. It seems as though it can only being to some kind of other worldly being, and the name ‘primitive seating’ makes me wonder who the primitive is, us or them?

All in all I would give this exhibition the same kind of review as Ray Harryhausen, Is it Shit In A Room? Yes and No again. Good parts in it, individual works that really spoke, but definitely leaning towards a yes of being shit in a room as there was also a lot of uninteresting work there too.