Visual Effects Branch History – Introduction
This is Part One of the Branch history requested by Craig Barron when he was Chair of the Branch in 2013. It’s an introduction to the extensive history I describe in Part Two below.
[A preliminary response to Chair Craig Barron’s request to document the history of the
establishment of the Visual Effects Branch.]
First, thank you, Craig, for your initiative in making this forum available for the Branch, and,
while I’m at it; thank you again for convening the first Branch meeting in the modern history of
the Academy. Thanks also to Peter Anderson for his efforts in organizing the predecessor
BaseCamp site and to Brook Boles and the Academy IT Staff for facilitating this new forum
within the Academy website. Our community will, I hope, make good use of it.
Craig has asked me, since I was Chair of our Branch at its inception, to provide a history of the
events leading up to our attaining Branch status some twenty plus years ago. This I’m happy to
do and have begun the task of assembling the relevant material.
While it’s still very early days in this task, I can already report that, mercifully, a lot of material
has survived. Pulling it all together from hard copy and computer records in archaic formats will,
you’ll appreciate, be an interesting project. But succeed we will, and so, yet once again, thank
you Craig, for tasking me with this project – who knows what may have happened to either me,
or this material, had a few more years gone by.
As a teaser, I thought it would be interesting to post the report from Arthur Hiller, then our
President, on the tally of the Board vote authorizing the establishment of our Branch. This came
as the culmination of a tortuous and, at times, contentious struggle. We were opposed in our
effort by some very potent forces, who between them raised some cogent arguments against us.
Gregory Peck, a former Academy President, was deeply concerned about an inrush of a strange
new breed into his cherished Academy. (He had previously, and rather famously, objected to the
admission of publicists in ‘43.) And, believe me, Peck’s dedication to this institution was
profound, and I’ll address how it was possible to allay his concerns about us later in this
narrative.
But our principal opposition came from an equally revered icon on the Academy Board at the
time, Robert (Bob) Boyle, who was not only a Governor, but the acknowledged Dean of the
entire Art Directors profession. He deeply believed that visual effects were an intrinsic part of his
field, and his career certainly attested to the rationale for that belief. (e.g. Hitchcock’s, “The
Birds,” about which he said, “It was a meeting of equals: the director who knew exactly what he
wanted, and the art director who knew how to get it done.”) He was famously cantankerous and
vigorously opposed my case, but to me personally, he was not only courteous but genuinely
amiable.
In my preliminary look just now through some of the documents from that time, I found the
report I made to the fledgling Visual Effects Branch at the bake-off the year we prevailed in our
quest. It included the following: “I would especially like to thank Robert Boyle of the Art
Directors Branch, who stood resolutely by his conscience and his tradition. His vigorous and
fundamental reservations regarding our cause forced us to apply very stern tests to our appeal
which, in the end, helped in the presentation of a compelling case before the Board of
Governors.” Bob died at the age of one hundred in 2010. I like to think that, by that time, he had
forgiven us.
Jon Erland
This is Part Two of the Branch history requested by Craig Barron when he was Chair of the Branch in 2013. Unfortunately, Craig termed out before we were able to post this and we found it impossible to post it on the Branch site.
As requested by our branch Chair, Craig Barron, this is the second chapter in a brief history of the process by which we established our branch. It requires I make this disclaimer: This is not an “official” Academy history. In fact, there is no “official” Academy history, though one is currently in preparation, authored by former Executive Director, Bruce Davis. The attached history therefore is my personal recollection of the events, aided by my archives. Where my narrative offers quotes, both of myself and others, they are my very best recollection of such statements and faithfully convey the “gist” if not the verbatim words, that were spoken as I understood them at the time. I will certainly welcome the views of participants to these events that may either corroborate or differ from my recollections.
From its inception to the present the Academy has experienced a confused and sometimes incoherent relationship with its visual effects community. This is likely attributable to the fact that the multifaceted artform of cinema is fundamentally and intrinsically – a visual effect. How then do you go about parsing the un-parsable ? The confusion engendered by this paradox is apparent in our awards history. While The Rains Came is given as the first film recognized for Visual Effects, it actually received a “Special Effects” award. Previously Spawn of the North received a “Special Award,” while, Wings in 1927 received an “Engineering Effects” award. That same year, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, a film containing a plethora of effects, notably the incredible composite imagery of Frank Williams, received nominations for best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Unique and Artistic Picture, winning Oscars for the latter two categories. (It also received best Actress for Janet Gaynor.) Today, we would have argued that the combination of ‘art direction’, ‘cinematography’ and ‘unique art’ actually constituted – visual effects. But these would not have been construed as – engineering, so no effects award.
Over the years, this bemused and befuddled perception played out in a number of ways. Sometimes we were awarded for Visual Effects, sometimes for Special Achievement, sometimes we were allowed one nominee, sometimes five. Sometimes six recipients could be awarded, other times far fewer. These erratic decisions were being made at the Board level with little or no input from the affected community. In 1991, the Board, evidently in response to administration concerns ostensibly regarding “impact diffusion” of the Oscar but likely in an effort to expedite the Oscar show, were persuaded to reduce the possible recipients for Visual Effects to – one. Again, without consulting with the VFX community.
For some years, the VFX community had been expressing a growing sense that we qualified as a distinct craft within the Academy and should be represented at the Board level as a branch. This was enhanced by the success of such films as Star Wars, Close Encounters and Star Trek – and it had been estimated that VFX films were responsible for some $10 billion in revenues in that decade. (Link – Blue Max SMPTE paper) A leading proponent of this idea was Lin Dunn, (then serving on the Academy Board representing the Cinematographers Branch) who had oft expressed his view that Visual Effects (and to him, the term always included Special Effects) was a distinct profession within the art form of filmmaking. Lin felt that the signal attributes that would dignify us as a profession would be to achieve branch status within the Academy and to create a Society, rather like the ASC (of which he was once president).
Lin was a mentor of mine as was Jo Westheimer and both were allies with me (from the late eighties on) in the effort to reinstate the Research Council that was once a vital part of the Academy. (Link – Sci-Tech Council history) In that period, Jo Westheimer, Academy Treasurer, was Chair of the Visual Effects Nominating Committee. (while we had no branch, we did have as we’ve discussed, awards, requiring a steering committee that was drawn from several branches including art directors, cinematographers and members-at-large and comprising a de facto VFX committee.) Westheimer was also chair of the Scientific and Engineering Awards Committee. (He was also a sponsor when I joined the Academy in 1984.)
In 1991, Jo’s failing health forced him to retire from his committee chairs. I then received a call from Academy president Karl Malden requesting that I become Chair of the VFX Awards Nominating Committee. Before responding to Karl Malden, I called Rich Miller and asked, “Do they realize I’m one of the chief proponents of branch-hood for Visual Effects ?” The reply I got was something along the lines of “Well, if they don’t, they’re about to find out, aren’t they?” I returned Karl’s call and accepted.
An immediate task was to respond to the Board action reducing the VFX Award. Evidently, with Jo Westheimer now retired and Lin Dunn (who would have stoutly resisted the measure on our behalf) absent, there had been inadequate rebuttal to the case for a singular award for VFX. I wrote a letter to Karl Malden, (Link – …..) and everyone on our committee contacted anyone they knew on the Board. Our efforts were rewarded and the multiple recipients restored. But we had clearly just dodged the bullet, and the sense in the VFX community that we should be officially represented on the Board was becoming palpable.
Two years later, Lin termed out of his tenure as Cinematographer Governor, and along with it his chargé d’affaires role for the VFX community was halted. Thus the issue of our status once again came to a boil. This time the Board declared it would entertain a “brief” by the VFX community, presented by a representative elected to make their case at the Board level. (Link – letter responding to President Rehme.) To that end our committee held an election and I was designated to carry our torch to the Board. This meant that I was elected a “quasi” member of the Board representing a “proposed” branch that, as yet, had no standing.
It was immediately apparent that my task was manifold: I was, to be sure, to make the case to the Board for the inclusion of VFX as a full branch, but they seemed in no hurry to have that case made in a full-on debate. Indeed, I served for about a year and half before our case came to “trial,” so to speak. In the meantime, the Board apparently wanted to know just what sort of contribution these “cowboys” as many thought of us, might make to the serious issues before them. While I had no “vote” on the Board, I was invited, indeed expected, to participate in the debates. One such was the consideration of yet another contender for branch status, the casting directors. There’s no debate that the casting of a play, whether stage or film, is pivotal to the success of the production; the proponents of a branch for casting directors had no difficulty making that case. The issue they failed to address was – responsibility: who ultimately was responsible for those decisions. I weighed in on that point.
I argued that the existing branches represented constituencies that were indisputably responsible for their decisions and thus for what was seen on the screen. Many, many people, I argued, in the motion picture field contribute to the success of a film, vast numbers of them in the capacity of advisors. We have dialogue coaches, script doctors, military advisors – any and all of whom may give critical, even pivotal advice. But what our Academy recognizes as key contributors to the art form are those who have to actually make the decisions that appear on the screen. An actor (and I was one for many years) has to make a million decisions a minute while on camera. Every inflection, every slight facial muscle move, is a decision that actor will have to live with forever. Every note of a musical score is a decision that composer will live or die by. Every cut an editor makes may make or break the film. On every word a screenwriter places in a screenplay hangs the balance of success for the production. We recognize and reward decisions, not advice. A casting director, I argued, gives advice – good advice no doubt, crucial even, but advice nonetheless. The director and/or producer will decide to either accept or reject that advice, but it is advice – not a decision. Today we do have a Casting Directors Branch, but perhaps that’s because, over the past quarter century, casting directors evolved from advisors to deciders. In any event, at the time I made the case, many on the Board evidently felt I had succinctly framed the discussion and the case was, for a time, denied. I had also, in the process, implicitly asserted that VFX practitioners were not “advisors” but “deciders.”
The logic of our case was one thing, but arguably more important was the culture. We were seen as outsiders and strangers by more than a few. In those days, VFX folk were not as ubiquitous on the set as they are today. My quest to demonstrate we were “of the culture” or “familiar” was facilitated by what began as a benign debate. Then Executive Director, Bruce Davis was reporting on the effort to secure for the Academy Archives any print that was screened at the Academy. The Board resolved to at least request, if not demand, a copy of any such film. Later, in the same meeting, Bruce requested the Board’s decision on the advisability of the Academy permitting the promotional screening of a film about Lorena and John Bobbit, a couple whose life became notorious for her removal of a certain part of his anatomy with a knife. Needless to say, many on the Board were opposed to permitting the screening of such a “sexploitation” film in the august Goldwyn Theater.
On the other side of the debate were those that argued against any form of censorship, no matter how repugnant the case. The administration case was that we’d catch hell from the press if we denied the screening. The Board was feeling coerced into a position many did not like. The tension in the room was substantial, and we seriously needed a way to break it. At which point I interjected, “Well, at the very least, may we take it that we will not be asking for a copy of this epic for our archives?” The room dissolved instantly into hilarity and with it went the tension. Later, after the meeting adjourned, I found myself walking out with Howard Koch, a former Academy president,(and father of recent president Hawk Koch) who said, “I can’t recall such a laugh at a Board meeting in years!” “Yeah, that’s great,” I said, “but if looks could kill, the one I got from Bruce Davis should just about do it.” “Never mind that,” said Howard, “I suspect you picked yourself up a few votes back there. Well done!”
Meanwhile, with the “great debate” still pending, I was appointed to an ad hoc Board Realignment Committee whose brief was to review the branch structure generically, not merely from the perspective of the VFX case. Little did I know what was in store for me there. My perception of the situation was that an administration faction had conceived of the notion that new branches would make the Board unmanageably large. (The case was literally even made that the existing board table would not seat more than thirty-six or so!) The proposed solution to this was to create a hybrid branch, to be called Members at Large, though divided into effectively three branchlets, or mini-branches, each provided with one governor to be elected every three years from: Visual Effects, Makeup, and some other constituency such as stunt performers, casting directors, etc. All these crafts were evidently regarded by some as supernumeraries, the equivalent of “bit players,” lacking the substantive constituencies commanded by the existing branches such as actors, directors, writers, etc.
That this would create a second class citizenry (not unlike the three-fifths clause in the U.S. Constitution) within the Academy seemed not to be significant to them. They were prepared to confuse and conflate the Senate model that had prevailed in the Academy for its entire existence into a hybrid Senate and House model. Academy branches had heretofore represented crafts as such, rather than a demographic representation of the sheer numbers practicing said craft. Had the Academy originally adopted the House model, the actors branch would have so utterly dominated the institution’s governance that a central theme, that of unifying the art form, would have been impossible to achieve. (Link – Mary Pickford’s eloquent statement of the Academy’s purpose.) I was, therefore, utterly opposed to the notion, both philosophically on the general principal, and obviously because it denigrated the branch I had been sent to the Board to represent.
I now, however, had to contend with the committee process. The Board Realignment Committee was chaired by Sid Ganis, who, of course, could not place a motion on the table. Don Rogers, of the Sound Branch, was I believe, prevailed upon to make the motion that would have codified the new hybrid branch arrangement, which he did. (My assessment that Don made the motion on Sid’s behalf is based on the fact that Don, while cautioning me solemnly against my “go it alone” approach for fear of losing out altogether, hardly spoke in favor of the motion beyond making it, while Sid clearly supported it.) In any case, I was in an untenable situation. I had been dragooned into a committee in which the deck appeared stacked. As the motion was debated, I looked around the table, mentally tallying the probable votes and realized mine was a lost cause. The vote would certainly go against us, and as a member of the committee I would be associated with the decision of the committee even though I would certainly vote against the measure. It was a very deft political maneuver on the part of the administration. The only available option was a “hail Mary pass.” I therefore launched into an impassioned plea of my case for full, three-governor, branch status for VFX, coupled to the fact that I could not, in good conscience, even vote on the matter before us without consultation with my constituents. I then looked across the table to Don Rogers and said, “I therefore ask that you withdraw your motion.” After a brief pause, Don responded, “I withdraw my motion.” Ultimately it was agreed that VFX would bring their case first to the Board Realignment Committee and, if approved, to the Board.
(This “one governor” policy was pursued quite diligently until very recently. After it failed with VFX, it was pursued with the documentarians and also the make-up branch, which remained with a single governor for several years until 2013 when they finally achieved three governors (and by which time there had been a turnover in the Academy administration.)
I reported on the proceedings at a meeting of our committee, and my commitment to the three Governor position was confirmed by a vote. Since some of the committee were absent and the issue crucial, I sent out a memo to the whole committee, apprising them of the events and soliciting any further votes and views. (Link – )
Our objective now was to prepare a compelling case, and not merely an eloquent speech (though that was in the cards as well), but a substantively documented case compiled into a briefing book to be provided to each Governor. To accomplish this we established several sub-committees, each responsible for a section of the book. The sections were:
- Visual Effects in the Context of the Other Branches; which included a bar chart depicting how the new branch would compare in numbers with the other branches. We would be about the same size as the cinematographers, with both being smaller than any other branch. It also included a preliminary roster of the proposed branch along with the member’s present branch affiliation, the committees they served on and any awards. (In the twenty years since, our branch has somewhat more than doubled to upwards of 300, which compares to the Visual Effects Society membership now in excess of 3000, which itself represents perhaps one tenth of the practicing professionals globally in the field today.)
- Visual Effects and the Film Industry; this section endeavored to establish the significance the field had achieved within the industry especially in recent years. (Great though that was at the time, it’s dwarfed by the present.) We described technological contributions as well as the financial impact perception that our field is guilty of immense production cost overuns!)
- Public Outreach of Visual Effects; we were able to show the already substantial popular appeal and interest in visual effects. Interestingly, one of our examples was a description of a Museum of Science and Industry exhibit on Visual Effects that was being traveled around the entire country with great success. A plethora of books, television shows, symposia, workshops – again substantial twenty years ago, but dwarfed by the present preoccupation with the field.
- Brief History of Visual Effects; for this section we prevailed upon George Turner, author of several cinema books (including A Treasury of Visual Effects with Lin Dunn), as well as a former editor of American Cinematographer. George deftly summarized our history, showing how we had been integral to the art form from the inception of the medium to the present and added a very solid arrow to our quiver.
- Key Figures in the Heritage of Visual Effects; Obviously renowned figures like George Méliès were here, but also folk the Board of twenty years ago would recognize like L.B.”Bill” Abbott and, of course, Lin Dunn, Peter Ellenshaw, Albert Whitlock, Willis O’Brien, Eugene Shuftan, and many more of our illustrious pantheon.
- History of Academy awards for Achievement in Visual Effects; a section drawn from, Movie Magic by John Brosman which provided the catalogue of awards and nominations throughout the history of the Academy.
As a loose leaf prologue to the briefing book, we provided a position statement for which we commissioned a professional writer, Ellen Wolf, taking up a collection among the committee ($1000 for Ellen and $500 for George Turner for his History of Visual Effects) to cover this expense. Her brief from us (conveyed by Richard Edlund) was to frame the appeal around the Mission Statement of the Academy, Article Two of our By-Laws. To wit; to advance the arts and sciences; to stimulate the improvement of methods and equipment; to focus wide public attention on the best in motion pictures.” She faithfully executed the assignment in an eloquent three page essay.
All of these materials I presented at a meeting of the Board Realignment Committee who, this time, unanimously voted that I present the case to the full Board, and the stage was set for the Main Event at the January Board Meeting.
The written materials were distributed ahead of time to all Governors so they could be familiar with the issues. As impressive as the briefing book was, we were not out of the woods. There were still imposing objections from Art Director Bob Boyle to overcome, for which I was prepared. But I was not anticipating hearing the commanding voice of a global movie icon, Gregory Peck, weigh in that he was concerned, very concerned, about the prospect of a whole new culture disrupting the balance of the institution. “Who are these people? What do we know about them? Where are they coming from?” For a panicky moment, I felt he was conjuring us up as a Mongol horde charging down on his beloved Academy, and I could feel his words were registering around the room. We were all listening to Atticus Finch, one of the most compelling voices in our culture.
Mercifully, I could see the Blue cover of the briefing book all around the conference table, and I had a copy in my hands. In retrospect, I cannot say if Peck were really trying to derail our prospects, or whether he was secretly setting up what would ensue. (I never had the nerve to ask him and now that he’s gone, I will never know.) Having framed his “concerns,” his, and everybody else’s eyes were upon me.
“Well, sir (I’ll confess, I never got to where I could call him, Greg), If I might draw our attention to page two of the book…” Many dutifully did so. “Here we’ve listed the candidates for membership in the new branch. Every one of them is already a member of the Academy. They’re simply listed in other branches, mainly Members at Large, because we have no branch for them – yet. They‘ve been serving for years on Academy committees, and they’re an extremely distinguished group as can be seen from the number of awards they have been accorded, which besides some fifty Oscars and even more nominations, there are Science and Technology Awards and even a couple of Gordon Sawyer Awards. So, no, sir, I don’t think there’s any risk to the culture of the Academy at all.” (Surely, he had to have known that would be the answer?) In any event, he seemed content with my response, and there were appreciative murmurs around the room.
At just about that juncture, president Arthur Hiller calmly said, “If there’s no further discussion I’m prepared to call the question.” And the voting process got under way. Since the vote involved a By-Laws change, the results would not be formally announced until absent Governors were polled, but it certainly seemed that we had carried the day and Arthur Hiller, responding to my query, declared, “From here on you may vote.” (Link – Arthur Hiller letter to Board.)
As the meeting adjourned, many Governors requested they be allowed to keep the briefing books. (It’s not uncommon for meeting materials to be collected after such meetings.) Arthur Hiller declared they could do so. Later, it was interesting to see how subsequent similar petitions were accompanied by remarkably similar books.
We then commenced to canvas all the people identified as potential branch members to determine by March 24th which of them were prepared to leave their existing branch and transfer to the new one. (Copy of letter from Arthur Hiller and card attached.)
Coda.
Sometime in May, our committee was convened for a special meeting to nominate the candidates for the next Board election. A meeting I, obviously, would not chair. However, this time, instead of Rich Miller and Claudia Barrett as our staff representatives managing the meeting, we found ourselves confronting no less than Bruce Davis himself accompanied by the Academy controller, Otto Spoerri.
This was long before the days of electronic voting machines, and Bruce and Otto tallied the votes from a pile of paper ballots we handed up to them. The process was a little extraordinary since we would commence with a blank slate. Instead of nominating four candidates for a single slot, we were to nominate four candidates for three slots who would serve staggered terms of one, two and three years respectively. Thereafter, the process would revert to normal but in the meanwhile, rather than the usual process of choosing one out of four, we would be de-selecting one out of four. Some seven or eight names were placed in contention, mine among them, and after Bruce and Otto tallied the votes they announced: Lin Dunn, Bill Taylor, Richard Edlund and Frank “Pete” Clarke were to be our inaugural slate. I recall Bill Taylor, exclaiming, “Jon, you were robbed!”
Be that as it may, the subsequent history has more than borne out the validity of our cause of twenty-five years ago. It’s still a source of great pride that I was able to advance the agenda that Lin had defined (which included a role in the founding of the VES) and, while he had but three more years to live, the satisfaction of seeing Lin become the only person in Academy history to have been a Governor in two different branches, the other being Cinematographers. With Lin’s much lamented departure I was elected to succeed him and thus returned to the Board. (See timeline of VFX Governors.)
Finally, I’d like to acknowledge again the debt of gratitude we all owe to the committee of twenty-five years ago together with the several sub-committees, who all pitched in to make our case a compelling one. I cannot now recall quite how many contributed, but it was substantial, and I believe no one who was asked declined to help. Quite a lot of midnight oil was burned, particularly to produce the “book,” but then we seem to do that sort of thing for a living, don’t we?