Did you ever watch an old movie, or even a not-so-old movie, and get flustered by the fact that the star is clearly not behind the wheel of an actual car?
Older films almost always shot car sequences in the studio rather than have the actors sit in real cars and drive on real roadways.
Why? Was it a budget crunch thing? The effect is so oft-putting for modern audiences. It’s crystal clear the actors are just playing behind the wheel of a fake car set in front of a movie screen in which scenery is being projected.
Anyone out there know the reason for this?
UPDATE: In addition to the good comments I got below, I also received a note from a person who studies film history. She says using rear projection techniques to shoot car scenes did, as Boffo said in his comments post, made it easier to control lighting, sound and other on-set challenges. She also suggests the practice still goes on today, it’s just that technology has made it much more seamless so audiences can’t tell the difference.
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
The reason is the obvious one: It was difficult and dangerous to film real driving. You would have to have a cameraman strapped to the hood of the car, and even then he’d be filming through curved and angled glass.
Doing it in a studio is safe and cheap, and lets the DP set up exactly the angle and lighting he wants.
I think car scenes are still frequently shot in studios. It’s just that the technology is better so you don’t notice it.
Thanks for checking in … I understand, to a degree, especially since film budgets have blown up over the past 20 years. But even on big films (am watching the 1967 feature “Casino Royale” now) you’d think they’d spring for more live car shots. They have to shoot the scenes anyway — they just avoid closeups that would reveal the fact that the stars aren’t in the driver’s seat.
I guess stars back in the day were far more protected than today. Think about William Shatner’s fight scenes in “Star Trek.” They used a ton of stunt doubles, and all they’re doing is faux fighting.
As I understand it, most close-up driving sequences involving significant dialogue or action are actually filmed with the car on a low trailer that’s towed behind a truck. The actors are simply playing at driving, the same as they would in a studio. Why this wasn’t more common forty years or so ago, even on big-budget movies, I have no idea.
Wasn’t this how Nicole Kidman got hurt? In a car driving scene in the sci-fi film she did last year? Can’t remember the name of the movie – it got bad reviews.
Invasion, Heidi? That might be it. But a lot of Kidman’s movies get bad reviews.
Yeah, JIC … it seems a no brainer way to go about shooting car scenes…
Depending on the production and budget they might not be using rear projection, but rather green or blue screen. Motion tracking has come along way in visual effects. It allows them to move the camera around both in and outside of the car and be able to stick in any background they wish and the scenery outside will match up with car exactly.
If I’m not mistaken the technique was pioneered on the Steven Segal movie Under Seige 2. The one that took place on a train, but it was all shot in a studio, however the view through the windows is so realistic you’d never know.
So some of the car scenes that you think were filmed outside may really have been filmed in a studio after all.
The most extraordinary example of the above to me is in Spielberg’s War of the Worlds. Every time I see it I am amazed. But interestingly the effect on my absorption in the film is about as damaging as those phony screenshots or yore. It maakes no difference that in one case the reason is the crudeness of the technology, in the other its eyecatching perfection.
And this, in my judgment, gets down to the core: Whatever technology is used should be remain hidden. Anything that grabs the viewers focus – whether in a positive or a negative way – should be avoided. The best film makers of any period have understood this.
-ds
A recent and suprising example of this is “Hotel Rwanda.” I just recently saw this otherwise excellant film but I was pulled right out of it everytime one of the all-too-frequent “scene in a moving vehicle” moments was on screen. I realize it was a lower budget film but rewrite if you have to to avoid these. It was like an early James bond film. I half expected to see somene’s silouette behind the screen. In this case it was a gree screen I’m sure but the results were the same.
Good point. A screenwriter can avoid those kinds of issues rather easily. Reminds me of Robert Rodriguez’s “El Mariachi” – shot for $7, o00. I’m sure he wrote around a million little problems caused by his lack of funds.