Guillermo del Toro is known for directing some of the most immersive, breathtaking fantasy films of all time, having won multiple Oscars for The Shape of Water and Pinocchio and being nominated for several more for Pan’s Labyrinth, Nightmare Alley, and Frankenstein. While he’s the brilliant visionary behind these movies, he’s far from the only one who deserves credit for their success. There is an enormous group of artisans who have worked tirelessly to help bring del Toro’s stories to life over the years, including costume and production designers, makeup artists, puppeteers, visual effects supervisors, and many more.
Fanversation got a chance to speak to Ayo Burgess and David Roby from Mr. X studio, who acted as the VFX and CG supervisors on Frankenstein, for which they were nominated for a BAFTA. During the conversation, they discussed the process of collaborating with del Toro, the visual references they used when working on the film, creating one of the final shots for the movie, advice they have for aspiring VFX artists, and more.
FANVERSATION: I know you worked with Guillermo del Toro on several projects before Frankenstein. What was different about working with him this time around, and how did that established partnership help the process of this project?
AYO BURGESS: On previous projects that I worked with Guillermo on, I was working as an artist, so I was lighting shots, doing look development, doing grooms — things like that. This is my first time working with him as a visual effects supervisor, so really, the change came in my responsibility for delivering the full shots to him and not just a piece of it. Really, it was just the scope of work. Alignment with him is a big thing, so making sure that everyone on the project understood his vision and was on board was key. The overall VFX supervisor is Dennis Berardi, and he was on set with Guillermo the entire time. Dennis, myself, and Guillermo were constantly in conversation trying to make sure that we all understood the language of the film.
I know that you looked at many diverse references — Antarctic expeditions, landscape paintings, places in Canada and Scotland. What was the reference that was the most helpful in helping you unlock the aesthetic for this project?
BURGESS: Different things. In terms of the landscape paintings, Albert Bierstadt and John Atkinson Grimshaw were the two key ones. Those were really about skies, mountains, and the sense of always having the feeling of a storm just having come in or just passed, so that really helped us anchor the sky aesthetic. We always said that a Frankenstein sky is like a Bierstadt sky — it’s a vibe, it’s a feeling — and we did a lot of rounds trying to find that recipe for what the skies looked like.
In terms of the Arctic landscape, the Shackleton expedition was definitely the key visual in the sense of being iced in with no way out — ‘there’s no hope’ kind of a thing. Different things contributed to the full language. It wasn’t any one thing, and it really did take some time with some of the pieces to be fully in line with Guillermo. But the good thing is that we’re always iterating with him. He wants his VFX temps really, really fast, so as soon as shots get turned over, we’re in there figuring it out and showing inversions many, many times a week. And the good thing about that is that, when you get that temp working, it can sit in the edit for a really long time, and with the volume of shots we did, it gave us the room to sprint. We could get a shot to a level where we could understand what it was going to be visually and then move on to the next shot, or sequence, or whatever it was.
I’m curious if there’s maybe a reference that people would be like, “That’s so weird. I never would have thought that would be a reference for this movie.”
BURGESS: Near the end of the film, when Elizabeth gets accidentally shot by Victor, there’s a blood squib that goes off in her stomach. We got a note back from Guillermo when we sent our first pass on the blood effect, and he said, “More Peckinpah.” We were like, “What is he talking about?” Only to find out that Peckinpah was a practical effects guy who pioneered blood squib effects. His squibs had kind of a viscous look, so we got a whole bunch of references of Peckinpah stuff and found that look for what blood looks like in Guillermo’s movie. After you align, you totally get it and are on board with him, but that was a funny one. “More Peckinpah” — one of the best pieces of feedback I think I’ve ever gotten.
There are a couple of sequences I want to ask about specifically. The first is when the lab collapses. I read that there were miniatures involved and that you worked with a lot of that footage. I think the miniature thing is so interesting. Can you tell me a little bit about that process?
BURGESS: It was amazing, honestly. The Magic Camera Company was the guys who did the miniatures. José Granell led that. We started with Guillermo doing a lot of pre-vis on the show. We did a full digital environment for the tower environment in Unreal Engine, and kind of blocked that in. And then, when Magic Camera Company was starting on the miniature, we sent them our digital model, and they built two 1:20 scale versions of the tower and a 1:6 scale version of the interior lab, and it was really cool. We worked with them to do the pre-vis work and finalize that design, and then it went to miniatures, and then our department built full-scale practical sets and the lower portion of the tower, and then miniatures built parts of it, and so we were all overlapping in a really interesting way. What was cool about that was that, when we were in post, we had practical builds, we had miniatures, we had digital, and we were interchanging. You watch that sequence, and you’re jumping between different shots and different techniques. It was cool to see them all come together in such a neat way, using old techniques and new techniques.
I also want to ask about puppetry, because I know that’s a big thing, especially in this movie. Can you talk about how you blended that practical effect with the puppets with the VFX work?
BURGESS: I’ll say, before going into the puppetry specifically, that in the effects, we love practical stuff. We love practical builds because they give us that foundation to build from, rather than making something out of thin air. The physicality is so important, so when we found out that the lecture corpse was going to be puppeteered, we were super excited about it. The puppeteers were old Jim Henson guys that Guillermo really trusted, so that performance was really coming from them — the timing, the movement. Everything was really, really neat. It was cool because for us, the execution on that was really more technical to make it photorealistic, get the puppeteers out, and get the digital arm doing what the puppeteer did. There were some angle changes just because of the way their rig worked that we had to figure out, but ultimately, it was really just being faithful to that performance and using the visual effects to finish the thought. It was a really fun one.
One of my favorite sequences was when the Creature gets struck by lightning, and the camera goes into his body. What kind of things did you do in that particular sequence?
BURGESS: That shot was done by ILM, who partnered with us. Our studio didn’t do it. But I will say that it was a mix of digital approaches — CG, laparoscopic footage, all kinds of different pieces to make the shot. It’s one of those things where you’re using all the techniques you have. You start with a practical shot, you punch in, you use medical footage, you use digital stuff, and you’re finding a way to merge it all together to tell the story of the shot.
It’s almost like a collage.
BURGESS: Exactly. That’s a great way to put it, yeah. We take that to heart, and we’re not afraid of using different techniques and mixing things together. It doesn’t have to be purely CG. It’s a good process.
I wanted to ask both of you about the scene where the Creature interacts with the deer. That’s one of the most tender, human moments in this whole film. I’m curious how you approached that, because it felt very effective.
BURGESS: That’s another ILM shot. They did the deer and the wolves in the water mill fight. That wasn’t us. But I will say that it was always the approach of getting a performance in-camera. Someone puppeted what the deer would do, so it was always from a physical perspective. It’s kind of the same thing for the wolves. Real wolves came in, and we tried to get as much performance as we could. Jacob acted off a weighted prop wolf, so there was always physicality in every moment. Ultimately, there was a lot of CG replacement on top of a performance.
I read that you built a single unified environment rather than separate versions for wide and close-up shots. I’m curious if you can talk a little bit about what that means for people who might not be as familiar with VFX.
DAVID ROBY: You build up more of the parts where you know you’re going to be just to make it easier to work from one shot to the next, and they all connect. When we built the tower, for example, we would build the section that matched perfectly to the one-story [structure] that they built in a field. And then we built another to match the rooftop and spire that Victor climbs up. There are three separate sets that all have to work together and be seen from each other, so it’s easier to work with them as one large environment.
How does that impact the process? What’s the difference between building a single one versus splitting it up?
ROBY: It’s really story-based. I think it’s fair to say that, if they are important to each other from a story perspective, that’s when you should build them together. For example, the hanging court is in story space a block away from Victor’s apartment, but they never really touch in film space, so we just built those two environments completely separately. That’s the logic of splitting them up.
BURGESS: In terms of the unified environment, when you start splitting things off that are somewhat related, you start getting into this world where you’re like, “Which thing do we use in this shot?” And maybe there’s a change you make on one shot that you’re using in two others, and then the change starts to cascade in ways that maybe you don’t want — or maybe you do want — and then you have to figure out how to consolidate the assets so they’re the same. It can get a bit difficult to organize, whereas with the unified thing, you know that this is our world. Wherever we put a camera, it’s always going to have continuity and be consistent. It’s less for everyone to manage, too.
ROBY: The shot execution is naturally more consistent versus if you have to apply the same change to multiple things. If you have the tower from far away and the tower from close up, then it’s like, “Oh, what if it had like an extra gargoyle here? Great, now we have to add that gargoyle to both versions.” Whereas, if it’s one, you just go add the gargoyle, and they all have it.
BURGESS: It takes more time to do the unified approach because you’re constantly checking and doing everything, but you win on the back end with efficiency. It was worth the effort for us on this one, and it worked out well. I don’t think there were any downsides to doing it in this one.
ROBY: It definitely saved our bacon a couple of times when suddenly Guillermo wanted to see down from the spire. In the very first version of the cut, we only ever saw the spire on its own, and then they added a shot that kind of tilts up to see Victor on the spire, so if we hadn’t built it all together, we would’ve been like, “Uh-oh.”
I’m so glad that you mentioned the sky in one of your earlier answers. I have a lot of questions about that, because it was so striking in this movie. One of the last shots has the sun coming up. Is there an extra amount of pressure when you know that you’re going to be crucial in how the film ends?
BURGESS: I wouldn’t say pressure. I’d say it’s an opportunity — we’re pumped to do it, and it’s exciting.
ROBY: Maybe a little pressure. [Laughs]
BURGESS: It’s cool because you’re being trusted with one of the most important, intimate moments in the movie, right? It’s a great sequence.
ROBY: It’s a great emotional performance — [the Creature] sheds a single tear. You don’t want the background to be distracting, or it’s going to ruin your last impression of the movie.
BURGESS: Exactly. We want to meet the moment and frankly not get in the way. Finish the thought, build the environment, put you in the world, and then let Jacob [Elordi] perform. Let the show happen. We take the responsibility seriously. We try to get in there and then let the shot play. The performance was so good — the editing, the pacing, the sound, everything worked together really well.
Keeping with the sky questions, I loved how part of it looked almost like the Northern Lights with the green. I really loved the rainbow against the snow. I’m curious if you can talk about balancing realism with artisticness. It felt like a painting but also a photograph. How did you find that balance?
ROBY: Honestly, that’s maybe the most challenging part of working on a Guillermo movie. It has to look real enough that it’s not like some cartoon or something, but it’s this heightened or hyper-reality. You have to find the balance so it doesn’t go too far and stops being believable.
BURGESS: The thing that we always use as our anchor is photography and specific cinematography. You can find really interesting skies that are shot with long exposure or HDR photography. You’re not going to get that if you shoot something at 24 frames per second. There’s a specific look that you have to get. For us, we had a big library of practical skies and things we photographed that looked really great. We tried to use things we’ve seen and photographed in those digital map paintings so that there was always an anchor of reality. It wasn’t made-up skies. It wasn’t an artist just coming up with an interesting cloud shape, which is cool in certain circumstances. But in this case, like you said, the photorealism matters, so picking the right elements and using that reality in the VFX was a big part of us getting on the right side of the photorealism and not getting too fantasy or surreal.
I wanted to ask you about some of the other projects that you’ve worked on, too, because you both have such interesting resumes. Ayo, I know you worked on Wednesday, specifically with lighting. I feel like, on that show, the lighting and shadows are such a huge part. Can you talk about your work on that?
BURGESS: After I finished Frankenstein, my next show wasn’t ready, so I jumped in to help the lighting guys finish Wednesday Season 2. It was a good experience. The cinematography was really strong on Wednesday, and the lighting was really well done. I was working on the sequences where Mama Hyde fights Hyde. It was really well established, and when a cinematographer and on-set effects people do such a good job capturing those lighting setups, we just take the time to painstakingly replicate them. It takes time, but if you match it and get your CG objects matching the practical calibration that we shoot, it really works well. It’s all about following the cinematography and making sure we had it right, but it was really good fun.
You also worked on Bates Motel, which I absolutely love. I’m curious if you can talk about what you did on that series.
BURGESS: It was really short, but I worked on a ship sinking. The thing about our job is that sometimes, you’ll do hundreds of shots, and sometimes, you’ll do four. So that was a small one where I got to help with the ship sinking.
David, you worked on Cabinet of Curiosities, which is another visually striking show with such an interesting environment and world. Can you talk about your experience on that?
ROBY: It was another Guillermo show, which is always so much fun to work on because of the heightened reality. He’s the coolest guy you could possibly want for that kind of thing. I worked on the first episode with the tentacle monster and then the witch’s house. I loved working on the tentacle monster — Dottie, I think her name was. That sequence was so much fun, because she peels off the floor. We had all this gross skin coming off. It was one of those things where I knew we’d done a good job when we got the supervisor to be like, “Oh Jesus Christ.” We’d do dailies, and he’d be like, “Oh, what the hell? It’s great, but oh my god.” That’s fun — trying to gross out your supervisor.
What about A Series of Unfortunate Events? I grew up reading those books, and the show is such a great adaptation.
ROBY: That was also a lot of fun. I got to work on the lion pit in that show. We had these really mean, gnarly lions, and my contribution was the pit they’re in, so all the claw marks and the roots they had been pulling out.
That has source material that you’re sort of working with, too. How does the process differ when something is based on a book and there are specific descriptions that everyone has read, versus something you’re creating more from scratch?
BURGESS: Most of the visual development is done pre-production with production design and the art department. If it’s purely coming from visual effects, it’s about getting reference from wherever is easiest and finding those anchors. We just do a lot of research. When we start, we get a big library of stuff to show, in this case, to Guillermo. We’ll go back and forth and figure out, “Do you like this? Do you not like this?” Whatever it is, we always try to work from some kind of an anchor, so you’re not out to sea just making things up. I think that’s when you can get really kind of stuck, and lost, and things can kind of end up feeling really synthetic. We build from ideas that we find in other films and shows, and try to put our own spin on them.
Is there a sequence or a shot in all of the projects you’ve worked on that you’re proudest of or that’s most memorable to you?
ROBY: Honestly, Frankenstein was a pretty high bar. I feel really good about what we achieved on that movie. Hopefully, as an artist, you’re always improving, so your latest show is hopefully your best. That’s not always the case, but I’m really proud of the stuff we did on Frankenstein. I think our team was really nailing it and firing on all cylinders. You always want to be as good as the people around you. That’s a great feeling.
BURGESS: I totally agree. Same for me. For me specifically, the destruction sequence, because of the mix of techniques that we got to use — being able to have special effects, explosions, miniatures, full-scale set builds, and then digital shots all intertwined in a way that you can’t really tell. It was really like a fun experience using old techniques and new techniques to make it work and tell the story. That was a very satisfying sequence. I remember when we screened the film together and watched the sequence all the way through as a team. It was a good feeling to see it all come together.
Before the interview, you told me that you hoped interviews like this would get people curious about this job. If there is a teenager or younger person interested in what this job entails, what would your advice to them be about how they can prepare and what they can do to further explore it?
BURGESS: I think it starts from curiosity. This is so much really interesting information about visual effects and how they’re made — Lord of the Rings, Star Wars. Look at some of the old stuff that those guys at ILM and Wētā did. Some of that really foundational stuff is super interesting. Look at that, see if that interests you, and then look at some of the more modern stuff. There are lots of really interesting VFX breakdowns on YouTube and stuff to see what people are doing. There are a lot of disciplines. There are a lot of different places to go. But I think start by looking at what people have done, see if anything sparks your interest, and jump in.
ROBY: Specialize in something that really excites you. If you like seeing spaceships explode, explosions might be your bread and butter, or modeling the spaceship, or whatever it is. If that’s the thing that excites you, then go for it.
Frankenstein is now streaming on Netflix.
— Taylor Gates