Post #494712 by bigbrotiki on Thu, Nov 19, 2009 1:55 PM

This one is a toughy! My first reaction for these scenes is always that in 85% of the cases they are sets. Even if not built on a sound stage, they are often some generic location dressed up as a tropical place. That is after all how Oceanic Arts survived the Tiki-desert of the 80s, by renting to the studios. And they supplied both, real bars and fake sets, so an O.A. piece does not simply make it either/or. Even for me, being a Tiki authority AND a cinematographer, it is often difficult to tell if it's a real place or a set, BECAUSE:

A.) One basic fact about Poly pop decor is that it IS very much like film set art direction. It is in part why I believe Poly pop was born in Hollywood, with Don The Beachcomber, who advised on South Sea films and had friends in the industry.

B.) Even if it was a real place, it would never be shot "as is". The art department would go in and add and embellish the theme, and it would
also be completely re-lit for shooting it. This adds to the impression of a real location being a set.

C.) SOME angles might be shot in the real place, some on a set. For example, in this Starsky and Hutch episode, their reverse angles from the stage, when they stand by the entrance, the entrance looks very fake. (the bar scenes begin at minute 10:00)

I am really intrigued by this conundrum, so let's analyze some of the angles:

First, the exterior:

Though solid, the face of the A-frame looks a little bland. On it we see a Maori wall hanging made by Oceanic Arts. The Tiki posts are painted 70s-style. The neon name "Jungle Club" sounds very generic, like "we don't wanna get in trouble using a real place's name" -like a film prop. Though the fact is: it was shot on a real LA street, not a studio lot, (like that "Jeannie" exterior we saw here recently):

BUT: Much more elaborate Tiki exteriors have been built as sets before, case in point is this impressive entry from a British film, for a a place that, according to seasoned British Tiki archeologists, never existed in London:

So my verdict on the" Jungle Room" exterior would also be: A set, propped onto a real club entrance

But back to Starsky and Hutch. Next: The carvings:

Have not seen this one at O.A., but studio prop houses had lots of their own "primitive art". Though this one somehow looks in situ.
Verdict: Could be on location

Next: the stage, towards the entrance:

The Jungle Room sign again. Looks like they used the same one inside first, and later outside. The old foot lights look very hoakey.
Verdict: A set

Next: The area behind the stage:

It not only has a lot of depth, with several booths lined up, but it has a BAMBOO CEILING!
Verdict: On location

Next: long shot towards the stage:

Makes the place look big, with a lot of depth. But that's done with an old trick: Put two blokes and a table right in front of camera, dress some palm fronts around the frame, and Voila!, you have lotsa depth.

All in all this place just reeks of a set to me. Starsky and Hutch was a very successful show at that point, so they would have had the budget to build such a place. Or it was a combination of various levels of location/ set dressing/ studio. We will probably never know. :)