Jump to content

"The Artist" and "Once Upon a Time in the West"


Scott Smith

Recommended Posts

OK, I know I've committed the ultimate act of heresy by going to see a silent movie, but I just had to see what all the fuss was about.

While the film is a wonderful paene to the days of the silents, I have to say that I was just a bit disappointed by the cinematography. While it was gratifying to see them stay true to the original Academy aspect ratio, the black & white image doesn't hold a candle to the real deal. All in all, though, a very nicely conceived movie. As always, the dog steals the show, but the acting is pretty good too! (as is the score, even though he borrowed from Bernard Herrmann)

Viewed it in digital at the Arclight cinema. Clean presentation, but it looks like, well, digital.

On the other hand, I had the opportunity to see the restored version of Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West" the other night. Barry Allen from Paramount did a presentation regarding the restoration effort. While I have to admit I was a bit disappointed in the soundtrack (still a lot of wow left on the music score), the work done by Paul Rutan at Triage Labs in making new elements from the original Techniscope camera negative is extremely impressive (and no DI either, it's all film!) Don't miss this if it comes your way.

--S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I set up and ran a 35mm print of "The Artist" on studio projectors. Most theaters that still have 35mm projectors do not have 1.33 aperture plates or lens for that format, so what they did was print it within a 1.85 format (4 perf) so it would fill up theater screens top to bottom, and then all you did was move the side masking black THX material inward to make it 4x3. The image on the print was actually the size of a 16mm 4x3 frame, as the 1.85 on 4 perf is already matted on the top and bottom. Not sure how they shot it, but IMDB says source format was super35mm, which doesn't make any sense.... would mean negative image was still the size of a 16mm frame.

Don't know what they did to the DCP to make the 4x3 format.

If you see older 35mm full frame projected correctly, you will ask yourself 'why are we giving this up?'

And it's all about a matter of convenience.

Looking at a DCP or HDCamSR 444 you will say to yourself... 'gosh, this looks fantastic', no jitter in picture, no dirt, no scratches, can be played over and over without damage etc., But when putting up a 35mm print of the same media next or right after, you will choose the print as having the best look. Depth in the emulsion giving different color focus, more depth in the image, not flat looking like digital, black is better. Your brain forgives the image jitter and dirt. And then you ask yourself again, "why are we giving this up?' It's all about $ and convenience.

As far as the "Once Upon A Time In The West" sound, maybe they only had the mag track to go back to. Probably the only movie I've seen Henry Fonda play a nasty killer.. blows away that unarmed boy point blank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the Artist and Hugo back to back, and found both touching.

I loved both of them. Hugo brought tears to my eyes repeatedly.

Like many people on this board, I am very interested in the history of our medium, and study vintage films and current technical papers with equal obsessive attention.

Audio wise, The Artist is not, of course, Silent. As it has a married score, sound design, foley, and even a little bit of dialogue, it is more akin to sychronized score pictures of the late 1920's.

The cinematography is much more like 1930s era sound films. (early b&w stocks had less spectral sensitivity to blue, and it showed.) The lighting styles are also a lot more like 1930s films.

I am not sure whether I saw a digital projection or a print, as the theater I went to still is able to do either.

In a related "death of film" note, a repertory theater owned by some of my friends is dismayed to learn that they are going to have great difficulty in renting actual prints from now on. A few weeks ago, they screened "The Shining," and were told that they were the last rental that print was going on, as it was scheduled for destruction on return. Apparently, as the tax code considers prints to be an asset on which corporate taxes must be paid, distributors are now destroying prints.

Private collectors do not want their prints to be circulated, even if the exhibition rental is paid to the license holder, as they fear confiscation of them.

so.. the print is going to be a very endangered species, going forwards.

I do suspect it will be very convenient for the distributor to not ship an media at all, but to allow a data stream to a specific projector on receipt of (also electronic) receipt of ticket revenues for a specific room in a specific theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Brent's sentiments . I also loved it. Not just because my brother was a camera op on it. But what the F**k is the deal with many of the crew including my brother not getting screen credits. Is this a French thing?

Andy

Yes like a french lunch break, eat while bent over... LOL...

Only a joke....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viewed it in digital at the Arclight cinema. Clean presentation, but it looks like, well, digital.

Gee, I've color-timed about 300 films in my life, and I thought it looked pretty good -- very "organic" and natural. Oh, well.

Note that the film was shot on actual 35mm Kodak color negative (5219, according to IMDB), and then finished digitally, which is also the same workflow for many, many features nowadays. I think you're making judgements based on a projection issue, not from a photographic issue.

The film has been nominated for Best Cinematography by members of the ASC, so apparently they thought it looked pretty good, too. What's interesting to me is that a lot of very heavy-duty digital technology (including lots of VFX) was used in a way to precisely emulate the look of 1930s nitrate film, including the slight "glow" around bright objects. I thought it was very beautiful and well-done, myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film has been nominated for Best Cinematography by members of the ASC, so apparently they thought it looked pretty good, too. What's interesting to me is that a lot of very heavy-duty digital technology (including lots of VFX) was used in a way to precisely emulate the look of 1930s nitrate film, including the slight "glow" around bright objects. I thought it was very beautiful and well-done, myself.

I agree w Marc regarding the look but for me the story told by all is what won me over. Over all I think this is a pretty good year for films the Academy likes to consider.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, didn't expect so many responses to this! (Sorry Jeff, I just realized I should have started this thread under the "Movies" section. My bad-feel free to move it where it belongs.)

Great to see that we have some projectionists on the group as well!

I knew the film was shot on Eastman color negative, but didn't know that they shot it in Super 35. I truly don't understand that decision! if their intention at the time was to release in 1.33, I also don't understand why they wouldn't shoot on Double -X or Tri-X negative, both of which are still available from Kodak. While neither one of these stocks will match the look of a nitrate negative and print, at least it's in the ballpark. Also, last time I checked, 2302 B&W print stock was still available from Kodak (at least on special order), so there is no reason that they couldn't have stayed completely B&W. (I see that they tried hard to duplicate the look of the older film stocks and processing, which these days means going through a DI, but I think they would have gained a lot by staying B&W for the negative and film release prints. But what the f**k do I know, I'm just a sound guy....).

Also, just to clarify; my comments pertained mostly to the look of the film, as opposed to the performances, which I thought were pretty good (although not on par with the greats of the silent era.) That is acting style that I don't think will ever come back in vogue, although I thought both Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo did a great job. Even John Goodman made a believable studio boss.

Overall, I thought the film was pretty entertaining, especially given the rather meager budget. The married score was well done, and the Foley work for the dance sequence was dead on (although too dry for my taste).

The credit sequence at the head was obviously done in the style of the day, which means that only above the line and department heads got credit. Not sure about the end titles.

As Christopher points out, the days of actually being able to view prints is numbered. Kinoton is one of the few companies left manufacturing film projectors, and parts for older Simplex, Century's and other projectors are going to be hard to come by. Enjoy it while you can, because in another generation it will most likely be gone. Kodak is on the rocks, there are only two major labs left in the US, and the knowledge pertaining to film in general is going by the wayside at an alarming rate.

If you should ever be so lucky as to view an original nitrate print, do it now while you can, because that experience will be extinct very soon (especially after the fire in the booth at Stanford a few years back). Although there are a lot of mediocre B&W films out there, the ones that were well done are really something to behold. Razor sharp, and with a life to the image that can't be duplicated by current film stocks.

Because of what's happening with prints these days, I made the decision last year to put my small collection of 35mm prints on cores and in archival cans (not cheap!), as who knows what will be left in future years.

On a final note, while I have to admit that digital projection (and even digital origination) has come a long way in the past decade, it still doesn't match the depth and quality of a good camera negative and release print. Unfortunately, most of the general public will never see how good film can be, what with prints being struck at 1000' per minute, haphazard procesing and projection practices, and all the other compromises along the way.. (Those who have had the opportunity to view a first-generation print from a camera negative on a high quality projection system know what I'm talking about.) Sadly, that is not what most people will see.

FYI: I was told the Henry Fonda had initially turned down the role in "Once Upon a Time in the West" due to the character portrayal, but one of the other actors convinced him that he should do it, telling him it would be the chance of a lifetime to work with Leone. Still, that's a tough scene to watch.

RE: The "Once Upon a Time..." soundtrack; I haven't spoken to Jon Polito directly, but I guess they had very few mag elements to work from for the sound restoration, so he probably did what he could under the circumstances. The dynamic range was definately better than the original optical track, and the score had much better bass extension. Sadly, most of the distortion on the score is still there, but some of the mid-range stridency is gone. Guess that's the best they could come up with. Not to cast aspersions on our Italian brothers, but for some reason, virtually every optical negative I have seen from the 1950's and 1960's out of Italy is horribly overmodulated. WTF....

--Scott

I set up and ran a 35mm print of "The Artist" on studio projectors. Most theaters that still have 35mm projectors do not have 1.33 aperture plates or lens for that format, so what they did was print it within a 1.85 format (4 perf) so it would fill up theater screens top to bottom, and then all you did was move the side masking black THX material inward to make it 4x3. The image on the print was actually the size of a 16mm 4x3 frame, as the 1.85 on 4 perf is already matted on the top and bottom. Not sure how they shot it, but IMDB says source format was super35mm, which doesn't make any sense.... would mean negative image was still the size of a 16mm frame.

Don't know what they did to the DCP to make the 4x3 format.

If you see older 35mm full frame projected correctly, you will ask yourself 'why are we giving this up?'

And it's all about a matter of convenience.

Looking at a DCP or HDCamSR 444 you will say to yourself... 'gosh, this looks fantastic', no jitter in picture, no dirt, no scratches, can be played over and over without damage etc., But when putting up a 35mm print of the same media next or right after, you will choose the print as having the best look. Depth in the emulsion giving different color focus, more depth in the image, not flat looking like digital, black is better. Your brain forgives the image jitter and dirt. And then you ask yourself again, "why are we giving this up?' It's all about $ and convenience.

As far as the "Once Upon A Time In The West" sound, maybe they only had the mag track to go back to. Probably the only movie I've seen Henry Fonda play a nasty killer.. blows away that unarmed boy point blank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew the film was shot on Eastman color negative, but didn't know that they shot it in Super 35.

You can compose material for 1.33 in Super 35mm 4-perf. In the pre-HD days, some commercial cinematographers would request what they called a "Big TV" format that just used another 10-15% more of the negative. Technically speaking, it gave them more area and less grain. A custom alignment chart made sure what they saw in the viewfinder was what they later saw on TV. If they wanted to shoot 3-perf Super 35, you could just extract a 4x3 box in the center, and I don't think the grain would really be an issue, not with 5219. Heck, I'd guarantee you they had to add grain to this film to make it look like a 1932 movie.

I also don't understand why they wouldn't shoot on Double -X or Tri-X negative, both of which are still available from Kodak. While neither one of these stocks will match the look of a nitrate negative and print, at least it's in the ballpark. Also, last time I checked, 2302 B&W print stock was still available from Kodak (at least on special order), so there is no reason that they couldn't have stayed completely B&W.

Not available in the large quantities needed for a big feature. Also, B&W is hard to get processed nowadays; it's a special run at the lab, there's a higher charge, and usually a 12-hour delay while they flush all the other fluids from the developer. I can recall many tests made for the 2005 George Clooney film Good Night and Good Luck, and also Steven Soderberg's The Good German, both of which wound up being shot on Kodak 5218 color negative and carefully tweaked and changed to B&W for release. Both of those I think were printed on B&W release stock.

On a final note, while I have to admit that digital projection (and even digital origination) has come a long way in the past decade, it still doesn't match the depth and quality of a good camera negative and release print. Unfortunately, most of the general public will never see how good film can be, what with prints being struck at 1000' per minute, haphazard procesing and projection practices, and all the other compromises along the way...

Yeah, speaking as a guy who worked for Technicolor for 20 years (or at least, Technicolor's digital arm), there are still things about an all-film delivery that are better than digital. But that train has left the station.

The best things I can say about digital projection: it's uniformly bright, corner to corner, with no hot spot in the center; no dirt, scratches, or damage over time; the picture is rock-steady; and the blacks are actually better than a traditional Vision print (but not as good as Vision Premiere, which is more costly). But I think the color and the "texture" of the picture is better in film. Strictly my opinion.

There are many analogies you can make between recording on 1/4" Nagra vs. digital. There's always trade-offs either way. You can get great results from each, yet each also has major limitations. I always like to joke, "I never had a Nagra III crash on me." But then, I never had a Deva run out of stock in the middle of a take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The big industry issue right now, especially for SMPTE and AMPAS, is how to preserve feature films digitally over the long haul. What are we gonna do for movies that have no negative? This is especially a problem for little indie art films that are maybe shown at a half-dozen festivals and have a short theatrical run, then go right to DVD and cable. What happens if and when those digital files go bad? These are serious questions.

I have personally run 1931 nitrate film and gotten usable pictures out of it on modern equipment. (This was for a restoration of a half-dozen Laurel & Hardy shorts.) The smell of those prints was something you would not want to smell twice in your life. We had all the safety precautions in place, and were using a fairly low-wattage bulb (500 watts) which had no danger of igniting the emulsion on the scanner.

AMPAS has a couple of interesting technical papers:

The Digital Dilemma

The Digital Dilemma Part 2

both subtitled "Strategic Issues in Archiving and Accessing Digital Motion Picture Materials." Pretty dry reading, but the conclusions are alarming. We can still play back 35mm films that are 70, 80, even 90 years old. But 10 or 15 year old digital files... not so easy sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...