From a feminist standpoint, it isnt´t subtle. I´m not sure if it should be taken entirely serious. I find it deceitully simple, though, and quite clever but it does at times seem taken from another era as well. The truth is i don´t get it completely. This film, feminist or not, is certainly feminine. The most feminine film I´ve ever seen. It´s a woman´s art, a woman´s idea, a woman´s everything. It´s absolutely drowning in estrogen.
>The film was shot in "standard 4-perf 35mm 1.85 on an Arricam ST and plan on a photochemical finish, and then a transfer to digital from a timed IP". >The Love Witch is one of the last films to cut an original camera negative on 35 mm film.[
Plenty of movies are shot on 35 still. The problem is that Kodak's stock has become too fine grain.
I'm seeing Poor Things on 35 on Monday and am hoping it's good. They shot on 35 reversal I think,
Yes! Very astute of you.
The whole reason Phantom Thread got a 70mm release was because Anderson wasn't satisfied with the look of what they shot (35mm). The blow up to 70 brought out the grain and made it seem more of the time.
>The problem is that Kodak's stock has become too fine grain.
Hardly an issue. Black and white stock was already very fine grain in the 60s, as opposed to color stock, which took a long time to achieve equally fine grain. I recently watched the 4K Blu-Ray of Godard's Breathless (scanned from the negatives) and was amazed at how fine grain it was. Probably even more so than recent movies on color film like Killers of the Flower Moon.
There's a lot to distinguish film from digital other than muh grain.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Film has a very subtle quality of depth that simply isn't possible with digital. Film is a 3D dimensional object and as such captures the light onto a physical structure. You just can't replicate that with a digital sensor.
Film is a frickint b***h to work with though so I don't blame anyone for not using it.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>watching my 16 interpositive light on fire in the projector
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yes. But I was specifically talking about the nature of grain in Kodak stock.
>Dude stop. I watched a DCP on opening night.
Yeah, and it seems that you don't remember shit now over 8 years later. >Their flex about shooting 35 on original lenses was pathetic.
Yet that's exactly what they did.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Yet that's exactly what they did.
And it looked like it was shot on RED.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Looks like film to me, which, you know, it is.
Don't think you have a good eye for film, when you can only rely on heavy grain.
Digital vs film isn't entirely the problem. But making everything perfectly sharp and focused no matter what kills the dream effect you get from slight blurring and wash out that tends to happen from film and analog lenses. If you want things to look real, unfortunately, you have to make them look somewhat unreal.
It simultaneously both cracks me up and depresses me that ever since Ellen went full schizo zipper breasts she looks like she’s perpetually in the verge of tears kek
They scan the film digitally and put CGI on it just like they would over digitally shot footage. You just have to add the correct amount of grain over the CGI to make it look like a part of the image.
>35mm film made this movie look good
Nope. The same results can be had with other formats and crops. Direction, production and story telling made this movie great , not 35mm film.
no recent films have been good enough to use 35mm
Except Barbie
Watched The Zone of Interest in 35mm, it was kino
Yet it was shot digitally.
nta - I don't think digital acquisition is as much of a problem with the theatrical experience as much as digital exhibition is.
sauce?
The Love Witch (2016)
That's a really good movie. It's shot and acted in a really wierd, unsettling style. I would call it kino.
From a feminist standpoint, it isnt´t subtle. I´m not sure if it should be taken entirely serious. I find it deceitully simple, though, and quite clever but it does at times seem taken from another era as well. The truth is i don´t get it completely. This film, feminist or not, is certainly feminine. The most feminine film I´ve ever seen. It´s a woman´s art, a woman´s idea, a woman´s everything. It´s absolutely drowning in estrogen.
I think it's self-aware and somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The old-fashioned acting style is great.
there's a last drive-in for it too
That's digital thoughever.
>The film was shot in "standard 4-perf 35mm 1.85 on an Arricam ST and plan on a photochemical finish, and then a transfer to digital from a timed IP".
>The Love Witch is one of the last films to cut an original camera negative on 35 mm film.[
Unironically looks like cheap shit.
Watch, is kino. The colors are amazing, makes you feel sick watching these digital flicks like Marvel shit. Also the lead is stunning.
I watched it years ago on fmovies and never noticed her botched nose job. What in the frick lol
After the movie she had a "reverse nose job" to make look more natural.
still looks michael jackson as frick
That's not after the "reverse nose job". This is.
Looks fricked up.
Unironically prefer her older nosejob here
It looks fine to me. Stop being such a picky Black person.
I agree.
why wasn't she in more kino?
Looks fantastic, I would swear that's from the 70s.
I just shot from my 35mm
You're welcome
Plenty of movies are shot on 35 still. The problem is that Kodak's stock has become too fine grain.
I'm seeing Poor Things on 35 on Monday and am hoping it's good. They shot on 35 reversal I think,
modern 16mm has more sovl than 35mm
Nice heavy digital color grading you have there kek
Yes! Very astute of you.
The whole reason Phantom Thread got a 70mm release was because Anderson wasn't satisfied with the look of what they shot (35mm). The blow up to 70 brought out the grain and made it seem more of the time.
>The problem is that Kodak's stock has become too fine grain.
Hardly an issue. Black and white stock was already very fine grain in the 60s, as opposed to color stock, which took a long time to achieve equally fine grain. I recently watched the 4K Blu-Ray of Godard's Breathless (scanned from the negatives) and was amazed at how fine grain it was. Probably even more so than recent movies on color film like Killers of the Flower Moon.
Look at The Force Awakens.
The grain is absolutely an issue with modern Kodak 35.
An issue how?
It approximates the look of digital.
There's a lot to distinguish film from digital other than muh grain.
Film has a very subtle quality of depth that simply isn't possible with digital. Film is a 3D dimensional object and as such captures the light onto a physical structure. You just can't replicate that with a digital sensor.
Film is a frickint b***h to work with though so I don't blame anyone for not using it.
>watching my 16 interpositive light on fire in the projector
Yes. But I was specifically talking about the nature of grain in Kodak stock.
The Force Awakens has plenty of visible grain. Watch a good quality version instead of some shitty highly compressed rip.
Dude stop. I watched a DCP on opening night.
Their flex about shooting 35 on original lenses was pathetic.
>Dude stop. I watched a DCP on opening night.
Yeah, and it seems that you don't remember shit now over 8 years later.
>Their flex about shooting 35 on original lenses was pathetic.
Yet that's exactly what they did.
>Yet that's exactly what they did.
And it looked like it was shot on RED.
Looks like film to me, which, you know, it is.
Don't think you have a good eye for film, when you can only rely on heavy grain.
>Look at The Force Awakens.
No, I won't.
Digital vs film isn't entirely the problem. But making everything perfectly sharp and focused no matter what kills the dream effect you get from slight blurring and wash out that tends to happen from film and analog lenses. If you want things to look real, unfortunately, you have to make them look somewhat unreal.
here's your dreamlike blur and wash out, bro
Vintage lenses are such a fricking meme.
Skyrim?
It's not the arrow it's the indian.
>analog lenses
otherwise agree more or less
Digital projection is an abomination.
It simultaneously both cracks me up and depresses me that ever since Ellen went full schizo zipper breasts she looks like she’s perpetually in the verge of tears kek
people praise The Love Witch even if that is a very low-grain film as well. most people care more about the color and contrast than muh grain
this, most movies today are so grey and low contrast IT LOOKS LIKE SHIT AHHHHHHHRGGHHHHHHH
>anon mentioned Poor things
Can someone tell me how they do digital CGI with film?
They scan the film digitally and put CGI on it just like they would over digitally shot footage. You just have to add the correct amount of grain over the CGI to make it look like a part of the image.
SEXO
I know this is a controversial opinion but i love beautiful women
You forgot to say no homo
>35mm film made this movie look good
Nope. The same results can be had with other formats and crops. Direction, production and story telling made this movie great , not 35mm film.
Have you seen open matte 35mm scans? They comfy