White Swan Films - Blog

The first "Blade Runner 2049" critics' reaction: "Masterpiece".

10/1/2017

It is almost impossible to create a movie that can compare with the sci-fi classics. However, French Canadian director and writer Denise Villeneuve accepted the challenge. On October 5th we will find out how he continued the Philip K. Dick's universe story. The 2049 Blade Runner's events happen 30 years later after the original. The LAPD Officer K (Ryan Gosling) has a mission to find the blade runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) who disappeared many years ago, in order to save human race from the creator of replicates Neander Wallace (Jared Leto).

Warner and Sony trying to avoid any kind of spoilers leak, the movie was not sent neither to the Venice Film Festival nor to Toronto, even though it was expected to. The American press signed the embargo so there will be no critical reviews till the release date. However, there are some reviews already on the net, so we gathered some of them for you.

Jordan Hoffman, who writes for Vanity Fair, NY Daily News and the Guardian, is twitting: "Good news! BLADE RUNNER 2049 is a terrific continuation and expansion of the orig. Wasn't hoping for much, ended up LOVING it. (Even Leto!)"

Jimmy0 from JoBlo.com considers new Blade Runner "Astonishing... More than just a visual wonder, it's a groundbreaking science fiction masterpiece."

The chief editor of the We Live Entertainment, Scott Menzel, says: "Blade Runner 2049 is a rare sequel that actually improves on the original. Great Performances & Visually Breathtaking. Villeneuve nails it."

The Cinema Blend website editor Eric Eisenberg leaves several comments: "Blade Runner 2049 is phenomenal. Visually mind-blowing sci-fi w/noir roots shining through in a tight, twisty mystery. Best of 2017 so far".
"Denis Villeneuve is unquestionably one of the elite working directors & there's no excuse if Deakins doesn't win the Oscar".

The Colliders' Steven Weintraub: "Everyone bow down to Denis Villeneuve. He’s done the impossible and delivered a huge home run with 'Blade Runner 2049'. Loved it".
One of the leading British movie critics, Peter Bradshaw, writes for the Guardian: "Blade Runner 2049 really is next-level staggering. I'm still processing how good it is".

The correspondent from Yahoo Entertainment Kevin Polowy was brief: "I've seen Blade Runner 2049 and it's FUCKING INCREDIBLE."

Critics mentions, that Villeneuve "nailed the aesthetic" of the movie: "Like they traveled back there to film it".

Well, let's see what this 3 hours long creation will bring us, in theaters starting from October 5th.

First Look: Denzel Washington's 'Fences' Adaptation - Opening Christmas

12/24/2016

If you're a movie buff, you couldn't hope for a better Christmas present than a new film starring Denzel Washington and Viola Davis — and that's precisely what you'll be getting on Dec. 25 when Paramount releases Fences, an adaptation of the late, great August Wilson's 1983 Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award winning play, directed by Washington himself.

Set and shot in the historical African-American part of Pittsburgh where Wilson grew up, the film — the first stills of which The Hollywood Reporter is unveiling in this post — was made from a script written by Wilson, who died in 2005, and produced by Washington in partnership with Scott Rudin and Todd Black.

The hit 2010 Broadway production of Fences, which was produced by Rudin and starred Washington and Davis, was awarded Tonys for Best Revival, Best Actor (Washington) and Best Actress (Davis).

Also appearing in the 2010 production and reprising their parts for the big screen, are Russell Hornsby, Mykelti Williamson and Stephen McKinley Henderson. Henderson, who has frequently collaborated with Wilson, received a Best Featured Actor and Tony nomination for the play and seems likely to earn the film’s third Oscar nod this years for Best Supporting Actor.

How To Look Your Best On Set

10/19/2016

You’ve booked the job! Hooray! As the shoot day or days approach what can you do to guarantee you look your best for camera? Unfortunately we actors let vanity get the better of us. But in all fairness for good reason, it’s our face and frame that get scrutinized from every angle. The intimacy of the camera can be cruel, but there are some quick and simple tips to ensure that you do the best with what Mother Nature gave you.

Sleep - Yes, there’s a reason why they call it beauty sleep. There’s nothing that a good night’s rest can’t cure. Besides overall rejuvenation and the disappearance of dark under eye circles, here are a few more benefits:

Better memory, better performance.
Helps creativity and keeps you sharp.
Curbs hunger and promotes healthy weight, lessens inflammation in the body.
Lowers stress levels.
Levels out mood and helps prevent depression and anxiety.

Water - Another thing we often under-estimate are the healing powers of water. When you're dehydrated, your body will begin to retain water as a survival mechanism. Drink lots of it because it flushes out a multitude of diet sins. Your skin will love the hydration from the inside out. But also take advantage of various forms of Hydrotherapy. If you don’t have the time or budget to visit a spa and take a steam or jacuzzi, you can create your own spa at home. A hot bath followed by a cold shower will work wonders. Steam your face to open the pores, then once you’ve washed away the impurities close them with an ice water wash.

Exercise - Cardio, cardio, cardio, I can’t stress it enough. It’s the best form of exercise before a shoot because it helps muscles release excess water. Unless you need to bulk up, any form of strength training will put your muscles in repair mode. Microscopic tears occur in your muscle fibers when you lift weights. These tears are part of the muscle-building process, and they are often the cause of delayed-onset muscle soreness after intense training sessions. When these tears occur, muscles may swell slightly and retain fluid for a few days after the exercise. Plus who wants to be sore during a 10-12 hour long shoot day?

Healthy Diet - Eat clean and simple so your digestive system is not strained, prevent bloating, and so you don’t feel sluggish. Most people do best with lean protein, veggies, fruit, and limiting complex carbs. A little juicing isn’t a bad idea either. Replacing one meal with a healthy low glycemic juice will help you to feel lighter and leaner. Some ingredients that promote detoxification: grapefruit, cucumber, celery, ginger and lemon. Limit your alcohol consumption, and if you’re a smoker try to cut back. Alcohol and smoking will dehydrate you and takes a toll on your skin, so let it go if you want to glow!

Skin Care - Ready for your close-up? Your star-meter not high enough yet to afford spa facials? Here are some do it yourself facial tips for a youthful and glowing complexion.

Exfoliate - Oatmeal and Honey Mask
Simply blend together rolled oats and a good organic honey into a paste. The oats rub off dead skin, and the honey repairs damaged skin cells with it’s antibacterial, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. This is a great mask to battle acne.
More ideas here: http://www.enkivillage.com/oatmeal-face-mask.html

Tighten & Brighten - Papaya and Egg White Mask
Egg whites will tighten pores and remove excess sebum on the skin’s surface. “Papaya is a beta-carotene-rich food filled with powerful enzymes and phytochemicals. The enzymes slow down the formation of fine lines and wrinkles by combating free radicals. The secret beauty nutrient in papaya is papain, an enzyme that has skin-lightening properties and can reduce the visibility of blemishes and acne scars. Together with alpha hydroxy acids, papain acts as a gentle exfoliator that dissolves inactive protein and dead skin cells. Applying papaya topically to skin will soften your skin, leaving it smooth and supple.” - bellatory.com
Check out all sorts here: https://bellatory.com/skin/papaya-face-mask-recipes

Moisturize
Slather on extra amounts of your favorite moisturizer throughout the days leading up to your shoot. And if you really want an inexpensive secret to silky smooth skin try Coconut Oil. That’s right, organic extra virgin coconut oil is the best night cream I’ve discovered. Some people, especially those with oily or combination skin are afraid to give it a try. Turns out coconut oil is antimicrobial, antifungal, and antibacterial, so it’s actually good for all skin types. Add a little Tea Tree oil too if you suffer from acne.

Relax
Sometimes relaxation is the hardest thing to do before a job. As actors we are often hustling for work so when one finally comes around our excitement hits the roof. Unless you’re working on a regular basis and are use to long days on set you’ll probably find it difficult to stay balanced. My suggestion is do something fun that helps you unwind a little and take the edge of the nerves or excitement, any activity that gets you out of your head. Meditation, a yoga class, watching a good movie, reading, listening to music, hanging or playing a sport with friends, or getting a massage are all good options.

When you decompress and relax you remember why you became an actor in the first place- because you love doing it. When you love what you do it shows, and you can be certain that when that shines through you’ll look your best no matter what.

Have any tips of your own to share? We want to know, comment below.

The Future Of Television

9/28/2016

Is online streaming the future of modern television? Recent analytics found that in it’s first week after it’s July 15th release Netflix’s Stranger Things became the most popular digital TV series in the US. It’s interesting to note that Stranger Things was rejected over fifteen times by a range of television networks, with some executives citing the four child leads as a reason why it wouldn’t work as an adult TV show and fail in ratings. Clearly the growth of Netflix, and other online streaming services prove a gradual departure from conventional television.

So what changes can we expect in television in the next decade? The end of scheduling and everything on demand? On demand would mean TV when you want it and how you want it. This could lead to subscription run channels dominating the market. The advantage is they won’t be limited by the responsibility to please or offend, and this would result in braver content. Strategic programming won’t matter anymore. Currently success is measured by whether a show wins it’s time slot. This will mean less as ratings become a thing of the past. With shorter online content, and the popularity of crowdfunding, shows could bypass broadcast TV altogether and going straight to the net. And with more venues and more choices there’s more room for personalized niche content. Binge watching could become the norm, people will watch content much like they sit down to read several chapters of a novel. And another thought, new technology may just take us away from our TV sets and devices entirely and into the world of virtual reality.

Ultimately how will these changes affect the content being created? We’re more likely to see bigger and more expensive dramas like Game Of Thrones and a decline in reality TV. The demand and variety will lead to more diversity on screen. More roles for minorities and women, and less ageism, there will be more roles for people over 35. And that diversity extends to writers and directors as well. There will be a global effect too as co-productions between countries results in more international programing. The new tax credit incentives in TV production are giving production companies the freedom to be bolder and more cinematic, even attract high profile names. But is there a downside? Will the broadcast streaming competition lead to more variety and distinctive shows, or have the opposite effect and create all star big-budget franchises?

Whatever the future of television one thing is certain and will never change- and that’s the human need and desire for good stories.

We want to hear from you. Where do you think the television industry is headed?

Laura Mulvey's Theory and how Scorsese subverted it in 'Goodfellas'

8/18/2016

Laura Mulvey is a British feminist film theorist who is best known for her essay, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", written in 1973. In the essay she argues that the cinematic apparatus of classical Hollywood cinema inevitably put the spectator in a masculine subject position, with the figure of the woman on screen as the object of desire and “the male gaze”.

Basically, her theory centers around the idea that woman are portrayed as erotic objects in film and that the audience is put into the perspective of a heterosexual man. This is mainly achieved through the use of various camera angles, shot sizes, and camera movements, which accentuate the physical attributes of female characters. Tying into this theory, she also propounded the view that films generally showcase an inherent patriarchal society where men set the majority of rules, and play active roles, whereas women are more often than not relegated to secondary or passive characters, with little or no importance.

Martin Scorsese, the director of 'Goodfellas', in my opinion, completely subverts Laura Mulvey’s Feminist theory in the Karen-Henry gun sequence. By placing the woman, i.e. Karen in control of the entire scene, Scorsese does an extraordinary job of putting us, i.e. the audience, in the perspective of the female character, and making us feel and relate to her emotions throughout. He achieves this not only through the construct of the story and dialogues, but also through the visual depictions, which subconsciously plays with our notions of point of view and control.

The sequence begins with a POV (point of view) shot looking down on Henry. This immediately makes us view Henry through the eyes of the person holding the gun. It also showcases that Henry is in danger and clearly not in control of this situation. We then cut to the POV of Henry looking down the barrel of the gun held by Karen. This shot achieves two things. It tells us that the shot prior to this was from the subjective lens of Karen, and that she is the one in possession of power here. By not cutting to an objective shot at this moment, Scorsese masterfully puts us in the mind of Henry for that brief moment, making us feel what he's feeling, which in the context of the situation is tremendous fear.

Scorsese finally cuts to an objective shot of both of them at under a minute mark, but quickly goes back to the POV shot of Henry looking up at Karen. Now normally, this would indicate that we've gone back into Henry's perspective, but at that very moment, we start to hear Karen's voice over which puts us as viewers, back in her head. It's an amazing technique, which plays against our expectations of what constitutes subjectivity and objectivity.

The voice over then guides us through the scene as we hear Karen contemplate whether to shoot Henry or not. We hear the narration play over a close up shot of the gun directed at Henry's face, signifying that even though Karen is conflicted inside, she is the one who has the power and is in control of the outcome.

Finally, as Karen gets emotional and starts to slowly lower her gun, Henry lashes out and slaps her to the floor, gaining control of the situation. At this moment, rather than showing us a close shot of either Karen or Henry, Scorsese decides to just utilize an objective medium shot showing both of them from a distance. In doing so, he makes us the audience view the violence and aggression exuded by Henry in an objective fashion and doesn't portray Karen as an oppressed victim through the lens of Henry.

Hence, by following all these simple, yet highly effective techniques, Scorsese is able to make sure he doesn’t make the audience view the film from a sole male perspective, but rather through the combined subjectivity of both the characters in the sequence, especially the woman.

Now, some people would argue that Scorsese just gives us an illusion that Karen has power and that in actuality she’s quite ineffective, considering she gets punished for her actions in the end. I personally don’t think so. In my view, Scorsese portrays Karen Hill as an independent woman who feels trapped in her marriage, and rather than accepting it as her fate, has the courage to fight back. Even though she fails in the end. But that’s beside the point.

Other things to note would be that Karen has her own voice over, and that Scorsese constantly utilizes freeze-frames on her whenever we hear her thoughts through these voice-overs. Again, reinforcing my assertion that Karen in an important character who plays an active role in the narrative.

But those are my thoughts, and perhaps I might be in the minority here. In any case, I would love to know what you think. Do you agree with my analysis or do you think Scorsese falls in the same trap Laura Mulvey had theorized? Do leave your answer in the comment section below.

The New Age of Horror, and its affect on the cinematic landscape

7/22/2016

Horror, more than any other film genre has been susceptible to pop culture, with each trend reflecting the current state of world affairs. From the Universal monster pictures of the 1930s to the Blumhouse found footage films of the 2000s, horror films are ever evolving.

Therefore, it's not surprising that recently a new wave of horror is permeating the film landscape. Films that are not considered as out and out horror films, filled with gory scenes, and quiet-quiet-BAM jump scares, but films more interested in exploring the complex psychological dynamics of the human experience. Films such as the Australian stunner The Babadook, or the slow paced chiller, It Follows amongst many others.

Made on a relatively low budget, mostly with independent financing, these film aren't necessarily interested in the actual scares, though some of them are pretty terrifying to say the least, but rather use horror elements as kind of landscape in order to focus on a deeper character dilemma. For example, The Babadook, which in no way hides the fact that the film is actually a statement on parental exhaustion, with the monster clearly acting as a blatant metaphor for motherhood. Or that It Follows with its supernatural stalker is actually a film about sexual shame. Keeping these factors in mind, we can somewhat justifiably make an inference then that these films bring the subtext closer to the surface, making the films more intellectual and complex, as compared to the run-of-the-mill horror fare from the studios.

That isn't to say these art-house films aren't scary. Possessing a distinct tone and feel, with an utterly bleak world view films like Goodnight Mommy or The Witch rely on an insurmountable sense of dread, paranoia and perpetual unease, making the films extremely uncomfortable for audiences to watch. I remember one friend, who's a huge horror aficionado, say that he just couldn't sit still during the screening of It follows, not because he was bored, or three steps ahead of the story, but because he was extremely scared. The way he explained it, just the inherent knowledge that the stalker may be anyone and may come from anywhere was enough for him to keep his eyes semi-shielded, through most of the film.

But, to be fair, not everyone shares the same enthusiasm and experience as my friend. Take for example, the celebrated author and self-described cinefile, Bret Easton Ellis who declared his disdain on social media for what he calls "Indie Arthouse Horror". He explained this statement in detail in his podcasts with producer Jason Blum, and director Eli Roth, where he cited films such as The Babadook, You’re Next and Goodnight Mommy as major culprits for this new breed of cinema which provides unnecessary metaphors, backstory and logic, which may presumably elevate the story to give it extra heft, but actually undermines the scares present in the narrative. Ellis went so far as stating ‘Explanations ruin horror’, that films with random scares, where the monsters or ghosts don’t have a conclusive backstory are generally more effective in their ability to frighten us, than films which divulge in their third act that the monster never existed in the first place.

I’m sure Ellis isn’t the only one who shares these views. Many people, some of my friends included, consider these films more taut, tension-filled thrillers instead of actual horror films. I’m talking about real horror fans; people who tend to gravitate and seek out films that have actual scares, and find themselves cheated when they watch these indie art-house horror flicks, which according to them are nothing more than complex character studies, with some underlying tension.

However, whatever your preference may be, in the end, you cannot disregard the impact many of these films have had on the cinematic circuit. Sure, they may not be that scary to some, and that’s perfectly understandable, but for many these films have acted as conduits to a genre that may have been otherwise avoided. In any case, I’m optimistic about the future, and will hope to catch many of these films soon. Films that aim not only to frighten audiences, but also stimulate their minds. Now, that’s what I call a perfect cinematic experience!

Summer Fun For Filmmakers

6/30/2016

by Virat Pal

As the summer season is finally upon us, here are some events for all you artists out there to spark your inner creativity.:

1. Outfest Los Angeles LGBT Film Festival

Outfest, the nation’s leading LGBT festival, which promotes equality by creating, sharing, and protecting LGBT stories will be held July 7-17. Film Festival opens at the Orpheum Theatre in Downtown LA, and will also be held at Ford Theatre, Harmony Gold Theatre, Redcat and Roy and Edna Disney/ CalArts Theatre at Walt Disney Concert Hall.

http://www.outfest.org/

2. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone in Concert

Experience the film Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone like never before during this special one-night concert at the Hollywood Bowl. LA Phil, conducted by composer Justin Freer will perform every note from the magnificent John Williams score.

http://www.hollywoodbowl.com/tickets/harry-potter-and-sorcerers-stone-concert/2016-07-06

3. Egyptian Theater

On Saturday July 9th American Cinematheque at the Egyptian theater will be screening the ‘Back to the Future’ triple future. If you’ve not seen the trilogy, make a point to catch this screening, and If you’ve already have, well there’s nothing better than reliving the time travel saga again.

http://www.americancinemathequecalendar.com/content/back-to-the-future-trilogy-0

4. Anime Expo

Just weeks after the E3 expo, Anime Expo will take over the Los Angeles Convention Center this July 4th holiday weekend. Expect plenty of cosplay and special events as thousands of fans come to celebrate the art and culture of anime.

http://www.anime-expo.org/

5. Rooftop Film Club

Taking full advantage of the Montálban rooftop's beautiful city view, RFC promises to offer some of the most unique and incredible movie-going opportunities for film lovers. Throughout the month of July, Rooftop Film Club will be screening various different films, ranging from audience favorites to critical darlings. Hurry, tickets are selling out!

http://rooftopcinemaclub.com/la/tickets/

6. Sound in Focus

Sound in Focus, in their latest collaboration with the Annenberg Space for Photography, is a month of free, all ages outdoor concerts. Headliners include Nas and Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros. The concerts will be on the lawn at Century Park, right next to the Annenberg Space for Photography.

http://soundinfocus.kcrw.com/

7. Guillermo del Toro: At Home with Monsters

Taking inspiration from del Toro’s extraordinary imagination, the exhibition reveals his creative process through his collection of paintings, drawings, maquettes, artifacts, and concept film art.
In addition, the exhibition will draw some objects from the director's personal residence-meets-museum, Bleak House. The gallery opens on July 31st at LACMA.

http://www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/guillermo-del-toro-home-monsters

8. Out Door Movies

If you like films, music, the outdoors, and eating, this is the event series for you. Throughout the summer, Eat See Hear will be playing classic movies in outdoor venues. Experience a movie in a park, around nature and the best food trucks in LA.
http://www.eatseehear.com/

9. Pageant of the Masters

Classic paintings, statues and murals take on a new dimension as real people dress and pose to recreate original masterpieces. A professional orchestra, a narrator, intricate sets and theatrical lighting will help bring the works to life at the Festival of Arts in Laguna Beach.

http://ev3.evenue.net/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/EVExecMacro?linkID=foa&evm=main

We will continue posting events throughout the summer. And if you know of any other cool events going on this season, please share with the group!

What film should win the 2016 Best Picture Oscar?

2/26/2016

Everyone has a favorite. Mine happens to be the Big Short. An incredibly complicated story about a topic that could be otherwise downright boring, The Big Short manages to digest the entire housing crisis in a way that is clear, compelling, and most of all, fun. This Adam McKay film is a master class for all filmmakers on building and managing stakes that address both the world of the movie (the housing system we all believe in is a collapsing farce,) and the individual character in a personal way (will the protagonist win as they bet against the market or will they loose everything.) Out of all the films nominated this year, I feel that The Big Short did this the best. That was perhaps one of the few things I didn’t like about another one of my favorites this year: Spotlight. Though the big world stakes in the movie were enormous (uncovering pedophilia in the Catholic church) the main characters didn’t seem to have as much to loose in a personal sense. Had the story not worked out, they could have kept working at the same place and nothing would have drastically changed for them. On the other side of the spectrum, in The Revenant, Dicaprio’s character’s stakes were completely personal and there was no larger world impact associated with him succeeding or not in his quest for survival and ultimately revenge. Many films function that way, and there is nothing wrong with that. But the way that the Big Short was able to be so universal and at the same time so personal was absolutely impressive to me.

I also think that out of all the films nominated for best picture, The Big Short, perhaps along with Room, was told in the most original way. Room was great because it is a very adult story told entirely through the eyes of a nine year old, and that influences the narrative of the entire film. But all the other nominated films were straightforward linear pictures that, although absolutely great, I don’t believe can stand against the way The Big Short blurred the lines between narrative, documentary, and essay film.
The entire ensemble cast of the film was also incredible and I believe Christian Bale deserves an Oscar for his performance.

That is simply my opinion, and Kevin B. Lee from Fandor agrees with me so here is his amazing video essay backing The Big Short:

https://vimeo.com/154236446

Who do you think should win best picture?

Who Should Win the Oscars for Best Actor and Actress?

2/10/2016

by Nicolas Pinzon

This is a question that can create a lot of debate; essentially because “whether a performance is good or bad” is a subjective question, and we all have our own opinions about what good acting is. Flipping through channels recently, I came across a tele-novela (Spanish soap opera) with a cast of familiar faces who are all, in my opinion, terrible actors. But they keep getting hired. And so I realized that they are actually not terrible, that although they perform in a way that seems like overacting to me, their performances actually fit the melodramatic esthetic that that particular audience wants to see. Similarly, today Hollywood inclines towards naturalism. Introspective techniques in which the actor actually feels his character’s emotions are preferred over the grander and external reproductions of emotions that were favored in the classical era. But then were the grand performances of the past bad acting because they had no subtleties?

Addressing the 2016 Oscars, “who had a better performance” among the nominees really depends on the subjective question of what qualities we value most in a performance. In The Danish Girl, Eddie Redmayne displayed an incredible sense of corporal control and his transformation into a woman was really astonishing. But is his performance any more complex or nuanced than Michael Fassbender’s much more subtle and low key interpretation of Steve Job’s? I guess the question I want to ask when it comes to the male category is: Does transforming into someone completely different have more value than an honest performance as a character that simply looks they way the actor does? I wonder if that was part of what kept Michael B. Jordan out of the nominations. His performance was powerful, complex, and true, but it didn’t feel much like a transformation, and the voters might have not valued it as much as a result.

When it comes to the women’s category, all of the nominees play characters who look and sound pretty much like the actresses do, and the strength of their performances lie on the subtleties of emotion that they each bring to the character. So the question of who should win becomes more simple, but perhaps more difficult to answer. It’s not a question of transformation vs. subtlety but of who did an immeasurable thing better.

As for me, I have no favorite, in either category. But perhaps Kevin B. Lee from Fandor Keyframe could help you decide your picks with these very good video essays.

https://vimeo.com/152018538

https://vimeo.com/152119318

Who are your favorites?

Oscar for Best Cinematography: Film vs. Digital

1/26/2016

by Nicolas Pinzon

To avoid confusion, in this blog I will use the word “film” only to refer to the recording technology and the word “movie” only to refer to the actual finished product that we all watch.
It should come as no surprise to anyone who follows cinematography trends, that in this year, just like in the last few years, one camera dominated the best cinematography category of the Academy Awards: The digital camera, Arri Alexa. Other digital cameras were used in support of the Alexa, but the Alexa was the primary camera in all the nominated movies; all the nominated movies except one: Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight (cinematography by Robert Richardson.)
Tarantino has long been an opponent of digital cameras and, for his eighth and latest movie; the celebrated director chose to use an old and somewhat forgotten film technology that, according to him, surpasses digital images in every way.
Traditionally, movies had been shot and projected in 35mm film, but every once in a while, studios would choose to film on 65mm film and project it on 70mm in order to achieve better resolution, color, and over all picture quality. Classics such as Lawrence of Arabia, My Fair Lady, and The Sound of Music were all shot on 65mm film and projected through limited release on 70mm, but the high price of film along with the cost and difficulties involved in projecting the larger format, eventually halted this technology. Yet now, Tarantino, salivating at the possibility of showcasing what his beloved film can really do, decided to bring 70mm back for our awe and enjoyment. The question is: is there really a visible difference between 70mm and 35mm or digital recording that audiences can notice? And will this be enough to garner the hateful eight the academy award for best cinematography?
Full disclosure, I like film, but I am not madly in love with it. When it comes to the query of Film vs. Digital, there seem to be two spectrums of people in this town, those who hold a strong emotional connection to film, and those who couldn’t care less about what technology is used as long as it looks good and serves the story. The truth is I fall somewhere closer to the latter group. And yet, I must admit that the way The Hateful Eight looked when projected on 70mm blew me away. The texture, color, and sheer scale of the image was, for lack of a better word, magisterial, and for a brief moment I shared Tarantino’s enamor with film. If we were to freeze frames, The Hateful Eight would definitely have the most beautiful photography of all the nominated films.
But we aren’t supposed to freeze frames. After all, we are discussing an award for cinematography, not one for photography, and cinematography involves movement. Without a doubt, no nominated movie “moved” better than the front runner of this race: Alejandro G. Iñaritu’s The Revenant. Shot primarily on, you guessed it, the Arri Alexa, G. Iñaritu and his director of photography, Chivo Lubezki, used little to no artificial lighting during shooting and achieved an incredibly natural and raw look that should make any doubter rethink the power of a digital camera. The image looks great, but never as great as the 70mm frozen frames of The Hateful Eight, but then I go back to The Revenant’s movement, to the agility with which the camera moved from spectacle to spectacle in a way that a 70mm camera could never do simply because of it’s weight and size. And so I understand that each camera was chosen perfectly for what it was meant to do and that “film vs. digital” is just a thing we fight about.
I believe The Revenant will win best cinematography, though Sicario, also shot on the Alexa and directed by Denis Villenueve and shot by Roger Deakins could pull off an upset. Sadly, I believe The Hateful Eight holds very little of a chance. It was designed to be seen in a 70mm projection and, ultimately, most Academy voters will wait to see it at home through their free screener DVD at a tiny 720p resolution, stripping Tarantino’s latest of all of its visual power. It’s not fair, but for all of us who saw The Hateful Eight as it was meant to be seen, it was amazing.