Jump to content


Photo

Shutter Island


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 19 February 2010 - 11:49 AM

So with this film (finally) coming out, does anyone know the story behind Scorsese supposedly using 65mm during the production? Were they just for effects, or for select sequences as Nolan did with "Dark Knight"

Granted, it's not going to IMAX, and it's all in 35mm now, but I bet there'd still be a bump in clarity, if you know what to watch for.

BR
  • 0

#2 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 19 February 2010 - 12:04 PM

Not sure the "bump" will be that apparent as its goes through a crap 2K Di !!!!
  • 0

#3 Richard Vialet

Richard Vialet
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Hollywood, CA

Posted 19 February 2010 - 12:32 PM

IMDB says it was used for "select scenes"

Having read the source novel and seeing shots in the trailer that seem to be sharper and a little "higher quality" than the rest, my guess would be that 65mm was used for a series of dream sequences. That's my guess. I'm sure we'll find out more details in next month's AC mag.

Edited by Richard Vialet, 19 February 2010 - 12:33 PM.

  • 0

#4 Matt Frank

Matt Frank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, Ca

Posted 20 February 2010 - 09:54 PM

I saw this today and I really enjoyed the photography. Richardson did such a great job creating a film noir look inside the hospital, it really made things feel claustrophobic as the film went on. The heavy neutral toned top and back lighting paid off here again, as I think it did in The Good Shepherd for Richardson, for the interior scenes. It also really made the dream sequences stand out due to the sudden punch in color. Has anyone else seen it yet?
  • 0

#5 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 21 February 2010 - 09:10 PM

Not sure the "bump" will be that apparent as its goes through a crap 2K Di !!!!


IDK what anyone is complimenting this film for, unless they are watching a pirated bootleg at 480i.


This film looked like a second-rate S35 optical blowup from the 1990s. Shooting 65mm, and, frankly, 35mm 4-perf. was a total fu-#$ing waste of everyone involved's money.

:ph34r:


That in mind, I generally like the movie, although it was no "One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest" I'd give it a B, B-, C+ depending on what aspect you're evaluating, a B overall.
  • 0

#6 Gus Sacks

Gus Sacks
  • Sustaining Members
  • 287 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 22 February 2010 - 10:34 AM

IDK what anyone is complimenting this film for, unless they are watching a pirated bootleg at 480i.


This film looked like a second-rate S35 optical blowup from the 1990s. Shooting 65mm, and, frankly, 35mm 4-perf. was a total fu-#$ing waste of everyone involved's money.


Huh? Did you watch it on your iPod?
  • 0

#7 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 22 February 2010 - 11:02 AM

Huh? Did you watch it on your iPod?


No, I saw it in the middle of the theatre 5th row from the back center (handicapped seat, but those are actually open if no one uses them at the start of the movie), pristine, new 35mm print that my good projectionist friend both built and projected.


I am not knocking the cinematography. The flashback/dream scenes with the Marshall's wife were particularly beautiful with the backlighting and the art direction and CG, but the DI took away from it so much to the point where it almost looked like the movie was slightly out of focus. (I know for a fact that's not the case though), the trailers were sharp and the focus didn't drift. For me, the softness of the film was enough to be distracting. I went in expecting to see some crisp photography ala "Dark Knight" and came away scratching my head. I'd say the DI was worse than the last "Indy" movie. Of course, I freely admit to holding true scope films to a higher standard. I wouldn't be complaining were it S35 or a flat movie.

I couldn't tell any 65mm shots, or even that it was shot in scope. THey probably could've gotten away with shooting 16 for the daylight exteriors near the end.

Maybe I'll go see it in 2K. Probably won't be mushy like the film print. But it certainly won't be sharp either.


BTW, did anyone else think that tie wasn't ugly at all? B)

Edited by Karl Borowski, 22 February 2010 - 11:03 AM.

  • 0

#8 Evan Ferrario

Evan Ferrario
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Director

Posted 22 February 2010 - 11:05 AM

just saw it yesterday, after reading the reviews which were mostly mediocre, I thought it was fantastic. If you haven't seen it, don't read about it, nearly anything can be a spoiler, don't finish reading this post. I was thinking maybe the WWII sequences were shot 65mm or the dream sequences, nothing jumped off the screen and said 65mm to me, but for the narrative flow, that is a good thing.

Having worked in a mental hospital for about a year, I was able to appreciate the authenticity of this movie. No matter how apparently sane a person is, any patient in a mental hospital constructs a government conspiracy in their head where every mundane daily activity becomes part of their conspiracy and they will go to ridiculous lengths to maintain their delusion. This movie, more than Cuckoo's Nest even, seemed to accurately portray this paranoia which I saw in so many people.

I overheard a group kids talking about how the movie sucked because of all the continuity errors. I think this is the point of view the negative reviewers are taking, they just didn't get the movie at all. The continuity errors, along with the filming and cutting, and especially the music cues were all very purposefully done to add to the story. We are watching a character try to maintain a delusion, what the movie does brilliantly through the editing, is show us something is not quite right about the main characters point of view. Of course there will be continuity errors if someone doesn't view the world the way it really is.

Don't take my opinion though, go see it for yourself. I would rate this as my favorite scorcessee picture since Taxi Driver. Don't go in expecting a fun ride, but what a ride it is.
  • 0

#9 Evan Ferrario

Evan Ferrario
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Director

Posted 22 February 2010 - 11:06 AM

whoops, Scorcese, not scorcessee.
  • 0

#10 Mathew Rudenberg

Mathew Rudenberg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 22 February 2010 - 01:58 PM

it almost looked like the movie was slightly out of focus.


*** spoiler a few lines down ****

I also saw a 35mm film print and was very underwhelmed. I thought the film was very inconsistent, in particular several of the wide shots just looked soft overall to the point where I was wondering if a camera wasn't properly collimated.

In the scene when Leo is talking to the convict by the light of his match the light motivated from the match was sometimes on when the match was out, and other times off when the match was burning, and still other times seemed to match the match... I know it's a tricky gag to work but still...

Talking of matching, the edit seemed extremely rough, I don't think this was Thelma's shortcoming, because the thing that kept taking me out of the film was how badly the actor's matched actions.

Evan - you make a good point, the editing could have been deliberate, in which case I think it was a clever but flawed idea. It didn't make me think something was wrong in the world of the movie, but rather reminded me that I was watching a movie.

And the worst thing about it is that everything can easily be explained by 'because he's crazy' continuity doesn't match because he's crazy, the character's actions don't make sense because he's crazy, movie is out of focus because he's crazy, the score is too on the nose because he's crazy.

There was some interesting stuff in the movie but the crazy thing just ruined it for me.
  • 0

#11 Larry Nielsen

Larry Nielsen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 23 February 2010 - 12:09 PM

The WWII sequences were shot 65mm, everything else was 3 perf S35, Panavision, Primo lenses, wide open. Hope this helps some of you.
Larry
  • 0

#12 Shawn Martin

Shawn Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 February 2010 - 06:48 PM

I saw a 35mm print on Friday, and thought it looked a bit out of focus too. I also couldn't tell that anything was 65mm.

Did anyone else notice the (apparently) bad bluescreen work when Dicaprio and the warden were talking in the jeep? The background shows that they should be in sunlight - it's coming through the trees all around them as they drive - but it's never shown hitting them.

Anyway, the AC article says that the 65mm stuff was shot with Arri 765 and Panavision System 65 cameras, and that they both broke down during a cold night and only a bit of the footage is in the movie. And the tech specs section at the end of the article (but not the article itself, for some reason) also says that the Arri D-21 was used. I wonder if it's a mistake.
  • 0

#13 Scott Dolan

Scott Dolan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 25 February 2010 - 08:00 AM

I overheard a group kids talking about how the movie sucked because of all the continuity errors. I think this is the point of view the negative reviewers are taking, they just didn't get the movie at all. The continuity errors, along with the filming and cutting, and especially the music cues were all very purposefully done to add to the story. We are watching a character try to maintain a delusion, what the movie does brilliantly through the editing, is show us something is not quite right about the main characters point of view. Of course there will be continuity errors if someone doesn't view the world the way it really is.


***spoiler alert***

Very true. All of these things plus the purposeful use of green screen and non-interactive lighting in otherwise simple shooting environments, was just brilliant in sub-conciously taking the viewer into a world that's not quite right.
I sat there for most of the film thinking "why the hell did they shoot that on green screen". Simple interiors were even done this way.
And it all made sense in the end.
Bravo Scorsese/Richardson, bravo.
  • 0

#14 Patrick Kaplin

Patrick Kaplin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 27 February 2010 - 10:13 AM

The WWII sequences were shot 65mm, everything else was 3 perf S35, Panavision, Primo lenses, wide open. Hope this helps some of you.
Larry


Thank you for this information. Was the first dream sequence where he holds his wife while she's dying shot on 65mm as well? Or was this S35?
  • 0

#15 Trevor Masid

Trevor Masid
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 March 2010 - 07:54 PM

While on the subject of the green screen, one that thing that really disappointed me and took me out of the moment was the opening scene with leo and mark on the boat, with some extremely bad green screen behind them, much worse to me than the shots in the jeep driving up to the compound.
  • 0

#16 Robert Billings

Robert Billings

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Student

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:07 PM

Huh? Did you watch it on your iPod?

I read that Martin Scorsese changed the colors, had strange lighting, and purposely blurred the image a bit. He wanted the viewer to be sucked into Teddy's mind and not be able to tell what a hallucination was or what was real.
  • 0

#17 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:30 PM




  • 0

#18 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 08 April 2010 - 12:20 AM

Thank you for this information. Was the first dream sequence where he holds his wife while she's dying shot on 65mm as well? Or was this S35?



There's a story in AC about them TRYING to use 65mm, but the Panaflex and the Arri 765 both broke down in the cold on the first day of shooting. They intended to use it for all his flashback material. They reverted to 35mm and they cooked up a recipe in the DI for a reversal sort of look.

jb
  • 0

#19 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 14 April 2010 - 03:49 AM

The continuity errors, along with the filming and cutting, and especially the music cues were all very purposefully done to add to the story. We are watching a character try to maintain a delusion, what the movie does brilliantly through the editing, is show us something is not quite right about the main characters point of view. Of course there will be continuity errors if someone doesn't view the world the way it really is.

For what it's worth, I just re-watched The Aviator and noticed a lot of continuity errors very similar to those in Shutter Island. Even though DiCaprio's character does have some mental problems in that film as well, I couldn't really associate the errors with that stuff at all – in this case they seemed just random.
  • 0

#20 Leon Liang

Leon Liang
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Student
  • Sydney

Posted 29 September 2014 - 08:53 PM

whoops, Scorcese, not scorcessee.


*ahem* Scorsese.
  • 0


Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

CineLab

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Opal

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

The Slider

CineTape

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks