Nosferatu - Robert Eggers - Jarin Blaschke DP

[Stephen Perera]

Looks superb.....a must watch. Hopefully our man @Jarin Blaschke can come in and give us a few gems of how it went filming etc

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Obviously I can’t answer a number of questions due to confidentiality, but what would you like to know?

 

J

[Gautam Valluri]

The preview looks amazing Jarin, I'm looking forward to seeing it on the big screen.

Any specific reason you and Robert chose the 1.66 frame? Seeing that the 1922 film's aspect ratio was closer to the ratio of The Lighthouse?

Edited June 27, 2024 by Gautam Valluri
spelling correction

[Jarin Blaschke]

Early on (around 2017), Rob was clear that it needed to feel of the period it takes place in, 1838, rather than the original film, 1922. So from the get-go we were after giving the film its own identity based on the character’s outlook and culture. So, it’s in color and following the lead of 19th century romanticism.

Since we were then starting fresh anyway, 1.66 “felt” right for reasons that are hard to articulate. To me, this aspect ratio is the most neutral and invisible to the audience, while still capable of grand romantic vistas when needed. It’s also more suited to an ensemble piece which this most certainly is. 

We are still great lovers of 1.33 and intend to return to the format with the right film, just like we’re not done with black and white. Above a certain price point, 1.33 may also be a struggle with the studio, but if you look at recent releases, I’m optimistic that that may be changing.

[Stephen Perera]

Glad to hear you're not done with B/W and 1.33 Jarin!

WE only have to watch Godland (2022) shot by Maria Von Hausswolff to see the beauty of the 1:33 format (more recent than The Lighthouse) and of course how Ignmar Bergman / Sven Nykvist framed films. It's just such a natural format to hold faces/people in the frame and it invites balance in the frame. It is as if the frame holds everything inside it as opposed to having the visual falloff of the wide screen.

A question: the new kodak colour stock. Are you aware of it and going to text it any time soon? perhaps with a view of using it in the future.

Interesting trivia about Nosferatu: "The original 1922 film was almost lost. Bram Stoker was the creator, and author, of novel "Dracula" in 1897. His widow took legal action against F.W. Murnau, director of Nosferatu (1922), due to the similarities to Dracula. The judge ordered all copies of the 1922 film to be destroyed, but thankfully some survived, or this film may never have been made."

[Gautam Valluri]

1 hour ago, Jarin Blaschke said:

Early on (around 2017), Rob was clear that it needed to feel of the period it takes place in, 1838, rather than the original film, 1922. So from the get-go we were after giving the film its own identity based on the character’s outlook and culture. So, it’s in color and following the lead of 19th century romanticism.

Since we were then starting fresh anyway, 1.66 “felt” right for reasons that are hard to articulate. To me, this aspect ratio is the most neutral and invisible to the audience, while still capable of grand romantic vistas when needed. It’s also more suited to an ensemble piece which this most certainly is. 

We are still great lovers of 1.33 and intend to return to the format with the right film, just like we’re not done with black and white. Above a certain price point, 1.33 may also be a struggle with the studio, but if you look at recent releases, I’m optimistic that that may be changing.

Thanks for your reply! Are you guys planning a 35mm print release for this film?

[Jarin Blaschke]

Yes, there will be prints.

The only perfect match where the audience will see exactly what we graded is DolbyVision .

Nonetheless, Rob is very happy with the print tests so far. There’s a degree of “cozy” loss of sharpness he likes.

 

 

[Gautam Valluri]

4 minutes ago, Jarin Blaschke said:

Yes, there will be prints.

The only perfect match where the audience will see exactly what we graded is DolbyVision .

Nonetheless, Rob is very happy with the print tests so far. There’s a degree of “cozy” loss of sharpness he likes.

 

 

That's excellent news Jarin! Wishing you guys the best for the remainder of post-production.

[Deniz Zagra]

On 6/27/2024 at 2:39 PM, Jarin Blaschke said:

Obviously I can’t answer a number of questions due to confidentiality, but what would you like to know?

Thanks for answering our questions Jarin! I just wanted to ask which film stocks you used for this film and how you exposed them. Any special exposure or printing techniques you utilized? Sorry for asking, if this is confidential.

Btw, did you and Eggers take inspiration from Bram Stoker's Dracula (Coppola, 1992)? If I recall correctly that film was heavily influenced by late 19th century romanticism and used mostly in-camera effects.

[Chris Burke]

Did you shoot 3 perf and if so to get 1.66:1, did you have to crop on top and bottom or on the sides?

 

 

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

We didn’t reference Coppolas Dracula although we are both very familiar with it from childhood and perhaps there is some level of unavoidable “subconscious vibe osmosis” between the films.

But visually, my techniques differ greatly from Bauhaus and our shot structure is rather separate as well.

 

We shot 4-perf. Otherwise your 1.66 gets smaller.

[Jon O'Brien]

G'day Jarin. What do you think of film vs digital acquisition for cinema release narrative feature movies? Do you prefer working with film because of the work flow, or do you more prefer the look in the cinema, or both?

Edited July 22, 2024 by Jon O'Brien

[Jarin Blaschke]

I prefer film because to my eye it simply looks better for most things.

As a bonus, it keeps me very sharp on set in regards to my metering and exposure.

As another bonus, it focuses the set a great deal. When I do shoot digitally, the set seems more scatterbrained.

As a third bonus I find I am more confident when I am not relying on the monitor to light.

On 7/22/2024 at 2:17 PM, Jon O'Brien said:

G'day Jarin. What do you think of film vs digital acquisition for cinema release narrative feature movies? Do you prefer working with film because of the work flow, or do you more prefer the look in the 

[Stephen Perera]

On 7/22/2024 at 8:17 AM, Jon O'Brien said:

G'day Jarin. What do you think of film vs digital acquisition for cinema release narrative feature movies? Do you prefer working with film because of the work flow, or do you more prefer the look in the cinema, or both?

Never been anywhere near a film set but I assume it's the thought that digital just doesn't run out and it doesn't cost anything (yes boringly obvious statement)

If I were to teach cinematography at any level I would start students off on their journey with projects of shooting stills on film....there is a lot to see in one frame and you get a sense of what eye they have......and I mean film they are forced to pay for and processing that they to pay for too.......once the frame is valued (and there are 24/25 frames per second to value in one second) then the philosophy of shooting motion starts off on a good footing.....

The value within a frame includes the lighting, exposure analysis and metering and everything that is important.

As a photographer I sometimes hear the 'don't worry fix it in photoshop' from people trying to urge me not to be so 'get it in the camera' with my work during a shoot....so when I process my own film and hang it to dry and I see good exposure from the off on the negatives and then when I scan it Im just touching out a few specks of dust and stuff.....thats when you know its worth it

Edited July 23, 2024 by Stephen Perera

[Jon O'Brien]

8 hours ago, Jarin Blaschke said:

I prefer film because to my eye it simply looks better for most things.

As a bonus, it keeps me very sharp on set in regards to my metering and exposure.

As another bonus, it focuses the set a great deal. When I do shoot digitally, the set seems more scatterbrained.

As a third bonus I find I am more confident when I am not relying on the monitor to light.

If I was a young filmmaker I would save up and get myself a Bolex or Bell & Howell and start shooting 16mm even if it meant doing only one project a year. Or a Super 8 camera. To my eye digital video doesn't look cinematic. It looks like exactly what it is. Video. Doesn't matter how much you posh it up in post, add fuzzy bits or grain or whatever you like. Still looks like video.

But that's okay. Many I meet don't seem to care. Video .. film ... shrug of the shoulders. I had a bit of revelation the other day. I finally found out that a lot of 'filmmakers' around are also into gaming and stuff like that. Also, many are more like directors and not cinematographers. They tend to be heavily into digital imagery, including of course video game design. It's like filmmaking has been overrun by gamers and digital tech heads.

I always say that to be a good, interesting cinematographer you've got to be some kind of artist. If you're not ...there's something wrong there.

But the other thing is that in my country I suppose the thinking is that if you want to go up the ladder and get to be a big time cinematographer you have to get into digital cinematography and not film because there's no big jobs behind a film camera in this country. Fair enough. There's some wisdom in that.

But I still say grab a film camera nevertheless. Go for it. At least you might have slightly more of a chance of developing into some kind of artist.

Edited July 23, 2024 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

8 hours ago, Stephen Perera said:

... If I were to teach cinematography at any level I would start students off on their journey with projects of shooting stills on film....there is a lot to see in one frame and you get a sense of what eye they have......and I mean film they are forced to pay for and processing that they to pay for too.......once the frame is valued (and there are 24/25 frames per second to value in one second) then the philosophy of shooting motion starts off on a good footing.....

The value within a frame includes the lighting, exposure analysis and metering and everything that is important.

As a photographer I sometimes hear the 'don't worry fix it in photoshop' from people trying to urge me not to be so 'get it in the camera' with my work during a shoot....so when I process my own film and hang it to dry and I see good exposure from the off on the negatives and then when I scan it Im just touching out a few specks of dust and stuff.....thats when you know its worth it

I sometimes contemplate teaching cinematography. I think your ideas are great, starting them out with film stills photography. Then I'd get them onto Super 8, maybe 16mm if the budget extended to that. Digital cinematography at some point of course too. In my view a digital cinematographer should have quite a bit of experience with film. It's the foundation that cinematography is built on. Like, you know, a classical musician really ought to know some Mozart and Beethoven pieces. Not just Stravinsky or Einaudi.

Edited July 23, 2024 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

I'm going to write a book.

'Some kind of artist', by Jon O'Brien.

Available online or in bookstores.

[Stephen Perera]

you Aussies haha

[Deniz Zagra]

On 6/27/2024 at 2:39 PM, Jarin Blaschke said:

what would you like to know

What's your favourite Dracula movie?

[Stephen Perera]

Chapeau @Jarin Blaschke this is the most spectacularly shot film I have seen in a long time. Just been to the cinema to watch it and blown away (in the context of why we are here) by the exquisite intricate framing and lighting. The 1:66 ratio was perfect for the film as very widescreen sometimes you lose the tension of the actors and the space they hold within the frame. I have read Bram Stoker's Dracula book; seen Coppola's version which I also loved notwithstanding Keanu Reeve's appalling accent but this is a cut way above for the 'story' we all think we know.

This is a truly great film in all ways. Masterpiece. I can't recommend it enough.

[Stephen Perera]

By the way this film is a masterclass for how to shoot low light with film…..

@Jarin Blaschke could you talk us through how you created this scene in particular….my favourite set up of the whole film! Wow

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2024 by Stephen Perera

[Robert Houllahan]

Ah can't wait to see it this week.

[Stephen Perera]

I think this is the best example of low light shooting since Barry Lyndon....technically impressive. Would also love to hear what David Mullen thinks of this film technically as well. As a spectacle and film it IS outstanding. 

[Stephen Perera]

 

[Tyler Purcell]

Awesome, thanks for the review! I've been waiting to see it, hopefully we'll go this weekend before the New Bev dumps their 35mm print. I wish I could see it at a big theater on film, but they evidently didn't make a lot of prints.