Jump to content

Shutter Island


Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...