criterionforum.org

hearthesilence wrote: Tue Nov 25, 2025 4:05 am I caught this again at MoMA on a DCP, partly to catch a Q&A but also because as mentioned that 35mm screening I saw was marred by sound issues. I have to say even if sound wasn't a factor, the DCP would still win out. I knew Linklater said they had to do a LOT to the picture in post-production to get the right vintage look, but I didn't realize they put in digital film defects and even faked some wear around the reel changes. (Some of the damage looks too perfect, like a big dot with very crisp and sharp edges.) Real cute, but I think this really drove home the idea that unless you're preserving something in the photochemical realm, anything worked over in digital, especially when it's heavily worked over, isn't really going to benefit from being dumped on to 35mm aside from degrading the image. Something to keep in mind when some places like the Angelika are actually charging MORE for a 35mm screening.

...you have to do a lot of work to get those overexposed exteriors. Stocks are just faster today. We were emulating it, but it's all fake, all reconstruction. We shot some film, but it was mostly digital. We got better results digitally because film stocks aren't the same now. We could achieve that look either way, but it was ultimately a little easier to shoot mostly digitally. But not everything. We used some Kodak 5222, their black-and-white stock. And we use many visual effects, too. I don't want the viewer to think they’re in a visual effects movie, but truth is, we would own the foreground with cars and extras, but the far backgrounds, we were really visual effecting. "Painting away," as they say. And it's so much easier now — I couldn't have made this ten years ago. The rue Campagne Premiere, the street where [Belmondo] dies on the famous cobblestones, it's asphalt today. So, what do you do? [The VFX artists] recreated it. You film some cobblestones and then you lay it out. You don't need green screen. They just put them in. I mean, the first time they did it, it just looked like badly laid carpet. So, it's months of back and forth. But they got there. It was kind of magical. It's one of the more technological films I've done because of all the CG, the painting stuff out. But I didn't want to feel that way. I wanted to replicate the Nouveau [sic] Vague feeling of just showing up and shooting. But with us, it was actually anything but. It's all a trick.

hearthesilence wrote: Tue Nov 25, 2025 4:05 am I caught this again at MoMA on a DCP, partly to catch a Q&A but also because as mentioned that 35mm screening I saw was marred by sound issues. I have to say even if sound wasn't a factor, the DCP would still win out. I knew Linklater said they had to do a LOT to the picture in post-production to get the right vintage look, but I didn't realize they put in digital film defects and even faked some wear around the reel changes. (Some of the damage looks too perfect, like a big dot with very crisp and sharp edges.)

Altair wrote: Tue Nov 25, 2025 10:05 pm Ha! Doesn't this seem to underline the film as a work of fantasy, as 'real' as Scorsese's Hugo...

zedz wrote: Tue Nov 25, 2025 10:17 pm Reel end 'dots' or circles were incredibly sharp, as long as the film was projected in focus, as they were punched through the actual film print.

zedz wrote: Tue Nov 25, 2025 10:20 pm

Altair wrote: Tue Nov 25, 2025 10:05 pm Ha! Doesn't this seem to underline the film as a work of fantasy, as 'real' as Scorsese's Hugo...

What on earth are you talking about? By that reasoning any film set before 1895 is a 'fantasy' because it was shot with a film camera.

Unless you mean Linklater didn't film his 'making of documentary' on the actual set of Breathless, which is an even bigger head-scratcher.

That’s just asking for a whole different film with different aims rather than engaging with the film you are presented with.