Awesome Titanic 3D trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJxj1mou03M

Christopher Nolan Speaks Out on Essential Need for 35mm and Limits of 3D
Features By Cole Abaius on April 13, 2012
This is the fight of the generation. The proliferation of technology, the cost and the spread of “democratic filmmaking” have propelled digital to the forefront, threatening to end 35mm as a platform. As more theaters convert wholly to digital projection and “projectionists” only understand how to press a button to make the movie work, the 100-year-old medium of preference is losing out.

Which is why Christopher Nolan gathered the most prominent filmmakers together to watch 6 minutes of The Dark Knight Rises. As Gendy Alimurung writes in an absolute must-see article in LA Weekly evocatively titled, “Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film. But the Consequences of Going Digital are Vast, and Troubling,” Edgar Wright, Michael Bay, Bryan Singer and a host of other notable names were brought in for the “ulterior motive” of Nolan’s plea to save 35mm.

Now, he’s fighting with ink. In the latest edition of the DGA Quarterly, the master filmmaker has some lofty words for 35mm and a strong dismissal of change for change’s sake.


Why he only shoots film:

“For the last 10 years, I’ve felt increasing pressure to stop shooting film and start shooting video, but I’ve never understood why. It’s cheaper to work on film, it’s far better looking, it’s the technology that’s been known and understood for a hundred years, and it’s extremely reliable. I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo. . . . I’ve just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change. But I haven’t seen that reason yet.”

The Limits of 3D

“I find [3-D] stereoscopic imaging too small scale and intimate in its effect. It’s well suited to video games and other immersive technologies, but if you’re looking for an audience experience, stereoscopic is hard to embrace. I prefer the big canvas, looking up at an enormous screen and at an image that feels larger than life … I feel that in the initial wave to embrace [3-D], that wasn’t considered in the slightest.”

Jeffrey Ressner’s feature interview with Nolan is an excellent, stirring appeal to the beauty of 35mm filmmaking, but it also covers topics like CGI, creating the hallway action sequence in Inception and the benefits of not going to film school.

Not that he was rejected or anything (he chose University College London so he’d have access to first-rate film equipment).

Q: You’ve often said that your favorite film is Blade Runner. What special significance does it hold for you?

A: As a kid watching films, you go through a gradual realization of what’s behind them. You start off like everyone else, thinking that actors make up the words and create the film themselves. So when I was young and looking at Alien and Blade Runner, I was going, OK, they’re different stories, different settings, really different actors, everything’s different—but there’s a very strong connection between those two films, and that is the director, Ridley Scott. I remember being struck by that, and thinking that’s the job I want.

The atmosphere of Blade Runner was also important, that feeling that there was this whole world outside the frame of the scene. You really felt there were things going on outside of those rooms where you’ve seen the film take place. That’s something I’ve always tried to carry with me. Every film should have its own world, a logic and feel to it that expands beyond the exact image that the audience is seeing.

Q: You and your cameraman, Wally Pfister, are—along with Steven Spielberg—among the last holdouts who shoot on film in an industry that’s moved to digital. What’s your attraction to the older medium?

A: For the last 10 years, I've felt increasing pressure to stop shooting film and start shooting video, but I've never understood why. It's cheaper to work on film, it's far better looking, it’s the technology that's been known and understood for a hundred years, and it's extremely reliable. I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo. We save a lot of money shooting on film and projecting film and not doing digital intermediates. In fact, I've never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12 to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite. That’s the way everyone was doing it 10 years ago, and I've just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change. But I haven't seen that reason yet.

Q: Being away from London, and on location, how have you been viewing dailies?
WP: Chris and I are very old school. We only watch film dailies and I do one-light prints at Technicolor, with John Ensby supervising. We view our dailies in Panavision’s Loc-Pro screening trailer, that Lester Dunton keeps in fantastic condition for us, and we see the film as I have exposed it and intend it to look, with no manipulation.

Q: What are the working hours on the production?
WP: We work pretty solid 12-hour days. Once or twice we go over by an hour. A couple of times we have had 9 or 10 hour days. Chris is very efficient with his time. There is a rehearsal every day at exactly 7am, with all actors and key crew present. If you are there at 6:55am you are late! Actors included!

There is a rehearsal every day at exactly 7am, with all actors and key crew present. If you are there at 6:55am you are late! Actors included!