{"id":123979,"date":"2023-12-15T09:00:42","date_gmt":"2023-12-15T14:00:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/?p=123979"},"modified":"2024-01-03T10:41:58","modified_gmt":"2024-01-03T15:41:58","slug":"29-movies-shot-on-35mm-2023","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/123979-29-movies-shot-on-35mm-2023\/","title":{"rendered":"The 29 Features Shot, In Whole or In Part, on 35mm in U.S. Release Year 2023"},"content":{"rendered":"

During the NBA playoffs this year, a Miller Lite commercial unexpectedly compelled my attention. The frames\u2019 edges were rounded, the images\u2019 scratches conspicuous\u2014this was either shot on film or trying very hard to look like it. Further digging confirmed the spot (title: \u201cYou Never Forget\u201d<\/a>) was shot on 35mm, perhaps in keeping with its nostalgic world of bars with CD jukeboxes and cathode-ray TVs. I\u2019d often read over the past decade that commercials and music videos have been using celluloid with increasing frequency; collating this year\u2019s (tenth!) annual edition of U.S.-released features shot in whole or part on 35mm [2014<\/a>, 2015<\/a>, 2016<\/a>, 2017<\/a>, 2018<\/a>, 2019<\/a>, 2020<\/a>, 2021<\/a>, 2022<\/a>], I found myself wondering how the ways film stock is processed molds our current ideas of what \u201cfilmic\u201d looks like.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Especially over the past few years, there\u2019s been a resurgence of 16mm used for narrative shorts and features that, in their final DCP rendering, don\u2019t look so much like \u201cfilm\u201d as brutally limited parodies of same\u2014fat pixels locked in place, unmissable and nearly unmoving, like Flash animation exported to 8mm and inexplicably projected on an IMAX-size screen. But the 35mm stocks that remain in production are generally low on grain. In that respect, after post is done and the final DCP created, it\u2019s not totally clear what the source format\u2019s remaining tangible contribution is. Grain overlays are getting more uncannily indistinguishable from the real thing\u2014see, for example, Steve Yedlin\u2019s algorithmic grain simulation in Rian Johnson\u2019s digitally captured Glass Onion<\/i> for an example that, to my non-technically trained eye, looks spot-on. At least, that was the case when I saw it theatrically; friends have told me it looks nothing like that on Netflix\u2019s platform. The streamer\u2019s originals, especially as mediated by the compression techniques used to stream them, have their own widely noted distinctive (read: muddy) look\u2014one some viewers have gotten so used to that anything outside that norm can confuse them. To emulate the \u201970s films it used as reference points, Heart of Stone<\/i><\/b>, the platform\u2019s Gal Godot\u2013starring thriller, was shot as much as possible on 35mm, using digital supplementally for low-light situations. \u201cYou get so used to the crispness and clarity of digital that it was scary seeing the rushes,\u201d DP George Steel told<\/a> IndieWire\u2019s Jim Hemphill. \u201cI was like, \u2018Oh shit, this is quite soft and quite grainy.\u2019\u201d For all his pains, at least one Reddit user was confused. \u201cThe Grainy filter on \u2018Heart of Stone\u2019 is super annoying,\u201d \u201cbendi95\u201d wrote<\/a> on the r\/Netflix sub-Reddit. \u201cJust wanted to post this opinion in hopes that Maybe Netflix employees read[s] it [and] maybe [brings it] up internally. [\u2026] I know they can\u2019t remove it at this point, but maybe movies won\u2019t include it as often in the future.\u201d<\/p>\n

Whether (cheaper) two- or three-perforation or (more expensive) four-perforation 35mm is used also makes a difference because the bigger the frame the less grain is crowded into it and vice versa. (If this is confusing, a simple way to think about it is that the number of perforations defines the height of the frame. The more perforations there are, the greater the frame\u2019s overall area and the less conspicuous the appearance of grain within it is.) Discussing Steve McQueen\u2019s Occupied City<\/i><\/b> with Fran\u00e7ois Reumont on the French Society of Cinematographers\u2019 website<\/a>, DP Lennert Hillege observed that he shot the film in four-perf 35mm, and \u201cthe first few weeks I was very surprised by the feel and definition in the image. I used the full range of Kodak stock available, according to the needed sensitivity, and the film texture became practically unnoticeable. The transfer to digital was as neutral and transparent as possible. I think that this concept of \u2018texture\u2019 which we attribute to celluloid film has a lot to do with the use of [three-perf] or [two-perf], popularized since the advent of digital; or, when there\u2019s \u2018grain\u2019 in the image, and that it moves, it \u2018has to be\u2019 celluloid film.\u201d Cinematographer Norm Li shot Luis De Filippis\u2019 independent film Something You Said Last Night <\/i><\/b>and reached adjacent conclusions. \u201cWhen Luis and I first met, I was ecstatic that she had already made her decision to shoot on 35mm,\u201d he wrote in an email. \u201cWhat we did discuss during pre-production was whether we would shoot 2-, 3- or 4-perf 35mm. Luis was really interested in framing for 1.85 for the specific environment and characters. It made sense to shoot 3-perf 35mm for not only the appropriate aspect ratio, but also because 3-perf acquisition provides a perceivably cleaner negative for any low-light scenarios. It was scanned using a Spirit 2K scanner at Kodak Atlanta. We did the 2K DI grade in Switzerland with colorist Patrick Lindenmaier. The scans were so clean that we had to actually add some subtle film grain texture back into the image after we did the final grade of the film.\u201d\u00a0Conclusion drawn: There are direct, surprisingly simple material reasons related to the literal size of the frame that defines what \u201cfilmic\u201d often looks like now.<\/p>\n

As for 35mm\u2019s color properties, those are similarly rendered less conspicuous by the limitations of the DCPs making up the majority of the contemporary theatrical experience. Among other problems, they can\u2019t render a true black, only a substitute milky grey, hence cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto\u2019s frustration when discussing<\/a> his work on Martin Scorsese\u2019s Killers of the Flower Moon<\/i><\/b> with The Film Stage\u2019s Nick Newman. Minus a few scenes, the film was shot, per usual for Scorsese, on 35mm, but the final version you see will be compromised unless you shell out for a premium viewing format. \u201cI think my favorite version of the film is Dolby Vision,\u201d Prieto explained. \u201cThe main reason for that is that it has the deepest, purest black, and more detail, also, in the shadows and the highlights. The film has some pretty dark scenes or dark moments\u2014let\u2019s say \u2018dark backgrounds\u2019\u2014and so on a regular DCP that\u2019s actually not pure black. And that\u2019s [laughs] a little frustrating to me.\u201d<\/p>\n

One of several older auteurs dedicated to still using the format, Scorsese\u2019s presence on this list any year he has a new narrative feature is a given. Other longtime 35mm loyalists with new work this year include Aki Kaurism\u00e4ki (Fallen Leaves<\/i><\/b>), Christophe Honor\u00e9 (Winter Boy<\/i><\/b>) and Wes Anderson, who\u2019s been using not just film but the same tungsten stock<\/i> (Kodak Vision3 200T 5213) since testing a number for 2012\u2019s Moonrise Kingdom<\/i>. The goal is consistency of look, although the introduction of black and white in The French Dispatch<\/i> meant that Eastman Double-X 5222 is now also in the mix. That stock was back in this year\u2019s Asteroid City<\/i><\/b>, as was digital capture for stop-motion sequences shot by Anderson\u2019s regular stop-motion DP Tristan Oliver (Fantastic Mr. Fox<\/i>, Isle of Dogs<\/i>); Anderson\u2019s regular live-action DP Robert Yeoman told Zoe Mutter in a British Cinematographer<\/i> interview<\/a> that \u201cas ever, matching digital stills shot spherically to anamorphic 35mm was interesting.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Newer to working on 35mm only is M. Night Shyamalan, who went digital for years before returning to the format for Old<\/i>. That continued with Knock at the Cabin<\/i><\/b>, shot by both Jarin Blaschke and Lowell A. Meyer. Speaking<\/a> with British Cinematographer<\/i>\u2019s Helen Parkinson, Meyer said the choice was in part motivated by Shyamalan\u2019s desire to have the film look like a \u201990s thriller. While the film\u2019s most-used stock was VISION3 250D 5207\/7207, the final scene was shot on VISION3 500T 5219\/7219. As Meyer explained, \u201cWe shot this final scene breaking the fourth wall using the EyeDirect Mark II, this prosumer documentary device. It\u2019s a little mirror box that you put in front of the lens that\u2019s used for documentaries so that the director can sit next to the camera. But employing it eats a stop of light: so, not only were we trying to make this feel like a dark scene, but the camera needed more light than normal just to get to a healthy exposure. I thought, \u2018Okay, why don\u2019t I break the rules we\u2019ve established? If everything else has been shot 250D and as bright as possible, why don\u2019t I shoot 500T and make it feel a little bit moodier, milkier and scarier?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Robbie Ryan is one of the cinematographers whose name most often recurs in these roundups for his work with 35mm loyalists including Ken Loach, Noah Baumbach and Yorgos Lanthimos. On Poor Things<\/i><\/b>, Ryan shot Ektachrome. Speaking<\/a> to Awards Watch\u2019s Daniel Bayer, he explained how the previously discontinued stock, which had been recently brought back into production on 16mm, became available again on 35mm thanks to a large order from Euphoria<\/i> DP Marcell R\u00e9v when the show switched from a digital first season to a film-based second: \u201cThey only brought it out in 16mm stock. So obviously they have it on a big roll. And Marcell asked them, could they cut it to 35mm because he was doing Euphoria<\/i>, and they said yes. He shot on that and there were a couple of rolls left of that. So we were able to test on it, and the results we got back were really fantastic.\u201d Because Ektachrome processes as a positive rather than a negative, you can \u201cliterally look at the roll and you could see all these positive images [\u2026]. And because of the nature of that, when you scan it\u2019s a bit more colorful, a bit more contrasty.\u201d Not only that, Ryan shot Emma Stone\u2019s reanimation scene in the VistaVision 1.66 format, a first for Ektachrome. \u201cI don\u2019t know why VistaVision died away as a format,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s the only time I really think you [use] 35mm to its full advantage, because it\u2019s effectively shooting it like you would an SLR camera. You get twice your size of negative space.\u201d R\u00e9v also shot Christos Nikou\u2019s Fingernails<\/i><\/b> \u201con 35mm because we tried to create something that looks timeless,\u201d as the director told<\/a> Hammer to Nail\u2019s Jack Schenker. \u201cThat\u2019s why we also kept even all the scratches and dirt that [are] on the screen. We kept it and we tried to make it look like an old film. I believe that it\u2019s like a movie that was shot probably at the end of the nineties and somebody put it in a time capsule and right now people are discovering it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Charlotte Bruus Christensen is another avid 35mm cinematographer. \u201cI always fight for film,\u201d she told<\/a> her anonymous Kodak interviewer about working on Sharper<\/i><\/b>. \u201cWe are way beyond the crisis when people thought film was dead.\u201d One of that thriller\u2019s visual reference points was Klute<\/i>, and director Benjamin Caron told<\/a> The Film Stage\u2019s Dan Mecca that the production held a medium-specific screening at MoMA: \u201cWe managed to get a 35mm print and we invited all the cast.\u201d M\u00e1ty\u00e1s Erd\u00e9ly shot 35mm for The Iron Claw<\/i><\/b>, just like he and Sean Durkin did for their previous collaboration, The Nest<\/i>. \u201cFilm is my first choice,\u201d Erd\u00e9ly wrote in an email. \u201cI try to work with directors who share a similar taste with me. With Sean Durkin it is not even a discussion.\u201d Perhaps foremost among Hollywood\u2019s 35mm-specializing cinematographers\u00a0is Linus Sandgren, who since relocating from his native Sweden to the United States, hasn\u2019t shot a single feature digitally, beginning with 2012\u2019s Promised Land<\/i>. That streak continued on Saltburn<\/i><\/b>. \u201c[Director] Emerald [Fennell] wanted to shoot on film, as did [producer] Margot [Robbie], and I was in complete agreement,\u201d Sandgren told<\/a> his Kodak interviewer. \u201cOf course, we could have gone with 16mm, but it was pretty clear that 35mm would deliver more beautiful and much crisper images, rich and juicy looking with deep contrasty blacks. To me 16mm would have been too naturalistic and too close to human emotions. Shooting 35mm, with its finer grain, would allow us to heighten the luxurious elements of the set and costume design.\u201d Another British production, The End We Start From<\/i><\/b>, was shot on two-perf 35mm, cinematographer Suzie Lavelle confirmed in an email. \u201cI just kept asking for us to have it and didn\u2019t stop,\u201d diretor Mahalia Belo wrote in a message. \u201cI\u2019d shot my graduation short film Volume<\/i> on 35mm and knew what feelings it could evoke in the viewer, and knew for this film specifically it was justified. […] The producers did a comparison on a recent digitally shot film of the same budget and discovered that 35mm didn\u2019t bring up the cost particularly. So, retrospectively, it wasn\u2019t more expensive.\u201d<\/p>\n

One esoteric use of 35mm in an otherwise all-digital production came in Fast X<\/i><\/b>. The franchise made the transition from film to digital starting with the hybrid capture of 2015\u2019s Furious 7<\/i>. Fast X<\/i> has a flashback in which Jason Momoa\u2019s character is retconned into alternate takes of a scene in 2011\u2019s Fast Five<\/i>. \u201cIt was completely essential that we looked at all the dailies,\u201d director Louis Leterrier explained<\/a> to The Hollywood Reporter<\/i>\u2019s Brian Davids. \u201cUniversal Studios has an amazing archival department, and so we dug it all out and looked at everything. Our movie was shot digitally, because most movies are shot digitally now, but Fast Five<\/i> was shot on 35mm. So we transferred all the footage and realized afterwards what unused footage that we could use and tweak. So we put our characters into pre-existing footage through motion control and CG, and then we also shot new bits with the same film stock and cameras as Fast Five<\/i>. Stephen Windon was our DP, and [\u2026] he also shot Fast Five<\/i>, and he remembered exactly what he did and what his light meter read back then. So it looks and feels seamless.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A 35mm camera was also used for one flashback sequence in the otherwise digital Creed III<\/i><\/b>, an Arri 2C operated with a hand crank during a scene where Adonis Creed remembers the abusive foster home he grew up in. \u201cYou can remove the motor and then put a gear on,\u201d DP Kramer Morgenthau explained during a phone call. \u201cIt drives the movement with a hand crank, the way the original movie cameras were before electric motors were added, like Billy Bitzer. This is a modified camera, so it gets an inconsistent motor speed, which gives fluctuations in the exposure, and you can do things like backwind it and wind it through again and get double exposures. You can play with this frame rate by hand and by feel, speeding and slowing the motor and getting a feeling of a memory fragment. It would be a particularly hard thing to do digitally.\u201d Andrew Haigh\u2019s All of Us Strangers<\/i><\/b> was shot on 35mm, minus the LED backdrops used for the set of Andrew Scott\u2019s apartment. Those were captured on the Sony Venice 8K, \u201ca decision partly based on the idea of this kind of collision of technology between 35mm real film and digital,\u201d DP Jamie Ramsay told<\/a> No Film School\u2019s Jourdan Aldredge\u2014\u201cthe idea that even in his apartment, there\u2019s something slightly off about the presence of reality.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two all-analogue-but-different-formats movies pair unexpectedly appositely. Pietro Marcello\u2019s Scarlet<\/i><\/b> was largely shot on 16mm. \u201cIt is a story about an artisan, literally handcrafting his way through life,\u201d cinematographer Marco Graziaplena wrote in an email, so it was \u201cnatural to shoot in an analog way.\u201d While the 16mm was used for a \u201cdocumentary style,\u201d 35mm was used for VFX shots; as Graziaplena noted, \u201c35mm [has] less grain, and it is easier for VFX to work [in] 35mm.\u201d (This is roughly the same logic used by Steven Spielberg, who went from 35mm to 70mm in Close Encounters of the Third Kind<\/i> to make the introduction of stop-motion effects less noticeable.) Oppenheimer<\/i><\/b> also used 35mm for special effects, but stepping down<\/i> from 65mm and IMAX, as Hoyte van Hoytema explained to Matt Mulcahey, \u201cfor extreme high speed shots of all these tiny atomic particles. We didn\u2019t use 35mm on the main unit at all. With an IMAX camera, we can shoot up to 60 frames per second or something like that, but if you want to shoot 120 frames per second or higher, you very quickly have to resort to 35mm, which was absolutely adequate for what we wanted.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the opposite end of the budgetary scale: to get the go-ahead to shoot Sick of Myself<\/i><\/b> on 35mm, Kristoffer Borgli told<\/a> his anonymous Kodak interviewer that his producers initially said it was \u201cout of the question given the low budget. Rather than capitulate, we proposed to them\u202fthat we cut three days off the schedule\u2014from 33 down to 30 days\u2014and shoot 2-perf on 35mm to help with stock and processing costs.\u201d Another cost-cutting compromise, he told<\/a> Hero<\/i>\u2019s Arijana Zeric, was that he \u201cvolunteered to edit the movie for free.\u201d Less drastically, on L\u00e9a Mysius\u2019s The Five Devils<\/i><\/b>, \u201cour shooting time was pushed by a year because of COVID-19, and so we lost a lot of money,\u201d she told<\/a> Isaac Feldberg in an interview for The Playlist. \u201cWe had to rethink the film in many ways, in terms of production, because we no longer had the money that we planned on. And the first thing that I was told was, \u2018Well, you know, cut out the 35mm film because it\u2019s expensive.\u2019 [\u2026] But I had worked together with my cinematographer and co-screenwriter, Paul Guilhaume, on a short that was on film. And we realized that, because of my way of working on set, it was not going to be that much of a problem because I don\u2019t shoot that much. [\u2026] For The Five Devils<\/i>, I had agreed to an hour and a half of rushes each day. And I would just do an hour and just a few minutes. Sometimes it was a little more, sometimes a little less, but on average, it would be an hour a day. All of a sudden, because of this style I had, it worked out really well because it wasn\u2019t a constraint after all.\u201d<\/p>\n

While making his five-year passion project, Ryan Stevcns Harris shot Moon Garden<\/i><\/b> on a variety of 35mm stocks\u2014it\u2019s the only film on this year\u2019s list to include the long-defunct Fuji. \u201cWe were hunting for film stock for a while, gathering it through a variety of sources,\u201d Harris wrote in an email. \u201cBut the most notable find came when my producer John Elfers discovered a treasure trove of over 100K feet of film stock that was stored in an old filmmaker\u2019s basement in Omaha, Nebraska. Much of the stock was from the \u201980s and \u201990s, and it included Kodak 5212 (100T), 5201 (50D), 5205 (250D), 5246 (250D), 5218 (500T), 5274 (200T), plus more eclectic stocks like 5245 (50D EXR) and black and white stocks (5231 and 5222). It also included a batch of Fuji, mostly 400T (8582 and 8583). We negotiated the price and arranged delivery through family I had out in Nebraska and were able to secure the entire amount. The stock, however, was not well cared for. The tape on the rolls was brittle and crumbling, and many of the cans were badly damaged. Other short ends could be heard scraping around inside the cans. First, we got the primary stocks snip-tested at Fotokem, which revealed all the stocks were \u2018unusable,\u2019 meaning they had slowly exposed over time, where the top layer of blue had seeped into the negative. So, we shot some tests and indeed the footage came back heavily tinted in deep midnight blue, punctuated by heavy grain and film artifacts. With modern color techniques, however, we were able to yank the footage back into its correct spectrum, which resulted in this deep, rich, hypersaturated and heavy grain aesthetic which I truly feel in love with. Overall, we relied mostly on Kodak 5212 (100T), as it maintained its integrity over time, being the least damaged as it\u2019s the slower film stock. We then would overexpose it by a full stop and a half, which meant we were pumping in heavy high wattage lights into our sets, and still retain deep dark shadows. In general, we avoided the Fuji, as when their stock ages it gets gummy around the core of the roll, so the lab would have issues cleaning off the remjet [a protective layer at the base of the film] even with multiple passes in the bath. This causes white remjet specks to dance over the image, as they couldn\u2019t be cleaned off as the stock was so gummy, clinging to the negative.\u201d<\/p>\n

For Celine Song on Past Lives<\/i><\/b>, \u201cthe joke is that I had two divas on set,\u201d but, as she told<\/a> Collider\u2019s Perri Nemiroff, neither were actors\u2014\u201cit was New York City and my 35mm film camera.\u201d Speaking with Above the Line\u2019s Daniel Eagan, she expanded<\/a> on one dimension of the latter: its bulky size and attendant implications for locations. She said, \u201cMy crew would complain that the camera wouldn\u2019t fit on the staircase. Okay, we\u2019d find another shithole and I\u2019d be like, \u2018This is perfect.\u2019 Everyone would say, \u2018It\u2019s too small, it\u2019s too shitty.\u2019 Finally, we landed on this railroad flat where at least you could get a little depth with the camera. It was the right solution for the picture, but because it was a shithole as well, the floor creaked every time the camera moved. Our poor sound editor had to delete all these creaks.\u201d Another first-time feature director, Raven Jackson, told Miriam Bale in a Film Comment<\/i> interview<\/a> that she and cinematographer Jomo Fray were always going to use film for All Dirt Roads Lead to Salt<\/i><\/b> but had also considered 16mm, deciding on 35mm after a week of tests prior to preproduction. Fray added that \u201cwe only used one stock, even though this movie takes place in different time periods. For Raven and me, these are not flashbacks or flash-forwards. Every single moment, every single frame in this movie, is about [main character] Mack dealing with the present-tense stakes of her life at that given moment.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Choosing instead to heighten the contradictions for Bradley Cooper\u2019s Maestro<\/i><\/b>, Matthew Libatique shot 35mm in black-and-white and color and<\/i> in two aspect ratios\u2014\u201cI think Bradley liked the conflict,\u201d he told<\/a> Deadline\u2019s Zac Ntim of the switch from Academy ratio to 1.85. Shooting Godland<\/i><\/b> in the Academy ratio, Hlynur P\u00e1lmason told<\/a> Loud and Clear\u2019s William Stottor that his previous \u201cA White, White Day<\/i> was shot in super 35mm. It isn\u2019t a large format, but it is a very wide format. It fitted for that film, but I had difficulties working with it and didn\u2019t feel that excited to frame with it. I was looking and testing other formats and tried the old Academy format. I tested it and it is a larger format. I found it depicted landscapes and nature a lot better.\u201d It also matched the large-format photography camera used by the film\u2019s protagonist, a 19th-century priest, to shoot the landscape. As reported<\/a> by Danny Leigh in the Financial Times<\/i>, P\u00e1lmason himself keeps a 35mm still camera in his car, \u201cused as a visual notebook.\u201d For Andrea Pallaoro\u2019s Monica<\/i><\/b>, cinematographer Katelin Arizmendi wrote in an email that for this \u201cextremely intimate film with a first-person perspective into a woman reconnecting with her family [\u2026] we were very closeup on Monica and her mother Eugenia, and because 35mm is more forgiving than digital, it provides a level of relief for the actors, focusing their conscious less on the superficial.\u201d (The only movie this year for which I really don\u2019t have any meaningful 35mm info is the Italian action movie Last Night of Amore<\/i><\/b>, although I did check to confirm my hunch that the lead character is named Amore.)<\/p>\n

I want to give the final word this year to James N. Kienitz Wilkins. When I started assembling this list a decade ago, I made some basic eligibility rules to work from\u2014but I never specified that the 35mm images in question had to be moving<\/i>. Therefore, Wilkins\u2019s Still Film<\/i><\/b>, whose title is obviously remarkably convenient for my purposes, is eligible, its visuals consisting entirely of 35mm slides from press kits ranging fro 1982 to 2001, before the era of EPKs and easily downloadable publicity stills. Still Film<\/i> imagery is composed of 140 such slides, each one standing in for a whole movie; the number matches the number of slots on a Kodak projector carousel. Wilkins acquired the slides for the film and scanned them in 4K, but their acquisition was sometimes a fraught process. \u201cSome sellers way overvalued their slides and refused to take a \u2018best offer,\u2019\u201d he wrote in an email. \u201cI exchanged some spicy words with a pompous European \u2018collector\u2019 and argued that not only the slides, but the very movies depicted were literally not worth what was being asked\u2014Renaissance Man<\/i>, in particular. Who else but me wants a slide of Renaissance Man<\/i>? \u2018Take it or leave it, buddy, I am<\/i> the Renaissance Man,\u2019 I wanted to scream. A fun fact about the BAM screening [where the film had its initial theatrical run] is that I acquired a rusty old print of the theatrical trailer for Renaissance Man<\/i> (35mm flat w\/optical). Jesse Trussell of BAM was amazingly game to screen it before the four Hollywood movies we selected as a sidebar. It looked great, and surely confused audiences into expecting more \u201990s DeVito than BAM could provide\u2014we couldn\u2019t trace the actual movie.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

During the NBA playoffs this year, a Miller Lite commercial unexpectedly compelled my attention. The frames\u2019 edges were rounded, the images\u2019 scratches conspicuous\u2014this was either shot on film or trying very hard to look like it. Further digging confirmed the spot (title: \u201cYou Never Forget\u201d) was shot on 35mm, perhaps in keeping with its nostalgic world of bars with CD jukeboxes and cathode-ray TVs. I\u2019d often read over the past decade that commercials and music videos have been using celluloid with increasing frequency; collating this year\u2019s (tenth!) annual edition of U.S.-released features shot in whole or part on 35mm [2014, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":166,"featured_media":123983,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","wds_primary_category":0,"wds_primary_column":0},"categories":[3407,3477],"tags":[286,24626],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123979"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/166"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123979"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123979\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":124123,"href":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123979\/revisions\/124123"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/123983"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filmmakermagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}