70mm and the Relevance of Celluloid Film
With film processing plant closures, and Kodak filing bankruptcy, it is no surprise that most people see the death of celluloid film looming ahead. Of course, there are some photographers that hold onto film, and traditional processing as an art form. The same goes for celluloid film in cinema. But a switch to digital in cinema seems like the inevitable future — what with Avatarforcing almost every theater across the country to have proper 3D digital projectors. Filmmakers looking to make a significant impact on box offices would likely need to join the CGI ranks and go with the movement. For an up-and-coming filmmaker, the allure of shooting with real film cannot easily be realized. Film is expensive, difficult to edit, and frankly most people do not know the difference between digital and its predecessor. Two of the biggest films to hit the screen this year, Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar and Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight, make a spectacle of their production in 70mm. Now the hot topic of debate becomes: Why do some iconic filmmakers hold on tightly to the dying medium of processed film?
Interstellar’s release brought some attention with a pre-release in 35mm in select theaters. For film buffs, and fans of Nolan, the multi-medium release of the highly anticipated film was the perfect chance for viewers to feel nostalgic about processed film. But why would Nolan want his 70mm masterpiece to screen in 35mm? Fans would inevitably be driven to see it again in 70mm projection, and IMAX. In respect to driving film sales, showing the film in two mediums is not a reasonable marketing ploy. One would have to assume that Nolan, as a purest filmmaker, wants his film to be seen the way he intended it: 70mm. The reality is that 70mm projection is very rare; beyond Los Angeles, it almost does not exist.
The lack of 70mm projection was not a big issue during the release ofInterstellar, but as of late, Tarantino was not willing to deny his fans of the full experience. He drew the attention of Hollywood to his latest piece, The Hateful Eight when he revealed he had shot the entire film in 70mm, using Panavision lenses unused since the production of Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World(1963). Apart from the impressive use of medium and equipment, Tarantino wanted the country to take note of his achievement by pushing it on viewers in 70mm projection, creating The Hateful Eight: 70mm Roadshow. Tarantino has made it clear to his dedicated fan base that he wants his work to be appreciated in its proudest form. He has gone to great lengths to show he is dedicated to processed film as something more than novelty, in his New Beverly Cinema, where films can be seen in 35mm on a daily basis. He is passionate about processed film as a medium. And the success of his theater proves movie buffs in LA are, too. While Tarantino may have found it important to bring attention to his new film — released nearly simultaneously as Star Wars: The Force Awakens (what may become the grossing film of all time) — it is safe to say that the 70mm release of the film has to do with more than good marketing, and furthermore, that both Nolan and Tarantino have used 70mm because of their own appreciation for the beauty that can be created through celluloid film.
Many will argue that the medium of image recording may be the least important aspect of good filmmaking. In some respects, this may be true.Gravity (2014), digitally shot with an IMAX camera, received more recognition and praise than Interstellar. While the two films should not necessarily be compared, they fall in the same genre, and it is worth noting that the medium which they were made did not differentiate them, when it came to the box office numbers.
What can be said for sure is that processed film allows for a depth and richness in filming that cannot be obtained in digital production. The subtle imperfections that exist in processed film are worth admiration; cinema should not attempt to recreate real life, which would jeopardize the art in the art form. Even Peter Jackson was criticized for the high frame rate he used in the making of The Hobbit, leading to commentary around the film appearing somewhat soap opera like. But with the advancement of technology and filming techniques, change should be embraced, for more reasons than its inevitability. Filming advancements allow the world of cinema to grow in profound ways, and reach a broader audience. Without progression, the art of filmmaking risks losing relevance; yet with a complete loss of classic film processing, and without a retrospective view at the origins of filming techniques, cinema may take on a form that is no longer recognizable. Purest filmmakers, who refuse to adapt to the push in digital and 3D, should be embraced and appreciated, providing new generations of film lovers with a view into the world of cinema that may very well cease to exist in years to come.
Why processed film is still being used cannot be answered definitely, but any speculation of it being used for marketing purposes and pure nostalgia certainly do not address the conversation in enough depth. To say processed film is better than digital is not a fair statement. So much more can be achieved in digital filmmaking. But one vital truth that should be acknowledged by anyone seeking to compare the two, is that digital film seeks to recreate what its predecessor once achieved. Films like Interstellar and The Hateful Eight are not merely rejecting new standards, they pay dues to the films that inspired their creation.
