cinemad
2012-11-14 05:36:00 UTC
Last night I went to the Orpheum Cremorne Theatre to see the Master in 70MM.
The Orpheum is about the only cinema in Sydney where 70MM can be shown apart from the Blacktown Drive-In.
If anybody is contemplating seeing this film I strongly suggest that you read the aricle in the November American Cinematographer Magazine available online at: http://www.theasc.com
Apparently the original intention was to shoot it partly in VistaVision and partly in 1.85:1 35mm but apparently thetre was little noticeable difference between the two so it was decided to go to 65MM.
Originally the intention was to shoot only a quarter of the film in 65mm but after seeing the results of the first weeks rushes they decided to shoot considerably more in 65MM.
The film was shot by Mihai Malamaire Jr and he mainly used slower speed stocks
which necessitated the filming at near fully open apertures that severely restrict the depth of field. There are many extreme close-ups in the film and in these scenes the background is a total blur.
Perhaps the Director Anderson used 65mm deliberately so that the depth of field is severely resticted, he could have achieved the same result by using neutral-density filters with 35mm.
There are many wide shots in the film where only part of the picture is in focus, and the focus puller is going from Front objects in focus to rear objects in focus. This becomes very distracting after a while and really draws attention to itself.
Unlike Little Buddha(1994) where the scenes shot in 65mm really stand out it is really obvious what scenes were shot in 65mm ant what scenes were shot in 35mm,
in this film it is very difficult to tell what guage any partcle scene was shot on. To me it all looked light average 35mm and the 70mm Blow-ups of TITANIC(1997) looked much sharper.
The acting is very good and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lancaster Dodd, a Spiritualist Guru, who develops an obsessive relationship with Freddie Quell, a retired seaman who suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, turns in a
great performance and Joaquin Phoenix is equally good as the slightly retarded ex-seaman.
I think those 70mm aficiandoes who are expecting to see a crystal clear 70mm
image as in say, RYAN'S DAUGHTER(1970) will be disappointed. I think it was a waste of time and money to shoot the film in 65mm as all it shows is the inadequacy of 70MM's restricted Depth of Field and the DOP not using enough light to compensate. This is a small intimate picture and in my opinion 70mm is totally wasted. Perhaps the DOP and the director Anderson wanted this very shallow depth of Field but after a while it does become tiresome.
Film stocks are much sharper and finer grained today than the Eastman Color 5254
Color Negative which RYAN'S DAUGHTER(1970) was shot on in 1969-1970 and yet it looks much sharper on a 50ft screen than THE MASTER(2012)
A lot of younger people today don't even know what 70MM is, and to advertise a film in 70MM means something only to a certain generation of Film goers who expect to see a Super-Large immaculately sharp and grain free image.
There are many scenes in the Master which are evidently out of focus, but I suppose some people feel that has artistic value.
I must admit I only went to see the film because it was in 70mm.
After a few minutes I began to have doubts as to whether or not in was being shown in 70MM but I did notice 6 sets of circular change-over cues and when the end titles were being shown I walked up to the Projection Box and I could see, through the Port-Hole the 70MM film coming off the Platter. I assume it was DTS Sound.
AS a film I would give The MASTER 7.5 out of 10.
As an example of 70MM Presentation 5 out of 10.
Regards,
Peter Mason
The Orpheum is about the only cinema in Sydney where 70MM can be shown apart from the Blacktown Drive-In.
If anybody is contemplating seeing this film I strongly suggest that you read the aricle in the November American Cinematographer Magazine available online at: http://www.theasc.com
Apparently the original intention was to shoot it partly in VistaVision and partly in 1.85:1 35mm but apparently thetre was little noticeable difference between the two so it was decided to go to 65MM.
Originally the intention was to shoot only a quarter of the film in 65mm but after seeing the results of the first weeks rushes they decided to shoot considerably more in 65MM.
The film was shot by Mihai Malamaire Jr and he mainly used slower speed stocks
which necessitated the filming at near fully open apertures that severely restrict the depth of field. There are many extreme close-ups in the film and in these scenes the background is a total blur.
Perhaps the Director Anderson used 65mm deliberately so that the depth of field is severely resticted, he could have achieved the same result by using neutral-density filters with 35mm.
There are many wide shots in the film where only part of the picture is in focus, and the focus puller is going from Front objects in focus to rear objects in focus. This becomes very distracting after a while and really draws attention to itself.
Unlike Little Buddha(1994) where the scenes shot in 65mm really stand out it is really obvious what scenes were shot in 65mm ant what scenes were shot in 35mm,
in this film it is very difficult to tell what guage any partcle scene was shot on. To me it all looked light average 35mm and the 70mm Blow-ups of TITANIC(1997) looked much sharper.
The acting is very good and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lancaster Dodd, a Spiritualist Guru, who develops an obsessive relationship with Freddie Quell, a retired seaman who suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, turns in a
great performance and Joaquin Phoenix is equally good as the slightly retarded ex-seaman.
I think those 70mm aficiandoes who are expecting to see a crystal clear 70mm
image as in say, RYAN'S DAUGHTER(1970) will be disappointed. I think it was a waste of time and money to shoot the film in 65mm as all it shows is the inadequacy of 70MM's restricted Depth of Field and the DOP not using enough light to compensate. This is a small intimate picture and in my opinion 70mm is totally wasted. Perhaps the DOP and the director Anderson wanted this very shallow depth of Field but after a while it does become tiresome.
Film stocks are much sharper and finer grained today than the Eastman Color 5254
Color Negative which RYAN'S DAUGHTER(1970) was shot on in 1969-1970 and yet it looks much sharper on a 50ft screen than THE MASTER(2012)
A lot of younger people today don't even know what 70MM is, and to advertise a film in 70MM means something only to a certain generation of Film goers who expect to see a Super-Large immaculately sharp and grain free image.
There are many scenes in the Master which are evidently out of focus, but I suppose some people feel that has artistic value.
I must admit I only went to see the film because it was in 70mm.
After a few minutes I began to have doubts as to whether or not in was being shown in 70MM but I did notice 6 sets of circular change-over cues and when the end titles were being shown I walked up to the Projection Box and I could see, through the Port-Hole the 70MM film coming off the Platter. I assume it was DTS Sound.
AS a film I would give The MASTER 7.5 out of 10.
As an example of 70MM Presentation 5 out of 10.
Regards,
Peter Mason