We’re now just over a month away from the release of “Inception,” and Christopher Nolan hit the Hero Complex Film Festival for an eagerly-awaited Q&A with Geoff Boucher of the LA Times over the weekend. While the ever tight-lipped Nolan wasn’t giving much away, about either his new film or the third Batman, Heat Vision and Boucher’s Hero Complex blog have reported a few interesting tidbits.
Nolan’s ambiguous feelings about 3D are well-known (regular DoP Wally Pfister hates it, and Nolan told Collider back in March that it was “an interesting development” with “certain limitations… you have to shoot on video, which I’m not a fan of. I like shooting on film” — a statement that makes us want to kiss the director on the mouth), but what wasn’t clear until his LAFF panel was that Nolan had tested 3D post-conversion on “Inception.”
While Nolan told the audience that “I’m not a huge fan of 3D,” he did go on to reveal, “We did tests on “Inception” to look at the post conversion process, and they worked very well. It’s quite easy to do, in fact. But it takes a little time, and we didn’t have the time to do it to the standard that I would have been happy.” Furthermore, the director won’t shoot in 3D — he prefers to shoot on film, and using prime lenses (fixed focal length lenses), which aren’t possible with 3D cameras. But don’t worry about the film lacking visual pizazz. As was revealed earlier this year, Nolan has already used a variety of film formats on “Inception” to try and create a grand, immersive experience shooting in 35mm, 65mm and VistaVision.
That being said, Nolan didn’t rule out the possibility of the third Batman being post-converted, saying that “really it’s going to be up to audiences to decide how they want to watch their films.” But if “Inception” performs as well as we suspect it will, we’re pretty sure that Nolan will be able to dictate to Warner Bros its release format (despite studios making 3D their future tentpole standard).
But even if Nolan toys with 3D for the next installment of the Batman franchise, he has some fundamental issues with the format he’ll need to get over, saying that “on an experiential level, I find the dimness of the image extremely alienating” and that “the truth is, I think it’s a misnomer to call it 3D versus 2D. The whole point of cinematic imagery is it’s three dimensional… You know 95% of our depth cues come from occlusion, resolution, color and so forth, so the idea of calling a 2D movie a ‘2D movie’ is a little misleading.” Which is perhaps the best defense of traditional projection we’ve heard in a long time.
Nolan also discussed his preference for practical effects over CGI, as well as saying that he doesn’t look at the internet, or even use email or a cellphone (possibly explaining why our earlier offer to kiss him on the mouth hasn’t been taken up. Yet…) He also talked about having seen “Blade Runner” hundreds of times, screening “Pink Floyd: The Wall” to the “Inception” crew at the start of filming, and said that, when David Goyer pitched his “Superman” idea that he “didn’t want it to not get done.”
We’re glad to see at least one director in the industry not going headlong into the latest trend to sweep Hollywood. Nolan’s measured approach and consideration of the format is the sort of level-headed approach we wish the rest of industry took before churning every film possible through the 3D machine.
Nolan always gives good interview, and we hope that Boucher posts a video or transcript of the whole chat at some stage for those of us who couldn’t make it.
no thank you
So you guys know, it was the Hero Complex Film Festival, not the LA Film Festival
Thanks, noted.
"really it's going to be up to audiences to decide how they want to watch their films."
no, no its not. i love nolan but that's a little naive of him. the studios will always decide, and people will pay whatever ticket prices they set… unless there were alternative cinemas. hmm…
This is a great article / interview from Nolan.
When looking at digital vs. film, its easy to side with film being film enthusiasts that we are and that Nolan obviously is. Thing is, it comes down to the DP. A good DP can make digital look like super 35mm no problem.
I'm glad Nolan admitted the conversion stuff can look pretty good. I am not for 3D in any format, but I think in the next year people's opinions of "only shoot 3D if you want 3D" will change completely. Shooting 3D is a huge problem, and limits the shooting process. The few converted movies we've seen so far were guinea pigs, and conversion technology is growing rapidly in the right direction. We also might as well warm up to the idea of 3D Batman, because its coming.
I think Nolan meant that over time, the audiences will ultimately decide whether more or less movies are released with stereoscopic picture. If these movies don't make enough money then studios won't make them. It's as simple as that.
I love his take on the term "3-D" as well, because it isn't actually 3-D at all. The images are not jutting out off the screen. It's only an illusion, just as a normal film print of a movie gives the illusion of three dimensions on a flat surface using variations in light, movement and detail, stereoscopic does the same, but in a unique, digital way.
Why is it news that something's going to be in 3D? That's not news.
Uh…is there anything Christopher Nolan does or says that DOESN'T make you guys want to kiss him on the mouth? I mean, you guys are probably my favorite film news site, but you're very Harry Knowles about that guy.
^Agreed x20