The Hateful Eight

[Schu]

Just got back from H8... superb work to be sure, more so the longer I think about what I just witnessed. I have definite and well defined thoughts on the movie already, but I really want to see it again before collating my impression into a statement on this movie.

As a quick observation, I was less impressed with the esthetics and technical achievement than I was with the writing... exactly the opposite of what I thought would be... though there were some specific scenes involving vapor and smoke that were extremely wondrous, as were the close ups. The action was far less important and impactful than was the tension and back story.

I want to digest what I have seen and perhaps see it again... suffice to say, Quetins stylized western chess game was a massive success.

[jason str]

Went to see the matinee today and the first two showings were already sold out.

 

Guess i wait.

[JJkizak]

70mm, kind of like the old 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 slides which would project magnificently on the ceilings, walls, and floors. Had the whole setup including the Pentax 6 x 7.

JJK

[garyrc]

An interesting bit of trivia perhaps, saw that Quentin was going to be on Colbert's show a few weeks back and recorded it.  In the show, he mentioned that he used the same  lenses as they did in the movie Ben-Hur and a couple of other wide screen films of that era.   he then added, that what me meant by that is that they were the exact lenses used in those movies.  I thought that pretty cool.  

 

In 1959, a program that was sold ($1) in the lobbies of roadshow theaters showing Ben-Hur in 70mm, claimed that Camera 65 used "rare earth lenses."  I don't know whether that was just studio fluff, but the big close-ups of faces were the sharpest I've ever seen in a movie before or since.  Camera 65 was the MGM imprint of Ultra (not "Super") Panavision 70, with an aspect ratio of about 2.76:1.  The camera film was 65 mm, as it is with all "70mm" processes, and the prints were 70mm.

 

Oddly, one of the articles about The Hateful Eight mentioned that they used "soft lenses."  I discounted that.  Now I'll add that the lenses used in Ben-Hur were anything but soft.  It, and most movies in 70mm, used very sharp lenses, producing an almost "etched" quality.

Edited December 27, 2015 by garyrc

[Shiva]

Here is a little article I found. Perhaps it is one you have already read.

 

http://nofilmschool.com/2015/08/quentin-tarantino-hateful-eight-anamorphic-65mm-70mm-film-panavision-ultra-70-trailer

[Thaddeus Smith]

Just got back from H8... superb work to be sure, more so the longer I think about what I just witnessed. I have definite and well defined thoughts on the movie already, but I really want to see it again before collating my impression into a statement on this movie.

As a quick observation, I was less impressed with the esthetics and technical achievement than I was with the writing... exactly the opposite of what I thought would be... though there were some specific scenes involving vapor and smoke that were extremely wondrous, as were the close ups. The action was far less important and impactful than was the tension and back story.

I want to digest what I have seen and perhaps see it again... suffice to say, Quetins stylized western chess game was a massive success.

 

I agree with all of this.

[teaman]

After the stupid shit Tarantino has said as of late I would not spend a penny on his films from here on out. 

[JL Sargent]

I agree with all of this.

 

So you too were more impressed with the "story" than the movie?

[Thaddeus Smith]

 

I agree with all of this.

 

So you too were more impressed with the "story" than the movie?

 

 

indeed. and while it had dialogue elements consistent with his style, it didn't seem to drag on and become tiresome as is often the case in his older movies.

[Travis In Austin]

The writing was excellent. I was disappointed with his last outing, but he is right back at the top of his game with this one.

I tend to like movies with superb writing and/or ensemble casts, so this one was right up my ally.

[Travis In Austin]

An interesting bit of trivia perhaps, saw that Quentin was going to be on Colbert's show a few weeks back and recorded it. In the show, he mentioned that he used the same lenses as they did in the movie Ben-Hur and a couple of other wide screen films of that era. he then added, that what me meant by that is that they were the exact lenses used in those movies. I thought that pretty cool.

In 1959, a program that was sold ($1) in the lobbies of roadshow theaters showing Ben-Hur in 70mm, claimed that Camera 65 used "rare earth lenses." I don't know whether that was just studio fluff, but the big close-ups of faces were the sharpest I've ever seen in a movie before or since. Camera 65 was the MGM imprint of Ultra (not "Super") Panavision 70, with an aspect ratio of about 2.76:1. The camera film was 65 mm, as it is with all "70mm" processes, and the prints were 70mm.

Oddly, one of the articles about The Hateful Eight mentioned that they used "soft lenses." I discounted that. Now I'll add that the lenses used in Ben-Hur were anything but soft. It, and most movies in 70mm, used very sharp lenses, producing an almost "etched" quality.

I think they really were rare earth, and most of their lenses are still rare earth.

I wonder if the actual lens is "soft" or just the filters or effects they put in front of it, like cheese cloth? You do here tales of certain actresses having in their contracts particular lens and lighting requirements, resulting in a softer effect. I don't know if that is true or not.

From the Panavision people on H8:

"Some new lenses had to be manufactured, however, while the mechanics on some of the older ones had to be modified. That’s where Dan Sasaki, Panavision’s VP of optical engineering, and his team came in.

“Originally we thought this was going to be a slam dunk,” Sasaki says. “But (during) a five-hour meeting, the whole show just unraveled. We didn’t know if the infrastructure was going to exist. Is it going to look good? Will the lab be able to handle it? Will we be able (to have) the projection lenses?”

"The look achieved by the old lenses duplicates what we see with the natural eye better than any other format, Sasaki says, with the camera’s prism elements evoking all of our natural depth cues.

[Travis In Austin]

Here is a little article I found. Perhaps it is one you have already read.

http://nofilmschool.com/2015/08/quentin-tarantino-hateful-eight-anamorphic-65mm-70mm-film-panavision-ultra-70-trailer

Great article, thanks for posting that.

[garyrc]

 

 

An interesting bit of trivia perhaps, saw that Quentin was going to be on Colbert's show a few weeks back and recorded it. In the show, he mentioned that he used the same lenses as they did in the movie Ben-Hur and a couple of other wide screen films of that era. he then added, that what me meant by that is that they were the exact lenses used in those movies. I thought that pretty cool.

In 1959, a program that was sold ($1) in the lobbies of roadshow theaters showing Ben-Hur in 70mm, claimed that Camera 65 used "rare earth lenses." I don't know whether that was just studio fluff, but the big close-ups of faces were the sharpest I've ever seen in a movie before or since. Camera 65 was the MGM imprint of Ultra (not "Super") Panavision 70, with an aspect ratio of about 2.76:1. The camera film was 65 mm, as it is with all "70mm" processes, and the prints were 70mm.

Oddly, one of the articles about The Hateful Eight mentioned that they used "soft lenses." I discounted that. Now I'll add that the lenses used in Ben-Hur were anything but soft. It, and most movies in 70mm, used very sharp lenses, producing an almost "etched" quality.

I think they really were rare earth, and most of their lenses are still rare earth.

I wonder if the actual lens is "soft" or just the filters or effects they put in front of it, like cheese cloth? You do here tales of certain actresses having in their contracts particular lens and lighting requirements, resulting in a softer effect. I don't know if that is true or not.

From the Panavision people on H8:

"Some new lenses had to be manufactured, however, while the mechanics on some of the older ones had to be modified. That’s where Dan Sasaki, Panavision’s VP of optical engineering, and his team came in.

“Originally we thought this was going to be a slam dunk,” Sasaki says. “But (during) a five-hour meeting, the whole show just unraveled. We didn’t know if the infrastructure was going to exist. Is it going to look good? Will the lab be able to handle it? Will we be able (to have) the projection lenses?”

"The look achieved by the old lenses duplicates what we see with the natural eye better than any other format, Sasaki says, with the camera’s prism elements evoking all of our natural depth cues.

 

 

I hope you are right, that any softness was intentional, only when Tarantino thought it was appropriate.  I know the original UP70 lenses were critically sharp.

 

Part of the illusion of depth is the use of wide angle camera lenses, an effect we can see a hint of with our own cameras with wide angle lenses.  That would be present even with the picture width being held constant.   In the first modern 70mm films (1950s), especially those in Todd-AO, a very wide angle lens was used in a few shots.  The 128 degree Todd-AO lens can be seen in Around the World in 80 days and Oklahoma!, but only in a few shots.  Since it was a Bug-eye lens, it was nicknamed "Bugs," and now sits on the desk of film restorer David A. Harris.   D-150 (another 70mm process) was named after its 150 degree lens, which may have never been used.  UP70 had some wide lenses, but not that wide.  Part of the depth effect may be the effect of peripheral vision cues on a very large, wide screen (more possible in 70mm than 35mm).  Also, if one is sitting close to the screen (as most of the film buffs used to when viewing 70mm), one can only see a portion of the image sharply at a time, and the less sharp surround is "just like in life," but if you move your eyes, you will see a sharp image wherever you look, except when a part of the picture is deliberately thrown out of focus.  Part of the depth effect may be the fineness of the grain.

 

I always liked the natural looking depth effect in 70 mm better than the startling depth effect of stereoscopic films, with glasses.

Edited December 27, 2015 by garyrc

[Travis In Austin]

Did anyone else see Circarama movie at Disneyland, America the Beautiful? 360 screen, 360 sound, it could literally make you car sick or dizzy watching it.

[garyrc]

Did anyone else see Circarama movie at Disneyland, America the Beautiful? 360 screen, 360 sound, it could literally make you car sick or dizzy watching it.

 

I saw it twice.

 

The thick join lines could be ignored after a few minutes.  I later years, they put railings up to hold on to.  A friend of mine used to have strange brain events from time to time.  On the bus ride back from Disneyland, he claimed to have a "playback" of the music America the Beautiful, as heard in Circarama. The first version (1950s)  was a big hit when they took it to one of the world's fairs. 

[Travis In Austin]

We started going in about 65 or 66, it was about 15 minutes away from where we lived then. I can only remember rails, but I sure remember Lombard St on San Francisco.

[garyrc]

We started going in about 65 or 66, it was about 15 minutes away from where we lived then. I can only remember rails, but I sure remember Lombard St on San Francisco.

 

Was that a twisted memory?

 

I knew someone whose grandmother owned a great house on the crooked part of Lombard.  Some of us spent a few days on the top story.  We could look down through the uncovered windows of the very rich.  We saw servants standing against the wall, at the ready, as the family ate dinner.  It was a rather Hitchcockian glimpse of the 1% .... or was it the 2% ... we were not good at discerning fine distinctions in that rarefied air. 

[JJkizak]

 

We started going in about 65 or 66, it was about 15 minutes away from where we lived then. I can only remember rails, but I sure remember Lombard St on San Francisco.

 

Was that a twisted memory?

 

I knew someone whose grandmother owned a great house on the crooked part of Lombard.  Some of us spent a few days on the top story.  We could look down through the uncovered windows of the very rich.  We saw servants standing against the wall, at the ready, as the family ate dinner.  It was a rather Hitchcockian glimpse of the 1% .... or was it the 2% ... we were not good at discerning fine distinctions in that rarefied air. 

 

 

Nowadays the servants will be brandishing AK47's.

JJK

[Travis In Austin]

We started going in about 65 or 66, it was about 15 minutes away from where we lived then. I can only remember rails, but I sure remember Lombard St on San Francisco.

Was that a twisted memory?

I knew someone whose grandmother owned a great house on the crooked part of Lombard. Some of us spent a few days on the top story. We could look down through the uncovered windows of the very rich. We saw servants standing against the wall, at the ready, as the family ate dinner. It was a rather Hitchcockian glimpse of the 1% .... or was it the 2% ... we were not good at discerning fine distinctions in that rarefied air.

Nowadays the servants will be brandishing AK47's.

JJK

I think more like P90s.

[oldtimer]

I would have a couple of roof mounted Bofors as well.