Christopher Nolan Speaks Out Against Digital Filmmaking and 3D

Posted by on April 19th, 2012   Filed under: Industry News, Technology
Source: DGA.org

With more and more directors giving in to the benefits of shooting on digital and even old school directors like Martin Scorsese learning to embrace 3D, it definitely feels like we’ve reached a point in Hollywood where filmmakers are being told to essentially adapt or die. The technology is changing rapidly, and if you can’t keep up, you just might get left in the dust. Fortunately, there is at least one big name in the industry who continues to shoot on film and avoid 3D at all costs. Up until recently he has kept relatively quiet on the matter, but now Christopher Nolan is speaking out on the subject and he is hoping to get others to follow his lead. But is he truly fighting the good fight or is he just holding himself and everyone else back?

According to L.A. Weekly, back in December, Nolan gathered together a bunch of the most well-known and influential directors in the industry to show them a preview of his upcoming film The Dark Knight Rises. He also made a plea for them to continue to shoot on 35mm film, warning that if they didn’t, it would quickly fade away. He also spoke quite candidly about the subject in an interview with DGA Quarterly entitled The Traditionalist. Here are some choice excerpts from that interview:

“For the last 10 years, I’ve felt increasing pressure to stop shooting film and start shooting video, but I’ve never understood why. It’s cheaper to work on film, it’s far better looking, it’s the technology that’s been known and understood for a hundred years, and it’s extremely reliable. I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo. We save a lot of money shooting on film and projecting film and not doing digital intermediates. In fact, I’ve never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12 to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite. That’s the way everyone was doing it 10 years ago, and I’ve just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change. But I haven’t seen that reason yet.”

He is, however, a big supporter of IMAX:

“I’ve kept my mouth shut about this for a long time and it’s fine that everyone has a choice, but for me the choice is in real danger of disappearing. So right before Christmas I brought some filmmakers together and showed them the prologue for The Dark Knight Rises that we shot on IMAX film, then cut from the original negative and printed. I wanted to give them a chance to see the potential, because I think IMAX is the best film format that was ever invented. It’s the gold standard and what any other technology has to match up to, but none have, in my opinion. The message I wanted to put out there was that no one is taking anyone’s digital cameras away. But if we want film to continue as an option, and someone is working on a big studio movie with the resources and the power to insist [on] film, they should say so. I felt as if I didn’t say anything, and then we started to lose that option, it would be a shame. When I look at a digitally acquired and projected image, it looks inferior against an original negative anamorphic print or an IMAX one.”

And here are his thoughts on 3D:

“I find stereoscopic imaging too small scale and intimate in its effect. 3-D is a misnomer. Films are 3-D. The whole point of photography is that it’s three-dimensional. The thing with stereoscopic imaging is it gives each audience member an individual perspective. It’s well suited to video games and other immersive technologies, but if you’re looking for an audience experience, stereoscopic is hard to embrace. I prefer the big canvas, looking up at an enormous screen and at an image that feels larger than life. When you treat that stereoscopically, and we’ve tried a lot of tests, you shrink the size so the image becomes a much smaller window in front of you. So the effect of it, and the relationship of the image to the audience, has to be very carefully considered. And I feel that in the initial wave to embrace it, that wasn’t considered in the slightest.”

It would be easy to assume that Nolan is right simply because he is Christopher Nolan, but there is a small part of me that wonders if he’s dismissing things too quickly here. I mean, if there is one director out there capable of giving us an amazing 3D experience, Nolan has got to be it, right? Still, I think he’s right to at least fight for the ability to choose between film and digital, and it’s cool to see him using his clout to potentially keep 35mm alive. Do you agree with Nolan’s statements about digital technology and 3D?



  • Wintle

    “When I look at a digitally acquired and projected image, it looks inferior against an original negative anamorphic print or an IMAX one.”

    Fuck and yes. I may not be the biggest fan of his movies, but right on Nolan. Cell phones, texting, talking and seat kicking couldn’t keep me from quitting the theatre experience, but digital has pushed me to the brink. I think I’ll go see The Dark Knight Rises after all, if only to support this stance.

  • Steve

    He makes an interesting point about DIs, I had no idea he doesn’t use that workflow. But the reason DIs take so much longer than a traditional timing session is that you have much more control over your image and can alter pretty much whatever aspect of it you want. I’m not against going the old school route and Nolan’s films look great, but when you look at what people like Roger Deakins can do with a digital workflow, it seems like that would be the way to go.

    I personally am getting a little tired of the film vs. video debate. They’re good for different things and I don’t think either should go away.

  • Yeah, I never paid much attention, but when I saw Hunger (yuck) Games (yuckyuckyuckyuckewwww), I thought the digital projection looked like shit.

  • Maopheus

    I read the whole interview and it’s very interesting. At least Nolan is reasonable and intelligent in providing his position on why he favors film. He sees that digital has some benefit, and he can weigh the pro’s and con’s as opposed to simply saying film is better and that’s the end of it. I think it is too early to tell the true cost advantage of digital over film. The manufacturers will of course claim there is one as well as its adherents. I think they’re just as exaggerated as Nolan (and other film purists) in their claims that digital does not have a cost advantage. I think it’s all about where you are looking. For example, use the conversion from film-based photography to digital. You save money on buying film, developing it, printing, etc. But then you have to spend money on buying a new digital camera, appropriate storage media, etc. Also, to get your digital photos printed, you probably end up spending more than going to a lab. If you do it at home, you have to buy a printer, paper, and ink. With film, you had to be economical, you had to pick and choose the right time and spot. But of course, you never knew how the picture and you probably ended up with a lot of duds, whether it be over-exposure, under-exposure, a thumb over the lense, whatever. But now you can take many more photos, effectively infinitely many more, so you spend a lot more time managing the pictures with photo editing software. So in the end, I bet that if time and money could be expressed as one number, there is no difference between the two.
    I believe his opinion about 3-D. And the main reason being that 3-D is an illusory process regardless of whether the images are captured natively or converted post-production. It’s still essentially an artistic decision as opposed to scientific on how the actual 3-D is being presented to the viewer. He is right that it works great for the single viewer or limited group. In that way, 3-D TV might actually be more effective than in the cinema. It’s impossible to give every viewer in a cinema the exact same experience when you’re essentially dealing with a 2-D image that is being tricked-up to appear 3-D. Not until we can develop some kind of holographic process will true 3-D exist.

  • Maopheus

    In addition, I don’t think Nolan dislikes 3-D in and of itself. I think every filmmaker wants the most effective and creative tools at their disposal to tell their story to the filmgoer. Therefore, Nolan would be foolish not to use 3-D if it fit that criteria. I just don’t think he thinks it’s there yet. I can sympathize with his opinion because there are too many different formats in terms of capturing, processing, and projecting. If 3-D were as straight-forward as 2-D is, then it would not be an issue. In fact, he would be using it right now.
    But what he is protesting against is the pressure from the studios to do everything in digital and/or 3-D simply because it’s the hot thing and not because it’s better creatively, technically and financially. Nolan is not a Luddite. He’s not talking about going back to the days of Technicolor and editing film by actually cutting it with a knife. He’s a purist, which means he embraces and uses technology and efficient processes just like anyone but won’t do it simply because it’s the new hot thing. He will do it only because he feels it helps him tell the story as best as he can. His comments about CGI weren’t excerpted here but it’s the same idea. CGI is great, but don’t overuse it. He doesn’t want to use CGI to completely animated a scene. He will first photograph the scene practically and then use CGI to enhance and embellish. Given this stance, I wonder how the blowing up the football field scene in TDKR will end up looking.

  • 1138sw

    I think digital film making is great for aspiring film makers. Convenience, cost and production workflow are just so much simpler for the aspiring film maker. If you’ve ever tried to replace a film cartridge in a film changing bag, making sure your slots and loops are all all lined up correctly…doing this mind you without seeing it, just going completely blind, with the added pressure of the director and Cinematographer on your back to get it done ASAP…well it makes one appreciate SD cards and SSD drives.

    But I do see Nolan’s point in terms of pure aesthetics. Digital has come a long way for sure…but you can still see in certain uses that it’s digital and that can be jarring in a movie and really ruin an experience. Examples are are Michael Manns’s Miami Vice and Public enemies where you can see that some scenes are just totally video. It can really takes you out of a movie. Like I said Digital has come a long way in achieving that film aesthetic, but it still has some ways to go.

    ISO, though improving, is another problem with digital. And though like I said it has improved, still cannot match the pure aesthetic sensitivity of film in really dark scenes. Film just has the ability to capture texture and depth in almost complete darkness. Video can’t do that totally yet without crushing blacks, eliminating detail.

    As for 3-D I whole heartily agree with Nolan on this one…it’s just a gimmick totally meant to make money. Until you can do away with the stupid glasses that you wear you can count me out on spending the $16.00 -$18.00 to see a really meaningless experience. For god sakes I already wear glasses! Why do I want to wear another pair on top of my already existing pair!?

  • I want to read the whole interview but a couple things strike me. 1) he is only addressing his workflow / and style – he conveniently doesn’t mention his preference for practical sets and effects. That is a huge reason DI has come along; the flexibility it allows in the digital compositing world we live in. (Im not against Nolan holding a torch for practical in-camera workflow, just calling him out on his debate) He has the luxury of film, but weather he likes it or not, digital has democratized the filmmaking world. I had a film fund project fall in on itself when I didn’t win the grant and saw how film / processing was just to much to handle.
    2. I actually am the type that hates the big canvas. I want to be able to enjoy the entire composition and details. Nolan’s IMAX love is just to much of a good thing. Its ok once in awhile, but closer to the standard…come on, we have a ticket budget here!

  • Owozifa

    I like there being a choice because choices make diversity in films and film looks.

    As to his 3D stuff, I kinda get what he means. Everyone is different and the technology seems pretty flakey to me. I have excitedly tried to embrace 3D twice so far, and both times just resulted in an incomprehensible mess of an image and frequent needs for eye breaks.

    So once again a choice is ideal, because not everyone seems to have the problems I do. But it bums me out when I don’t even want to bother seeing a 3D only movie.

  • Nelson

    I think that the more choices, the more options,the better. I think that 3-d is good for certain genres but I don’t think it adds to the experience to try and force 3-d on movies that weren’t specifically designed for it or filmed with 3-d in mind.

    One day 3-d technology might reach a point where it is fun and enjoyable, for EVERYONE, but right now, it’s a gimmick in most cases and a way for theater owners or film producers (I’m not sure which), to make a few extra dollars.

    A bad movie is a bad movie, with or without 3-d. I think instead of focusing on gimmicks and technology, film makers need to focus on story, writing, and acting, and try to develop some NEW and interesting properties, instead of constantly rehashing the same ideas, over and over again.

    A good reboot or remake, DONE WELL, can be great, but we need to get away from that and start focusing on being original and creative and doing some experimentation.

  • Maopheus

    Yeah, I agree, I thought Mann’s choice to use digital in the night scenes for “Public Enemies” to be very jarring. To see that typical high ISO look on a period movie was strange. For a modern movie like Miami Vice it’s OK, but it was a bad stylistic choice. Which makes me wonder if Mann was the best choice for directing that movie based on his preference for digital.

  • BubbleDubble

    I agree with Nolan but only for filmmaking at the A-list Hollywood level. I’m a Z-list filmmaker and I’m sorry Chris, but digital is much cheaper and makes my projects feasible.

    I would like to know Jay Cheel’s opinion here. He’s extremely talented and a digital filmmaker…is it by choice? or was the choice made due to budget?

  • Theman

     I would love to hear Fincher’s rebuttal. 

    Nolan is the best filmmaker working today IMO. But the idea that digital is more expensive  and harder to use than film is just totally bullshit.

    Other wise people like Jay would shoot 35mm.

  • kyri

    There is a separation between Jay’s digital and big studio’s digital.
    and yes it is cheaper to shoot on film when you are shooting for a big studio.

    Nolan is right. IMAX is the best film format outthere. and from now on I will only be watching films in the theater that were shot on film. And I would try avoid digital projectors also. I’ve kept my word on never going to see a 3d film again on the big screen. And I will make no exception. 3D is a distractive gimmick.

    I will only watch Digital and 3d films on blu-ray.

  • I agree with Nolan on this for sure. I was not aware that he was not using digital for any of his films, but the 3D was a given. I don’t think he seems overly against digital, but he wants to make sure that a format he knows and loves is preserved and rightfully so. It does look better, but either can look great or poor when put in the right or wrong hands. The technology is just not there for 3D though. Avatar is the only 3D movie that I have seen that I even felt 3D added to the movie and possibly that was simply because there was little else than the over the top visual experience to keep me interested. I doubt Nolan has enough influence to really push the industry though; hopefully he can convince others to fight the good fight as well.

  • Graham

    I don’t think he’s dismissing things too quickly. Of course, we have to advance in technology – but not blindly. Sometimes people that are too excited to adopt the newest technology might have short term benefits but are myopic to the potential long term downside.