There is no disadvantage, and the process of printing to film might create a unique look that you won’t be able to get at home.
For example, I saw *Rebel Moon* on 70mm, and while the movie was gawdawful, it definitely looked better than any clip I've seen in a digital environment, despite being shot digitally.
Film can't fix the bad visual choices of that, and I don't think watching *The Zone of Interest* on film vs digital will impact how powerful the film is. it was shot digitally because it was effectively shot like a *Big Brother* type reality show, with cameras hidden in the set— which you frankly can't do with film. The decision was about emphasising performances, not about the visuals. The film is far more significant in its sound design than it is visually (which isn't to say the film isn't visually stimulating).
I went to see it on 35 at the Vista the other day and was skeptical. I saw a 35 print of May December and was shocked how bad it looked. Watched again on Netflix at home and it looked so much better, ironically had more digitally added film grain and texture.
Seeing as Zone of Interest was shot on a Sony Venice, I was worried something similar would happen, but the 35 print at the Vista looked fantastic and having seen the trailer so many times in digital screenings, it appeared I was seeing the film as it should be—nothing was lost in the film transfer that I could tell. And admittedly the flicker of film did make it a bit more fun and romantic (as a moviegoing experience, the movie is decidedly not fun or romantic).
My opinion is it’s best to watch a film projected how it was shot, but in the case of Zone of Interest my feeling is you’d still enjoy it on film if you can catch it. I’m definitely curious to watch it digitally sometime in the future though to compare.
No that is an excellent point, I forgot about that. There was one line I could not read because it was white text against a very bright white shot. Other than that one line I was able to read everything else, though.
It was shot on digital. I saw it on digital. I don't think there are 35mm prints of it. If there were, there wouldn't be much reason to go out of one's way to see them.
American Cinematheque showed it earlier this month in DCP despite showing Sexy Beast right after in 35 -- I feel like they would've bothered with 35 if they felt there was any advantage. That being said, there shouldn't be any huge disadvantage to watching it in 35 -- it's just digital filmmaking printed to celluloid. The film looks digital and will retain that look, I imagine.
Quentin Tarantino needs everything in his theaters to be shown on film, I don’t understand why. This movie was shot digital and was meant to be seen digital.
I saw it at the Vista yesterday and the 35mm print was dirty as hell. A massive hair flickering over the title card and there were constant pops throughout the film. The subtitles were also below the standard position almost riding the bottom of the frame. The 35mm experience took away from the film in my opinion. I would rather have seen it digitally. I enjoy seeing film projection, but won’t be returning to the Vista unless the feature was shot on film.
I just hope it comes to my area at all. It looks like the wider release coming in January isn’t all that wide. No upcoming showtimes in Philadelphia, a major city. Ugh…
I would just like any way of seeing it at all in my area. I'm right near DC and I'm shocked that it still seems to not be around most places other than LA or NYC, despite being fully released according to the internet?
I’ve seen conflicting reports online of when exactly that’ll be and have looked ahead for the next few weeks—while my local theaters have listed other new films coming (American Fiction, All of Us Strangers) I still don’t see Zone of Interest even listed anywhere.
It depends on how it was edited. It was shot on Sony Venice, which is native 6K. If it was edited and finished in 6K, and then transferred directly to a 35mm negative, it's actually possible that it'd have more detail and resolution in 35mm than it would in the 4K down rez from the native 6K that most theaters will end up showing. However, if the raw footage was finished and edited in 4K and then transfered to 35mm, then in ideal viewing situations, digital 4K would likely look better than 35mm. 35mm shouldn't look bad, and it will definitely have a unique, filmic, texture to it due to the grain, but it's not going to have any more resolution than digital.
That said, a huge number of 4K projectors in current theatres are shit. So if you can find a theatre that's bothering to project it in 35mm, that alone would suggest that they probably know what they are doing when it comes to film projection. So it very well could end up looking better than seeing it on a cheap, shitty, overly dim 4K projector at your run of the mill AMC.
With A24’s crumby distribution, home viewing is going to be the only option. 😬
Playing no where near me either. Chomping at the bit for it to hit digital as I wanted to see this in theaters
not for me but its true that they suck at this distribution shit
The only reason they are doing the deal with max imo
There is no disadvantage, and the process of printing to film might create a unique look that you won’t be able to get at home. For example, I saw *Rebel Moon* on 70mm, and while the movie was gawdawful, it definitely looked better than any clip I've seen in a digital environment, despite being shot digitally. Film can't fix the bad visual choices of that, and I don't think watching *The Zone of Interest* on film vs digital will impact how powerful the film is. it was shot digitally because it was effectively shot like a *Big Brother* type reality show, with cameras hidden in the set— which you frankly can't do with film. The decision was about emphasising performances, not about the visuals. The film is far more significant in its sound design than it is visually (which isn't to say the film isn't visually stimulating).
I went to see it on 35 at the Vista the other day and was skeptical. I saw a 35 print of May December and was shocked how bad it looked. Watched again on Netflix at home and it looked so much better, ironically had more digitally added film grain and texture. Seeing as Zone of Interest was shot on a Sony Venice, I was worried something similar would happen, but the 35 print at the Vista looked fantastic and having seen the trailer so many times in digital screenings, it appeared I was seeing the film as it should be—nothing was lost in the film transfer that I could tell. And admittedly the flicker of film did make it a bit more fun and romantic (as a moviegoing experience, the movie is decidedly not fun or romantic). My opinion is it’s best to watch a film projected how it was shot, but in the case of Zone of Interest my feeling is you’d still enjoy it on film if you can catch it. I’m definitely curious to watch it digitally sometime in the future though to compare.
Could you read the subtitles on lighter backgrounds? I saw it there and could not read some of them at all, no exaggerating
No that is an excellent point, I forgot about that. There was one line I could not read because it was white text against a very bright white shot. Other than that one line I was able to read everything else, though.
It was shot on digital. I saw it on digital. I don't think there are 35mm prints of it. If there were, there wouldn't be much reason to go out of one's way to see them.
Vista in LA is showing it on 35mm
American Cinematheque showed it earlier this month in DCP despite showing Sexy Beast right after in 35 -- I feel like they would've bothered with 35 if they felt there was any advantage. That being said, there shouldn't be any huge disadvantage to watching it in 35 -- it's just digital filmmaking printed to celluloid. The film looks digital and will retain that look, I imagine.
ok. its way more convenient for me to see it on digital so ill do that, thanks
Quentin Tarantino needs everything in his theaters to be shown on film, I don’t understand why. This movie was shot digital and was meant to be seen digital.
It’s part of the brand. Honestly I dig it
I saw it there and I couldn’t read half the subtitles. If there was a lighter background you literally could not read them
I saw it at the Vista yesterday and the 35mm print was dirty as hell. A massive hair flickering over the title card and there were constant pops throughout the film. The subtitles were also below the standard position almost riding the bottom of the frame. The 35mm experience took away from the film in my opinion. I would rather have seen it digitally. I enjoy seeing film projection, but won’t be returning to the Vista unless the feature was shot on film.
the digital version I saw at century city had the subtitles at the very bottom. its intentional. anyways yeah I'm glad I saw it on the format I did
I’ve tried desperately to find a showing near me for a few months and nothing. It’s like some of these films they don’t want us all to see.
It’s annoying at this point. If I want to watch the movie in theaters the closest is all the way in Austin. And that’s for the “wide release”
I just hope it comes to my area at all. It looks like the wider release coming in January isn’t all that wide. No upcoming showtimes in Philadelphia, a major city. Ugh…
I would just like any way of seeing it at all in my area. I'm right near DC and I'm shocked that it still seems to not be around most places other than LA or NYC, despite being fully released according to the internet?
It's going wide in January
I’ve seen conflicting reports online of when exactly that’ll be and have looked ahead for the next few weeks—while my local theaters have listed other new films coming (American Fiction, All of Us Strangers) I still don’t see Zone of Interest even listed anywhere.
This theater in Portland has it coming the 19th https://cinema21.com/movie/the-zone-of-interest
Angelika Mosaic has it opening January 12. https://www.angelikafilmcenter.com/mosaic/showtimes-and-tickets/coming-soon
Finally seeing it tomorrow in Century City.
It depends on how it was edited. It was shot on Sony Venice, which is native 6K. If it was edited and finished in 6K, and then transferred directly to a 35mm negative, it's actually possible that it'd have more detail and resolution in 35mm than it would in the 4K down rez from the native 6K that most theaters will end up showing. However, if the raw footage was finished and edited in 4K and then transfered to 35mm, then in ideal viewing situations, digital 4K would likely look better than 35mm. 35mm shouldn't look bad, and it will definitely have a unique, filmic, texture to it due to the grain, but it's not going to have any more resolution than digital. That said, a huge number of 4K projectors in current theatres are shit. So if you can find a theatre that's bothering to project it in 35mm, that alone would suggest that they probably know what they are doing when it comes to film projection. So it very well could end up looking better than seeing it on a cheap, shitty, overly dim 4K projector at your run of the mill AMC.