Posted by Bristle at spider-tp031.proxy.aol.com on January 19, 2000 at 03:02:17:
This question involves the widescreen process that 'Dogma' was shot in and the consistency of quality (ie. generation-loss from the original master print) between theatrical release prints...P.S.--Scroll to the bottom if you just want the questions with-out my long-ass lead-in;):
I've viewed 'Dogma' in three seperate theatres throughout its first run, and experienced three jarringly distinctive experiences with it.
Opening day found me at a standard UA multi-plex gearing up for what was a seriously underwhelming cervix-breaking intro to the film. The cinematography was murky and dark, the digital sound was so muddy that much of the dialogue (particularly the accented Alan Rickman and Selma Hayek) ran together into an unintelligible blur.
In fact, the Golgothan's own sonic grumble was so bass-heavy, that Selma's dialogue alluding to his origin is an inaudible mess which only earned a laugh as it was puncuated by her pointing gesture...
...and the Affleck-angel optical featured such piss-poor contrast, that it jarred me into wondering why it hadn't been left for a deleted scene...
...in other words, this United Artist presentation of 'Dogma' proved no more entertaining an experience than watching Neil Jordan's 'High Spirits' or Danny Boyle's 'Life Less Ordinary'...
Second viewing was in a larger, older theatre without the digital sound. This indulged 'Dogma's physical width, rendered consistently audible the dialogue for a film which moved the latent Catholic in me...no mean feat, guys;)...
...and the Affleck-effect seemed far more servicable; still an obvious optical, but certainly not an insulting one....
...which meant that it must've looked 'different' to me than before (that, or I was looking at it differently, I'd cop to the possibility)...
...3rd time's a rockin' charmer though. Saw it at San Francisco's deluxe Sony Metreon and the film came off as much a sonic achievement as a narrative one.
Alan Rickman's entrance as The Metatron features both, an ear-splitting surround-sound explosion and the audible hissing of flame alongside of Rickman's voice-over cadence which was clear as a bell...
...so was Selma Hayek's explanation for the Golgothan...
...and the flying Affleck looked a damn sight better than half-bad...
Why?
According to Kathryn Bigelow's commentary on the 'Strange Days' DVD, she uses the Super-35 film process mostly to get that gorgeous wide-space, deep-focus canvas,...but also to keep from losing quality from generation-to-generation of film print (a master shot which must be sent to an effects house to have an optical element printed apparently loses two or three generations between the master and the theatrical release print).
Now, here are my two questions (actually three):
1. Which process was 'Dogma' shot in and is it possible that the quality of the theatrical release prints might differ significantly?
2. Since Kevin Smith/ViewAskew's modus operandi seems more gung-ho about the mechanics of dialogue delivery and merely the adequacy of the shot surrounding the dialogue...would Super-35 not be the prime choice of film process for the approach. After all, Tarantino snagged Super-35 for his Clerks-wanna-be, 'Reservoir Dogs' (okay Quentin-heads, I'm aware of the anachronism; it's a joke, ya know?) so it shouldn't be too expensive.
It might also help out with the future of such functional-yet-cool-ass effects as merging Ben Affleck with the define (or making a man out of shit or roller-bladers into teleporters;)
--T.G.K.