Sync/Changeover cues in MANK -- new David Fincher film.

[Paul H. Rayton]

I had hoped to be able to (somehow) capture an image of the "cue marks" in Mank, and now someone has done it for me. It's on a Facebook group page ("Eyesofageneration.com") that's primarily about old television equipment and the like, but this got posted there, because it's "retro", I suppose. Actually, station operators did use visual cues at local TV stations, as well, back in the day. Here's a link to an 18-second clip that shows a set of cues as the scene approaches a fade-out: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1425...1691061364509/

And these are 2 frame grabs off a monitor from their posted sequence, including one sloppy "cue" with a double-scribe, at the end of the fade-out:

[Ed Gordon]

There was never any doubt that David Fincher was going to shoot “Mank” in black-and-white. His biopic about alcoholic and acerbic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) struggling to churn out a first draft of “Citizen Kane” cried out for monochromatic treatment. And yet Fincher and cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt (“Mindhunter”) were not about to indulge in a “Kane”-like re-enactment, or be confined to shooting on film, or composing in the period accurate aspect ratio of 1.37:1. Not with Fincher’s digital prowess and penchant for the 2.39: 1 widescreen format.

So Fincher and Messerschmidt struck a balance between retro and modern, taking advantage of the director’s efficient digital workflow to approximate the look of a movie made around the time of “Kane” in 1940 yet “Photographed in Hi-Dynamic Range” (as the title card proclaims).

Full article: https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/ma...te-1234602414/

[Paul H. Rayton]

There have been a few articles regarding the overall Production Design of "Mank", discussing both the image as well as the sound characteristics Fincher wanted the movie to have. The following article is one, in which Fincher states he wanted the movie to be perceived as if it had been found in the basement at Martin Scorsese's home, and was waiting to be restored. Article: https://www.indiewire.com/2020/10/da...ie-1234595048/

We here in L.A. were treated to a full-page newspaper ad (!) from Netflix for the movie a little over a week ago. I spotted process names which were unfamiliar, so I extracted two elements from that ad, one the "logo" for the Hi Dynamic Range photography, and also one for the audio process, which they've called "MONOSCAPE". Really just an uptown name for sound design in (presumably) single channel recording. But without having my hands on an actual DCP, I can't say whether they actually used center channel only, or allowed some audio on any other channels.

See the photos accompanying for the two branding illustrations.

Following is the text of the article from IndieWire:

David Fincher Wanted ‘Mank’ to Look Like It Was Found in Scorsese’s Basement Waiting to Be Restored


The film's soundtrack also has that crackle and pop of old Hollywood movies thanks to a meticulous post-production process.




Ryan Lattanzio
Oct 24, 2020 3:00 pm - Indiewire.com


“Mank” Photo: Netflix/screenshot

Because David Fincher’s “Mank” is set in the Hollywood of the 1930s and early ’40s, the director wanted the film to look and feel like exactly that.

The film is a re-evaluation of Hollywood through the eyes of scathing social critic and alcoholic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz as he races to finish the screenplay for Orson Welles of “Citizen Kane.” And so “Mank,” which releases on Netflix on December 4 following a limited theatrical run to qualify the film for Oscars, transports you to that period through its visuals and sound design, which Fincher recently discussed in an extensive New York Magazine interview.

“Ren Klyce, who is the sound designer, and I started talking years ago about how we wanted to make this feel like it was found in the UCLA archives — or in Martin Scorsese’s basement on its way to restoration,” Fincher said. “Everything has been compressed and made to sound like the 1940s. The music has been recorded with older microphones so it has a sort of sizzle and wheeze around the edges — you get it from strings, but you mostly get it from brass. What you’re hearing is a revival house — an old theater playing a movie.”

Fincher said that in screenings so far viewers have reacted to the noticeably vintage sound quality. “It’s funny because I’ve played it for some people who ask, ‘What is going on with the sound? It’s so warm.’ And I respond, ‘Well, what you mean when you say ‘warm’ is it sounds like an old movie. It sounds analog.'”

Fincher also added that the process of degrading the sound design dragged the post-production process on longer than expected. “We went three weeks over schedule on the mix trying to figure out how to split that atom,” he said. “[Visually,] our notion was we’re going to shoot super-high resolution and then we’re going to degrade it. So we took most everything and softened it to an absurd extent to try to match the look of the era. We probably lost two-thirds of the resolution in order to make it have the same feel, and then we put in little scratches and digs and cigarette burns.”

Another throwback to the Hollywood of yesteryear, “Mank” also features the reel-change circles you’d see throughout an old celluloid print in a movie theater. “We made the soundtrack pop like it does when you do a reel changeover. It’s one of the most comforting sounds in my life. They’re so little that they’re very difficult to hear until you hear them. It has what we ended up calling patina, these tiny little pops and crackles that happen, and they’re very beautiful.”

“Mank” is Fincher’s highly anticipated return to feature filmmaking after 2014’s “Gone Girl.” “Darkest Hour” Oscar winner Gary Oldman stars as Hollywood screenwriter Mankiewicz. The script, written by Fincher’s late father Jack Fincher. The supporting cast includes Tom Burke as Orson Welles, Arliss Howard as Louis B. Mayer, Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies, Charles Dance as William Randolph Hearst, Tom Pelphrey as Joseph L. Mankiewicz, and Lily Collins as Mank’s secretary Rita Alexander.

[Mitchell Dvoskin]

I did not take the style of the film as trying to simulate a 1940’s film, but rather as a more generalized tribute to films of the past. I also thought the “Photographed in High Dynamic Range” credit was cute, giving a modern process an old style credit.

[Benjamin Ruder]

If the picture were period-accurate to the 1940s, it would have been in Academy ratio instead of ‘scope. That’s why the simulated changeover cues lost me. Also, the “Photographed in High Dynamic Range by . . . “ Director of Photography credit. Pretty sure that wasn’t a thing back in the day.

More 'scope for 1.78 screens? GUH

[Steve Guttag]

Leo...the VAST majority of changeover systems I worked in mono theatres used just an exciter lamp changeover so there was no tick/pop to the changeover as no electronics were involved.

[Leo Enticknap]

Also, the "Photographed in High Dynamic Range by" credit almost feels like a nod to the "deep focus photography" buzz given to Gregg Toland's work on Citizen Kane.

In that case, it's another case of the filmmakers not getting the technological reference quite right, along with the cue dots. "Deep focus" meant a higher depth of field that was standard Hollywood practice, not higher dynamic range (the total range of shades of gray resolved by the film stock). Kane was shot on the slower, finer grained, 1227 stock rather than the Plus-X 1231 that had recently been introduced and was by then being used in most mainstream studio productions. Toland used almost Technicolor levels of lighting, and tiny apertures. That was the "deep focus" schtick: no closeups and medium closeups in which the background was blurred, and Welles wanted you to look at what was going on in the background.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Haven't seen it yet. It's another Netflix production, looks like most cinemas here don't even dare to play it.

It was shot digitally on RED cameras at 8K. Apparently, the aspect ratio is 2.20 and not scope? So, spherical lenses may be more accurate than anamorphics.

Never have seen anything in Black and White and Dolby Vision, may try it out on my Sony OLED set that does a decent job at showing this "Dynamic Range", just to get an idea of how this looks...

[Bobby Henderson]

If the picture were period-accurate to the 1940s, it would have been in Academy ratio instead of ‘scope. That’s why the simulated changeover cues lost me. Also, the “Photographed in High Dynamic Range by . . . “ Director of Photography credit. Pretty sure that wasn’t a thing back in the day.

Yeah, the choice of 'scope ratio is just anachronistic, especially when other post-production gimmicks are going to be added, like the reel change cue dots, print damage and degraded audio. If the movie is supposed to look and feel like an artifact from around 1940 then Academy Ratio would have been the proper choice. CinemaScope made its debut in 1953, and did so in color. There were plenty of CinemaScope movies shot in Black and White, but that was all after 1953. Fincher just prefers framing his feature movies in 'scope. I'm pretty sure all of his theatrical releases were in 'scope ratio. Even his TV projects have been 2.0:1 or wider (House of Cards, Mindhunter). You have to go back to the 1980's music video era, where Fincher was one of the top music video directors, to find examples that fit a 4:3 ratio.

Also, the "Photographed in High Dynamic Range by" credit almost feels like a nod to the "deep focus photography" buzz given to Gregg Toland's work on Citizen Kane.

[Leo Enticknap]

Sorry about that.

[Mitchell Dvoskin]

Leo, you credited me for a post above that was actually posted by Frank Angel.

[Leo Enticknap]

Also, I think there were two of these simulated cues that happened in at a fade out/fade in -- but editors tended to avoid making changeovers during fades because it required exact changeover timing; if the projectionist was even a few frames late, the changeover would not be at a full black frame but somewhere after the fade-in had started.

I was taught the exact opposite: that editors tried to put reel ends at fades, because if the projectionist botched the changeover, it would be slightly less noticeable than if it was during action; especially if the sound and pix buttons were separate. Cropping a few frames of a fade is less likely to be noticed by the viewer than clipping dialogue and/or movement within the frame.

At one "changeover," a very slight jump was simulated at the changeover point after the cue to mimic a slightly misregistered frame, making it look like a poorly made splice. Thing is, THAT actually mimics a film that was spliced to long-play reels or plattered where you might see that imperfection, but there were no longplay reels or platters in the 40s, just reel-to-reel changeover.

Agreed! What they should have done at each "changeover" is a loud pop/crack as 1940s era relays inserted themselves into the A-chain, followed by a slight change in color temperature (no two carbon arc lamphouses put out light of exactly the same color).

I have to confess that I didn't like the movie, largely for political, rewriting of history reasons that are off limits for this forum. I can opine that its attempt to downplay Welles's contribution to Kane and suggest that he had an insignificant input to the story structure and detail contradicts almost all of bookshelves full of writing about the movie. We seem to be in a situation whereby for around 50 years, the French "auteur" idea dominated critical thinking about cinema: the director has to be the greatest creative force on the set and without him (and it was almost always him, with the golden Hollywood era exceptions of Dorothy Arzner and Ida Lupino), even though John Ford (who was idolized by the critics who kicked all of this off), once called André Bazin a "fucking madman" when told of his mythological status on the other side of the Atlantic.

Now it seems that the trend is to lurch in the other direction, and claim that Welles, Ford, Hitchcock, Lang, and the other usual suspects weren't such great artists after all, but that their only real skill was collaborating with others who were. As always, the truth, IMHO, lies somewhere in the middle. I've always found it telling that Hitchcock's only movie that was not based in any way (even loosely) on a previously published novel, play, and/or a real event, The Ring, is also his weakest: full of clever visual tricks, but with almost no story and a cast that was clearly struggling. A Hitchcock movie needed a good story to start with, and a screenwriter who was a top rank adaptationist to turn it into the foundation of a Hitchcock movie; but it's still primarily a Hitchcock movie.

[Harold Hallikainen]

We were going to watch it last night, but it got late as I was cleaning up my wife's iPhone (WHY did it save every 50 MB podcast she ever listened to?). Anyway, the cue marks are clever. And, we love "talky dramas!" We'll watch it soon.

[Mitchell Dvoskin]

My issue with the cue marks is that most of them were simulated scratched in “Clint Phare” marks, so those should have been oval shaped after being stretched out by the anamorphic lens.

I really liked the film which is unusual for me as I generally don’t care for talky dramas.

[Mark Ogden]

If the picture were period-accurate to the 1940s, it would have been in Academy ratio instead of ‘scope. That’s why the simulated changeover cues lost me. Also, the “Photographed in High Dynamic Range by . . . “ Director of Photography credit. Pretty sure that wasn’t a thing back in the day.