Poor Things Combines The Best Of Old And New Movies

While watching Poor Things, I couldn't help but think: "I don't understand why every movie can't look like this."

Well, it seems like a reasonable idea to me, but I'm not sure if it's true. The aim of Yorgos Lanthimos' comedy movie is very specific as compared to other comedies. The movie is a fairy tale meant for adults, and the production design, music, and filmography, whether in black and white or bright colors, all blend together to make it seem like it has happened in a world that's similar to ours, but with a unique vibe. It's hard to imagine that producers in 2023 would be able to secure the $35 million funding for a two-and-a-half hour R-rated steampunk Frankenstein film, which centers specifically on sexual activity and nudity. The story needs to have a specific style/approach.

However, there are some element of its approach that must remain immutable. The special effects are made by combining real-life objects and digital graphics. You know, like, for instance, in that film American Hustle, when Bella Baxter, played by Emma Stone, and Duncan Wedderburn, played by Mark Ruffalo, are on a cruise ship. It's like, the ship was like, realistic, but the sky behind it was all, like, different and unique and stuff. Modern technology made it possible to do this, but before it was done using rear projection and matte paintings.

The use of film and Kodak's Ektachrome stock also contributes to the film's great visuals.

Shooting on film is a great option, but it's often really difficult for amateur and independent filmmakers to afford it. Until recently, most films were made with film. However, there was a shift from film to digital in the early 2000s and since the 2010s, most productions have opted for digital because it's more cost-effective, efficient and easier to work with.

I think that switch has been very beneficial for young filmmakers because it has made the process more accessible to everyone. Digital photography is more affordable than film photography when you are on a tight budget. It's like film making is totally free! All you have to do is buy an SD card and you are good to go. Additional filming won't cost you anything but storage space and time. Every time you take a photo on film, money is spent which cannot be returned.

It's sad that using digital is simpler than using film, because it typically looks better. The image has a softer and higher contrast look with more distinction between light and dark areas. Digital sensors can capture light more efficiently than films, means we can get a picture even when there is less light to capture. It's the reason why nighttime scenes in the series House of the Dragon appear so dim.

However, most movies are not filmed cheaply in Hollywood, and for the film Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, which had a $300 million budget, it would be an incorrect measurement to select film instead of digital because of the camera's accuracy. Yet it applies to low-budget films as well.

In the October 27th episode of The Big Picture podcast, Alex Ross Perry discussed the issue of persuading executives to invest in artistic decisions that aren't directly related to the film's financial success.

"When it comes to movies and series, even if the budget is only $20 million or $40 million, they're still cutting corners. It's especially true for budgets of $100 million. I know this because I just watched a movie with a $20 million budget and the production felt cheaped out." "They are trying to save some money on such a big budget of $50 million. As a student, I would say that that sounds absurd, but for them it's like the perfect solution. Yea, and that's like, what?! It's only $55 million, but it feels like we have to spend $65,000 less. The phrase 'Who cares?' is asked often, and they respond saying 'Everything counts'. However, their response does not seem to carry the weight of their actions. They're more concerned with their own self-interest and happiness, rather than thinking about the consequences of their actions.

This resulted in a conversation regarding his attempts to shoot on film for a $25 million movie, which ultimately failed.

I looked at the numbers and they showed that it would increase the budget by $250,000. It was an interesting moment for both of us. That's 0.01% of the budget. The response was, "We can't add one percent.' to which I rebutted, 'Well, this is the artistic choice that must happen." I don't think there's any other way to get this done. That was really rude of them, I mean, isn't it important to at least discuss the possibility of adding some sort of value to something before dismissing it completely?

Many filmmakers like to shoot on film rather than on digital, for example, Michael Mann and David Fincher. Even tho we live in the era of advanced technology, many of them recommend the traditional feel of film. However, digital photography is more affordable and faster than analog photography which is why it is preferred by many executives. Makers of films like Yorgos Lanthimos can easily use film but it is not available to others who want to.

It should be. The Hollywood industry has faced many flops this year, especially those with large budgets. I think that the end of the era of big-budget movies is primarily because of executive control. I wish to see the next generation marked by more artistic creativity than cutting corners in order to save time and money. This movie uses new technology and old methods to make it seem like it's from another world, but it also feels real. The movie focuses on the art rather than economy and that makes it worth watching.