The Monkey (35mm)

[Jim Cassedy]

The Monkey (35mm)
Aspect: FLAT/1:85 (Hard Matte)
Sound: Dolby SRD
Projection Reels: 6 (1hr/38min)
Film Stock: Fujicolor Eterna 3512
Lab: Labodigital SA (Mexico)
> Shipped On Cores

Notes: Although shot on film, post-production
and release were all digital. 35mm prints are
digital-to-film transfers.

> 35mm release prints are on 6 reels, but
reel six is only 1000ft and is almost all credits.

> I believe these slightly oversized cue marks were
electronically generated. Odd shape (for FLAT) but
at least they're easy to see! . . and it beats having NO
cue marks, like many of the film-out prints I get here.

MonkeyCues.jpg
Hey! Those aren't Q's, they're "O"s !

[Chris Haller]

What a fascinating way to present The Monkey - I wonder how many other F-200 movies have been printed onto film like this. And on Fujicolor, to boot. I guess you just draw your masking to 1.85 and show it with slight letterboxing. Silly stuff.

[Sascha Roll]

Uff, i can smell CINEVATOR...

[Jim Cassedy]

(edited) I wonder how many other F-200 movies have been printed onto film
like this. I guess you just draw your masking to 1.85 and show it with slight letterboxing. .

Although the DCP CPL identifies the aspect ratio as "F-200", and it appears that it is, I strongly
believe that the 35mm version has been cropped to 1:85. There are a couple of scenes in the
35mm version where the composition looks a bit "off" to me. I'm going to make a note of those
scenes next time I run the 35mm, and then look at the same scene in the DCP. But the 35mm
is definitely 'spot on' 1:85. I have not had to adjust my masking at all, and if I pull the aperture
plate out, the image is still preciously 1:85 (except for the sound track hitting the left masking)


MonkeyLeader.jpg

Uff, i can smell CINEVATOR...

I'm not sure this one is a CINEVATOR™️ print. All the Cinevator prints I've gotten so far
had unique leaders, and also had Cinevator's name on several frames. THE MONKEY
does not. These prints were made by Labodigital in Mexico. I tried looking up info on
their website, and it appears that they have several locations, and the website seems
to indicate that they have both ARRILASER and CINEVATOR machines. But as I said,
CINEVATOR leaders usually has their name on them, and their 'countdown clock-wipe'
style was also slightly different than what I've got on this print.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Cropping F200 to F185 for 35mm seems like a reasonable solution. I could easily show a matte 200 within a 35mm frame here, but only cause I can tip down and adjust top masking.

But to do it "proper" I'd probably want a slightly wider lens cause there is definitely more screen to use back there. Does anyone actually already have a lens specifically for 200? I doubt very many, certainly not your average plex that might still have 35mm capacity.

[Luis Wesner]

Notes: Although shot on film, post-production
and release were all digital. 35mm prints are
digital-to-film transfers.

Are you sure it's shot on film? Can't find any other information on that but it looks very digital and the director usually shoots digital too (except the flashback scenes in Longlegs)

[Harry Smolin]

To answer Ryan's question, we have a 200 Flat DCP lens. Used it last year for Moana 2 and Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story.

[Ryan Gallagher]

To answer Ryan's question, we have a 200 Flat DCP lens. Used it last year for Moana 2 and Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story.

For clarity, my Q was if anyone keeps a 2:1 appropriate 35mm lens around. Many theatres could use their flat lens, but waste some screen if they have a scope screen or more width available when not doing the height of flat. 2:1 was not that popular in the film era.

[Jim Cassedy]

Are you sure it's shot on film?

Short answer (now that I've had time to look into it a bit) - is "NO" I can't confirm that it
was shot on film. The "shot on film" reference came from a publicist for the movie during
one of the advance screenings. I've met the director briefly twice, but I didn't think to ask
him directly about this on either occasion,
> Last time I looked IMDB, made no mention of film.
> Two online sources, both AI generated claim "The movie was shot, on on film, in
Vancouver, BC (Canada) " but as we all know, neither IMDB or AI are infallible
> I noticed that there's no "Shot on KODAK™ Motion Picture Film" logo splat in the end
credits, which you usually see on movies that actually have been shot on film these days.

So, Im beginning to think my original info about it being shot on film was most likely incorrect.
"Mea Culpa"

I will tell you this though- the 35mm prints are definitely 1:85, whereas the DCP versions
are F-200.

[Jim Cassedy]

. . I've previously mentioned the electronically generated oversized cue
marks on THE MONKEY print. Reel 5 has my favorite cue-mark of the
year so far. (. . and remember, we're barely past February)
At the end of that reel, one of the characters looks up and to the right at
something off screen, & just as he turns his head, a giant Q mark appears!
The timing and placement, right in his line of sight, are perfect! It's too bad
they don't give out Academy Awards for awkward cues, as this one would
have definitely been one of the nominees this year!
MonkeyCue_2.jpg