Roger Deakins

...last week I was watching some of Tarkovsky's movies and I had the thought: There's not the audience for films like those today, but to me they're pure masterpieces. So I watch them and I know I can never do that. Some things you take from those films because they're so cinematic, like “Andrei Rublev.” Not that I can understand all of that film, but just the way it’s constructed. Most of the films we do nowadays, they're a little bit like documented plays, frankly. I'm not talking about “No Country For Old Men” or “Sicario,” but a lot of films are not cinema in the way that Tarkovsky viewed cinema.

And on digital:

I did an interview a week or so ago where I'd said, "Film is over." But I also said that I wish it wasn't, and that film stayed around for us to have the option. In many ways, I wish that there was no digital and we were all shooting film, but it's just not reality. However, they quoted me and only took the first line: "Film, it's over." [laughs] I really hope that film continues to be an option. But on “Hail, Caesar!,” I had problems with film — not only with the stock, but also with the development of stock and frankly the printing. And I've heard that many other productions have had similar problems.

Unless Kodak, which is sadly the only manufacturer left, and the labs step up and actually regain their technical perfection that they used to have, it's over. The responsibility is too great. I can't be waiting for a lab report in the morning not only worried about my contributions to that negative, but worried about the film stock and the lab's doing. That's insane. I'm not going to take that responsibility again, frankly. I think the look of “Hail, Caesar!” is pretty good. But it's the other issues.

The Playlist