While it’s been very difficult of late to figure out what Martin Scorsese will follow Killers of the Flower Moon (already a couple years out from its Cannes premiere), today brings some of the closest confirmation of where he’ll head next. Surprise: Leonardo DiCaprio is coming with.

Per Publisher’s Weekly, Apple Original Films have obtained rights to Marilynne Robinson’s four Gilead novels, the second of which, Home, Scorsese has discussed since 2023. DiCaprio will lead the film, produced by Todd Field, who’s co-written Home with Scorsese and Kent Jones while said to be handling the first entry, Gilead, though the article notes an ambiguity around “plans to adapt the remaining books in the series.”

The news suggests DiCaprio would play Jack Boughton, a wayward alcholic who returns to his hometown of Gilead to take care of a dying father alongside his sister Glory. These roles recur in Robinson’s other books, suggesting notable commitments from DiCaprio and whoever is cast therein––a major prospect all its own. Whatever transpires, it’s wonderful knowing Scorsese is nearing a project for which he’s expressed such passion.

It was just a year ago I spoke to Rodrigo Prieto about Killers of the Flower Moon, his fifth collaboration with Martin Scorsese. We once again found ourselves at EnergaCAMERIMAGE––this year bringing him into jury duty for the festival’s main competition, working alongside Cate Blanchett, Anthony Dod Mantle, Łukasz Żal, Jolanta Dylewska, Anna Higgs, and Sandy Powell to award a major achievement in cinematography. (A day after our conversation they’d bestow such honor upon The Girl with the Needle.)

Thus there wasn’t an exact objective to our conversation––Prieto is accomplished, engaging, and genial enough to carry a larger-scope chat about cinematography as philosophy and practice, about the particulars of jury duty, and regarding the actor-DP relationship. But this year also yielded his directorial debut, Pedro Páramo, and foretells further collaborations with Martin Scorsese and Taylor Swift, a powerful combination nobody but one man covers.

As we began our conversation in Toruń’s Hotel Bulwar, Prieto found himself perplexed by the set-up: two chairs scattered in a large, largely empty room obscured by half-light.

Rodrigo Prieto: My God, this place is the weirdest. [Laughs] 

[Publicist asks if we want more light]

Yes, yes, I think some light could be there. And also I think I’d rather sit at a table, maybe. There is super-weird. [Sits at table] Yeah, this feels a little less awkward.

The Film Stage: Something Kafka-esque about this set-up.

Yeah, right? I mean, it’s like a production designer decided to put the characters in an uncomfortable situation.

Nicely appropriate that I walk in and you’re dictating lighting and also a bit of directing. You can’t stop doing it. 

I can’t. [Laughs] I can’t stop feeling an atmosphere that’s, you know, so stark. 

I mean, it is funny because I don’t know if you do this when you go to places. You’ve been here before, of course, and I’ve been here many times, but I can’t walk around here––especially at night––and not stop to take a picture of a unique lighting setup or a strange thing that you see. I don’t know if you have that headspace whenever you go somewhere.

Yeah, no, definitely, definitely. That photography gives you that sort of awareness of capturing an instant or a thing or a feeling that exactly a corner or light or shadow will give you.

Do you travel around with equipment?

No, I don’t. I actually just use my phone, but then sometimes if I’m up to it, I’ll do some Snapseed color-correction on it. That’s about it. It’s just so much more simple. 

Snapseed––is that an app you have? 

Yeah. It’s a simple color-grading thing, but you can, you know, contrast-saturation, vignetting, softening focus on things––things like that.

Oh, I’ll download that. 

Yeah, it’s kind of like… it’s fun, you know, because then take just a regular photo and then you can tweak it and become something else. It’s pretty cool.

It’s one of those weird things where you’re like… I think it was something I ate or something I drank last night, but I just couldn’t sleep. 

It’s funny: I’ve talked to several people who had that. I was okay, I slept. I went to bed late, but I could sleep. But several people have had that.

Among the many achievements in your life, you can now add to the list that I was thinking about our interview while I was having a sleepless night. And it did lead me to this thought, which is some of the strange environments that come with being on a festival jury in a foreign city, in a foreign country, and how maybe it can be a little difficult to get in the right headspace to watch a movie. I don’t know if you’ve found that that can be the case, because you want to give the films due attention. 

Absolutely. Absolutely. And jet lag is a problem. [Laughs] And yeah, it is a thing and you want to be––also, let’s say––equal if that’s… it’s impossible, but in terms of all the different movies you’re seeing on different days and you want to approach them fairly, right? But it’s difficult. Yeah, it has happened to me that I feel like I’m getting more tired than I should be because, probably, of jet lag and I try to fight it, but it’s… no, it’s challenging. It’s challenging. But it’s fun. I do enjoy it.

I was curious a bit about some of the thoughts and processes you had while you were on the jury. Because I feel like, for cinematographers, it’s such a huge deal to have a movie playing in the main competition here. The competition this year is really interesting––films of a pretty significant scale and budget alongside some that are really quite on the opposite spectrum. What are some of your assessment processes, maybe in mind of the fact these films are made on different scales? Because you’ve worked on some very, very big projects and you’ve worked on some projects that were simply not made for a lot of money. 

Sure. 

I imagine you have some ideas about how cinematography and pre- and post-production are approached on those different scales––what some of those differences are.

Mmm-hmm. Well, I think that I’ve been fortunate in the sense that even the big, big-budget movies that I’ve done, the directors have approached it and have been able to approach them as if it were a small movie––in the sense that they’re doing exactly what’s in their hearts. And so one of the first things I said when I started this process with the jury is: “We should be agnostic of budget.” In the sense that there is a tendency, sometimes, to disqualify, almost, something that allegedly has more budget or more toys or more resources. But, like you say, I’ve been on both sides of that equation and I can say that it’s not less-challenging to do a big-budget film. Sometimes it’s more challenging. It’s really complicated and there’s so many things you have to juggle and the budget, still, is never enough. Never, never enough. No matter what you tell me, it’s never enough for the ambition on the scale.

Barbie, for example, has been one of the tightest budgets that I’ve experienced. [Laughs] Seriously. I mean, we just did not have the resources for what the script demanded. And we had to really figure out very creative ways of solving that, so for me, it’s important that you consider each film on its own merit. That doesn’t mean that you don’t consider the circumstances around it. And what I mean is that: okay, so this is, let’s say, a big-budget movie. For me, it’s seeing what a cinematographer has brought to it, regardless of the scope and the scale and the budget. Sometimes that’s even more difficult, where you have to put a personal artistic expression as a cinematographer in a big-budget film.

So I think that has a lot of merit, too. I’ve been in other juries and there’s a tendency to say, “This smaller movie deserves our recognition because it’s a small movie.” [Laughs] That’s not set outright ever, but that’s the sense of it. And of course, I do support the idea of helping out people that are, say, starting or whatever.

Obviously.

And all that’s important. But I do think that anybody, even Martin Scorsese, the films that he does and he puts all his heart into it––say, Silence––and then there’s kind of no recognition for him in Oscars and stuff like that. Or then 13 nominations in The Irishman and zero.

Right.

And I see how even he is kind of miffed about it, and hurt a little bit. So I think that I really try to be neutral that way in a jury. I don’t know if it’s possible, but I try. 

I think it’s by degrees––you have to get as close as you can to being impartial, and then you just sort out the rest.

You try. You do your best. [Laughs]

Some DPs will say they especially notice lighting as something their profession generally has the most control over. Some people really appreciate movement. Some people really appreciate stillness. What is it that tends to sing most when you’re watching a film?

From a cinematography point of view? It is lighting. Because I’ve worked with so many different directors and I know that sometimes I do have a lot of say and a lot of input on what the camera does––on the camera language. Other times not. Other times the director wants to take over that part of it. For example: Ang Lee, he’s very specific about which focal length, which camera position, camera height. Other directors will kind of almost leave it up to me. And then there’s a middle ground where you’re doing it together and you’re shot-listing together. There’s so many different ways. But lighting is where you know that the cinematographer, that’s their thing. The composition, also. Because on the day, who’s really working directly––for me, with the operator, or operating him or herself––that’s where you get the sense also of a cinematographer’s proposal, let’s say, for a film in terms of the composition.

But the camera movement also––unless it’s handheld. Then it’s very personal in terms of the operating. But the camera movement is very, lots of times, dictated by what the director wants, the energy the director is looking for in a certain scene, so I focus more on the lighting, because I know that that’s what a cinematographer is doing for sure with almost no involvement from a director. Some directors do get involved, but in my experience––much, much, much, much less than the camera work. 

You’re on this jury with some amazing, brilliant cinematographers and you have an amazing, brilliant actress as your jury head; you have Sandy Powell, maybe the greatest living costume designer, as well. Inasmuch as you’re willing to talk a little bit about how the sausage is made, I’m curious what’s unique about some of the conversations between a great group of DPs, this great actress, an amazing costume designer––what you’ve found unique about that cosmology of talent and experience. 

I’ve found––which I think is interesting and valid, even in a cinematography festival––that the conversations really start out about the movie itself and if the jury members connected to the movie. If they liked it, if they didn’t, if it moved them or didn’t; if they’re disgusted by it or they love it. I find myself trying to steer the conversation towards it very specifically––what the cinematography is about. But it is hard to separate the subject matter and even the performance of the actors. Everything, it’s all integral. In the end it’s all part of the same thing. But as a cinematographer, also, you try to be part of that film. You don’t try to––it’s not separated––but since we’re tasked to evaluate this cinematography, it’s important I try to steer in that direction. But it’s really hard. It’s really interesting for me to listen to the other jury members and what they gravitate to.

For example, in terms of the lighting––we’re talking about that. Things that really bother me, or that if I were the cinematographer I feel some things are just wrong and they really bother me if I were shooting it. But it doesn’t bother other jury members at all. Because they’re focusing on whether they’re connecting or not with the movie. So I try to really listen to that because, in the end, that is what matters. So even if it’s not my taste in cinematography, I think that I have to really listen to that and not say no. “That light looks wrong to me.” Because it doesn’t matter. It might have mattered to me if I were shooting it. So I found that really enlightening for me, even as a cinematographer, to hear what people focus on––other non-cinematographers. I obsess about certain details of lighting. I obsess to no extent. I get really upset, and to realize it doesn’t matter really. [Laughs] I know it won’t stop mattering to me, but in the big picture, other things are what count. Because what you’re trying to tell is emotional stories. 

Photo: PAP/Tytus Żmijewski

I talked to Ed Lachman yesterday. He relayed an anecdote about the production of Carol: Cate Blanchett, somehow, was able to make some comment about how she was going to look on camera with a certain kind of lens that Lachman was using. He was so amazed by that: she could give this great performance but she knew the way the light was coming in, the lens they were using, how she was going to look onscreen. And that’s interesting to me as an example of somebody who feels very multi-headed in her knowledge. Someone who tries to understand cinematography. 

She definitely has an awareness and I find that also fascinating. Obviously I’ve worked with many different actors and I’ve seen different approaches. Some actors actually actively need to avoid knowing anything about the paraphernalia of the cinematography. Then you have to studiously avoid them telling them anything or giving them marks; you have to be very careful with that. And I respect that. But Cate was also saying to us how she feels it is important for her to know what the space is that she’s in––the frame. So she doesn’t know exactly about focal lengths, but she is very interested on the distance of the camera and the size of the frame. She’s related how sometimes she’ll look at the camera operator to even do a little gesture to see if that position is better than that position. And not even go straight to the director, but to the camera operator. Which is very rare. Very rare. And I’ve learned when I’m operating the camera never to give an indication to an actor because I know they’re in a vulnerable space; you don’t know if it’ll throw them off of their concentration. But she’s a kind of actor––from what I’ve heard of her conversations––that she’s okay with that.

I find that amazing. I think it’s like a virtuoso musician who can do the technical part and the rhythm and be aware, and yet put all the emotion out there too. And I find that amazing. Obviously I appreciate it and I’m grateful when an actor will understand that it all comes together for their performance. And if they have an awareness of the energy, where they’re projecting it to––which is a camera––then things really come to life, I think. 

Well, you’ve worked with some of the great actors of our time––some of the most purely famous actors of our time. What are some actor-DP relationships like? How many conversations are you having with some of these people that you’ve worked with, and how much are they talking to you, getting some advice or getting some perspective on what you’re doing? I feel like you were sort of getting at this in the way actors and DPs are kind of maybe siloed off from each other.

Yeah, it definitely varies. Usually I try not to be very…there. I try to just have the actors, you know, the directors who are present for them and I’m there to support. I mean, if it’s a handheld film then I’m right there and they know and I’m dancing with the actors; it becomes a thing where we’re communicating with the camera, right? But otherwise I try to not be present. I have this anecdote on The Irishman: you know, finish the movie and then, in the promotion process, there was a dinner and Al Pacino was there so I went to say hi and he didn’t recognize me. He didn’t know who I was. [Laughs] “I’m Rodrigo; I’m the DP.” “Oh.” Yeah, well, I get it and I wasn’t offended at all. But say, of many other actors, I’m thinking of Matt Damon. He likes the technique. So he would ask me, “Where’s the best spot for me to stand?” And he would also know. He would literally walk in a rehearsal and look behind him and look at me and say, “This is the best place, right? This is the best background.” And that’s where he’d stand! [Laughs] And I was like, “Wow, I love this.”

But some actors, it’s the opposite. You know that sometimes, when I’m lighting, I’m lighting with stand-ins, and maybe the actors haven’t rehearsed. You know that the actors, once they’re in the actual scene, they won’t do what they did on the rehearsal. So I asked stand-ins to put themselves in position where they’re blocking each other’s light. “Do the wrong thing so that I can prepare for when an actor will do the wrong thing.” Because I don’t want to, ever, on the day tell an actor, “Oh, you didn’t hit your light.” It’s tricky.

Obviously you’re so accomplished as a cinematographer, now as a director with Pedro Páramo as well. There’s that orientation of your work. But you’ve dabbled in documentary filmmaking and music videos, and you might be the only person who has photographed both Taylor Swift and Vladimir Putin.

[Laughs] I want to quote that. I’m going to tell that to my wife. 

Okay, great. 

It’s true. I love it. 

Granted, The Putin Interviews is pretty long. But for having not done as much in documentary or music videos as you’ve done in features, I wonder if you have certain ambitions to do more of both, and if there are things you haven’t quite done with those forms, that you can kind of see on the periphery of those productions, that interested you. 

Documentaries… I must say that I do prefer fiction. Because I do enjoy very much the tricks of cinematography and that whole idea of making something look different to what it is––or the same, you know, and just using cinematography as an expressive tool in documentaries. You can do that, I guess, on a certain type of documentary, but I find that it’s more technical for me––shooting a documentary––in terms of cinematography. It’s making sure that the camera is, you know, in-focus and the battery is charged––all these things to be sure I’m capturing the image. What I love about documentaries is experience––being in the room. You know, being in the presence of these situations and people that are real. That I like. And I’ve thought sometimes of documentaries perhaps that I’d like to direct, even––just themes that are interesting to me. But as a cinematographer, I must say that it’s not completely my cup of tea from a cinematography point of view. Music videos I find really interesting. When I was starting in Mexico, I did quite a few and for me, especially back then, it was really an area of experimentation and freedom of: “What if we do… yeah, let’s try this and why not…” You know, whatever it might be. We’re really trying stuff and stuff that I’ve then used, you know, by pushing things. I’ve sometimes learned stuff that then I have used even on feature films.

I’d probably be interested in perhaps even directing a music video. It would have to be something where I would have that freedom, you know, to come up with something and do it––just like a short film, which I’ve done a couple as a director. I do like the short format, and music videos, that would be interesting to me, to direct and shoot a music video––which I haven’t done, by the way. I enjoyed very much Pedro Páramo, the experience of directing. So I hope to do that more while still shooting. Meaning: I want to continue being a cinematographer working with other directors. I want to continue that because I love it. But I found that I really did enjoy, also, directing, so hopefully I can do all of it. You know, there’s a tendency to say, “Oh, this person is this”––to define what a person does and leave it at that. And I prefer to write also. I wrote this mini-series that I’m hoping to direct. So yeah––why not?

Are you allowed to say what the mini-series is about? Are you keeping that under lock and key?

No, I can say a little bit of what it’s about. The story happened; it’s based on a true story during the Cold War time in Mexico. It’s about some of my family members, cousins of mine from my father’s side, who were two sisters and their parents were communists––very, very passionate communists––and one of the daughters joined a guerrilla movement in Mexico in 1973. And in February 1974, she was killed by the government forces. It’s the story of what happens in the family in that context, with a situation like that. So it’s an emotional family story but with, by the way, the other part of it: my grandfather––so the grandfather of my cousins––founded the Mexican anti-communist league. So it’s a Cold War in a family.

That sounds great.

Yeah, I hope I hope to get it off the ground. [Laughs] It’s expensive. So it’s tricky. But I’m working on it.

Since she gave you such a shout-out on stage, perhaps the Taylor Swift feature film’s something in your future.

Sure. I’d be happy to. [Laughs] You will see… you never know what happens in life. I’m always surprised about what I think might happen, and then it’s something else completely. But I really admire her as a director. I mean, obviously as a musician and her talent, but I’ve enjoyed enormously working with her. I do think she is a director––she’s not only a musician. Again, the same thing we were talking about: she comes up with wonderful ideas, she’s a leader, and a joy to work with.

How did you do with the release of Pedro Páramo? Were you happy with the rollout of that––the premieres and ultimate release?

Well, in Mexico it was wonderful. It was amazing. They did a really, really big promotion and the premiere and the Morelia Film Festival was beautiful. They had 150 extras dressed in the period and they had fireworks and the clown at the end. That whole party at the end? They reproduced it in the Plaza Michoacán. It was amazing. They had the Torito. They had the bells of the church going. It was so beautiful. [Laughs] It was amazing. So that was incredible. I think there’s, in Mexico, they really helped create a big awareness and it rolled out in––not big––but 32, I think, cinemas. I think it’s still in cinemas, so people have had the chance to see it in the theater.

What I wish there’d been more of is more international screenings. So that’s where I feel that there hasn’t been much. There was two weeks in LA in one theater. [Laughs] So I’m trying to get a little more awareness of the film internationally. But in five days, the first five days of the release, it was 3.9 million views. On movie like that, if it were not on Netflix––not released like that––how much would you get? If you were just in a small festival circuit, you probably wouldn’t get a lot of cinemas anyway. So I am grateful that it is on Netflix. And it is a film that you want to see a couple of times. A lot of people have done that: they see it the first time like, “Okay, what was that? I don’t know. Did I get it? I don’t know.” Then they see it a second time. And there’s so many details like the novel that you really only get when you see it the second time, so that’s a good thing of it being on a platform. 

I wonder if, because you’ve had this close relationship with some of the greatest filmmakers over the course of your career, there’s sort of a hope or worry about, “They’re going to see it and then they’re going to talk to me about it.” Do you have any thoughts about, “Oh, what is Marty going to think of this? What is Alejandro going to think of this? Ang?”

Oh, yeah. Yes, yes. Oh, definitely. Ang hasn’t seen it, by the way––yet. I need to organize a screening, but several of my friend directors were, in fact, involved. Not involved, but I asked [Marty] to see, like, the fifth cut or something when I was editing, to get some input. And so that was wonderful. Even pre-production, I was trying to get a little bit of advice and stuff. Marty was the first one because I was in Oklahoma when I got the call for, if I wanted to direct the movie. So I told, “They offered me to do this famous Mexican novel. Any recommendations?” And he said, “The one thing I would say is: don’t deviate too much from the original material. Because otherwise they’ll kill you.” [Laughs] Which was interesting. And I get it. In fact, that was the plan anyway with the adaptation––to really be, kind of, the novel. Anything we did was really emanated from the novel and the spirit of the novel––plus, obviously, our own sensibilities of the whole team.

But anyway: I showed it to several of them. It was funny when I showed it to Alejandro, Rodrigo García, and I did a screening with the two of them. They were relieved that they liked it because lots of people have been… hesitant, especially with this novel, it’s such an iconic thing in my culture. And they thought also that, being close friends, that they would be sad to have to tell me, “Mmm, it doesn’t work.”

Yes, of course.

Particularly Rodrigo García, who’s the son of Gabriel García Márquez. And so he lived this whole thing of, you know, people trying to adapt his father’s novels. He was really happy to see that it worked––at least in his view––and that it translated well. Because also, as you might know, his father was a fanatic of Pedro Páramo. So Rodrigo, my friend, knew this novel forever, right? So it was interesting. And for me, a relief that he did like the adaptation. [Laughs]

Very possibly there’s not an answer for this, but do you have a sense if you’ll be working with Scorsese on his next film, and what that might be? It had seemed like he might be doing Life of Jesus; a year ago it could have been The Wager; there’s also the Marilynne Robinson movie. But I had seen him recently say there were scheduling issues, and it’s a little bit up in the air right now.

I think that’s a good description of it––it’s up in the air. [Laughs] But I’m waiting. I’m waiting to see. And I’m hoping that something will come together, but I don’t know. I don’t know which. I don’t know exactly when. That’s why I’m able to be here and I’m able to promote my film. We were supposed to be filming now; that’s why I couldn’t do other films. [Laughs] So anyway: I’m in the waiting process and hopeful that everything will come together. In the meantime, I’m promoting my film and shooting commercials––just to make a living, basically. [Laughs]

What were you supposed to be filming, Life of Jesus?

No. It was supposed to be Sinatra right now.

Oh, wow.

I don’t know if I’m supposed to say this, but I think it was published and that was…

It was known that something was happening with it. That’s the thing: he’s so busy.

Yes. It’s common that things push, so I thought “it’s going to push,” but now I don’t know even what it is that we’re doing [Laughs] next. I don’t know, and I prefer not to ask. It’s on a need-to-know basis, but I do know that he wants me to do it. It was funny: when we were promoting Killers of the Flower of Moon. He’d seen the cut of Pedro Páramo––not the finished thing, but he’d seen one of the edits. He, by the way, liked it a lot, and he gave me a couple of very specific editorial notes that were amazing.

So in one of these events, a party, as he was leaving and I’m saying goodbye, he says, “Do you still want to shoot movies with me?” And I’m, “Yes, Marty, I do.” So that’s important to me. Because it could happen that directors think that now I’m a director as well… so they don’t even think. But I really, really love the directors I work with and I love even working with new directors I haven’t. It’s just a process that I really enjoy––collaborating with directors––so I really hope, having done Pedro Páramo, it doesn’t take that away.

Well, I’m glad to get this interview out so we can make public. “Rodrigo Prieto is still available for work.”

The Putin-Taylor Swift cinematographer. [Laughs]

You can tell one of them that quote but maybe not the other. I don’t want to be put on a list or anything.

Vladimir and I are talking in a few moments, but I won’t mention anything. [Laughs]

I figured that was a joke.

Yeah!

But, you know, that would really be something, wouldn’t it?

It would.

Pedro Páramo is now on Netflix.

With it now being three years since Killers of the Flower Moon wrapped and one year since its release, Martin Scorsese has been away from a proper film set for some time. As the director prepares for his 82nd birthday this weekend, he has once again confirmed plans for his next features.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Scorsese revealed that his Shūsaku Endō adaptation The Life of Jesus is now just “an option” as he’s “still working on it.” However, he added there’s a “very strong possibility of me doing a film version of Marilynne Robinson’s Home, but that’s a scheduling issue.” With a script by Todd Field, here’s the synopsis of the companion novel to Robinson’s Pulitzer-winner Gilead:

The Reverend Boughton’s hell-raising son, Jack, has come home after twenty years away. Artful and devious in his youth, now an alcoholic carrying two decades worth of secrets, he is perpetually at odds with his traditionalist father, though he remains his most beloved child. As Jack tries to make peace with his father, he begins to forge an intense bond with his sister Glory, herself returning home with a broken heart and turbulent past.

While he made no mention of his Frank Sinatra project starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence, likely inferring it’s indeed dead, Scorsese also added, “There’s also a possibility of me going back and dealing with the stories from my mother and father from the past and how they grew up. Stories about immigrants which tied into my trip to Sicily. Right now, there’s been a long period after Killers of the Flower Moon. Even though I don’t like getting up early, I’d like to shoot a movie right now. Time is going. I’ll be 82. Gotta go.”

Lastly, Scorsese also continued to champion up-and-coming filmmaking, praising one of the year’s greatest films, Jane Schoenbrun’s staggering second feature I Saw the TV Glow. “There was one film I liked a great deal I saw two weeks ago called I Saw the TV Glow,” he said. “It really was emotionally and psychologically powerful and very moving. It builds on you, in a way. I didn’t know who made it. It’s this Jane Schoenbrun.” If you have yet to see it, take Scorsese’s recommendation and catch I Saw the TV Glow on Max.

While Martin Scorsese has pushed back plans for most of his upcoming projects, he’s still lending his hands to others. He’s produced Beatles ’64, helmed by long-time collaborator director David Tedeschi, and capturing the electrifying moment of The Beatles’ first visit to America. Featuring never-before-seen footage, the first trailer has now arrived ahead of Disney+ release on November 29.

Here’s the synopsis: “On February 7, 1964, The Beatles arrived in New York City to unprecedented excitement and hysteria. From the instant they landed at Kennedy Airport, met by thousands of fans, Beatlemania swept New York and the entire country. Their thrilling debut performance on The Ed Sullivan Show captivated more than 73 million viewers, the most watched television event of its time. Beatles ’64 presents the spectacle, but also tells a more intimate behind the scenes story, capturing the camaraderie of John, Paul, George, and Ringo as they experienced unimaginable fame.”

The film includes rare footage filmed by pioneering documentarians Albert and David Maysles, beautifully restored in 4K by Park Road Post in New Zealand. The live performances from The Beatles’ first American concert at the Washington, DC Coliseum and their Ed Sullivan appearances were demixed by WingNut Films and remixed by Giles Martin. Spotlighting this singular cultural moment and its continued resonance today, the music and footage are augmented by newly filmed interviews with Paul and Ringo, as well as fans whose lives were transformed by The Beatles.

See the trailer below.

Of much less interest in the Scorsese realm, he’s narrated and hosted a new Fox Nation series about historical saints, premiering this Sunday. See the trailer below.

Whatever pedigree ought to be established as the sole film directed by Marlon Brando, One-Eyed Jacks spent so much time in obscure status and degraded states that no less than Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg had to revive it. Ahead of our presenting a rare IB Technicolor print at Nitehawk on Wednesday, September 4––Mr. Scorsese and Mr. Spielberg: a free ticket is yours––it’s worth highlighting the former’s introduction from the 2016 New York Film Festival.

Detailing its significance as the final American feature shot on VistaVision, strange histories with Peckinpah and Kubrick, and the circumstances by which he and Spielberg found themselves working to rescue One-Eyed Jacks––using IB prints for reference––Scorsese’s admiration and awe resonate throughout. “This is visually stunning, what he did. […] It has a mythology to it, in a way, that cries back, very much, to the end of the westerns.” One’s hard-pressed to watch this and not immediately hope they can see the film. Maybe it’s just that enthusiasm talking, but I suspect next week will be a very special time.

Watch below and buy your tickets:

Update: David Lynch has shared an update below.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Yes, I have emphysema from my many years of smoking. I have to say that I enjoyed smoking very much, and I do love tobacco – the smell of it, lighting cigarettes on fire, smoking them – but there is a price to pay for this enjoyment, and the price for me is emphysema. I have now quit smoking for over two years. Recently I had many tests and the good news is that I am in excellent shape except for emphysema. I am filled with happiness, and I will never retire.

I want you all to know that I really appreciate your concern.

Love,

David

Paramount on a list of news we wouldn’t wish to receive is David Lynch’s directing opportunities being winnowed to a very small set of possibilities. Though limitations have often served a big bang for his art, a new interview with Samuel Wigley in Sight and Sound revealed details of his ongoing homebound isolation, an issue that could only beget inquiries into forthcoming artistic endeavors.

Asked plainly if he would return to a film set, Lynch said the following, reproduced in full:

“No. I’ll tell you, I’ve gotten emphysema from smoking for so long, and so I’m homebound whether I like it or not. I can’t go out. And I can only walk a short distance before I’m out of oxygen. Smoking was something that I absolutely loved but, in the end, it bit me. It was part of the art life for me: the tobacco and the smell of it and lighting things and smoking and going back and sitting back and having a smoke and looking at your work, or thinking about things; nothing like it in this world is so beautiful. Meanwhile, it’s killing me. So I had to quit it. And now, because of Covid, it would be very bad for me to get sick, even with a cold. So I probably would be directing from my house. And because of Covid, they’ve now invented ways where you can direct from home. I wouldn’t like that so much. I like to be there amongst the thing and get ideas there. But I would try to do it remotely, if it comes to it.”

Wigley wisely inquired into Antelope Don’t Run No More, a feature written after INLAND EMPIRE that’s assumed a kind of mythic status among Lynch faithful. (His co-authored memoir Room to Dream deems it “one of the best scripts Lynch has ever written.”) Per the subject of limitations, he didn’t entirely discount the possibility: “Well, we don’t know what the future will bring, but we remain hopeful.”

If this signals an end of his filmmaking career, there would be at least three fitting ends: INLAND as the winding, nightmare close to a feature-film corpus; Twin Peaks as a monumental last will and testament (which we can go ahead and call a movie of its own); and the recent promotions for Cellophane Memories have recalled career staples (strobe lights over beautiful women, art-collage pieces) while, uncharacteristically, featuring outright pastiche of the likes of Edgar G. Ulmer’s Detour, whose hard-bitten noir framework has long marked his film work. For now I’ll let this tribute take precedence over an obituary.

Meanwhile, Martin Scorsese has his own downsizing in mind. Visiting the Jacob Burns Film Center for a screening of Made In England, he revealed work on an unnamed limited series that’ll find him directing start to finish, contra Boardwalk Empire or (invoking a long-forgotten name) Vinyl. A big undertaking, one presumes, but otherwise stated he doesn’t wish to make another “big movie” requiring many extras. Probably this squares with plans to direct A Life of Jesus and Home; less so something like The Wager, a historical epic from Killers of the Flower Moon author David Grann, or Sinatra. That Scorsese has been upfront about seeing a finish line for his career makes this news neither surprising nor, in light of it still signaling development, necessarily difficult, but a reminder all the same that there’s only so much time left with two of the greatest filmmakers to ever live.

On the heels of last year’s epic Killers of the Flower Moon, Martin Scorsese has now added yet another project to his upcoming slate, one which will begin production first. Along with his Life of Jesus film, a Marilynne Robinson adaptation, a Frank Sinatra biopic, and an adaptation of David Grann’s The Wager, Scorsese will embark on a documentary about ancient shipwrecks in the Mediterranean Sea.

Variety reports the project will return Scorsese to his ancestral roots of Polizzi Generosa in Sicily, where his grandparents were born. Based on the studies of archaeologist Lisa Briggs, it will explore her research using “scientific tools including DNA analysis on artifacts recovered from ancient shipwreck sites, to reconstruct stories of ships, sailors, cargoes, and maritime trade in the ancient world.”

The Italian outlet Ansa confirmed the news and that preparation has already been underway for over a year. They include a quote from Sicily’s councilor for cultural heritage, Francesco Paolo Scarpinato, noting: “We welcomed the initiative with enthusiasm, making available all the sites, archaeological parks and museums pertaining to the department, considering the relevance of the project and the huge image return for the Sicily and its cultural heritage.”

Set for production this summer, it will be shot above and under water near Sicily, including the site of “Marausa 2,” a wreck of a large sunken ship dating to the third century A.D. Perhaps this filming also doubles as some sea-set preparation for his adaptation of The Wager: A Tale of Shipwreck, Mutiny and Murder, which tells the true story a British vessel that was wrecked off the coast of Patagonia.

In terms of the immediate future, Scorsese’s next project will be seen starting July 12, the opening of the stellar Made in England: The Films of Powell and Pressburger, in which the director narrates, presents, and executive produces.

Listen to our recent extensive discussion of Scorsese’s career on The B-Side below.

There’s an argument to be made that the single image which best exemplifies pure cinematic wonder is the Archers logo. The introductory title reel belonged to the production company of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, a guarantee that whatever film followed would whisk the viewer away to a world of ecstatic imagination. The British filmmaking duo delivered sweeping, epic tales on a vibrant cinematic canvas painted with a style uniquely their own, and often found themselves on the periphery of their country’s popular cinema during their careers. While they came to be appreciated in the decades that followed the peak of their creative output, they have long passed, so David Hinton’s riveting new documentary Made in England: The Films of Powell & Pressburger brings the most qualified voice possible to speak on their contributions to the medium: Martin Scorsese.

Considering Scorsese’s close connection to their work, from being captivated at a young age by The Tales of Hoffmann and The Red Shoes to finding a connection with Peeping Tom as an obsessive young filmmaker to later becoming friends with Powell (who married Scorsese’s long-time editor Thelma Schoonmaker), he’s the perfect guide through their filmography. As the sole talking head narrating the duo’s life and career, Scorsese brings as much personal touch and passion here as he did to his own cinema-obsessed documentaries My Voyage to Italy or A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies. By utilizing a De Palma-esque chronological structure in which Scorsese details each of their career steps with heartfelt narration, accompanied by a plethora of clips and never-before-seen archival footage, this in-depth, comprehensive approach makes for a new essential document of cinema history. In fact, one of the major takeaways is the devastating realization that Scorsese doesn’t have the resources or time to collaborate on similar documentaries for his numerous other cinematic idols.

However, it’s clear throughout why Powell and Pressburger’s cinema stirred something particularly special in Scorsese’s soul. In dissecting The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (their magnum opus, for my money, and which thankfully gets its due), Scorsese details how Powell and Pressburger’s decision to not pull the camera up and away during the duel directly influenced the Steadicam shot approaching the ring in Raging Bull instead of the fight itself. The heart of the story is more about the “destructive road Jake took to get to the fight rather than the fight itself,” Scorsese notes. For The Age of Innocence, he wanted to capture “an impossible love between two people who aren’t supposed to fall in love… and it lasts for years,” and Scorsese adds, “I believe it was the same frustrated desire, tinged with regret, that I liked so much in Blimp.” 

As much as it’s a delight for Scorsese to show the direct influences on his work, a triple biography this is not, and Made in England wisely gives the bulk of its spotlight to Powell and Pressburger. Hinton’s direction is swift; Margarida Cartaxo and Stuart Davidson’s editing is refreshingly concise and straightforward to elucidate the exhaustive amount of information collected. The clips and accompanying narration speak for themselves, with the only additional flourishes being welcome touches like behind-the-scenes shots side-by-side with the final images, while archival interviews, photographs, and storyboards help flesh out the painstaking but relatively smooth filmmaking process. Pressburger would write the original script which established scenes, then they would work on dialogue together, and the duo reportedly never argued. There are, of course, the exceptions, clashing with producers on the likes of The Elusive Pimpernel and Gone to Earth, but the directors’ pure enjoyment at experimenting with the tools of cinema always shines through.

At the film’s start, Scorsese recounts how, watching their work growing up, Powell and Pressburger felt like mythical beings. A key feat of Made in England is that, even after all the considered insight from both him and the directors themselves, this sentiment remains true. “They wanted to achieve the kind of heightened interest that is only achieved through artifice,” he notes. Even in the decades since their work, there seems to be no other filmmaker that can quite capture the dreamlike and fantastical yet sincere worlds they were able to conjure. In declaring Colonel Blimp their “first masterpiece,” Scorsese tenderly reveals, “It’s the film that says the most to me about growing up, growing old, and eventually having to let go.” While its form may be that of a standard biographical documentary, Made in England: The Films of Powell & Pressburger is elevated by Scorsese’s bittersweet chronicling, of a filmmaker near the end of his career reflecting back on the forces that shaped his own. As he and his fellow “movie brats” reclaimed the work of the directors in the 1970s, when Powell and Pressburger’s careers hit a sharp decline, this new documentary synthesizes and solidifies their contributions to an entirely new generation. It’s simply a cinephile’s dream.

Made in England: The Films of Powell & Pressburger played at the Tribeca Festival and opens July 12 from Cohen Media Group.

Welcome to The B-Side, from The Film Stage. Here we talk about movie directors! Not the movies that made them famous or kept them famous, but the ones that they made in between.

Today we talk about one of the great ones: Martin Scorsese. Who’s better than Marty? Myself, Conor O’Donnell, and guest Jake Kring-Schreifels. Our B-Sides today include Italianamerican, Kundun, Bringing Out the Dead, and Silence. 

We talk about a lot in this one. How to pronounce Scorsese! How to pronounce Coppola! Catholicism! Buddhism! Making films about religions in your life! This is an episode with lofty ambitions, not unlike most Scorsese pictures!

In examining Italianamerican we muse on Marty as documentarian, including the mention of an incredibly-underrated Scorsese documentary that’s hard to find: Public Speaking starring Fran Lebowitz. We reflect on the guardedness of memory by older generations (and how that may reveal itself in this new, Covid-stung generation). We also recount the Muddy Waters – László Kovács story from the set of The Last Waltz, We parse Marty’s constant wrestle with faith in Bringing Out the Dead, and how its gentler, compassionate qualities weave into Kundun and Silence, all of which feature some of the best collaborations in his career.

Additional writing from Jake includes his superb oral history of The Wolf of Wall Street (also linking to Fran Hoepfner’s great piece on the same movie on Bright Wall Dark Room), a recent great piece on stunts tied to the release of The Fall Guy, and a lovely interview with the director of Saved! In celebration of its twenty-year anniversary.

For more from The B-Side, you can check out highlights of actors/directors and the films discussed in one place here.

Be sure to give us a follow on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, Spotify, and Stitcher. Enter our giveaways, get access to our private Slack channel, and support new episodes by becoming a Patreon contributor.

Subscribe below:

Martin Scorsese’s latest directorial effort and first collaboration with Timothée Chalamet is upon us––it just happens to clock at 1/206th Killers of the Flower Moon‘s length and point us towards a product. But this Bleu de Chanel ad features nearly as many shots as his recent feature and has more fun with the whole trying-to-sell-you-something routine than these things really should. Mixing color with tinting and black-and-white, interspersing multiple formats (or doing a great job making one look like another), and maybe boasting one or two King of Comedy nods, it pairs nicely (because I will take an auteurist stance) with his 2010 Chanel ad starring Gaspard Ulliel: the thrill and exhaustion of celebrity, the lure of a beautiful woman, and rock ‘n’ roll tunes. I learned nothing just as I ask that perfume commercials grant nothing in return.

Watch below:

It’s been at least 15 years since Martin Scorsese first got involved with a biopic of Frank Sinatra, an almost too-logical pairing of Italian-Americans of a certain age from the tri-state area. Around the time of Hugo, Scorsese was so excited by 3D he considered shooting it and Silence (!) on the format; needless to say this did not come to pass. Many years went by, rights evaporated, and the busier-by-the-day octogenarian seemingly moved on.

Which makes it a great surprise, per Variety, that Scorsese’s perhaps more eager than ever to move forward: Leonardo DiCaprio is (of course) his consideration for ol’ blue eyes, while Jennifer Lawrence would portray Ava Gardner, Sinatra’s second wife and the woman who most drove him insane. Apple (of Flower Moon) and Sony are interested, which matters less when Tina Sinatra, the estate owner, has yet to give blessing. One thinks, however, it’s just a matter of time.

I’m far and away more interested in A Life of Jesus, about which we received our last update only recently, and which Variety now reports is looking to shoot later this year in Italy, Egypt, and (one second while I tug on my collar so hard it bruises vertebrae) Israel, the latter of which might be too busy committing unspeakable atrocities to facilitate production. Andrew Garfield is looking to reunite from Silence, while Miles Teller would, for some reason, also join.

The same story tells us Steven Spielberg is perhaps not taking Bullitt for the next feature. It’s instead reported he’s lined up a UFO film “based on his own original idea” with reliable David Koepp on scripting duties. Post-Fabelmans, the psychoanalytic components will be a lot harder to hide.

Following the best movie of last year, 2024 brings a lesson in cinema history from Martin Scorsese. He’s narrated a new documentary on two of the greatest directors of all time, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, the duo responsible for The Red Shoes, Black Narcissus, A Matter of Life and Death, and The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. Considering Scorsese’s close connection to their work, from being captivated at a young age and much later becoming friends with Michael Powell (who was married to Scorsese’s long-time editor Thelma Schoonmaker), he’s the perfect guide through their filmography.

Following the Berlinale premiere of David Hinton’s Made in England: The Films of Powell and Pressburger, it’ll now get a U.K. and Ireland release on May 10 from Altitude and the first trailer has arrived. With U.S. distribution coming from Cohen Media Group, MUBI has also picked up the film for Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, LATAM, Turkey and India.

Here’s the synopsis: “Martin Scorsese first encountered the films of Powell and Pressburger as a child, sitting in front of the family TV. When The Archers’ famous logo appeared on screen, Scorsese recalls: ‘You knew you were in for fantasy, wonder, magic – real film magic.’ Now, in this documentary, he tells the story of his lifelong love affair with their movies, including The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, Black Narcissus, The Red Shoes and The Tales of Hoffmann. ‘Certain films you simply run all the time and you live with them,’ says Scorsese. ‘As you grow older they grow deeper. I’m not sure how it happens, but it does. For me, that body of work is a wondrous presence, a constant source of energy, and a reminder of what life and art are all about.’ Drawing on a rich array of archive material, Scorsese explores in full the collaboration between the Englishman Powell and the Hungarian Pressburger who thrived in the face of adversity during World War II but were eventually brought low by the film industry of the 1950s. Scorsese celebrates the duo’s ability to create ‘subversive commercial movies’ and describes how deeply their films have influenced his own work.”

Watch the trailer below via Letterboxd, along with the first clip.