Fadeaway

An Improved Revision: Gregg Araki and the Restoration Team Behind “Mysterious Skin”

“I was able to take the 2025 version of me as a filmmaker and apply it to this 20-year-old movie,” Araki concludes. “There are things about Mysterious Skin that have always bugged me: I’ve never been happy with some of the VFX and some of the lighting. With this technology, you can relight things; everything is at your fingertips. I understand the purist argument, and there is nothing significantly different about the movie. I challenge a Mysterious Skin fan to watch the movie and tell me exactly all the things changed. It’s very subtle, but when you see it, it’s like, ‘Oh yeah, that is fucking better.’ That’s my take as a director.”

(Source: article, via Filmmaker Magazine)

13 Mar 2026
An Improved Revision: Gregg Araki and the Restoration Team Behind “Mysterious Skin”

Toward the end of my interview with Gregg Araki, I remind him of his scene from Michael Almereyda and Amy Hobby’s 1995 documentary At Sundance. Sitting on a couch next to Todd Haynes, Araki is at that year’s festival with The Doom Generation. “The first draft of Doom was done when The Living End premiered at Sundance in 1992” he says. “The hard part is always the money and the financing, and it gets worse, and worse and worse [….] I hate the fact that you write, you make a movie, it’s fresh and what you want to say and urgent. It’s your thing. And then, three-and-a-half years later, you’re talking about it in interviews like this.” Araki laughs when I ask whether anything has changed in terms of production time and difficulty level: “My new movie is fucking never-ending. All movies are like that. Look at Mysterious Skin: that movie was [more than] 20 years ago, and I’m still working on it.”

Araki’s new movie, I Want Your Sex, will premiere at Sundance 2026, where a 4K restoration and remaster of 2004’s Mysterious Skin that premiered last summer at the Academy Museum will also screen. Skin stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Brady Corbet as two young boys dealing with the aftermath of being sexually assaulted as children. For Gordon-Levitt’s character, that’s the catalyst to begin a new life as a hustler, while Corbet’s character sublimates trauma into false memories of UFO abduction. Shooting in August in California—a location that stood in for both New York and the boys’ native Midwest, on a compressed and low-budget shoot—Araki was never totally satisfied with the results. “I really am a firm believer that smaller indie films are always going to benefit much more from [this] type of restoration,” says producer Jeffrey Kusama-Hinte. “It starts in production. If you’re making a major studio film, you can control the lights and values much more meticulously. Indie filmmaking, everything is threadbare, everything is seat of your pants, and you don’t have enough money, really, to complete the film. You’re just trying to get over the finish line, and that was certainly the situation for Mysterious Skin.”

The impetus for restoring Mysterious Skin came in part from Strand Releasing’s Marcus Hu, who had overseen recent restorations of the three films in Araki’s “Teen Apocalypse” trilogy. “We’d just done the restoration of [Lisa Cholodenko’s] High Art together,” recalls Kusama-Hinte, “and Marcus was really energized about the possibility of doing something similar for Mysterious Skin. It is consistent with what Strand did with [Araki’s] previous films, which were in much rougher shape. This film was, I would say, in reasonable shape.” The negative was stored at FotoKem and never left the lab. Says Kusama-Hinte, “I wasn’t aware of any real damage where, you know, you’re missing the fifth reel and have to find a print in Bulgaria.”

The restoration received financial support from groups including the Sundance Institute, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, mk2 and Frameline. “Some films have much more of a struggle than this did, so it’s not really dramatic on that front—we didn’t have to resort to crowdfunding and all the other things that people need to do,” Kusama-Hinte notes. He pegs the cost of the restoration at $30,000 to $40,000, while a studio restoration for a comparable project might be budgeted at $200,000 to $300,000. Economically, the lower cost was in part possible because of Araki’s comfort level with performing reframing and other technical tasks on his own. “It used to be, you’d have to be in a room, it was $1,000 an hour, and that was it,” Kusama-Hinte says. “Gregg is exceptionally well positioned because he’s just comfortable diving in and doing things on his own. Most directors, in my experience, would get befuddled with the technical demands. But I think what’s also becoming very common, which is analogous to this, is editing remotely. If you’re doing TV, you’re almost always doing the color correction remotely, and the tools have become so powerful. There was partly an economic necessity for him to do a lot of this work so we could spend as little time and money in the room [as possible].”

The film was scanned in at 4K 16-bit resolution, then cleaning it took an estimated 300 to 400 hours. “We start with the raw 4K full aperture scans, which allows us to work with the entire available image as captured on set,” says Resillion’s lead restoration artist Jon Buchanan. That footage was processed in Phoenix software, which scans for dirt and debris, and manual correction followed “to catch any digital artifacting that may occur as a result of the tool and its fixes. Afterward, this material was brought into a second program, DRS Nova, where our team of artists moved frame by frame, making manual fixes for any remaining dirt, scratches and stains. The picture was also stabilized and deflickered, which removed any distracting frame bumps and variances in picture density.”

Comparing the resulting scan against the film’s previous master, made in HD for the home video release two decades ago, revealed an unexpected problem with that reference copy: “One of the things that became very clear to Gregg when he was looking at the scans and looking at the HD master was that the framing of the movie was different than what it should have been,” says former Resillion president Joshua Erkman. The movie had been cropped in closer on many shots than it should have been. How did this error happen? No one on the team really knows, but Araki notes, “You can’t control every single print and copy of your movie. I think this master was gotten from the foreign sales company that went out of business. I don’t know if they made a dupe of it and somehow it got fucked up. It wasn’t that way when I [supervised the previous transfer].” But in the process of restoring visual information that had been erroneously excised, Araki decided to subtly reframe entire shots as he saw fit, using previously unused parts of the frame. “Fans can see stuff they’ve never seen before, parts of the set they’ve never seen before,” he says.

Both Araki’s new film and this refurbished one used the same relatively new editorial process; for production on Sex, Araki cut the film in DaVinci Resolve. which allowed Araki to cut simultaneously on the same timeline as his co-editor and the coloring team, a process that was then ported over to Skin. “We set up this joint Resolve project, which is not something that we’ve done before in restoration,” explains Erkman. “Normally, we toil away on our software; then, the filmmaker—if they’re alive—or the client comes in and reviews the final material. This was a bit unique in that we had a shared Resolve session. So, Gregg was working at his house, our color [team] was working in Resillion’s facility in Burbank; we could see the framing choices that Gregg was making and work with that.”

One challenge of the restoration was fixing the opening titles, which take place against a gleaming white background. “The opening titles of the movie always bugged me because they’re so dirty, but it’s white titles on a white background,” says Araki. “When you do that on film, there’[re] scratches, pieces of dirt, and you can’t get rid of them. We did it so many times”—meaning adding optically printed titles to the image—“trying to clean it up.”

“We had access to the untexted original negative of that shot,” says Buchanan, “which basically means that it didn’t have the titles printed on it. So, we were able to restore that so it matched the rest of the film in terms of quality because when you optically print things, like text, it can soften the image quite a bit because it adds another layer of a physical film element.” With the newly restored background image, Araki could redo the titles and add them without losing any sharpness.

ADR work was also done for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who sent in line readings re-recorded on his phone. “There’s a lot of mumbling going on, and some of [his dialogue] was hard to hear even if you listen to it 10 times, so we were able to go in and fix some of that stuff,” Araki notes. In terms of overall sonic remastering, “The Slowdive song at the beginning is so important, and I’ve always wanted [it] to be much more grandiose. We popped the shit out of that.”

Regarding color changes made to the film, Buchanan cites the greater color range of HDR compared to the previously available options: “At the time that the HD master was done, there wasn’t the color latitude that could reproduce [the film] accurately. But then there’s also a different element, which is tweaking it after the fact. So, it’s kind of in-between—trying to restore what it would have looked like in an ideal projection in 2004 while taking advantage of what the scan can be.” Says Kusama-Hinte, “It’s not like he’s bringing something to the film that’s exogenous to it. It’s that he’s really realizing it. This is my take on it. [He didn’t say,] ‘Hey, guys, this is what my plan is. How do you feel about it?’ He sort of just went and did it; then, I got the panicked calls after the fact. But, I mean, I wouldn’t have expected anything different. I respect Gregg deeply as a director, and [those changes] didn’t bother me in the least. And then there’s this other dimension: we’re future-proofing the film. In 20 years, all the people who made the film are going to be in their 80s. So, having it in this 4K pristine picture with pristine sound [guarantees that] now it actually will exist indefinitely, as opposed to good prints [made from] photochemical intermediates, [and] you would still have to find a lab that would not fuck them up.”

“I was able to take the 2025 version of me as a filmmaker and apply it to this 20-year-old movie,” Araki concludes. “There are things about Mysterious Skin that have always bugged me: I’ve never been happy with some of the VFX and some of the lighting. With this technology, you can relight things; everything is at your fingertips. I understand the purist argument, and there is nothing significantly different about the movie. I challenge a Mysterious Skin fan to watch the movie and tell me exactly all the things changed. It’s very subtle, but when you see it, it’s like, ‘Oh yeah, that is fucking better.’ That’s my take as a director.”

(Source: article, via Filmmaker Magazine)

#article, #greg araki, #mysterious skin
13 Mar 2026
13 Mar 2026
Joe Pesci:

What’s that? You hear a little girl, Frankie? You hear a little girl, Ace? Is that a little fucking girl? What happened to the fucking tough guy who told my friend to stick it up his fucking ass?

(Source: Casino (1995), via Martin Scorsese)

#casino, #joe pesci, #martin scorsese, #quote
13 Mar 2026
this is a text post

I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly. I’m just testing this to see if I’ve put it all together correctly.
- #personal
- #self
- #testing
13 Mar 2026
currently watching
13 Mar 2026