Martin Scorsese's passionate defense of Kodak film

kbg32

neo-romanticist
Local time
8:17 PM
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
5,613
"We have many names for what we do – cinema, movies, motion pictures. And…film. We’re called directors, but more often we’re called filmmakers. Filmmakers. I’m not suggesting that we ignore the obvious: HD isn’t coming, it’s here. The advantages are numerous: the cameras are lighter, it’s much easier to shoot at night, we have many more means at our disposal for altering and perfecting our images. And, the cameras are more affordable: films really can be made now for very little money. Even those of us still shooting on film finish in HD, and our movies are projected in HD. So, we could easily agree that the future is here, that film is cumbersome and imperfect and difficult to transport and prone to wear and decay, and that it’s time to forget the past and say goodbye – really, that could be easily done. Too easily.

It seems like we’re always being reminded that film is, after all, a business. But film is also an art form, and young people who are driven to make films should have access to the tools and materials that were the building blocks of that art form. Would anyone dream of telling young artists to throw away their paints and canvases because iPads are so much easier to carry? Of course not. In the history of motion pictures, only a minuscule percentage of the works comprising our art form was not shot on film. Everything we do in HD is an effort to recreate the look of film. Film, even now, offers a richer visual palette than HD. And, we have to remember that film is still the best and only time-proven way to preserve movies. We have no assurance that digital informaton (sic) will last, but we know that film will, if properly stored and cared for.

Our industry – our filmmakers – rallied behind Kodak because we knew that we couldn’t afford to lose them, the way we’ve lost so many other film stocks. This news is a positive step towards preserving film, the art form we love."

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/08/04/martin-scorsese-kodak-film-letter/
 
Thanks for posting. I hope his simple argument continues to resonate with younger generation filmmakers and that the bottom-line guys at the studios can be held off. Ultimately, I suppose the consumers (film watchers) will decide the future of "film". Its been brought up many times before of course, but this has also played out in the music industry as digital has brought analog sound quality to the brink - but there are still signs of keeping analog alive among many music makers and lovers. I enjoyed watching this documentary recently - the analogy to film seems clear:

http://www.distortionofsound.com
 
Thanks for the links!

My brother is a recording engineer/sound producer. He's been talking about the decline of sound for a long time, and recently about some new hope for the future.

G
 
Good for the film makers, but how will it affect those of us who shoot still images on film? Positively, I hope.
 
As Scorsese pointed out, everything gets digitized anyway. It's the process of film - the shooting of, the processing of, how it is edited, how it looks, how it's archived... the whole shebang that is important to the history and its continued art form.

Note - he is not dissing digital. He understands and sees its importance, not just in and of itself, but in conjunction with film.

Kind of like how life should be.
 
The machinery is out there. If those that produce film keep producing it, there will always be a cottage industry of those who will keep the good things running. Sure, it won't be as inexpensive as before, but keeping a "choice", a history alive, is important. Look what happened to Polaroid.
 
Love is not enough, someone has to rebuild the cameras, and manufacture new parts. Editing machines will wear out. And of course there is no point if no theaters show film.
...

You don't need film cut editing machines with calculating power of current NLEs.
Once film is digitized properly it will preserve film-look on digital media, "film" distribution for large screen included.

This is big if not main reason for film industry decline.

Another one. Look at big screens moneymaker - "Frozen".
Zero film and zero video.

Most of viewers don't care if picture in the Art Gallery or in the Motion Picture was taken digitally or on film, nor they are capable to see the difference between film and digital.

How you would preserve film if end user see no difference and digital is more cost effective?
 
OT: poetic moment

OT: poetic moment

Every time I see another one of these threads pop up, Dylan Thomas springs back into my head.

G

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

- Dylan Thomas
 
Great films are still being made. You usually have to look beyond the blockbusters

California is over run with mega theaters that only show what they are told to show. But like, I suppose, every large population center you can still find good films at small independents, it just requires a little work and driving. Still, my hat off to Martin S. for his attention to detail that make films 'art.' I miss Technicolor.
 
So Hollywood has one person that can think; good for him. Now if they only would start making better movies.

Some great films have come from Hollywood over the decades. Not everything will be good, it's also a for profit business that caters to market trends (so one can also blame people's tastes, too.)

And one can say the same thing about photography, too. There are plenty of junk images out there and also a history of compelling images. Same goes for novels and non-fiction, for painting, sculpture, and for music, etc..
 
Since movies are a mass market business the only possible use for film is as backup and archiving as theaters are or will soon be digital.
 
Well, digital is pretty good now. However, I like the skin tones that film produces.

And, at least in my world, budgets are more constrained, digital can be less expensive than film for making stills. I don't have or need or desire the newest techno tool. I can do just fine with what tools I have.
 
Some great films have come from Hollywood over the decades. Not everything will be good, it's also a for profit business that caters to market trends (so one can also blame people's tastes, too.)

And one can say the same thing about photography, too. There are plenty of junk images out there and also a history of compelling images. Same goes for novels and non-fiction, for painting, sculpture, and for music, etc..

Not just taste, I know somebody that does some screen writing. He wanted a mystery idea I had for a screen play. When I explained it to him he said it was too complicated, movies are written for 14 year old boys. I don't know if he was joking, but I fear not.
 
People still ride bicycles.
People still listen to radio.
People still read paperbacks.
People still use pencils/notebooks.

I'm just cautiously hopeful that the price doesn't exponentially increase as businesses transition from "low-demand" pricing to "zOMG LUXURY NICHE PRICING OOOHHH YESSSSSS"
greed-money.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom