Martin Scorsese's passionate defense of Kodak film

[icebear]

I have never read a film critique that put emphasis on the film look or even mentioned if it was shot on film.
I made the transition to digital in my photography complete 2 years ago, so maybe I'm biased or ignorant but honestly who cares ?
Yes, enthusiasts of the medium do care but are they relevant ?
How many movie goers do care about the story the movie tells and how many do care about the technology used to create it?
If the story is crap does the movie get any better if it was shot on film ? Rant mode off 😀.

 

[Ranchu]

Digital projectors are really lousy compared to film ones, I've read.

 

[VertovSvilova]

I have never read a film critique that put emphasis on the film look or even mentioned if it was shot on film.
I made the transition to digital in my photography complete 2 years ago, so maybe I'm biased or ignorant but honestly who cares ?
Yes, enthusiasts of the medium do care but are they relevant ?
How many movie goers do care about the story the movie tells and how many do care about the technology used to create it?
If the story is crap does the movie get any better if it was shot on film ? Rant mode off 😀.

I think there are plenty critics and filmmakers who discuss the materials used (at least in my world.)

Do moviegoers care about the "technology used to create it?" Yes, I believe that many actually do. The materials (whether it's film or digital) do matter and can have meaning (ask the filmmaker.) And I also believe audiences are normally curious about how a film was produced.

Bela Tarr's (analog) film, "The Turin Horse"

"Tarr’s sweeping black and white cinematography takes on new poignancy in the twilight of the photochemical age, rendering the tired horse a weary and obsolete ancestor of the Muybridgean stallion who inspired the cinema itself. A remarkably hypnotic and immersive film, The Turin Horse pushes Tarr’s interest in texture, sound and motion to an expressive extreme, giving way to a sensorial richness rare in cinema today."

Ron Howard's (digital) film, "Rush"

"Archive clips were put on a server for the group to view and comment upon, and once Howard and Dod Mantle had selected some they liked, the clips were edited together with camera tests and sent to colorists at Company 3 in London and Johnson at Double Negative to see how far they could be pushed in post. The archival material was graded and de-grained, and the camera tests graded and subjected to grain, in order to meet somewhere in the middle."

But I'd agree that a large contingent of cinema goers are more invested in the story itself; I think that's normal with all films (although many films are intricately tied into the materials employed; plus certain avant-garde films where the visuals are paramount.) However I'd also argue that they might very well get interested if they became involved in a discussion about films with other viewers and with critics and/or filmmakers. As with anything, interest is something that has to be developed. And sure, if the interest just isn't there at all then it doesn't really matter. But that's not to say that there aren't "untrained" moviegoers who are indeed interested about the materials used to produce a particular film. And the more it's discussed (as with this thread and with news articles about this particular subject) the more it becomes relevant. So in that respect, I think it's important.

 

[shadowfox]

"... 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. ..."

That's the main point and argument, in my opinion.

I recently went to an estate sale where a young lady, probably 12 or 13 years old, was so excited that her mom let her pick a mechanical-typewriter for her to learn and use. Young people *can* appreciate far more than just digital convenience that they grow up with.

Back to film, a lot of young people would love to use it (both cine and still), it is tragic that the opportunity is closing on them in the name of convenience, and profit.

And finally, don't give me the "to each his own" argument, that is irrelevant, the real question is do you care if the next generation has a choice in the matter, or not?

 

[TXForester]

How many movie goers do care about the story the movie tells and how many do care about the technology used to create it?

They don't care about the technology, but some care about look it produces.

 

[Corran]

If the story is crap does the movie get any better if it was shot on film ? Rant mode off 😀.

This is kind of a tired argument.

If only the story matters, why even see a movie? Go read a book. Or if we are going to shoot a movie, and the story is amazing, why don't the studios just use a bunch of cell phones to film?

The look and feel / artistic direction is just as important, and the medium can be a major consideration for those choices.

 

[robert blu]

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.

Beautiful photos of the art of projection. http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2...ction_booths_in_his_exhibition_the_booth.html

Thanks for the link to such beautiful photos, grazie.
robert

 

[DanskDynamit]

What about Bollywood? I thought their were saving the film industry and not Hollywood.

 

[icebear]

Are any female members taking part in this discussion ?
I am sure this is a "male only" relevant problem. Reminds me a lot of discussions in the audio area where solid state vs tube amps runs pretty much along the same lines and it's an all male discussion.

My wife enjoys listening to music and the only thing she cares about is which button to press to select the right input so the there is sound coming out of the speakers. She doesn't care about the specs or the parts in the different boxes. Or even less about the cables 😀.

How many of the film enthusiasts are buying movie tickets to make the next movie shot on film a commercial success so that the director gets funding for his next project? Just my $0.02😉

 

[icebear]

You are perhaps not reading the right reviews?...

Sure, that most likely why.
The movie section in the NYT doesn't cover everything and even from that I don't read all.
It's just not any of my special interest 😉.
Cheers

 

[jsrockit]

I think there are plenty critics and filmmakers who discuss the materials used (at least in my world.)

I think that is the key here... I think Klaus is talking about the average person that goes to watch the movies... do they care if it is on film or digital or do they care about the story more?

 

[Aristophanes]

I think that is the key here... I think Klaus is talking about the average person that goes to watch the movies... do they care if it is on film or digital or do they care about the story more?

To answer that question...porn.

 

[jsrockit]

To answer that question...porn.

Funny... 😛 With Porn... I would say digital is preferrred. 😉

 

[VertovSvilova]

I think that is the key here... I think Klaus is talking about the average person that goes to watch the movies... do they care if it is on film or digital or do they care about the story more?

Read the last paragraph of my post.......

 

[clcolucci58]

Very well said from my favorite film maker,
and kudos it Kodak.
Regards
clc

 

[rovnguy]

Thank you for the validation Martin.