Film is certainly that, film. It was meant to be shown on film and filmed on film. There's a movement though to phase it out. Get rid of film entirely, which what would we call it then? Digital? I don't like it.
Big name directors like Nolan, Tarantino, and otherwise have tried in the past years to save the format for what seems like ego trips. It's hard to argue with saving money in show business, which is just that, a business. But where does the connection to our predecessors go? What physically reminds us that Buster Keaton shot on the same format and because of that created some great films out of the limitations?
Three years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of projecting 5 out of 6 reels of Singin' in the Rain at my local reshow theater. It was magical, one of my favorite films in my hands in the original format? It's like holding a Rembrandt canvas for me. And while I see the value of saving a buck to stretch the business, why don't we give the digital cameras to people like Adam Sandler? Those who don't want to attempt at contributing to the art form of film, but only to use it as a business? Why not let Scorsese and Paolo Sorrentino, the current artists, use the same type of brush Fellini and Powell and Pressburger used to create their masterpieces?
No comments:
Post a Comment