Comments on: Mike Leigh Says Quentin Tarantino’s Battle To Save Celluloid Is “Twaddle & Bollocks”

By: Xian

Xian — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

Thank you, Mike Leigh! Finally someone calls the Luddite "film" movement out for what it is, bunk. Making movies has always relied on technology (or we\’d still be fighting for blockbusters in the nickelodeon or zoetrope format, right?), and the technology has advanced. Why some filmmakers cling to celluloid as if it were some magical wonder (it\’s not, it\’s just a reaction of sliver halide to light exposure) instead of embracing the future and bending it to their visionary will is beyond me. They\’re like Amish gentleman goin\’ "Whoa, Nelly," at the crossroads to either the city or the farm, and they\’re willfully choosing the farm. Go figure. Tarantino himself pointed out (rather artfully in "Inglourious Basterds") that we no longer use nitrate film because of its explosive properties, and no one is clinging to that medium… but seriously, digital will only continue to get better, it\’s already to the point where filmmakers that are meticulous and demand what they see is what you get (cinematographers like Jeff Cronenweth are a great example) are moving toward digital for its consistency and their ability to control it… and for many directors and lensers control is what it\’s all about. With film, you prayed the dailies looked good, with digital, you walk away at the end of a day\’s shoot knowing you nailed it and can sleep at night.

By: enough digital

enough digital — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

Watching material shot on film and projected on film is not the same as watching material shot on either film or digital, and projected digitally. Even if you can\’t see or appreciate the difference — and that difference can be a tremendous relief, after a string of all-digital features, as in a festival setting — it may well affect consumer willingness to buy tickets for theatrical screenings. Figures may well continue to slide. The analog preference may be entirely accidental — the same way many people, and not just audiophiles, prefer vinyl — but it\’s real.

By: O2431

O2431 — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

Irene Dixon-Bobby Place /*,you know the **ise\’s "don\’t tell anyone your scam" very very hott! black ahh.

By: O2431

O2431 — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

***st Ty! Allah and his AMEN gave up nothing.Winona Ryder\’s the pass on this "uhm" I was looking at some of my pictures I use some Political back then you know ahh. "you know I really liked Pulp Fiction" the Paragon.

By: Future

Future — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

Any technology that convinces Tarantino to stop making films is a winner

By: MIKE

MIKE — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

I didn\’t know about the 5219 stock, but you\’re essentially saying that the Alexa has the same latitude (better really, if you\’re shooting in low light) as the premium celluloid format, but for a fraction of the price. If latitude is your thing, RED HDRx offers up a system that captures 18 stops. Also the idea that post production for digital is more expensive than film is simply false. If film was cheaper, most productions would be shooting on it, and as it stands the majority have migrated to digital. In terms of the practicalities and aesthetics of film vs digital why don\’t we let nine time Academy Award nominated DP Roger Deakins weigh in:

"Whether I’ll shoot on film again, I don’t know. [Shooting on Digital] gives me a lot more options. It’s got more latitude, it’s got better color rendition. It’s faster. I can immediately see what I’m recording. I can time that image on set with a color-calibrated monitor. That coloring goes through the whole system, so it’s tied with the meta-data of the image. So that goes through the whole post-production chain, so it’s not a case of being in a lab and having to sit and then time a shot on a shot-by-shot because this has already got a control on it that’s set the timing for the shot, you know?" – Roger Deakins, interview with Slash Film.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

Now filmmakers have more choice in how they capture their art. They want to shoot on film? Great. Want to shoot digitally? Great. You think David Fincher makes his movies digitally because the studio has told him to? Clearly there are many filmmakers who prefer it. Doesn\’t matter. It\’s all going to be transferred and graded digitally. And to me here\’s the key, it will most likely be projected digitally. And I am ALL for that. I have seen a very tiny handful of celluloid films that have looked great. I could probably count on 2 hands. And I have Seena films projected in showcase theaters here in LA that still have gate weave, focus issues, scratches. Now I know if I go to a good theater, not even a great one, I will see a movie where the image is rock solid and is focused from edge to edge. Of course their\’s bad digital projection. But generally it is a pretty consistently good experience. Those that long for the softness of most projected film, the faded colors from striking a print off what is a second generation down from the IP which is what it will be unless it\’s a showcase print, you are welcome to it.

By: Guy

Guy — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

…Who\’s Mike Leigh?

By: buddy

buddy — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

Nice try, Mike, but not true: Kodak stock 5219 has 14.5 stops of latitude. Also, needing \’millions of dollars of lighting equipment to balance out exposures\’ is one of the most ridiculous things I\’ve ever read. An Arri light kit can be rented from the film co-op a block away from where I\’m typing this for $25/day. A good DP would only need that, a good camera with some nice glass on it, some Vision 3 stock, and their light meter to get some rich, textured images that no digital camera could touch. Rather, it\’s digital that requires massive costs in post-production: storage space for all that RAW footage, computers to process the huge files, and hours spent grading it for it to look at all decent.

By: Slen

Slen — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

Just because you shoot your film on… film, doesn\’t stop it from being a piece of shit. Instellar might look good but if it makes me want to implode in on myself during the three hours, then there\’s a problem.
It\’s people like Fincher and Soderbergh that I appreciate they challenge the medium and tackle their films the correct way and make them look perfect.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

Actually by any quantifiable measure (resolution, latitude, color depth) digital surpassed film for image capture a few years ago. For instance – Sony F65 shoots 8k resolution – same as Imax, in a camera a quarter the size and a tenth the cost. Arri Alexa has 14 stops of latitude – the best celluloid film can offer is around 8. The reality is that unless you have access to millions of dollars of lighting equipment to balance out exposures, film looks worse. Don\’t get me wrong – celluloid does have its charms and romance, but digital is allowing for both more freedom and more control. It is opening up new imagery to storytellers. If you want proof, look at the way sky, and subtle changes in atmosphere, especially in low light can be captured now in films such as Upstream Color. Look at what David Fincher does with his subtle precisely controlled low contrast palette. Saying that digital is like "TV in public" is akin to saying that you aren\’t listening to music unless its on vinyl: at best a quaint indulgence, at worst insufferable snobbery.

By: Eohlson

Eohlson — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

Well, duh, do you think? It\’s a business. I don\’t mean to be condescending by your agrument only points out the reality of the situation. And just because it\’s not up to standard yet doesn\’t the potential isn\’t there. In the end it\’s only the purists who seem to notice as was the case with digital audio and digital compression

By: Milan

Milan — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

Les, you are wrong on all accounts. Both resolution and latitude of the digital camera sensors has not only caught up with film but surpassed it. They are just different tools to tell stories, neither of them are "wrong".

By: Casey

Casey — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

I don\’t mind Tarantino clinging to film or praising it, but I hate the attitude that he brings with it, that those who use it are frauds and to discount a whole generation is offensive to me. I\’ve shot digital since the start and I wouldn\’t become as talented as I am without it. Plus his \’best of 2013\’ list has at least 6/10 movies were shot digitally. I\’d include it here but indweller doesn\’t let me post links

By: Mongoosecmr

Mongoosecmr — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

I get filmmakers and audiences having grievances with movies no longer being shot on film, but the people who decry digital projection as the death of cinema completely escape me. That\’s truly nothing more than complaining about how things aren\’t what they used to

By: anonymous

anonymous — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

I agree Les. Newer does not equal better.The studios push digital because its cheap.

By: Davey

Davey — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

Edward Herrmann died over the holidays.

By: Les

Les — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:29 +0000

QT is perhaps being to Luddite about digital projection, but as far as image capturing, despite the advances, digital still lags behind film in resolution and particularly upside latitude. I have no problem with technology advances if they actually improve the medium, but digital is not yet an actual improvement — it\’s just cheaper, let\’s face it, that\’s the real reason it\’s embraced. It has nothing to do with consistency or what cinematographers think. They are just reacting to what the industry powers decide.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:28 +0000

XIAN – If it\’s shot digitally, it\’s not a film…

I see where Quentin and co. are coming from when they say "TV in public" etc because it changes the whole art that is FILMmaking…

By: buddy

buddy — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:28 +0000

Roger Deakins is entitled to his opinion. Most professional DPs I\’ve read interviews with prefer film (or, at the very least, the option to choose between the 2, based on the particulars of the shoot). There\’s a Cinematographers Roundtable from last year\’s Oscar nominated films in which they basically all gripe about the poor aesthetics of 4K and say they only shoot on digital when there\’s no option.

I never said film was cheaper than digital. The truth is that it\’s not much more expensive, despite what the champions of digital would like us to believe. Besides the high costs of post-production (you can make claims like \’the idea that post production for digital is more expensive than film is simply false\’, but until you produce the figures to prove that I stand by what I have read), rental rates for The RED and the Alexa are so much greater than for 35mm cameras that the cost of film stock is almost offset.

In terms of shooting in low light, one of the most beautifully filmed movies of the past few years, \’Ain\’t Them Bodies Saints\’, was shot on film using only lighting that was naturally occurring in the scene, including lamps and vehicle headlights at night. Watch it and tell me digital could render those images with any more grace and beauty.

As for \’most productions have migrated to digital\’, I can\’t post links but just google \’Productions on Kodak film\’. Film is far, far from dead.

By: O2431

O2431 — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:28 +0000

notes,why do you *gr\’s always want to see da the ground man *what about con the con man,that\’s a Crack dealer* they want to see ante the beeper guy-some Demon breaking out of him "his chest and body like rob cage and he goes to Mummy" oh,then back into him.

By: Alex L.

Alex L. — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:28 +0000

Tarantino has acknowledged that digital film-making has allowed for aspiring directors to break into the industry more easily, but just doesn\’t understand why an established filmmaker wouldn\’t want to use celluloid. I remain ambivalent only because, while I understand the argument from the other side, celluloid still looks miles better than digital. The latter has not advanced to that level of beauty on screen–not yet anyway.

By: MIKE

MIKE — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:28 +0000

Ain\’t Them Bodies Saints is a very, very beautiful film, and Bradford Young is a genius, and breakout DoP of this year. Interestingly he shot Selma, and A Most Violent Year on the (digital) Alexa. Here\’s what he has to say:

"The beauty of shooting with the Alexa is how sensitive it is and how it sees into the shadows. I like lots of details in the shadows, which is always a struggle with film. Shadows are so nuanced with the Alexa. Put those two instruments together—the Alexa camera and the Master Anamorphics—and we could light with pretty small fixtures" – Bradford Young in interview with Creativeplanetnetwork.

And here:

"Some of the stuff I was doing with shadows in "A Most Violent Year" are things that I wanted to do in "Ain\’t Them Bodies Saints" but just was a little timid to do, because we were exposing film." – Young in interview on HITfix

Which is what I was attempting to say in my first comment: Digital now has the ability to capture and control subtleties of light that are invisible to photochemical processes. It can still look bad in the hands of an untalented artist (Public Enemies was a shocker), but then so can film. And there are legitimate questions about what parts of celluloid technology and methodology we should retain and especially what archive format is the most robust. But the argument that celluloid itself has "grace and beauty" that digital does not comes across as out of touch with the current state of the art. The artist uses the tools at their disposal to create grace and beauty. And we have reached the point where digital is the more powerful, subtle tool.

By: JamesD

JamesD — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:28 +0000

It\’s not a question of which tool is more powerful or "subtle". Film (shot and projected) is different from digital. It has texture, and more. And for at least some viewers, it\’s more engaging and emotionally involving. This says nothing about which format is more "beautiful", and "nuanced shadows" are beside the point. Film is alive in a way that digital simply is not — at least, for some. The Alexa may grand for what is it, but is a photograph "better" than a painting? If you\’re happy with digital — and digital projection — fine. But it\’s not sentiment widely shared among cinephiles.

By: MIKE

MIKE — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:28 +0000

I\’m not sure I can make sense of your reply James; we are comparing photographs with photographs. But you are being presumptuous to speak for cinephiles. A true lover of cinema would appreciate that the ability to create amazing imagery without the need for a huge centralized infrastructure (like a laboratory) empowers storytellers to find new ways to tell new stories in new places and new ways. They might even think that while we can be nostalgic for an old technology, perhaps the death of celluloid as the default medium of capture is required for cinema to be reborn anew. I think that films have never looked as amazing as they do now, and never been as exciting as an art form as a result of what digital technology offers. My god, did you see Under The Skin? That film showed you imagery you have never seen in a film before, because it was impossible to create. Let go of your prejudices and jump in, the water is fine.