Comments on: Quentin Tarantino Says Restored 4K Print Of ‘Fistful Of Dollars’ Shown At Cannes Made Him “Depressed”

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

Wolf of Wall Street was only shot on digital for the scenes at night. All the daytime stuff was shot on film.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

A small part of me sympathizes with Tarantino. But he should understand that… almost no one cares about this issue. Those studios are simply kowtowing to an influential group of filmmakers. Otherwise, film would have been gone. It\’s a small price for the studios to pay based on the revenue generated by those filmmakers. But the audience simply does not care. Yes, some may, but they represent such a tiny fraction of a percent, it\’s meaningless. And threats of retiring aren\’t going to achieve much either. If Tarantino – as much as I love him – wants to leave the film industry because he can\’t shoot on celluloid, there are a million other filmmakers who will enthusiastically step behind a studio\’s digital cameras to get their stories told. These filmmakers may have the clout to preserve their own ability to shoot on film, but they lack the leverage to preserve its future. And that\’s a good thing. It\’s less wasteful, it\’s less polluting. And, frankly, digital looks great. See any Soderbergh movie for evidence. He shot "Che" on a Red camera. I don\’t know how you complain about those results.

By: tristan eldritch

tristan eldritch — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

I love Quentin, but like any idiosyncratic genius, he tends to live a lot in his own head: "That’s my print of ‘Junior Bonner,’ that’s how I’ve seen it for the last twenty years, that’s how I want to see it for the next twenty years. I like it that way.” That\’s really his attitude in a nutshell: I want what I grew up with it, my experience, my aesthetic preference, to be the norm into the future.

By: mms

mms — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

I admit to having railed against Tarantino in his love-for-celluloid utterings, for several reasons. For one it hasn\’t always been clear whether he was talking about shooting films or projecting them. Another, and major reason is the nature of his bashing digital, and how it\’s hardly been a particularly nuanced and detailed description of what he found to be the flaws of digital. Not least I\’ve never found the projection quality of 35mm prints in the local cinemas in my area to be consistent, and that a not insignificant amount of them have sported outright wear and tear issues that annoyed the hell out of me. The issues weren\’t only visually, but sonically as well with drop-outs etc. In fact one of the first DCP-projections I witnessed was of Tarantino\’s PULP FICTION at a special screening, and it was a blast; a few years earlier I\’d seen a 35mm projection of the same film, and it literally paled in comparison. The DCP-showing left me to appreciate the film in all it\’s wonderfull weirdness, and I thought "f*ck 35mm projection."

Now, on the other hand, I see more clearly were Tarantino is coming from, and I sincerely respect that. The man is totally in love with the "texture" and feel of celluloid, and why wouldn\’t you want him to keep on cherish and experience it – and others with him? For myself I believe the varieties of how films are shot are very clearly, indeed more clearly laid bare via DCP than 35mm, and to me that\’s paramount. I wouldn\’t welcome a widespread re-launch of 35mm projection, and that most likely won\’t happen, but for it to be preserved on a more limited scale – why not?

By: Cuchillo

Cuchillo — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

In one way i am happy that a few artists still shoot on film and i really hated the
sterile look of The Wolf of Wall Street.
But Quentin is a 35mm Taliban.
I want to enjoy P.T.Anderson and
Michael Mann.

By: Brian Rose

Brian Rose — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

The one aspect QT overlooks is availability. I think one of the unacknowledged aspects of film versus digital is privilege of access. There\’s an exclusivity that exists when you can say, "I saw so-and-so\’s vintage IB Technicolor print." There\’s rarity, cache, only a few can see it, namely those within a geographical area able to make it to the theater. And I\’m all for keeping up 35mm screenings. But lets also give digital credit in making these films available. Without digital options, many films would simply go unseen outside of these rare screenings, because the prints are fragile and owners are hesitant to lend them out. And you don\’t help the value of a film by guarding it closely. Because people will forget about it. The films that grow in stature are the ones that are available for viewing.
And the thing is it doesn\’t have to be either or. 35mm must be kept around, and I think it will. There is an important, historical aspect to enabling the screenings of 35mm sourced prints. But lets not let loyalty to origin format curtail access to the film. Because the ultimate goal should be getting a film shown. And if that means in some theaters to show digital, that is better than not showing at all.

By: Xian

Xian — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

Movies have always been at the mercy of one technological innovation or another over time. It\’s the fundamental nature of the medium. To cling to celluloid in hipster fashion, well… Might as well bring back the zoetrope, the nickelodeon and nitrite film because nothing is better than those old technologies, right? I, personally, won\’t be happy unless I see Chris Nolan\’s "Interstellar" (or the next Tarantino mash-up) in camera obscura format the way the Gods of Cinema intended it to be seen!! 😉

By: Xian

Xian — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

"i really hated the sterile look of The Wolf of Wall Street."

ORLY… I think that was the Scorsese\’s intention… to get a slick, sterile look because this isn\’t a world of street gangsters, these gangsters are operating on an entirely different level, and hey! it takes place in the 90s and again, the look of the movie fits not only the thematic and narrative needs of the script, but also gives insight to the look of an era (which, let\’s face it, was rather slick).

So, unless you\’re talking about the the 1929 "Wolf of Wall Street" (an early talkie that covers the same elements as the Jordan Belfort story).

By: Cuchillo

Cuchillo — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

Hey, i love Scorsese and i laught my ass off with Wolfie. I just dont like the look.
Nearly every Set in this movie was fake.
And they do this because it´s easy and
cheap. I guess i have to look Mean Streets
again.

By: Cuchillo

Cuchillo — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

@ Brian Rose
You are absolutly right.
And Michael Mann is the proof that digital can look great too.
Collateral, Miami Vice, Public Enemy.

By: hanshotfirst1138

hanshotfirst1138 — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

"The great debate between digital and film formats won\’t be resolved anytime soon"

Whatever opinions you hold about the issue are going to be academic for financial reasons. I think Tarantino is fighting a losing battle. The happy medium everyone talks about is of course the two existing side-by-side, but that simply doesn\’t look financially feasible.

That said, while Tarantino has a point, what he\’s talking about is also personal. There\’s a fundamental difference between a 4K master and a Blu-ray. The resolutions are fundamentally different. You\’re talking about something which is different. So no, in spite of what he thinks, he IS watching something different. He may not like it, he make think it\’s the same, but it simply isn\’t. His aesthetic preference for film, with all due respect to him, seems to be rooted in nostalgia for popping records and scratched prints and the memories they have. The next generation will have digital memories. Tarantino seems to be slightly stubborn in his looking backwards; you can make arguments for film-the resolution, aesthetic choices, visual and cinematography decisions, the preservation, the historical importance-but Tarantino isn\’t talking about any of those things. He\’s simply bathing his memories in a warm, nostalgic glow and not thinking of the decreased price of distribution or production for independent filmmakers nowadays, the ease of access to many things. He may live in in LA where art houses were the norm, but it weren\’t for video, I wouldn\’t have seen hundreds of films which I wouldn\’t have had the opportunity to watch any other way.

Tarantino, Spielberg, Scorsese, Abrams, Anderson, Nolan-these guys are a big enough deal to make noise about film, but it\’s foolish to think they can secure its future. I of course HOPE they can, but I think it\’s foolish to pretend that film is on anything except borrowed time. The horse and buggy died when cars came along, payphones died when cells came along. I\’m not saying I like it, I understand his preference and wish that the choice were still available, but especially for "small businesses," there\’s the cost to consider. Digital is less expensive to distribute and make. The projectionists will lose their jobs. It\’s sad, but it\’s the reality. Print is dying too, and I have fond memories of paging through magazines. But nostalgia doesn\’t make money, and it doesn\’t build the future.

And frankly, if a great film can\’t come off as a great film on DVD, VHS, 35mm, 16mm, 70mm, Blu-ray, 2K, 4K TV, HDTV or whatever, then what\’s the point? CASABLANCA should be CASABLANCA, and it should be a brilliant movie. Shakespeare is brilliant. He should be brilliant on a computer screen, a Kindle, a manuscript, a piece of paper, or a stage. As the Bard once said, "the play\’s the thing."

I understand Tarantino\’s feelings. I share a lot of them. And go to fewer and fewer films because of digital projection. But the future is here. It isn\’t going anywhere. I love what he\’s doing, and I\’d support it if I wasn\’t thousands of miles away, and I wish to God I could see more classic prints. But it just is what it is.

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

99.5% of the people who goes to the movies can\’t even tell the diference between digital and film.This is only an issue for a handfull of people

By: 4skincheese

4skincheese — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

@CUCHILLO: The Wolf of Wall Street was actually shot on film 😉

By: Keith Hopkin

Keith Hopkin — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

As somebody struggling to get into this field, well, I CAN\’T AFFORD TO USE FILM. so I could care less about what successful filmmakers are saying.

By: Marla Thornton

Marla Thornton — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

It\’s great that he\’s putting his foot down about this, as these prints will still be around 20 years after the DCPs have long since crashed. By the way, Nicolas Winding Refn is an idiot and I hope this hard drives crashes and wipes all the films he\’s ever made. Digital is crap and film is better. End of story.

By: Simon KIng

Simon KIng — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

Hmmm… ", if I can’t shoot on film I’ll stop making movies" Can we hold him to that?

By: Cuchillo

Cuchillo — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

@ 4SKINCHEESE
Google The Wolf of Wall Street CGI.
Than you will see what i mean.

By: Jeffrey Howarth

Jeffrey Howarth — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

Using film just inflates the budget of the movie and then it\’s transferred to digital anyway. "Texture" is what you get from a worn out print. Pure nostalgia, nothing else.

By: M

Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

He\’s absolutely f**king right.

By: JSintheStates

JSintheStates — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

Mr Tarantino share a love of celluloid! 4K nonsence is best left in the gaming domain. Yes, digital is here to stay. Yes, it is the future. But the future isn\’t the one we wanted, only the one we got! This is all Third Wave delusion anyway!

By: JOHN

JOHN — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

Tarantino now has his own theater program. So he can do what it wants. Hopefully that will lead to less whining.

By: Lisa Nesselson

Lisa Nesselson — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

I share Quentin\’s belief in the inherent beauty of a celluloid print however beat up. Thirty years ago it was still easy to find older film enthusiasts who would wax eloquent about this or that film seen on a nitrate print. For those of us born into an analog world, there IS a sense memory receptor for films running through a projector and light reflected off a screen. DCPs look too crisp and clean for most stories. I just saw a slightly worn 35mm print of "Designing Woman" shown in honor of Lauren Bacall. My first thought was "That\’s more like it!" A few scratches but instact colors. Unbeatable.
I saw "The Master" on a 35mm print at a struggling century-old freestanding cinema in the Chicago suburbs. The projector had a problem with the sound head but it was still enthralling. When I saw a crisp digital projection of the same film a few months later it wasn\’t "the same film." It looked too modern, too sharp for the story it was telling.
I\’m happy enough to listen to an LP or a CD of a symphony because a symphony orchestra won\’t fit into my apartment but I\’m aware that the music sounds different than it would in a concert hall.
I\’m with Quentin on the principle that when you\’re in a screening space as flat out magnificent as the Salle Lumiere in Cannes, it\’s a shame to be watching a digital print if there\’s a real print extant anywhere on earth.

By: Dolly West

Dolly West — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

I"m trying to enter a comment, but consistently receive a message in red: "Your comment seems to be spammy." What gives?

By: Dolly West

Dolly West — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

Stranger and stranger: You just published my "non-comment" to you–not spammy enought?

By: Ixnay

Ixnay — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:05 +0000

Wolf of Wallstreet was actually shot on film (mostly)