I want to vocalize what is very uncool today’s technology-crazed world: the idea that movies are, by their very nature, celluloid film. The analogy of using a word processor vs. a typewriter is not an appropriate one because words can be presented in a myriad of formats and still retain the meaning/intention of the writer; on the contrary, the film medium is not transparent. There is a scientifically observable psychological effect created by the intermittent 1/48th sec. motion of alternating light-dark and transmission of pure color/light tonalities on a motion picture screen. When people talk of the “inevitable” conversion to digital the implication is nothing less than an aesthetic power play: no one can presume superiority over an entire language of expression that has evolved over the past 100+ years. Granted, most Hollywood blockbusters look more like video games than movies and do not take advantage of the qualities of the film medium (this does not hinder them), but the possibility of great works of cinema still exists. Does anyone find it ironic that Johnny Depp can make millions for a few months of work yet these studio execs seem so concerned with saving $50 (or less) per screen to ship the film? (Not only that, but what about the numbers of American workers in film manufacturing, laboratory and shipping industries who will find themselves unemployed—but no, we don’t want to think about that—we are starstruck). Anyone who has closely scrutinized the areas where digital technology has offered alternatives to photochemical processes (such as many of the one-hour color photo processing outlets and in digital motion picture intermediates) can see the end products are grossly inferior. The “digital revolution” is just marketing/ brainwashing at it’s worst: based in everyday human fears (don’t get left behind!) and providing justification for the ugliest of human qualities—laziness and greed.
I want to vocalize what is very uncool today’s technology-crazed world: the idea that movies are, by their very nature, celluloid film. The analogy of using a word processor vs. a typewriter is not an appropriate one because words can be presented in a myriad of formats and still retain the meaning/intention of the writer; on the contrary, the film medium is not transparent. There is a scientifically observable psychological effect created by the intermittent 1/48th sec. motion of alternating light-dark and transmission of pure color/light tonalities on a motion picture screen. When people talk of the “inevitable” conversion to digital the implication is nothing less than an aesthetic power play: no one can presume superiority over an entire language of expression that has evolved over the past 100+ years. Granted, most Hollywood blockbusters look more like video games than movies and do not take advantage of the qualities of the film medium (this does not hinder them), but the possibility of great works of cinema still exists. Does anyone find it ironic that Johnny Depp can make millions for a few months of work yet these studio execs seem so concerned with saving $50 (or less) per screen to ship the film? (Not only that, but what about the numbers of American workers in film manufacturing, laboratory and shipping industries who will find themselves unemployed—but no, we don’t want to think about that—we are starstruck). Anyone who has closely scrutinized the areas where digital technology has offered alternatives to photochemical processes (such as many of the one-hour color photo processing outlets and in digital motion picture intermediates) can see the end products are grossly inferior. The “digital revolution” is just marketing/ brainwashing at it’s worst: based in everyday human fears (don’t get left behind!) and providing justification for the ugliest of human qualities—laziness and greed.