-But here’s what we shouldn’t forget: the power of the recommendation and the greatness of conversation.-
Have you read Jonathan Rosenbaum’s DVDs: A New Form of Collective Cinephilia in the current issue of Cineaste? It’s an interesting take on the new paradigm of cinephilia as a community not necessarily bound by the same modes of consumption and conversation as it morphs into “a kind of social media via the internet.”
3D doesn’t yet provide a better opportunity for people to tell stories, so for the most part 3D movies of late are the same old packaged anew.
BUT
When 3D cheapens, for instance with the potential availability of 3D technology in the hands of prosumers with the RED Scarlet, then what will some personal vision see that gets translated in screens big and large around the world (or perhaps solely in the local cinema?). Who knows what 3D concepts can create that expand beyond the current established experimentations in form, meta- and broken-narratives, and art movements?
And when high-definition becomes more real than real, what strange Wizard of Oz’s can we create, where not only is the fantasy world of a more luminous techni-cal-color, but we all become the man behind the curtain attempting, sometimes very ill-advisedly, to control it?
And does any of that change the fact that few still rival the technical genius and narrative aplomb of Buster Keaton? Not a bit. But my argument is not to discount it. Any expansion in visual technique or technology can be used as well as it can be abused. In the end it returns to learning from the past, looking forward to the future, and enjoying the present for what it is.
—PolarisDiB
Im not against new technologies in cinema. On the contrary, I think 3D film making or similar methods, can be truly great if they get into the hands of some true artists. New ways, new methods etc… Isn’t it great for an artist to use this technological advances to create something totally awesome?
Watching films on phones is not only impossible, but also very degrading for the values of cinema. I agree on that. But about home cinema, I ask you, what am I supposed to do, when I live in Iran and I can’t watch the films I like on the big screen? To forsake my love for cinema for good? Or to find them and watch them in any possible way? Yes I download films and watch them in home cinema and I don’t feel guilty about it because there’s no other way.
High definition is something else. I can’t think of anything more enjoyable than my experience of watching The 400 Blows, A Clockwork Orange and… in HD.
Generally I know what you’re talking about. You’re concerned with a technology that is growing rapidly and losing its soul on the other hand. Well this is the 21st century. I don’t think technological advances or a shallow era can stop true art. Be more optimistic, see the other half.
I like this debate. I think it’s healthy. I understand what you’re saying, but think that 3D isn’t in the hands of ‘artists’. I think I’d have a different attitude altogether if the whole 3D experience were more independent in nature, and not a huge mindless corporate machine. We need to have a balance somewhere and these strict conventions in place by the studios don’t help. In fact they just make the whole 3D thing more exclusive to rich ‘filmmakers’; as some sort of large, visual investment. I personally don’t enjoy seeing films made just for financial success.
The point I was trying to make with home cinema is that it’s okay to watch films at home, obviously. It’s just that when we stop sharing the experience. DVD and technology has improved many peoples film education. We can now get films from anywhere and not at the approval of authority. I understand your situation – being a film fan in Iran – but let me reassure you, the cinema in England isn’t too healthy either. Many people now rely on the internet and DVD to watch films; and rightly so. But we all know it shouldn’t be that way. It’s a sad place when our multiplexes close down the small indie cinema to show Harry Potter and Avatar 7 times a day. Where is our cinematic freedoms there?
I also agree with you that High-Definition is a fantastic evolution in image, I just hope that people also view the film with their minds and not just with their 5.1 separated ears and IMAXed eyes. You can’t go wrong with a good old Kubrick film either….
Thanks for the link Matt, I shall click it now!
-3D isn’t in the hands of ‘artists’.-
Not thus far, but with Herzog, Scorsese, and Joe Dante, among others, planning works utilizing the technology, I’m suspending judgement pending additional data.
Of course it’s yet to be in the hands of artists, and Matt, from the directors you’ve mentioned only maybe Herzog can create something artistic in the sense Im talking about. By a great film I don’t mean a thriller or fantasy film which is gripping or eye dazzling; My taste is most toward independent, international cinema. I hope someone makes a masterpiece in 3D; For me masterpiece is Akira Kurosawa’s Ran, François Truffuat’s the 400 Blows, Sergei Parajanov’s Color of Pomegranates, Kenji Mizoguchi’s Sansho the Bailiff, Kiarostami’s Close-Up, Werner Herzog’s Aguirre the Wrath of God, Tarkovsky’s Stalker and the likes.
Well, I agree a great film only needs the essence of greatness not the 200 million dollars support to be good. But when the technology becomes cheaper, and most directors have access to it, then we can anticipate something unique appearing somewhere.
If I was in country like UK, I would be 24/7 in cinemas or concert halls, no doubt! Provided that they don’t close down the indie small cinemas…. Even if they do close down all the good ones, there’s still a difference between there and here: When I buy a DVD film, Im a criminal! Because Im carrying something not approved by clerics.
Im thankful for an internet age when I can pursue my love for cinema and overcome the obstacles of such a totalitarian government.
There are very few independent cinemas in the UK. For example there are none in my home city of Coventry. I think Birmingham has one and Nottingham has one. And obviously a few more in London and Bristol. But it is not as good as you may think.
There is a great Iranian filmmaker I like called Mohammad-Ali Talebi; in particular his films Kiseye Berendj (Bag of Rice) and Chakmeh (The Boot). Have you seen them? I am not sure how easy it is to view his films however.
Oh and yeah, I understand what you guys are saying about 3D. Give it time.
I guess I’ve seen Chakmeh years ago. His films are too minimalistic right?
I think we need to have more independent cinemas everywhere.
Watching Bela Tarr or Tarkovsky in 3D would be a bit silly.
But there is nothing wrong about HD, that’s just a higher defintion.
@Keyser: Unless you rise Tarkovsky from dead you can’t expect him to do something in 3D.
Being against HD and 3D is regressive. Cinema has always been about creating illusions, and new techniques help to perfect them. Sure, there are lots of awful 3D movies right now, but in the hands of the right director it can be a powerful tool. It’s the next step for film-making, like adding colour 70 years ago.
I’M NOT HERE-GUY: What are you talking about? The chinese is already on the way to make Casablanca, 2001 and a lots of other classics in 3D. I don’t know exactly how they will do it, but…
@A. Leonard
Technology is not always a successful way to improve things. So now we have internet, to improve “communication”. The result? People talking a bunch of bullshit because it’s anonymous, and people not communicating one on one in real life.
Right. But stupid people wouldn’t be less obnoxious if you’d deny them access to technology.
I like your reply Jesse. A reply Antonioni would relate to. I understand that my opinions may seem to be ‘regressive’, as A. Leonard puts it, but I feel we are trying to achieve too many technical achievements too soon. As Keyser Soze writes about the Chinese remaking classic films in 3D, I doubt many people still to this day understand what 2001: A Space Odyssey is about. In fact, I believe that remaking it into 3D will be the perfect reflection of the original point of the film. We simply feel the need to get bigger and better, without adapting mentally.
We are still in the early days of cinema; it is still a very young medium. It saddens me to think people aren’t watching The Bicycle Thieves or Last Year in Marienbad unless they’re sprinkled with this Blu-Ray magic. I love seeing the grain and dirt. Maybe it’s just my own personal tastes. I just think it reflects a shallow impression of the isolated times we live in. We may advance in many ways digitally, but we’ll still always live a lonely life.
So watching movies on badly copied tapes would make us less lonely? I’m not exactly an optimist who believes in technology, I just can’t see what’s wrong with higher picture quality. 2nd: 99% percent of the people wouldn’t watch Last Year in Marienbad anyway, because they’re idiots. Get over it.
Well then if people are idiots I guess I’ll just shut up and stop making films…
There is no reason to think that movies shot on celluloid are better than those shot on Hi-Def.
Celluloid, naturally, has a longer tradition and therefore a greater number of classic works. But most filmmakers are choosing Hi-Def for a number of reasons including cost, aesthetic reasons or it’s easier to deal with because it is the standard now.
Time’s change. It’s not a big deal. Artists always rise to the top with work in a new[er] medium. I’m pretty sure that if Kubrick were still alive he would embrace Hi-Def. And he probably would have considered 3-D now that it is getting better and has a brighter future than it did in the 1950’s.
Great cinema will always exist. But if for some reason all movies start to suck we still have 100 years worth of great stuff to enjoy. And, yes, in some cases it will be on our Hi-Def TV’s or on our iPads etc. I say as long as people are trying to see quality films it doesn’t matter how they see them.
[And personally I like Bicycle Thieves and other classic films to look as good as they did the day they opened, which Hi-Def attempts to recreate. Dirt on a print may add a lustre to an old film but it is never the director’s intention].
@Keyser: Chinese better execute less people than to turn some old movie into 3D.
I would’ve not be surprised by the colors and aspect of Pierrot le fou, or 2001 if they would’ve been filmed with a Hi-Def camera; these cameras somehow take the cinematographer’s credit and give it to technology.
And no, I have not seen these films on Blu-ray.
Joseph Wallace
Are we going crazy with high-definition and 3D, and missing the point of cinema entirely?
The attention seems to be focused solely on image quality, rather than subject matter, story and any other real technique of filmmaking. It is a sad thing that people seem to want films to watch on their iPods and phones. More people want home cinema systems, to hide away and stop sharing the experience. Where are we going?
It won’t be long until there is a Spotify equivalent for film; where every film is available to watch online, legally. Mubi – for example – is one. But here’s what we shouldn’t forget: the power of the recommendation and the greatness of conversation.
In this great technical revolution (which, by the way, won’t last too long before it kills itself), don’t forget where the real films are. Those filmed with celluloid, telling stories that aren’t quick to cut to the next shallow image. Films which stay alive – not because they’re high-def – but because they’re high in intelligence and craft.
My question is this: Why have 3D when we can’t even understand what the last 100 odd years of cinema has been saying? Do I feel the themes of 2001: A Space Odyssey? You bet.