There is nothing inherently wrong with digital screening, on big and small screen, I agree with that Edwin, and purist celluloid lovers alone won't do anything about this inevitable transformation of the industry. I don't think cinema loses its soul by embracing the digital industrialisation either. Nobody regrets the vinyl now that music is ubiquitous on CDs and MP3s. Conversely, we'll forget celluloid was the original medium, just like we're no longer shocked that the movies have sound and colours.
Even I, purist of the film strip projection on a big screen, know that the essence of cinema isn't there. The affection for this typical film aesthetic is only fetishism.
I wish digital would become the dominant format for the mainstream industry and celluloid would stay the privilege of hardcore cinephiles...
What annoys me most is the way this transition will operate. With the uniformity of the digital filmmaking and exhibition, it will make celluloid a luxury, and only the wealthy studios will be able to afford it. Big budget mainstream movies have already adopted the whole digital apparatus and aesthetic seamlessly. Their filmmakers and audience don't care much for this nostalgic touch particular to chemical colours and celluloid grain. Old arthouses, which can't afford the upgrade to the brand new digital projector, will stick around long after all the multiplexes will have switched. But if artfilms struggle today to get made on 35mm and screened on a number of film prints (which is already more costly than the digital process), it will become even more expensive and less accessible to small budget auteurs when most labs will abandon the marginalized chemical process.
The major progress brought in by the digital era is of course the widespread of DVDs. Finally movies become as handy for the common man as pocket books. Films used to be the exclusive property of corporations and institutions, either studios or private theatres, because they only existed in reels which require an expensive equipment to project. So a film was visible only when an exhibitor or eventually a television decided to show it. Now the movie lovers can buy a copy for multiple viewing at their discretion. This is big enough a step forward for the accessibility and the popularisation of film culture to overlook the fetishism for celluloid grains.
And the advantage official DVD distributors will keep over the pirate market, is that they can certify the integrity of the film version. With a pirate copy we'll never know if some scenes or frames haven't been removed, modified, censored, replaced by others, mashed-up...So demanding customers will always come back to reliable sources, and film critics should emphasize this quality control, just like they scrutinize authentic director's cuts and dubious foreign cuts circulating in the world.
***PARTICIPANT COMMENTS***
regarding your last paragraph, Harry, I've become increasingly dubious about "authentic director's cuts", which in the DVD era seems to have devolved into a marketing ploy. I think the umpteenth version of Terrence Malick's THE NEW WORLD tipped me off.
Such concepts as "authenticity" and "integrity" are going to be subject to serious reconsideration as digital production, re-production and distribution further softens the boundaries between "creator" and "consumer" - but given that creators such as Malick are already compromising "authenticity" for the sake of extending consumption (under the guise of presenting a newly received vision, like Eli Sunday behind the pulpit), it's just as well.
Yes you have a point there. In a market already over saturated by new releases and oldies on new DVD releases, or revamped originals (Lucas-style)... we don't need them in a dozen version each.
But maybe we shouldn't be so attached to the singularity of an artwork. I remember Geoffrey Cheshire making a similar argument in his famous 1999 piece called "The Death of Film, The Decay of Cinema" (curiously not available online anymore). Who is to say, though, that a film can only exist in one version? And will you certify only the one approved by the Studio?
A theatre play is unique at every new performance, and theatre critics don't need to watch them all before evaluating it. They accept perfectly that what they saw doesn't necessarily reflect the subtle changes happening during cast replacements and ad-libs.
I think film critics can live with multiple versions in an era where the video medium become so versatile and interactive, both for filmmakers and for viewers.