These are awesome.
hey why not
Let’s go for it!
We heart Pat Healy! Cheap Thrills is out in the UK this Friday, and we can’t wait!
I heart you right back! xoxo PH
From an actor’s point of view it doesn’t feel significantly different, honestly. I guess lower budget productions can shoot more takes than they could have on film. I haven’t noticed any difference. It takes just as long to set up shots and shoot scenes. I guess if it’s different at all, it’s in how it looks which doesn’t affect the work I do but makes it harder to watch. It just doesn’t look as good. There’s something about the way well-lit and shot film captures a performance that seems more immediate and real.
From a cinephile’s point of view, I think it stinks. I think there are many advantages to digital for low-budget features but nothing can replicate the look and feel of film. This decision by the major chains and studios to go to all digital projection is a debacle. Not only is most digital projection largely inferior, there is no system in place to preserve and archive digital material. It has a short shelf life and won’t be around forever. Yes, film decays but there are many restoration systems and archives in place to preserve it. The same can’t be said for digital. People who think it will be around ‘forever’ haven’t done their homework.
I don’t want to sound like an old fart still pining for vinyl over MP3s but any real cineaste prefers the real thing. I have seen some very good digital projection and for some films the medium fits the style of the directors and storytellers making movies(CHEAP THRILLS is a good example of this, although I’m sure Evan Katz would have loved to shoot on film if he could have). And digital restorations and projections of movies shot on film can look amazing. But anyone who thinks digital projection of things shot digitally is superior has their head up their ass. There is no reason for it other than cost. The studios save mucho dinero not having to create and ship thousands of prints around the world. The theatre chains don’t have to hire projectionists. They just have to push a button. Like Quentin Tarantino said, people are fine with paying a lot of money to watch television in public. I’m not one of them. I still try to see as much film as possible which, sadly, is less and less. By next year, no studio will make prints. Some filmmakers and exhibitors are still fighting the good fight. I know we will never go back to strictly film exhibition but why not have both? Why not give people the option? Many directors still insist on shooting on film. Surely it will be much less prints to create and ship. And people will turn up for it. Just ask the folks who run the revival houses that I attend regularly: Attendance for 35 and 70MM films is huge. Don’t tell me there is no market for it. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. People still want it.
Sorry, I know this wasn’t what you were asking. It just set me off!
If it was a good script and part, of course I would!
I guess it just depends on how it’s used and how good the movie is. I suppose you could consider the imagery in GODZILLA ‘9/11 inspired’ but it didn’t occur to me or upset me because that’s what happens in Godzilla movies for the past 60 years(all of which were inspired by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and it all feels like it’s in the spirit of fun.
However, I found the 9/11 inspired imagery in MAN OF STEEL to be thoroughly depressing. Maybe because the movie was no fun and took itself so seriously. Maybe because it was SO similar to the images we all witnessed that day from New York City used in the service of a story about a guy who wears a cape and underwear outside of his pants. And maybe because even though we saw no dead bodies, it could be safely presumed that millions were killed in the destruction of every building in the city. In general, I find the violence in PG-13 movies way more destructive than the violence in R rated movies because rarely are there any consequences shown. David Cronenberg famously called Ted Turner out years ago for not wanting to release his film CRASH because it dealt with people sexually aroused by car accidents(people who were dealing with the physical and emotional trauma of said accidents) while he aired rerun after rerun of THE DUKES OF HAZZARD on his TBS network. Episodes of car upon car being demolished in accidents without a single human injury to be found. Which is a more responsible depiction?
I really don’t think I have a problem with anything being done as a rule. It all depends on the context it’s used in and, perhaps most importantly, the spirit in which I feel it is intended.
I have never been offended(and I can’t think of a single person on earth who has ever said they have been) by Mel Brooks’ THE PRODUCERS and its play-within-the-movie ‘Springtime For Hitler.’ In fact, it is one of the single most hilarious things ever committed to film. Don Rickles has been doing comedy since the 1950’s. I have been to his show where he makes fun of every single racial group, gays, the handicapped and anyone that could possibly be offended. And yet, no one ever complains. To the contrary, many of those people are in attendance and are crying tears of laughter along with the rest of us. We somehow sense Rickles’ heart is in the right place.
The use of the imagery at the end of MAN OF STEEL feels like a cynical attempt to stir emotion in a film that is not worthy of it. Not just because the film is not very good but because it’s about an alien from another planet who can fly and fights mega villains in front of a SEARS. It’s inappropriate. I’m not ‘offended,’ but the end result is highly oppressive and depressing to me.
When I experience a piece of art and/or entertainment, I often feel the authorship or personality of the voice(or voices) behind it and gauge, from my perspective at least, where I feel the creator’s heart is at in the matter. I have nothing to go on but my instinct but I get a very strong feeling when I see something about what the artist’s intent is. I can only speak for myself.
I really feel you can do or say anything if your heart is in the right place. If people are offended by that, they are entitled to those feelings.
I experienced some of this when we made COMPLIANCE and certain people complained that we were exploitation artists. That we used real people’s pain and suffering to make a piece of titillation. But I know where our hearts were and what we were trying to do. Those people are welcome to their opinions but at the end of the day they are just that: Their opinions.
And all of the above is just my opinion so take it as you will. Thanks for asking about my thoughts on the matter.
Cinematographer Gordon Willis, 1931-2014.
Chris McCoy recently spoke with the rarely interviewed Willis; the conversation appears in the May 2014 issue of The Believer.
"Woody actually contacted me a few years ago. He wanted to do something in New York. I said, ‘I’m sorry, my eyesight is now at a point where I can’t do it for you.’ I said, ‘All women look beautiful to me now.’"
(Images from The Godfather, The Parallax View, All the President’s Men, Annie Hall, Manhattan, Pennies from Heaven, and Broadway Danny Rose.)
R.I.P. Gordy, The Prince of Darkness
THE INNKEEPERS, shot in 2010 on beautiful 35MM.
I worked with Mr. Bale for several weeks every day and I found him to be a lovely man. Kind and generous. Funny and, of course, talented as all get-out. It pissed me off when the tape of him ranting from the TERMINATOR: SUCKASS set came out because we’ve all had those days and I’m sure having to work with McG and not Werner Herzog would make me scream like that too.