I made this all by myself.
Thanks! I think it’s pretty swell myself. Let’s continue to build our army of CHEAP THRILLS atomic supermen! And women!
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!