Power of Story: The Art of Film with Christopher Nolan, Colin Trevorrow, and Rachel Morrison
Video Statistics and Information
No captions available for this video.
Channel: Sundance Institute
Views: 93,002
Rating: 4.910543 out of 5
Keywords: Sundance, Sundance Film Festival, 2016, Art of Film, Power of Story, Alex Ross Perry, Christopher Nolan, Colin Trevorrow
Id: wr6NdyP4y-k
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 89min 21sec (5361 seconds)
Published: Thu Jan 28 2016
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
I think the reason for much of their defensiveness towards the film and digital debate is because out of the two only one of those is in danger of dying and being discarded from use by the major studios.
I understand that there is a need to defend the use of film from the business-minded executives who seek to phase it out.
Film should always have a place at the table. It's incredibly important that filmmakers have the choice between what tool is best for their story. So it's a shame that this mostly just feels like filmmakers (who I admire) riding their nostalgia into a giant circle-jerk.
I loved loved loved that The Force Awakens was shot on film. It gave a tangibility to the image that made it feel more alive. But when Trevorrow and Nolan say they can't suspend their disbelief with "video", I really just want Emmanuel Lubezki to come in and give some much needed perspective.
And the whole "video" thing ... The fact that they continuously call it that in an attempt to cheapen the digital format is another frustrating part of the discussion. The whole "film vs digital debate" is a tired one, but sound off with your thoughts if you have any to share. Discussion starts around the 30-minute mark.
so much hate, u do realize that film was nearly dead before these guys saved it. it's not a matter of them being jerks for looking down on digital, and nobody is trying to stop dslr, they are trying to equalize film vs red and alexa cameras that can cost $50k plus. It's not the kids just starting out that are the issue. the other point is that everyone still wants a film look, so there are people who go in and try to make it look like film, how asinine is that? Why can't we just have film if that's what people want to shoot on? These guys are preserving film, and someday you might want to shoot film, but if it wasn't for them you would be out of luck. Maybe take a second to think about it before jumping down their throats.
had to turn this off at the hour mark, couldn't stand listening to Trevorrow, jesus that guy is pretentious. C'mon you directed Jurassic World, shut up.
I'm not going to watch the video, because I'm over the "debate". It is a medium choice. And, at this point I think we should say it is a professional's medium. 5 year olds are taught to paint with watercolor or cheap finterpaints.
When I was in high school, I was taught with charcoal and chalk. Never, ever even in undergraduate did any of my professors attempt to jump into the first day of making art with oil on canvas. I've seen fantastic watercolor, and I've seen Digital work that I THOUGHT was film. As a side note, each of those was a British television program.
Digital is a medium, and it is mostly affordable by the masses. Film is a finite medium that is also affordable, but the masses demand quantity because they are not experts yet, and some are even fearful because they have never had anything other than instant gratification and don't want to trust the system.
You can choose your medium. But until Kodak, or someone else, gives consumers a mass affordable way to purchase and process film at prices that are competitive, it will remain a professional medium. Because film is a finite resource, it will always me "more expensive" than digital acquisition.
Perhaps the question should be why so much edge enhancement, sharpness and other "non-film" elements are built into digital? Why is mass media teaching consumers that 60i video with the sharpness turned all the way up is "better"? Why do digital artists continue to add elements of film BACK INTO THEIR WORK?
I'm not in Nolans head but maybe that's true. And not being able to believe (at least partially) what your seeing is a huge problem. It doesn't bother me but my tastes aren't everyone's.
Whatever tells the story best and stays out of the way.
Nothing else matters.
Same kind of thing happens in music — like anyone but musicians care how the fuck it was made.
Some of the biggest filmmakers in Hollywood want to preserve film, and you reduce it down to "nostalgia and reasons"? Get over it. Personally I am thrilled that some major players are keeping film alive, because if it wasn't for the efforts of people like Nolan or Tarantino or PTA, film really would be dead, and that would be a tragedy. Film absolutely has a place and a filmmaker should always have the choice if their budgets allows. Personally I still think 35mm looks superior to digital, but of course i'm not in a place to be able to afford 35 right now.
A: There is almost no difference visually between film and digital (and as we progress further the difference will diminish)
B: Who are we to argue with Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino about the medium they want to use? These directors are great because they give everything for their craft.
Have you ever seen a professional play a sport against "a guy that is really good" that you know? It's like beating up a toddler. That's because they have moved past the fundamentals and are functioning with awareness that "the really good guy" and the rest of us can't perceive.
Most people look at an iphone shot of their kid and say "Isn't that a good photo?" No, it isn't, but they can't perceive the difference unless it's side-by-side with a professional's work.