Vittorio Storaro, Caravaggio, Film

[krd]

Kodaks' in-house publication, InCamera, features an interview with Vittorio Storaro, about his latest film, Caravaggio (www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/). Among other things, he says:

"In general, I think that negative film is much more sensitive than the technicians say; at least there is the possibility of recording the emotions of people who participate in the construction of the images themselves. Looking at an image projected on a large or small screen, it is possible to feel the harmony or conflict experienced by those who contributed to creating a specific project. I maintain that the sensitivity of a filming system is not exclusively related to the technological level, but also to the intangible possibility of registering emotions. I believe this is a specific characteristic pertaining especially to negative film."

The absence of that "specific characteristic" probably won't impede the progress of D-cinema, not even for Storaro, and Graeme insists that once somebody quantifies that characteristic he can replicate it. But there could still be something worthwhile lost, in the transition to digital -- an object of nostalgia maybe, and in the long-run forgotten, but regrettable....

Or has this horse already been beaten to death?

[David Mullen ASC]

Storaro isn't against digital cinema -- he was one of the first users of Italy's hi-def technology back in the 1980's -- he's just pro film. When he uses a digital camera (perhaps the RED) that does everything he wants it to do, he'll embrace it, but even then, it won't mean he'll reject film either. Film doesn't have to lose for RED to win.

[krd]

In practice, though, isn't it pretty much one or the other? He'll have a choice, for the rest of his career, as will a few others in and out of Hollywood, but even now labs are struggling to stay in business and Kodak has been losing money for years. And most producers don't love film.

I don't know if negative can really capture the emotions of the filmmakers, but if so, that transference may not be long for this world.

[donatello b]

i don't think it is one or the other ...
in general, i see those that don't have access to shoot film tend to think it is one or the other.
those that have access to both choose depending on project ....
camera, media etc & project you work on are all a choice ( depending on $)

[Sanjin Jukic]

In the future projects when you need a film stock sensitivity you shoot with film and the rest of your project is a place for RED to shoot.

That's the formula.

Also we would need that Storaro test RED as soon as possible.

[Jason Murphy]

Let's not forget here that there were arguments for many years after photography itself began that it was not an art form, and was much more of a cold, soul-less mechanical process, and it was nothing compared to using paints and pigments to capture the soul or emotional core of a person in an image (despite complaints that the camera stole your soul).

Some of these arguments are being used again for digital image acquisition (also digital music), and I while I do sympathize, my hunch is that much of this is nostalgia-driven; we like what we're used to, and what we grew up with. The film and digital image are not the same; they don't have the same feel, and for someone who's been used to film for most of their lives, the digital image can feel really strange, and sometimes cold and soulless.

On a side note, I recall reading an interview with Storaro being quite positive about what DALSA were doing with their Origin; I imagine that he would feel similarly about RED. Also, it helps to remember that Kodak's magazine is there to help Kodak sell their film stock, and this is going to be the way that 'discussions' in the magazine are skewed.

And while I in principle agree with David Mullen that widespread access to high quality digital acquisition won't necessarily mean the death of film, practically speaking, I think KRD is right about the end result, particularly once widespread digital distribution is in place. I mean, who shoots 35mm stills anymore? Pretty much nobody, not even the professionals. Hell, even medium format film's market is largely eroded. So most likely, motion picture film will become a high-end niche medium for artists and film fetishists with a large amount of money (i.e. major studio backing) and an inordinate love of the film image, much of which will likely be lost anyway when packaged for digital distribution.

Much like 16mm is now. What used to be the major format of independent, avant-garde and experimental filmmakers, is really only being kept alive by the NFL's stubborn insistence on shooting games on Super 16. And now, at the NYFF avant-garde sidebar last year, there were only a very small number of movies that were on film; almost everything made within the last few years was video. Film is already almost completely dead in that world, it seems, with the exception of works by one or two wonderfully stubborn filmmakers.

I'm not too thrilled about it, but let's face it, this will more than likely be fate of 35mm in the not too distant future. Once distribution goes digital, the price of 35mm will likely skyrocket, and by that time, people will be thinking 'eh, good enough' about digital acquisition, especially if cameras like the RED make a big splash, which they show every indication of doing.

EDIT: Maybe 65mm and IMAX will be what keeps film alive and set apart from digital cinema, who knows? I'd love to see more films made like that, unlikely though it may seem.

[Costelloe Michael]

How many of the people who reply to this thread or comment on Storaro's opinions have been in the position where they shoot film and see into the shadows whilst in digital formats they have to light the dark areas to avoid noise?

Let us be realistic about the ability of film and digital acquisition. I have two Red cameras on order and I would shoot 35mm film vs Red any day. I would however rather shoot Red than any DCT system from what I have seen so far. Film may well be dead, long live Film! :ohmy:

Mike C

[donatello b]

(film) "only being kept alive by the NFL's stubborn insistence on shooting games on Super 16"

super 8 has been called dead so many times over the past 15 years and i still see it's around with new stocks .... i passed by a car commercial shoot last week and they had 6 16mm camera's at location ...