21st Century Movie Making
In my review on Monday of Michael Mann's big screen version of his epochal 1980s TV series, I wrote:
I had a few big disapointments of my own with the film. First, its cinematography. Or, to be more prescise, videography. Whereas the original Vice set new standards for television cinematography, many of the scenes in this movie looked like television blown-up for the big screen. Indeed, when I got home, I searched around to find that Mann shot the film with a Thomson Viper FilmStream Camera--and it really shows. Despite all their shortcomings, George Lucas's digitally "filmed" Star Wars prequels all look like films. And when I go out to the movies, I want to see movies, or at least something that resembles the warmth and sheen of projected celluloid. Not digital, pixelated HD blown-up to the big screen.Chris Anderson, the author of The Long Tail, notes some additional benefits when shooting digitally:
"I think shooting in digital changes acting as much as film changed stage acting, or as sound changed film," said [actor/director Tony Bill].OK, I will: geez, shades of how Howard Hughes was portrayed in The Avaitor--or maybe Sterling Hayden in Dr. Strangelove.
But precious bodily fluids aside, those are some great observations about shooting digitally. And, as Libertas frequently notes, digital filmmaking opens the door to everyone--even those Hollywood would generally like to keep out.
Since 2002, News, Technology and Pop Culture, 24 Hours a Day, Live and in Stereo!
(And every Saturday on Sirius XM Satellite Radio.)
What They're Saying
"Just this week, the McCain camp released an ad that looked astonishingly similar to a parody ad created by blogger Ed Driscoll, which combined Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's famous '3 AM' ad with a second segment telling viewers that Mr. McCain also could be relied upon to respond to a crisis situation." --The Washington Times, September 5, 2008
Support the Site
Site design by
Copyright © 2002-2008 Edward B. Driscoll, Jr. All Rights Reserved