Saturday 24 May 2014

Tarantino and the Death of Cinema



Recently at Cannes 2014 Tarantino made a speech about the death of cinema as he knew it. Our current generation deemed “hopeless” due to our obsession with digital film. He went on to comment that digital projection in cinemas was just television in public. “As far as I am concerned digital projection is the death of cinema.” He continued; “I’m hopeful that we’re going through a woozy, romantic period with the ease of digital, and I’m hoping that while this generation is completely hopeless, the next generation will come out and demand the real thing.”

He did concede that digital equipment is making it easier for young tenacious filmmakers to get their movies made. But questioned why established filmmakers would even bother with digital.

It isn't surprising Tarantino feels this way. It echoes the thoughts of filmmakers like Spielberg and Cinematographers like Wally Pfister.

There is a lot of inherent craft lost by not using film. From a Cinematographers point of view - the greats had to know and understand everything. For example how the colour temperature of the lights would react with a particular film stock. What it would look like without being able to see the results.

Most people don’t know that on a film camera there is no way to see the film being exposed as it is shot. The Director's monitor is only a video feed that is recorded in a separate part of the camera. This is what is used for the Director to see what is happening live and to see playback of a shot. The film itself doesn’t leave the camera until the reel ends. Lets compound the difficulty further. The Camera Operator often does not focus the camera themselves. Cameras are too big. How does the Focus Puller see when a shot is in focus? They don’t. Its done with measuring tapes and experience. No one on set knows weather a shot was in focus until the dailies are screened the next day.

It all sounds crazy doesn't it? This is how films have been shot for close to 100 years.

Digital is different. Results are instant. The monitors are a direct representation of what is happening through the lens. Focus Pullers can have their own mini monitor. There are video villages with all departments seeing exactly what is happening on screen as it is captured.


I would agree; the craft of this classic kind of filmmaking will be lost in time. I’m not sure this is what Tarantino is referring to though. I think he’s talking about aesthetic. This agreement has been going on since digital started to encrouch onto film's turf. This is a different form of the argument. One I have never heard before.

To call digital projection in cinemas "extended television" makes no logical sense to me.

I was lucky enough this week to see Pulp Fiction as part of its 20th anniversary. Not on the beach at Cannes but at my local Cine World. The screen was packed with people. The atmosphere was electric and the film, like a fine wine had only got better with age. People laughed, winced and screamed at this masterpiece of cinema… but not because it was on film. At no point was that a consideration. When it won at Cannes in 1994 everything Pulp Fiction was competing against was shot on film. It didn’t standout because it was a 35mm print. It stood out because it was brilliant. Brilliant dialogue, editing and acting. None of this was enhanced by being shot on film.

Tarantino’s rationale raises a question. All the TV shows that were shot on film - were they in fact cinema? It makes no sense. Are Directors like David Fincher not making cinema because they shoot on RED? Is Roger Deakins no longer an artist because he favours the Arri Alexa?

Tarantino has fascinating insights into cinema but that one left me a little confused.

Now I was going to the cinema to watch Days Of Future Past, but apparently all I was going to do was watch an extended tv show in somebody's living room, but pay for the privilege.  

No comments:

Post a Comment