Thanks to Hollywood Elsewhere for pointing out this Wall Street Journal interview with True Grit cinematographer Roger Deakins in which he makes the following declarative statement:
“This year or next will see more or less the end of film… It’s been a long time coming, really. Film has had a good run.”
Deakins just finished shooting Andrew Niccols’s Now and used a digital camera for the first time and admits he “was quite taken with it.” Deakins said as much an in interview at In Contention back in December saying, “I’m really pleased with the results I’m getting… it’s going to open up a few possibilities.”
This reminds me of a comment Quentin Tarantino made back in December 2009 in a director’s roundtable when he was asked about a long term plan and said, “I intend to quit at 60. And I’m going to do exactly what [Jean Renoir] did. I’m going to write novels and cinema literature, stuff like that.” He then added, “If it actually gets to the place where you can’t show 35mm film in theaters any more and everything is digital projection, I won’t even make it to 60.”
Tarantino elaborated further talking to Sight and Sound almost a year earlier. When asked if he could imagine himself making a film like Sin City he said:
I would have thought not. I’m not a fan of digital. And I sound like I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth when it comes to Robert. When Robert does it, it’s great. That’s where Robert is coming from. He just wants to do everything himself and digital allows him to do that. Why would you hire a cinematographer? If you’re doing a digital movie it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. All you need to do is look to the screen to see if you like it. Gaffer do this, do that… you could be your own cinematographer. No cinematographer should be promoting digital. It makes them as obsolete as a dodo bird. But in the case of Sin City, and probably 300, you know you could never have made those movies on film.
To me 97 per cent of the use of digital is laziness. They are trying to make it easier on themselves, and it shows. If you don’t care enough about your movie to shoot it yourself, I don’t care enough about it enough to see it. But in those cases where they are creating a whole new cinematic landscape, I can’t be churlish about that. I’ve got to give it up. It adds another possibility in which to tell stories, and create pictures. But normally, even with, say, what David Fincher used in Zodiac, I think what the fuck is that about? I found it more interesting in my brain than I did watching it. I thought Apocalypto was a masterpiece. Then I found out he did it in digital and it lessened the effort for me. Using this Mount Everest analogy again, the mountain got smaller and the achievement was a little less.
Meanwhile, in the comment section at Ain’t It Cool News (via Slash Film), there’s word Tarantino is quietly putting his next film together… If everything goes digital is it possible it will be his last?
No matter how you look at it, we may be saying a found farewell to the grainy thickness of film replaced by the sleeker appearance of digital images. Do you have an opinion one way or another?
