Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Films/DVD Asylum

Re: Well, listening to Werner Herzog speak was a treat (to say nothing of seeing Aguirre and Fitz on the big screen).

69.136.244.80

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

Victor Khomenko

In Reply to: Well, listening to Werner Herzog speak was a treat (to say nothing of seeing Aguirre and Fitz on the big screen). posted by sjb on March 25, 2007 at 08:08:14:

Sounds like a fun evening, and several things he said ring true.
The stuff about the digital is not significant... it is transitionary and artists will learn to use it. Not everyone is Ridley Scott and not every film from now on will be digital garbage like the Gladiator. Each time new technologies come along people tend to badmouth it... remember the introduction of sound? It was supposed to kill the films.
I like hit dark corners analogy, and I like his statement that "people shouldn't focus on the stories of making the films but on the films themsleves", which is a bit ironic, as he was there doing just that, but he gets forgiveness - he is, after all, an artists, and their art should be appreciated, while very few of them can say anything worthwhile.

Follow Ups:

Are you saying Gladiator was DV? Are you sure? nt - clarkjohnsen 09:27:15 03/26/07 (3)
s
- I don't know what DV is - Victor Khomenko 09:34:20 03/26/07 (2)
  What I know is they created a lot of images digitally. Whether these were then put on film or not is completely irrelevant, in my view. To me the carrier is not really important, it is what and how it is done.
  - Digital Video. It's what's replacing celluloid. CGI is different. Hate 'em both. nt - clarkjohnsen 09:58:22 03/26/07 (1)
    s
    - No, I figured out that much... - Victor Khomenko 10:30:55 03/26/07 (0)
      My point was with the Gladiator it mattered none whether it was celluloid or hard drive, it was a digital garbage.
      I don't know why one should hate the digital format... it is getting close to the point where it will equal the film performance. I understand hating while it is still developing, like the early DVD's, but these are just the growing pains.
      I am not gonna start another dispute on whether the film is analog or digital.
Re: Well, listening to Werner Herzog speak was a treat (to say nothing of seeing Aguirre and Fitz on the big screen). - sjb 09:21:38 03/25/07 (0)
I liked the dark corners analogy as well... probably my favorite thing that he said. I'm certainly not against self knowledge but I think we know ourselves much more by living... by how we react to the twists and turns and challenges then by probing inwardly and trying to illuminate those dark corners (though I believe that has it's place... as depicted in Wild Strawberries).
It's like everything though when taken to it's extreme (I must learn everything about myself... illuminate every dark corner is as bad as I don't want/need to know anything about myself and won't try to illuminate anything).
I agree that digital filmamakers will adapt and there will be plenty of worthwhile films made (there are some good one's already) and that, of course, digital film making is not the same as a film with digital effects.

Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
Agreement, Vic, but I don't think his being present for the films - tinear 08:59:29 03/25/07 (3)
is contradictory: I think he's referring to the overimportance of the adventure quality of making the film, you know, how the film about making "Apolcalypse Now" has become almost as known as the film itself.
Regarding digital: I'd agree with Herzog.
See that movie and you sense the realness of it. Now, watch "Private Ryan" or some other modern film--"Gladiator"--and it's clear that you're seeing a digital image. No matter how cleverly they try to disguise it, it looks phony as hell. I don't know it it's going to get much better, either, since it's been already quite some time without much improvement.
- I don't think there is something inherent in digital that kills art - Victor Khomenko 09:08:07 03/25/07 (2)
  While I absolutely hate what is being done digitally today, I also believe this is a temporary phenomenon. Sound, color, TV, etc all had been proclaimed at one point or another to kill the spirit of the movies, and yet all eventually tamed to enhance our experience. Today we have the generation of directors not capable of using the digital properly, but that will change. Some of us old farts will lament the departure of celluloid, but just like with color, you can have it done perfectly and to your advantage, or you can have Turner colorization. Beaut Travail would not be a great film without its colors.
  Of course I am not talking about that abomination commonly called "special effects". Those who love them deserve what they get, we are talking about the fact that most films will be done in digital format in some not too distant future.
  - I agree about Herzogs "Hillary at Everest" analogy - grinagog 18:39:49 03/25/07 (0)
    In the abscence of a stand-in, a digital avatar, a blue screen backdrop and Industrial Light and Magic, or the possibility of a 2nd take, Ms.Gish test drives her thermal underwear
    Grins
  - I, of course, sublimated fx for digital. OOps. nt - tinear 09:34:11 03/25/07 (0)
    as

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.

You can not post to an archived thread.