web counter
 

You Better Start Swimmin' Or You'll Sink Like A Stone: Investigate The Future Of Movies In The Side By Side Trailer

By Rob Payne | Posted Under Trailers | Comments (9)

pajibasidebysidekeanutrailer.jpg

Side By Side is a documentary that will be premiering at the Berlin Film Festival next month, and it follows Hollywood actor Keanu Reeves as he interviews Hollywood filmmakers about the future of movies. Directed by Chris Kenneally, the doc seems to want to pose the ultimate cinematic question, which is the better medium: film or digital video? On one side of the divide you have Aliens, Abyss, and Avatar director James Cameron (as well as George Lucas, Steven Soderbergh, Robert Rodriguez, and David Lynch) and on the other side you have The Dark Knight, The Prestige, and Inception director Christopher Nolan (not to mention cinematographer Wally Pfister and a sense of the traditional like those who still prefer vinyl).

It’s a worthwhile debate if you have any interest in the technological aspects of movies and where innovation is taking the art-form, but I have a feeling Side By Side is going to be heavily weighted in favor of one position. And it’s not necessarily the wrong one. Take a look at the trailer and see what you think:

Side by Side Official Trailer (2012) from Company Films on Vimeo.

One thing I’ll say for certain, I’m not a fan of some of the new televisions that remove any blur from a moving image, whether it was originally created digitally or not. The human eye simply doesn’t work that way, and so the final product looks inherently unreal to our minds, thus forcing a separation from the viewer that takes them out of the fictional space they’re meant to experience. From that aspect, the pursuit of digital perfection misses the point of why film itself is such a successful medium. But personally, in terms of the future of the art, I’m with Martin Scorsese. There’s room enough for both film and digital in the movie making business, and it’s up to the artists to use them effectively.

Really, though, I can’t help but think of Bob Dylan:

(The Playlist via /Film)


Rob Payne also writes the indie comic The Unstoppable Force, tweets on the Twitter @RobOfWar, and his ware can be purchased here (if you’re into that sort of thing). He hates any and all 3-D, and hopes the real future of movies lie in IMAX and theaters that serve beer, preferably both at the same time.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card | Haywire Review: Middleweight →









Comments

With most things in life I can't help but think of Dylan.

This, however:

'it follows Hollywood actor Keanu Reeves as he interviews Hollywood filmmakers about the future of movies'

is very odd.

It seems strange to me that Keanu Reeves, a man who - as far as he knows - has never acted in a film in his life (as we're all aware that film makers simply build sets and construct elaborate scenarios around Keanu while he's asleep and then secretly film the results) has now been called upon to interview people about an art form that he has no idea exists.

Posted by: zeke the pig at January 20, 2012 10:09 AM

Why does one have to be better than the other? One medium might be preferable over the other depending on the story you want to tell and the aesthetic you want to convey, but I don't think one necessarily has to be the "best".

Of course, if you don't have decent writing, acting, and directing, whether you choose film or digital video isn't going to mean shit.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at January 20, 2012 10:22 AM

About 10 maybe 12 years ago I said, "Digital will never be as good as film". I have a degree in photography and carried it over to Photoshop. But I still miss being in the darkroom. Film canisters, developing 4 x 5 film listening to my Walkman. But, digital is pretty awesome. I am even a little envious of photo students now. I had to turn in 3 contact sheets each week. That involved buying film, chemicals, and photo paper, not to mention several hours in the darkroom. I love the smell of fixer in the morning.

Digital is better, it is easier to manipulate, it is less expensive, you have the immediate gratification of knowing you got your shot. But the first chance I get to build my own darkroom, I sure as hell will... providing you can still find chemicals and paper and film. I even own a film camera, it is old and clunky, but I still get a few good shots off of it. But if I want black and white film developed it has to be sent out. And generally takes about a month to get back.

Of course I am talking about still photography. Moving pictures is something entirely (well, mostly) different. But it is an art form, at least it is when it is done well. And like all art there will always be a plethora of mediums, so sure why not use both. Sometime watercolors are called for and sometimes clay.

But yeah... 3D sucks. I hate it. It is just trendy right now, it will go away soon, and come back to rear its ugly head in another 10-15 years.

Posted by: MRod at January 20, 2012 10:29 AM

and it follows Hollywood actor Keanu Reeves as he interviews Hollywood filmmakers about the future of movies.

I can just see Keanu sitting there reading questions in his own silted monotone voice and then staring at the interviewee with that itensely confused, utterly vacant look he has and then ending every answer they give with: "Woah."

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at January 20, 2012 10:57 AM

Hard to see one side being a clear "victor" in the debate (I'm with 3-19 above).

There is an interesting part in Firefly's bonus features (we're required to be fans here, right?), where the filmographers/cameramen talk about creating film effects in the CGI portions, like sharp zooms, lens flare, etc. Plus they talk about with happy accents they found in the regular film portion (misframing). Woody Allen did all kinds of things to degrade the film in Zelig so as to appear to be old footage. Does the media matter if a director and crew have the creativity to create the images they want - distorted or pure? Anyhow, it's only one (important) element in making a quality movie.

Posted by: Tyzerman at January 20, 2012 11:28 AM

One thing I’ll say for certain, I’m not a fan of some of the new televisions that remove any blur from a moving image, whether it was originally created digitally or not. The human eye simply doesn’t work that way, and so the final product looks inherently unreal to our minds, thus forcing a separation from the viewer that takes them out of the fictional space they’re meant to experience.

I remember the first time I saw those (what, 120 hertz, 240 hertz...megahertz?) TVs. They had a promotional video. I really did look great when panning over a previously unreadable newspaper headline. But, when they switched to scenes from Pearl Harbor, it looked strange. It almost looked like a documentary. When you apply it to older videos, it always looks strange to me. I don't own a TV with it, but my friend says you get used to it. You may even come to prefer it.

Shit, you're forcing me to apply my uncertainties about video modification to audio. I like quality mp3s. Neil Young thinks listening to digital music is like listening to music through a screen door (an anecdote I heard, don't know if it's true). I don't give a damn. I personally feel that a good song will be a good song as long as it is delivered to someone in a "good enough" format. I couldn't give two shits about the vinyl vs. CD/mp3/digital music debate. I just don't care about the minor differences. I'd rather listen to a good song streaming on Grooveshark bleeding through my neighbors walls than a pristine vinyl of The Bay City Rollers. Alternately, a VHS copy of Paper Moon that was recorded by someone sitting in a theater with a camera will be better than Avatar any day. Who gives a flying fuck how you record it?

I have a friend who is into the cassette tape scene. I honestly believe he really does enjoy the "things analog equipment does to sound that digital will never be able to do" even though I don't give a fuck and completely disagree that digital sound can't produce something that the human ear cannot detect is any different from analog music. He talks about not liking CDs, like, "it's a piece of plastic" as if a cassette isn't that, too. I keep telling him that he's going to have a son who, twenty years from now, is gonna go on and on all day about putting music on CDs because "what is an mp3, anyway?".

TL;DR - I do not believe the medium is the message.

Posted by: pissant at January 20, 2012 12:43 PM

I was at a friends house watching the Golden Globes this past Sunday, 2 of the girls there exclaimed that they would not go see a silent film, and that if it was black and white they shouldn't have to pay full price.

Heathens.

I am being too nice...

Slack jawed morons!

Posted by: MRod at January 20, 2012 3:50 PM

Now THOSE are mouth-breathers. Although I'm sure they'll still be welcome at Sundance.

Posted by: bleujayone at January 20, 2012 6:47 PM

Some people can't believe I still have an 8.5 year old 27" CRT TV. They say I'm living in the dark ages. Like some people have commented, I say the video resolution of my TV isn't going to change the plot of the movie/quality of writing. They then say that I'm missing the point. I'm pretty sure I'm not.

Posted by: J-Bobber at January 20, 2012 11:21 PM