Film vs digital: History vs democracy in the cinema
As calls for film preservation in cinema grow, what does it mean for independent filmmaking?
The Woman Who Left (Lav Diaz, 2016). Photo: Movie Patrol PH / YouTube
PADDY MULHOLLAND
The monstrous
androgynous.
“We need projectors and film prints – forever.”
Director Christopher Nolan spoke in 2015 about cinema’s drift from film to digital technology. That move has accelerated with digital becoming cheaper and more pervasive.
Nolan warned about what he and fellow established voices like Quentin Tarantino regarded as film’s replacement by inferior tech. But what of directors working outside the studio system?
In the early 2000s, digital was a democratising force, contributing to the independent cinema’s proliferation worldwide. Acclaimed Filipino director Lav Diaz, winner of the 2016 Venice Golden Lion, said in 2007: “You own the brush now, you own the gun, unlike before, where it was all owned by the studio… Digital is liberation theology.”
Not two months before Nolan’s plea, Sean Baker’s Tangerine, the first film shot entirely on iPhone, debuted. Smartphones have become common filmmaking practice for directors like Steven Soderbergh, and digital’s ever-increasing capacities have sustained its popularity.
Nolan’s right – we need projectors and film prints. They’re vital parts of cinema’s history. But digital remains the democratising force in cinema. It’s a vital part of cinema’s future.