Derb says: “Movie-making’s a mature technology. It’ll improve around
the edges a bit, but the heavy lifting was all done in the first half
of the 20th century.”
Hmm. Don’t know about that. The part that’s mature, I think, is the
art, not the technology. The art has barely changed at all in 80
years — characters, fictional or otherwise, tell a story through
their actions, interpreted by the filmmaker through his choice of
shots and edits. Technology, though, continues to evaporate before
our eyes. Film, the very substance, is now fast becoming obsolete.
Many if not most TV shows are shot on high-def videotape. At least
one big budget feature, ‘Gods and Generals,’ was shot that way, and
digital video projection is replacing film. Sound can now be recorded
digitally directly into a computer, skipping over more primitive
media. Animation is done on computers, instead of by hand. With
’motion capture’ technology, actors can now give life to animated
characters through actual movements in the physical world. Flesh and
blood actors can interact with animated characters seamlessly (giving
us the joy that is Jar Jar Binks.) I have fantasized about computer
technology that can take a deceased actor and replicate him and his
performing abilities digitally, allowing me to write a movie starring
Spencer Tracy and Lindsay Lohan. (Not really, but you get the idea.)
Speaking of weekend movies, we saw ‘Sky High,’ which was good fun for
the whole family, though it did have some teen kissing, and I believe an industry first: a cool character named Warren. Meanwhile,
Kurt Russell quietly approaches the 50 year mark of his career in the
business. Stardom, it seems, will never be obsolete.
P.S. I never liked “2001.” A movie that holds up well: “The Princess Bride.”