Who says it has to be HD?

Doc Bernard

Doc Bernard

Indie Arms Member
I am trying to understand film better and have been exploring older films to see where their success came from, and what made them "classics".

And I think I have found a gem. "Stairway to Heaven", not the song. Made in 1946, starring David Niven. Has a interesting, quirky plotline. Reminds me of aspects of "Soylent Green" but more down to earth.

Both color and B/W. And I like that juxtaposition. Just like they did with Wizard of Oz, but more interspersed.

Considering the time period, very avant garde.
 
Last edited:
Im a huge old film buff, in fact thats about all I watch, Something about the black and white that I really love. I guess our age is starting to show there doc, lol
 
I'm sure you could shoot a movie in all green tint, and as long as the story, acting, and production values are all solid, it could be a hit. But without those three points, you could do it in any format and it would bomb. Even with Ben Afflec in the lead.
 
Even with great story, acting, production values, and resolution, it still runs the risk of bombing unless it's spoon fed marketed to the masses. Hell, even then...

Wouldn't make it any better or worse of a film.
 
That film is also known as "A Matter of Life and Death." It is an entertaining film.

Though technically, it was shot on 35mm film, which has more resolution than High-Definition.
 
As discussed in the massive 100+ page "Do you think it's possible..." thread, I think it has been said many times over that pixels are way down the list of necessity to create a good film. Of course it depends on the subject matter, but the general answer is no. We spend way too much time splitting hairs on technical details. Granted, this is a technical forum for the most part, but as has been said many times, content is king. Story, characters, acting. Even in commercial spots for the most part this applies. Sure, it will look better shot on 35mm expertly lit, absolutely. But that's not as important as content. I'd rather watch something interesting shot at 480 on an old DVX100 than garbage shot on IMAX. You would too.

As an example from history, I present John Cassavetes' Faces. Shot on 16mm B&W, mostly in his own house with practicals, often hand held. A crew usually of three or four. Granted, watching two minutes of the film won't give you the context, but this film is often regarded as a masterpiece. If anyone has criticisms of it, they are usually based around Cassavetes allowing too much improvisation, or lack of structure. No one ever says they can't watch the film because it's "low resolution".

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top