https://www.fandor.com/keyframe/laszlo-nemes-cinema-history-son-of-saul

Guy really believes in 35, repeating his thing with bulging eyes like a madman. Nothing wrong with that, everyone has to believe in something. The part begins here with the "Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorsese, Paul Thomas Anderson or Quentin Tarantino" (yawn#2) paragraph.

This is where I think it fails:

"By making the decisions you have to make as a director, you actually have to think more, you have to plan more. You don’t make the post-production process an endless process. You don’t inflate your shots. You don’t end up being someone who just assembles all kinds of material content at the end. "

Seemingly he doesn't consider himself a strong-willed director, he needs the cumbersomeness of film to set his limits. In some ways he's like a film-nazi (pardon the pun), someone who would force 35 on weak-minded directors in the hope that they'll get better. Because, if

"You need the blurred image to project yourself emotionally."

is true, then we can make the video image blurry and we're done.

What are the exact technical parameters of the two media? Resolution, latitude, contrast, shutter angle, depth of field, etc? What I know is that digital projection is only 2K in 90% of cinemas, so that is a big step downwards compared to film's resolution. But if we shoot and edit 4K digital then transfer and project on film then we can make the same images. Right?

I'm so fucking sick of this film vs digital debate.

As much as I really want to see Son of Saul (it's in my top three most anticipated movies from 2015 to watch), the director comes off as somewhat pompous and like a bit of a know-it-all in this interview.

Yes he's really amusing.

The debate itself is interesting to me only because I too don't like the apparent TV-look of today's films. It's probably just a trend, nothing to do with technical details or how the director conceives his film. If you want to be different then shoot 35, you can use it in marketing, but for the 'look' I suspect it's not necessary to shoot 35.

He sounded nothing like that at the LFF.

He didn't sound pompous but he did make a point of saying (at my screening, and I assume the others) "This is meant to be shown in 35mm, please try and see it this way next year". He seems a bit too obsessed with it, IMO. It's like - the film already looked amazing, don't worry.

This is an issue that I really and truly don't care about.

I think is worry about digital is a "good one", anything that digital is inferior on the technical will probably be something of the pass in less than 15 year's and it is not important to worry too much about it.

If the technic change the mindset of the filmmaker, then on this maybe he have a valid point, a bit like most people write not the same way on a computer than on paper (with the facility to edit what you did on computer) for better and worst.

It is not bad to talk about the difference and is possible consequence. For some actor it is different to do a take when they heard the film turning and that money being spent in a more litteral way.

Now that's a good idea. I'll put my dslr into a large 35mm box and tell the actors we're on film :) Oh no, won't work because I'd need expensive lenses too.

Your points are valid of course. The director is wrong on that cinema is an evolving matter, currently this digital look counts as cinema and people who defend it so vigorously are mostly people who grew up on the 35mm look.

I didn't, I was never a 'cinephile' but when I make a film I just try to create a world that I feel comfortable in. A sharp picture with vivid colors is certainly not my thing.

oh christ you make "films"? c_c

Yeah the wording is sometimes not the best. I have a few shorts, usually I wear them around summer.

lol

Oh no, won't work because I'd need expensive lenses too.

I didn't knew lenses costed more on 35mm than digital camera ? I thought you could use the same lenses with an adapter both.

Yeah but if I want to cheat my actors I need professional cine-lenses which I can't afford.

talentless people can make 35 look like crap, just as they can video