Episode 573: Nostalgia

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Caleb says:

    I can’t wait until David finally watches Hugo and tells Tyler how much he loved it on the podcast.

  2. Easily Riled Film Purist says:

    David Bax: What’s the big idea about seeing The Mona Lisa in person when I can just look at a JPEG online? Quality is just as good, and I don’t have to fly to Paris. Who cares how Leonardo da Vinci actually made the thing, I just want to see it.

    • Battleship Pretension says:

      I can’t speak for David, but I know that, when I’m looking at the actual canvas that an artist painted on – such as when I first saw “Nighthawks” at the Art Institute of Chicago – not only are the colors much more pronounced than on the various prints that I’ve seen, but there is also something magical about being in the same physical space as the thing that the painter’s brush actually touched. It was like a physical link to the past. This actual thing was in his studio!
      The same cannot be said of film. So then it comes down to the better way to see it.
      And if it’s between a shitty, scratched up film print that has made the rounds for decades, or a cleaned up digital print that actually better approximates what the filmmaker wanted, I don’t see why anybody would want to see the scratched film print. Unless, of course, it’s the actual print that was developed and cut by the director and editor, which it undoubtedly is not.
      If you were making the argument that nobody should ever design something on a computer, and that oil paint on a canvas will always look better, that’s a different thing. But you’re just talking about viewing, which I think boils down to how the director intended the audience to see it. And I have no doubt that a director would rather the audience see a pristine version of their film, as it was when they first released it, than a crappy film print in which you couldn’t make out the details anymore.


    • Battleship Pretension says:

      In addition to Tyler’s point about a painting being different than a print, I’d also point out that, in some ways, a jpeg is better because it allows people all over the world to enjoy the painting with little to no expense, not just those who have the time and income to go to Paris and see it. There’s an inherent elitism in purism that I can’t abide.

      – David

  3. Easily Riled Film Purist says:

    It’s ok to be wrong, guys. It just sucks that you’re both so consistently wrong about this.

  4. FictionIsntReal says:

    Ruth Prawer was born in Cologne, Germany to Jewish parents Marcus and Eleanora (Cohn) Prawer. After moving to India in 1951, she married Cyrus S. H. Jhabvala, an Indian-Parsi architect. Jhabvala was initially assumed to be an Indian among the reading public because of her perceptive portrayals of the nuances of Indian lifestyles. Later, the revelation of her true identity led to falling sales of her books in India and made her a target of accusations about “her old-fashioned colonial attitudes”.

    Ismail Merchant, on the other hand, was born in India, and only learned English in school.

    The Monty Python sketch parodying Peckinpah was titled “Salad Days”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Verified by MonsterInsights