New
York in September. I was one of 50 invited guests who were brought
in to sample the new digital video projection technology developed
by Sony that, they say, will ultimately replace 35mm film as the standard
for viewing of "films".

I have
been one of the skeptics in this area, a stalwart defender of 35mm
optics as the highest standard of visual appreciation. Many of colleagues
have trumpeted the emergence of digital video as a production medium,
heralding the fact that feature films can be produced on video for
a fraction of the cost of 35mm (just what we need…..more undistributable
films collecting dust) and that the public "cannot tell the difference".
Well, I beg to differ. With the exception of such cases as Lars
Von Trier's "Dancer In The Dark" or Mike Figgis' "Timecode", where
the aesthetics of video actually contribute to the atmosphere of
the film, other heralded video-to-film landmarks have left me cold.
Because I do think that even if they don't realize it, audiences
can tell the difference. Give me a restored black and white print
from Hollywood's golden age and tell me if it holds a candle to
anything produced by digital video.

So,
with my rather caustic attitude, I attended this Sony promotional
screening, and was treated to the self-consciously showy pyrotechnics
of computer-generated imagery. Impressive yes, but with the resonance
of a video game, all surface and no background. All slick and no
subtlety. The Sony propogandists droned on about "a revolution in
filmmaking" and I looked at my watch to see how much longer this
roller coaster ride would take.

And
then, as described above, it hit me. An image filled the screen……the
soft focus of a flower, bathed in light, moving every so slightly
in the wind. A long take that was uncharacteristic of the special-effects-on-steroids
that had previously been on the screen. I suddenly found myself
mesmerized by the beauty of the object, the glow of the back lighting,
the aesthetic of the moment. I was not simply looking at an object,
but I felt as if I was in and a part of that object. I could audibly
hear my heart pounding, as it has done in the past when I experienced
those moments on screen before (the lingering look on Chaplin's
face at the close of "City Lights", the fetishistic adoration of
the rose in the final frame of "An American In Paris"). Suddenly,
I realized that this new medium, in the hands of the right kind
of visionary, could be tamed into producing images of power, beauty
and resonance.

It
made me realize that I what I was reacting to all along was the
hype of the technology hucksters and the clumsy execution of technicians
who do not think of themselves as artists. It gave me an understanding
that a new Millennium deserves a new medium, a new arena of visual
expression. And I suddenly had a strong sense that I wanted to stick
around to watch the flowering of this new technology, to be a witness
to its continued evolution. I think I will always be intrigued and
want to preserve what has come before, but suddenly because of these
and other events this year, my curiosity for what is to come has
emerged as even more vital.

Sandy
Mandelberger