Martin Scorsese nous explique pourquoi il faut sauver la pellicule

Cinéma

Par Pierre le

Il y a quelques jours, nous vous parlions du combat de Nolan, d’Abrams, de Tarantino et d’Apatow pour sauver le format pellicule. Et aujourd’hui, c’est un autre réalisateur qui entre dans la danse et qui nous explique pourquoi il faut sauver ce format, même si le numérique, c’est bien aussi.

Martin_Scorsese_in_Hugo

Et ce nouveau réalisateur n’est pas un rigolo de kermesse. C’est un pro, une légende qui n’a plus rien à prouver : Martin Scorsese.

Le réalisateur des Affranchis a en effet publié une lettre ouverte défendant farouchement le format pellicule. Pourquoi obliger un peintre à utiliser un iPad plutôt que des pinceaux, sous prétexte que c’est plus facile ? Le numérique tiendra-t-il aussi longtemps que la pellicule ? Si le numérique cherche à s’approcher de plus en plus de la qualité des films tournés sur pellicule, pourquoi ne pas tout simplement tourner sur pellicule ?

Certes, Scorsese concède le fait que tourner en numérique est plus facile, moins cher et plus flexible en post production. Néanmoins, un réalisateur doit avoir le choix.

Voici sa lettre ouverte (en anglais).

We have many names for what we do — cinema, movies, motion pictures. And… film. We’re called directors, but more often we’re called filmmakers. Filmmakers. I’m not suggesting that we ignore the obvious: HD isn’t coming, it’s here. The advantages are numerous: the cameras are lighter, it’s much easier to shoot at night, we have many more means at our disposal for altering and perfecting our images. And, the cameras are more affordable: films really can be made now for very little money. Even those of us still shooting on film finish in HD, and our movies are projected in HD. So, we could easily agree that the future is here, that film is cumbersome and imperfect and difficult to transport and prone to wear and decay, and that it’s time to forget the past and say goodbye — really, that could be easily done. Too easily.

It seems like we’re always being reminded that film is, after all, a business. But film is also an art form, and young people who are driven to make films should have access to the tools and materials that were the building blocks of that art form. Would anyone dream of telling young artists to throw away their paints and canvases because iPads are so much easier to carry? Of course not. In the history of motion pictures, only a minuscule percentage of the works comprising our art form was not shot on film. Everything we do in HD is an effort to recreate the look of film. Film, even now, offers a richer visual palette than HD. And, we have to remember that film is still the best and only time-proven way to preserve movies. We have no assurance that digital informaton will last, but we know that film will, if properly stored and cared for.

Our industry — our filmmakers — rallied behind Kodak because we knew that we couldn’t afford to lose them, the way we’ve lost so many other film stocks. This news is a positive step towards preserving film, the art form we love.

Un soutien de poids aux défenseurs du format pellicule.