​
​Which is better, digital or celluloid film? You want to get into a heated debate with a filmmaker just ask this question.  Recently filmmakers have seen a phenomenal transition from traditional film photography to digital photography, led primarily by the cameras on the smartphones just about everyone carries.

 As smartphone cameras improved, the convenience and quality they could deliver were suitable for most people's photo needs. However, some amateur and professional photographers still believe that film cameras deliver superior quality for cinema quality.
The answer to which is better is dependent on what you want to achieve. Here we have listed some advantages and some disadvantages each so you can best decide for yourself.
 
Why Shoot Film

Film gives the filmmaker greater control over the final product. Two big advantages of using film are the depth-of- field and the exposure latitude.

When shooting film, shallower depth of filed is better than digital. The filmmaker can create areas in the frame that are soft focus or blurry is easier.

This means that underexposed and overexposed areas are rendered better on film than on digital. For instance, on video, a corner of the frame with little light could go completely black, whereas on film is would still show details.

This is important for cinematographers play with light, so a broader exposure latitude medium offers them more opportunity.
 
Why Shoot Digital

Digital is spreading quickly and quickly become the norm. As technology evolves, video will soon become Hollywood standard. It's impossible to know when, but the push towards it has already begun. The main reasons to choose digital is price, convenience, and usability.

Shooting film is expensive. An 800-foot role of film stock costs about $200 which is about 20 minutes of film – and when cut for final production it usually comes out to maybe 5 minutes of useable footage

With digital filmmaking, you can have no limit to how much you can shoot – the only limit is computer space.

Digital film can also really speed things up. With film, prior to the shoot, someone has to load the magazine in a light-safe area. After the shoot, the film must be developed, processed, and then digitized for theatre or the internet. Film is digitized because most editing are now done in computers, using programs like Avid or Final Cut Pro.

If you shoot digitally, you can skip these labourous and expensive steps. You record straight onto the hard drive.

Conclusion

While Hollywood filmmakers prefer to use film, more and more are using digital. The technology will eventually catch up to film and be able to gave filmmakers the exposure latitude and the depth of field they are used to.  When this happens, digital will be superior and allow filmmakers to cut their production budget. 

​It’s always difficult to decide on a golden age for cinema but the 1970's saw the emergence of a new kind of American film. Behind this revolution was the cynicism and mistrust towards authority which pervaded American culture at the time.

The 1960's was a cultural revolution in many parts of society including music, poetry, literature, race, and sex but it wasn’t until the 70s when film caught up. The 60s were all about the hippy movement, about feeling good, however it ended with the Manson Family murders, the Vietnam War, and a couple of years later, Watergate. People came out of the 60s feeling disillusioned and distrustful. people weren't interested in overblown studio pictures like Cleopatra and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Audiences were in the mood films that reflected the pessimism of the times. Throughout the decade, movies like Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, acted as echo chambers for the public's disillusionment and angst.

In the early 70’s invigorating directors breaking out, such as Francis Ford Coppola, Sidney Lumet, and Martin Scorsese for example offered an often stark but stylish selection of films. Likewise a group of exceptionally promising actors like Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep and Harvey Keitel would begin paving a way to replace the more atypical Hollywood golden stars like John Wayne and Paul Newman. They would continue along the that actors like Marlon Brando and James Dean and had begun. The method approach would become far more common through this era and firmly establish an edgy and daring approach that aspiring actors would take.

The films were not pumped out by studios looking to make a quick buck. Apocalypse Now, Chinatown and Taxi Driver were labours affairs. In Apocalypse Now, both Martin Sheen and Francis Ford Coppola almost died during the making. George Lucas had a heart attack from the filming of Star Wars. Filmmakers suffered for their art. The writer of Taxi Driver, Paul Schrader, wrote the screenplay when he had broke up with his wife and had gone broke and was living in his car.

You can look at a whole host of challenging, dark and powerful films of the era, from big budget to low-budget, films like Clockwork Orange, Marathon Man, Scipio, the beautifully raw and visceral, Badlands. Likewise when you see a film like All The Presidents Men, it showed that film-makers weren’t shying away from displaying the dark side of the States, something that was considered blasphemy in the post-war era when the country was still riding high on Second World War patriotism. They were dealing with the here and now, not allowing wounds to heal over first.

There are a lot of things which led to the arrival of New Hollywood in the 70's. The movement had a confluence of influences ranging from cinema around the world and harkening back to the days of Old-Hollywood. While the past was a source of inspiration, 70s cinema was really a rebellion of the films and the times that had come before it.  

​In Hollywood, most L.G.B.T.Q couples have been relegated to the quirky friends who give the main characters advice on their love life. While things are definitely looking up for the L.G.B.T.Q community with networks like Netflixs introducing some good L.G.B.T.Q characters, there is also a lot more that needs to be accomplished.

Once awhile we get films like Brokeback Mountain that seriously explore L.G.B.T.Q issues and themes but unfortunate they are the exception rather than the rule. In most mainstream Hollywood films, we still get the bland old characters, who act in predicable way.

That's not to say films aren't better than they used to be. The new Star Wars films unquestionably succeed in creating new icons for women and people of colour. Diverse main characters like Finn Poe Dameron and Rose Tico aren’t so whitewashed as the originals but most agree that they can be better at representing minorities 

For example, after the massacre in a gay night club in Olando, Joshua Yehl whose friend Drew Leionnen was murdered, had petitioned Lucasfilm to introduce a gay Star Wars character in tribute to Leinonen. #PutDrewInStarWars amassed nearly 12,000 signatures, and even an endorsement from Mark Hamill

Even Kathleen Kennedy who has recently produced the Star Wars franchise calls for many more gay people. However as of yet the Star Wars films have thus far failed to introduce a single L.G.B.T.Q. character, let alone a central gay couple. Queer fans have lobbied since 2015 for a romantic relationship between Poe and Finn.

But when asked if the franchise’s upcoming installment might include a love story for Finn and Poe, Kennedy has said in interviews it’s unlikely.

Unfortunately, most franchises are risk-averse simply because there is so much money involved and if a film that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce fails then it can put a studio into deep financial trouble.

However, audiences have proven that more diversity is welcomed as shown by films like Black Panther. However there still isn’t any major films with believable L.G.B.T.Q characters or themes and this may be because of the threat of foreign censorship could be to blame, specifically China.

Unfortunately Chinese censorship is notoriously strict and fickle, and that the nation as a whole is not particularly L.G.B.T.Q  friendly.

In recent years, the Chinese government has also blocked the release of Deadpool, due to nudity; Christopher Robin for memes of Pooh and the Chinese president ; and World War Z, because lead Brad Pitt once starred in Seven Years in Tibet. (Yes, they still haven’t gotten over that.)

Regardless, plenty of Hollywood blockbusters still include sex scenes and brushes with the paranormal—and Pitt, who was formally forbidden from entering China and didn’t return for 17 years, clearly isn’t considered box-office anathema. Yet some corners of Hollywood still deploy the threat of foreign censorship to justify constant, consistent exclusion of gay themes, even though there are various other areas in which the film industry isn’t afraid of risking foreign censorship.

While Netflix is trying to expand its audience, specifically with South Asian content, it doesn’t have to worry about foreign sensorship the same way Hollywood does which may be one reason they are leading the charge with L.G.B.T.Q content with shows like Orange is the New Black which has remarkably grown up as a show since it’s inception. When this will trickle to Hollywood is yet to be seen.

There is a glimmer of hope as Disney is one studio that is leading the way with its first openly gay main character in the film Jungle Cruise played by British comedian Jack Whitehall. If Disney can do it then other large studios can follow suit. 

Films reflect the age they were created – all the sexism, the racism, and the biases  -- that was normal during the time, but now in the 21st Century we look back at and cringe. Here are 5 films that we love but just feel like they just don’t unfortunately stand up the test of time.
 

1. Gone With the Wind (1939)

Gone With the Wind is one of those great American films that everybody knows. It is adapted from Margaret Mitchell’s famous Pulitzer-winning novel and was showed with accolades when it first came out in the 30s but since then has divided modern viewers.  Many people see it as a glorification of slavery, even though Hattie McDaniel became the first African-American to win an Academy Award for her portrayal of a typical black maid. The award came at a personal cost, however, when she was racially segregated from her co-stars at the Oscars ceremony. This type of behaviour, thankfully, would never be unaccepted in today’s society.
 
 
2. Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)

Blake Edwards famously adapted Truman Capote’s novella, creating a timeless Hollywood classic and launch Audrie Hepburn into an international star. This film is so intrenched as part of our culture, it has even been selected for preservation in the US Library of Congress. However, there is a huge problem. Mr Yunioshi, Holly Golightly’s, Japanese neighbour, who is played by Mickey Rooney has a terrible accent, a hachimaki headband, prosthetic eyelids and buckteeth. While this was acceptable in the 60s as ordinary comic relief, it’s horrifying for today’s audience.

While the film still remains a classic, there has been some rethinking as of late and some discussion of how it should be placed in film history. Even Mickey Rooney himself, before his death, had cause to rethink his roll, saying he probably shouldn’t have done it.
 
3.Sixteen Candles (1984)

In many ways Sixteen Candles is considered a classic for its portrayal of teenage life during the 80s. However, there is also so much wrong with this film that it has since taken a back seat to some other classical teenage films like Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

Sixteen Candles has so many problems including date rape, racism and drunk driving. It blatantly glamorizes non-consensual sex between two teenagers with the girl passed out, what we would call rape today. A close-up reveals that Caroline’s dress has bunched around her thighs, leaving her underwear exposed. Later, we learn that Ted and Caroline have had sex, but Caroline doesn’t remember much.  While the movie is lighthearted, this scene in particular makes audiences cringe.
 
 
4. The Party (1968)
 
This is the second Blake Edwards to make the list and for good reason. In The Party, comedian Peter Sellers plays Hrundi V. Bakshi, an Indian actor who accidentally gets invited to a lavish Hollywood dinner party and makes bad mistakes based upon so-called ignorance of Western culture. The movie is horribly for its Indian stereotype after stereotype and Seller’s particularly horrible Apu-style accent. While audiences might have found it funny at the time, it is considered inappropriate and insensitive by today’s standards
 
5. Sleeping Beauty (1959)
​
Many Disney stories have had their share of controversy from the sexualization of cartoon characters to gender stereotypes to subliminal messages written in the background. Of course, Disney is not to blame for references like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
​
In Sleeping Beauty, a European fairy tale has its origins in a tale of rape, back when it wasn’t considered a big crime to force yourself on a woman. Thankfully our culture has progressed a lot further since then. One of the first recordings of the Sleeping Beauty narrative is the Italian poem Sun, Moon and Talia, published in 1634, in which a king sleeps with Talia when she is unconscious – also known as rape. In this version, the princess awakens after giving birth to twins.

The latest Predator film, directed and written by legendary director Shane Black, is the latest reboot of an 80’s action franchise such as ‘Die Hard' 'Terminator' and 'Rambo’ – the heyday of action films.

It has been 31 years since action star Arnold Schwarzenegger stared in Predator and now Shane Black is taking the reins of the sci-fi classic that has spawned a franchise.
In this outing, The Predator travels to Earth from another planet to kill after a portal is opened up by a kid.

This new movie is considerably different from the original "Predator." The new film still has that same campy vibe, but it's less of a thriller and more of a comedy. Shane Black puts his own brand on the film with his trademark sense of humor in every other scene. While the comedy occasionally overstays its welcome, Black manages to maintain a solid blend of laughs and action.

But will the film stand up to the test of time and make a strong case for continuation of the franchise? Studios executives assume that if the movie was popular in the 80s then the prevailing wisdom it will be popular again.  If it draws audiences and can be exploited with sequels, TV shows, tie-in books and video games, then in most cases it's assumed that whatever that blockbuster was in its original form will be milked for all its worth.

When it comes to the Predator franchise, its sequels have never truly hit the mark. The first film ultimately made $98.3 million on a $15 million budget. The sequel, Predator 2 took the action from the jungles into inner Los Angeles. It gave audiences more Predator action, more tools, and more screen time. While Predator 2 has become something of a cult classic in recent years, the more expensive sequel made significantly less than the first and dulled the studios enthusiasm for sequels – that is until 2010.  

The marketing for Black’s movie began not unlike the last entry in the Predator franchise, 2010’s Predators. That film used the appeal of seeing multiple monsters in the film as its main selling point. The first teaser for Black’s The Predator was mixed, focusing on the human characters rather than the monsters themselves, and highlighted awards-season favorites Jacob Tremblay, Trevante Rhodes and Sterling K. Brown, along with rising stars like Boyd Holbrook and Alfie Allen.

If The Predator succeeds, it will be because Shane Black updated the concept and took it beyond the masculine ideals of machoism, masculinity and strength – beyond Arnie’s famous character, Dutch. The film will succeed not if it asks how it can measure up to the original, but how the concept can work with a modern audience who have different ideals, and a Hollywood that is fresh off the #metoo movement.  

​
​When should movies be made about painful subjects such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks or real-life serial killers and when, if at all, should they be too taboo for cellulite? In Susan Sarandon’s latest film, she plays a nurse named Helen who struggles to try and get the U.S. government to pressure ISIS to free her son, a freelance journalist who was captured by the terrorist organization.

The film called Viper Club is remarkably similar to Diane Foley’s real life story who fought to get her son, James Foley, freed.  James Foley was as abducted while reporting in Syria in 2012 by ISIS and was eventually brutally murdered. The killing was filmed in graphic detail and released on social media

Viper Club premiered in Toronto Film Festival and will be in theatres, but will also be one of the first YouTube Original titles to be premiered on their streaming service.
Diane Foley is incredibly upset about the film which makes her relive the atrocity, “almost to the tiniest detail,” Foley said. However, Foley acknowledges there were some discrepancies and embellishments to her story.

The film begs the question what morality obligation do filmmakers have to tell true stories – if at all? Also how long should we wait before dealing with the subject matter? There is no doubt the Holocaust, slavery and even World War 2 are difficult subjects to deal with but most people will agree that enough time has past, the wounds have healed sufficiently enough that there isn’t the rawness associated with more recent traumatic events like the fight against terrorism.  How do filmmakers decide if it’s an important story to tell and does that outweigh the personal cost of the people involved in the true story?

Recently Clint Eastwood went even further with his film about a gunman on a French train. The men, two of which were from the US military, trained in combat and first aid, were on a backpacking European tour when a gunman armed with a AK-47 attempted to commit mass murder. The three men probably saved dozens of lives.  

Eastwood decided to use the three real friends in his movie. The result, according to some viewers is a cross between a documentary and a realistic grit. The effect of realness in this film is a strange one. Does this sort of distorted realism make it easier or harder on those involved in the incident? And what effect does this type of storytelling have on the collective movie going conscious?

When the Twin Towers went down dozens of film projects were cancelled or postponed. Some people even blamed Hollywood for inspiring the 9/11 terrorists as it has also been blamed for inspiring serial killers and other atrocious acts before.

However, as a society, we need films about terrorism and serial murders to heal. After 9/11 movies like Die Hard and True Lies were rented three times more frequently than before. These types of films boost patriotism and a general sense of a common purpose, uniting us against evil acts – whether it’s a murder, a rape, or war.
​
While most people don’t enjoy their personal stories – people like Diane Foley – being splashed across the big screen, sometimes it’s necessary for the collective good. It helps us heal and helps us understand a little bit more about the darker parts of the world around us.  

For 90 years, Hollywood has fascinated moviegoers with its glitz and glamour. The Oscars have always been a part of Hollywood’s celebration of some of the world’s best motion pictures.  This year, to spruce things up, the Oscars proposed the idea of a new category – “popular films” category in next year’s awards. However this idea was widely seen as a gimmick to increase television viewers.

Last year’s ceremony only had 26.5 million viewers, the smallest in the awards' 90-year history, falling about 20 percent from the previous year. But the truth is live-TV events are becoming increasingly unpopular across the board. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the Oscars, the Grammys or the Super Bowl, audiences are less inclined to tune in.

However well-intentioned, this new category is a flawed idea. The most Popular film category almost guarantees that “popular” films wind up in that category and would get ignored for Best Picture contention and thereby devaluing both awards. Does this new award mean that popular films aren’t the best films or that the best films aren’t the most popular? It certainly confuses both categories and leaves people scratching their heads.
Luckily, It took just one month for the Academy to reverse itself and cancel the Most Popular Oscar, at least for next year.

The Motion Picture Academy has some other ideas to bring viewers back by shortening the Oscars to three hours.  For example, some of the awards will be presented during commercial breaks and then edited and aired later in the broadcast. Oscar organizers did not specify say which awards would be presented during commercials, but it is expected some minor awards such as editing, costumes, and sound are to be most affected by the change.

If the Oscars are really set on creating a new category and honoring more movies, they should do the exact opposite of their initial plan: They should create an award that honors smaller art house movies that haven’t been seen by a wide audience but should be viewed globally. The criteria for this kind of award would be much simpler to create too. The Academy would just have to set a limit to the budget of the film to be nominated or, alternatively the Box Office gross receipts. This award would truly celebrate film as the Academy intended as it would boost all of the nominees’ visibility and hopefully ticket sales.

This type of category would put the Oscars’ spotlight and box-office generating power where it can do the most good. It avoids the controversy that would result from a movie like Star Wars or Titanic winning Most Popular and then getting left out of Best Picture and turning the whole thing into a consolation prize. And rather than agreeing with the consensus that has already formed around a popular movie that doesn’t really need more attention.

Granted, this wouldn’t solve the problem of getting more eyeballs to watch the Oscars but it is a beautiful, ultraistic thought, isn’t it?

Hollywood is the land of entertainment. They know how to put on a show.  It shouldn’t need to offer gimmicky awards to woo back viewers.  The brains behind the Oscars should come up with better ideas of how to attract viewers.

The iconic Hollywood sex symbol Burt Reynolds, star of such film as "Gunsmoke", "Hawk" "Smokey and the Bandit" and "Boogie Night" died today of cardiac arrest. He was 82 years old. With his trademark mustache, masculine looks, and macho personality, he was a leading male sex symbol of the 70s and early 80s.

Reynolds got his movie start in John Boorman's 1972 thriller "Deliverance," which cast Reynolds as outdoorsman Lewis Medlock. 

By 1974, Reynolds had hit it big and starred as an ex-football star who is imprisoned in the film "The Longest Yard." Two years earlier, he posed nude in Cosmopolitan magazine, which helped cement his growing status as a sex symbol but also drew a lot of criticism. He later said he regretted that centerfold image.

At the peak of his career, Reynolds was one of the most bankable actors in Hollywood until a career downturn in the mid-1980s. However, he rebounded in 1997 with a nomination for a best supporting actor Academy Award for "Boogie Nights" and won an Emmy Award for his role in the TV series "Evening Shade".

Reynolds wasn't only known for his good looks. He also tried his directorial hand and later earned a reputation for philanthropy after founding the Burt Reynolds Institute for Film & Theatre in his home state of Florida.

His roles over the years ranged and pivoted from Southern heartthrob to tough guy to comedy, notably in his role as politician David Dilbeck in the salacious film "Striptease," which did poorly the box office but earned him widespread praise for his comedic range.

Reynolds also turned down some of the biggest roles in Hollywood history, including James Bond to Han Solo in "Star Wars." Reynolds also reportedly was among the top choices to play Michael Corleone in "The Godfather before it launched Al Pacino’s career.

In 1998, Reynolds scored his only Oscar nomination, for best supporting actor, after his portrayal of a porn film producer in the film "Boogie Nights," despite his dislike of the film. Reynolds went on record to say he thought it glorified the porn industry too much.

Eventually Reynolds' fast-paced life style caught up with him and he suffered from health issues that led to open heart surgery. Reynolds also checked into a drug rehab clinic in 2009 after becoming addicted to painkillers prescribed following back surgery.

Reynolds fell into financial trouble amid private ventures in an Atlanta restaurant and a professional sports team, though he continued to make cameo appearances and teach acting classes.

However, Reynold's star power seemed to be on the rise again. He was scheduled to make a comeback when he was cast in the upcoming Quentin Tarantino film "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood," scheduled for release next year. How it would ultimately effect his career we’ll never know since Reynolds had not yet started shooting his part in the film.

​The sons of legendary astronaut Neil Armstrong are on the defensive in light of recent criticism of the new film First Man about their father's historic moon landing. The sons and the film’s director are saying it is not anti-American in the slightest. Critics of the film are calling it unpatriotic because of the lack of the famous flag-planting scene.

Damien Chazelle who also directed “La La Land” wanted to portray the risks and challenges of the moon mission through the eyes of Armstrong. The director didn’t want to make a film about the landing but more focused on Armstrong’s his unique, personal experience of completing this journey, that had so many incredible highs and devastating lows. Chazelle hopes that by digging under the surface and humanizing the icon, we can better understand just how difficult, audacious and heroic this moment really was.

Chazelle believes this story is universal in it’s appeal, that it’s not distinctly an American story but one that will appeal to audiences all around the world. He added that it was not a political statement about the state of America.

In July 1969, Neil Armstrong, who died in 2012 at age 82, and Apollo 11 Lunar Module pilot Buzz Aldrin performed the first manned Moon landing and spent two and a half hours outside the spacecraft while Michael Collins remained in lunar orbit in the Command/Service Module.

President Jimmy Carter presented Armstrong with the Congressional Space Medal of Honor in 1978, and Armstrong and his former crewmates received a Congressional Gold Medal in 2009.

Armstrong's sons and family described him as a reluctant American hero. According to all who knew him, he was a humble person, and that's the way he remained after his lunar flight. He was labeled as a recluse because he didn't grant interviews or sign autographs but his family said it was just because he didn't like the media attention. One has to wonder what he would make of a bio-pic that focuses on his life. 

Among those who have criticized the film is Republican senator Marco Rubio who said that the film should portray America in a better light since it was the US who planned, payed for and executed the mission. The senator took to Twitter to voice his displeasure for the film. 

However, Canadian actor Ryan Gosling who portrays Armstrong in the movie,  defended the decision to not show the flag. He believes, according to reports, that Neil didn’t necessarily view himself as an American hero. He went on to add he  wanted the film to be more about Armstrong, the man, not his deeds.  

Film critics have so far enthusiastically praised the film, rocketing "First Man" to early lists of possible Oscar favorites. Universal Pictures will release it Oct. 12.