Pan Left Productions

the physical, celluloid version- film.

What relevance does it have for people who communicate in mass media? If both film and video are irrelevant to making a story, then is just preference thing? Is film only good for making a pretty picture?

I'm trying to understand in terms of how artists and production people see film. Like Heather says, "nothing compares to film" Purists will be using it for years to come. [Spunky, if u see this, weigh in on it too] I too used to think that way. If given a choice to use digital or film I would've chosen film hands down.

But now I think Film is oppressive. Not to say digital video is a perfect medium, it definitely has it's "evils". It just seems people use film to achieve the "true film look". But using it require such enormous economic hardship. Studios still use it as the preferred choice. Students spend years in film school, drowning in debt to get the chance to work in film, to then become a successful "Independent Filmmaker" so you can keep using film. Even the techs involved in the digital medium strive to live up the "film quality" test. http://www.red.com/ The red camera seems to be a digital answer that says, "Hey look were just as good as film now, so now it's ok to use digital!"

For me, it just feels like the reputation of film is another capitalist mechanism that's programs us to see it's glory and splendor; too attract us to enter into the Studio system that has controlled most mainstream media for the better part of the last 100 years. Should we reject this in some way? Do u think we're doing that already?

sorry, lot's o' thoughts to chew, take ur time my friend.