David Lynch goes DV

several bigtime directors really failed using DV (i.e. Soderbergh's Full Frontal, Michael Winterbottom's 9 Songs) can't think of any others off hand but I bet Lynch would be one to make great interesting use of it.
 

directorik

IndieTalk's Resident Guru
It isn't so much the medium but the content. We can all name good movies shot on DV. After suffering through Full Frontal I got the feeling Soderberg and friends figured they were using a less than "professional" camera so they didn't need to do a "professional" story. Just play time with talented friends.

I look forward to anything Lynch does on any medium.
 
I read about Lynch going DV too, a couple of weeks ago. I was pretty surprised. Itl be interesting to see how he uses it. I'm really looking forward to seeing this new film some time late next year (i think). Lynch is my favorite filmmaker, along with Kubrick.
 
Lynch has shot a few short films on dv and you can find them on www.davidlynch.com but this time he has decided to shoot a whole feature from what I understand.
Not sure of Lynch's reasons, but I would use DV over HDV as well.
In the article Lynch says dv is different and it reminds him of early 35mm that didn't have tight grain. He says, "When you have a poor image, there's lots more room to dream."
 
Beeblebrox said:
Several bigtime directors have also failed using 35mm. It's not about the format. Danny Boyle used DV very successfully in 28 Days Later. And Lar Von Trier won the Palm D'Or for his DV film Dancer in the Dark.

thank you, those completely slipped past me. 28 days and Dancer were 2 great films on DV.

ok, so maybe not all big time directors flop on DV but when they do they seem to fall hard. But I doubt Lynch will fail at coming up with something, how could he, he's David Lynch?! I gotta check out those shorts he did on DV.
 
I think i've seen a few myself. I knew he had done some work on dv the last couple of years. But I was still suprised to see him use it for a feature. I've seen some of his "rabbits" series from his site and also "darkened room", though some people say this is not a Lynch film. I could tell that that was on dv, but i was not sure about "rabbits".
 
alterEGOcinema said:
thank you, those completely slipped past me. 28 days and Dancer were 2 great films on DV.

ok, so maybe not all big time directors flop on DV but when they do they seem to fall hard. But I doubt Lynch will fail at coming up with something, how could he, he's David Lynch?! I gotta check out those shorts he did on DV.
Have you ever seen Dune?
 

Loud Orange Cat

Pro Member
indiePRO
David Lynch did direct 1984's Dune. A few years later, a televised reedit of the film (adding around 40 minutes of the film) showed a changed director title of Alan Smithee.

I wonder what Lynch was smokin' when he made some of his films, though. They are WEIRD... but oddly enjoyable.
 
David Lynch drives me crazy. I think he's a pretentious nutter. I read an interesting article in the telegraph the other day (UK Newspaper) that was poking fun at Mr Lynch for his randomness... it made my day - grumpy underfunded UK producers need a laugh from time to time.
 
"I started working in DV for my Web site, and I fell in love with the medium. It's unbelievable, the freedom and the incredible different possibilities it affords, in shooting and in post-production."

"For me, there's no way back to film. I'm done with it," Lynch says. "I love abstraction. Film is a beautiful medium, but it's very slow and you don't get a chance to try a lot of different things. With DV, you get those chances. And in post-production, if you can think it, you can do it."


:weird:

Shocking that he would say he will never go back to film. He's one of the most respected directors in Hollywood and has produce some really cool offbeat films.

Regardless if anyone has failed with DV doesnt mean it doesnt have a future, The technology keeps getting better and better. Its within 5 years from resembling the quality of 35mm (from what I've seen and read about, its a matter of getting DV up to 8 to 12 million pixelation. Last I heard it was still running around 2 million)

Its like digital cameras. the 10 pixelation digi cams are said to be as near perfect as 35mm film. When technology can save that much data and run at 24p per second, you have the same quality as 35mm motion picture. when it hits the professional market in the next 5 years it will almost surely replace expensive film. I dont remember if it was Kodak or Fuji, but a few years back one of these companies said they were gonna stop making 35mm still film and focus on manufacturing digital cameras. Its too expensive to process film and there will be so little market for it that the companies will either be forced to charge 10x what they do now just to make a profit or shut it down completly. I know Digital will never replace the aged look of film or the imperfections of it that is part of its beauty, but its still about profit and there will be little profits film when there is a change over.
 

Loud Orange Cat

Pro Member
indiePRO
King Goldfish said:
Shocking that he would say he will never go back to film.
Why not? George Lucas made the transition in Star Wars Episode II. Speilberg made the transition in War Of The Worlds. Spike Lee with Bamboozled, I can think of a few others that have moved (temporarily or permanently) to SD or HD video.

Lynch, weird as he is, has a good point. DV allows for so much more freedom and experimentation. The only way you could pull me away from my Sony PD-170 is to hand me an HD camera. :lol:
 
Top