End of Semester and Stories to Come Including My Top Films of the Year

While the semester here at Rowan University is coming to a close, my posting here certainly will not. In fact, I dare say that I will now be able to post more often without the work load of classes for winter break, and I have lots planned for the coming months. 

Spike Jonze's "Her" is my most anticipated film of the
remaining cinematic year. (Photo by Warner Bros. Pictures
and Annapurna Pictures)

Check back soon for reviews of other top contenders I have seen this year as I will finally have a chance to organize my thoughts on each film (some I've seen several times) and write them full, graded reviews. Once I manage to see the remaining contenders of the year (I am most excited for Spike Jonze's "Her" at the moment) I will compile a list of my top films of the year and why I picked them. To give you a sneak preview, at the moment, my top five stands at:

1. "12 Years a Slave"
2. "Stories We Tell"
3. "All is Lost"
4. "Inside Llewyn Davis"
5. "Upstream Color"

Over the course of this semester perhaps the most important thing I've learned is that, ironically enough, film is not a subject that lends itself well to visual storytelling. For web video this proved especially true, as without being able to use actual footage and/or images from the film I am covering, subject matter becomes scarce. 

Photos are a little better. While it is difficult to get pictures of actors and directors without a press pass, it is not impossible. You just have to be very proactive and forceful about it; I pushed my way through a crowd of fans to get a picture of Carey Mulligan and ordered tickets for the New York Film Festival's opening screening of "12 Years a Slave" months in advance in order to be able to attend the Q and A with its director (Steve McQueen) and stars. 

Audio was the best of the multimedia storytelling options for film and I found that although it is a specific subject, there are knowledgeable sources for it all over the place, such as film professors. Film journalism, while more subjective in nature than say, news reporting, is nonetheless greatly improved by talking to those who know a lot about it.  

Below are my top five posts of the semester (in no particular order). Take a look back at them and enjoy:

• Nov. 9: Reel Rant: Greatest Injustices of the Past Several Years of Academy Awards
• Nov. 2: Rowan Film Professor and Author Dr. Sheri Chinen Biesen on Film vs. Digital and Streaming
• Oct. 19: In Honor of the Upcoming Release of "Nymphomaniac," the Top Five Films of Director Lars Von Trier
• Oct. 12: Q & A with "12 Years a Slave" Director Steve McQueen Plus Cast Members Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender and Lupita Nyong'o
• Oct. 3: "Inside Llewyn Davis" Stars Grace Both the Red Carpet and Concert Stage in New York

Roger Ebert: the Man Who Revolutionized Film Criticism

In his book, "The Great Movies," Roger Ebert explores what are, in his view, the 100 most essential cinematic works in history. The timeline above lists those 100 by release date, director and stars. (All information is via Imdb.com and all photos without attribution are by unknown photographers and are in the public domain)

In April of this year, the film universe was saddened by the passing of "the best-known film critic in America."

Roger Ebert was not only one of the industry's most well-known pundits, he was one of its very best. Whether it was breaking new ground in becoming the first film critic to win the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism or his infamous on air reviewing of films during which he would coin the now common place idiom "Two thumbs up," Ebert was able to do what few critics before him could: popularize film criticism.

In a way, what Ebert did for film criticism is similar to what director Steven Spielberg did for the movie industry with the marketing and release of his 1975 thriller "Jaws." In the film, Spielberg created a first of its kind: the high concept film, or a film of a simple premise that can be easily pitched in 25 words or less. "Jaws" went on to become the first film to gross over $100 million in rentals and effectively built the summer blockbuster secret to box office success we know today.

Ebert, on the other hand, brought the secret of mainstream success to those who write about film. Not long after he started his career as a film critic in 1967, Ebert was already gathering attention for his work. Pauline Kael, who is widely regarded as the most influential film critic of her generation (right before Ebert's), called Ebert's early columns "the best film criticism being done in American newspapers today" shortly after she first read them.

Soon, Ebert, on the heels of his successful start in the business, became a co-host on a weekly film review television show called "Sneak Previews." Though the show started out as a local production in Chicago, it was soon picked up by PBS and shown to audiences nationwide.

Over the years, the show continued to draw successful ratings even through a number of network and name changes. It arguably reached it's most well-known period as "Ebert & Roeper and the Movies" from 2000-2002 when Ebert's fellow Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper joined him as co-host.

"I remember the show being a big hit right away," said Raritan Valley Community College film professor and Ebert acquaintance Mark Bezanson. "I think that the show reached a lot of people, not just because it was accessible physically on television, but because it was accessible on a critical level. A lot of film critics talk in a sort of pretentious code, and Ebert took all that and put it in people language so to speak."

"The 'two thumbs up' thing didn't hurt the appeal either," Bezanson added.

Roger Ebert is remembered as the most well-known film
critic in America. (Photo owned by Roger Ebert)

What set Ebert apart from other film critics, in addition to his television exposure, was the simplicity of his critical style. He utilized straightforward film rating techniques such as a four star system as opposed to the many other wider ranging systems used, like one-to-10 scales. He also invented and trademarked the "two thumbs up" phrase which rated a movies success based on whether it received thumbs up or down from Ebert. The phrase quickly garnered universal appeal as it gave many the opportunity to quickly decide whether or not to see a film.

"The 'two thumbs up' thing was a big help when my husband and I would try to plan a weekend trip to the movies without the kids," said film fan and mother of three Carol Paterno. "I love movies but I never really had time to figure out what was worth seeing when they were little. And Roger Ebert was normally right so it became a pretty reliable thing for us."

In addition to gaining the approval of general audiences, Ebert also became popular with film insiders, particularly those with a taste for experimental films not popular with mainstream audiences, because of his approval and openness to such films.

Though he did not like the idea of top 10 lists, one he submitted to the 2012 Sight & Sound poll of the greatest films of all time included both Stanley Kubrick's 1968 evolution epic, "2001: A Space Odyssey," and Terrence Malick's 2010 wide-scaling life meditation, "The Tree of Life." The two films are examples of art house features with cult followings from both past and present eras and, upon release, each had just about as many detractors as they did admirers. Ebert praised them as two of the greatest of all time, however, in what was his signature "relative, not absolute" style of reviewing.

Interestingly enough, the beginning of Ebert's popularization of film criticism came in the same year that Spielberg reinvented the box office equation. Ebert first started as a television co-host in 1975, the same year "Jaws" was released. Ebert said of the film: "There are no doubt supposed to be all sorts of levels of meanings in such an archetypal story, but Spielberg wisely decides not to underline any of them. This is an action film content to stay entirely within the perimeters of its story." He knew how the film would revolutionize the business; he was in the process of doing the same to his own.

The Rise of Writer-Director Paul Thomas Anderson

(Photo by Jürgen Fauth)

When any contemporary director is compared to the likes of Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles, you take notice. No one in recent years has drawn more comparisons to the great auteurs than former film wunderkind and current American heavyweight Paul Thomas Anderson. From box office hits like 1997's unique look into the 70's porn industry, "Boogie Nights," to more experimental art-house efforts like 2012's "The Master," to sprawling epics like 2007's "There Will Be Blood," Anderson has already proven himself one of the most talented and versatile directors in the world today. Here is a look at how Anderson has risen to such heights just six films into his career:

"Prisoners" is a Skillfully Woven Maze in Search of an Ending

Hugh Jackman's intensity in "Prisoners" is something to behold.

Canada is slowly becoming a hotbed for compelling contemporary cinema. With time-hardened directors like James Cameron (“Avatar”) and David Chronenberg (“Eastern Promises”) still working their magic in addition to up-and-coming talent like Sarah Polley (“Away From Her”) producing increasingly interesting films, Canada’s stock is very much on the rise. Canadian director Denis Villeneuve proved himself an emphatic part of that field in 2010 with his highly touted family drama “Incendies,” and his latest film, “Prisoners,” continues his streak.

The film opens with a shot of a deer grazing through snowy woods. As the camera creeps backwards the tip of a shotgun comes into view, a prayer is whispered and the deer is slain. Here, innocence is overtaken by the crueler workings of the world, a sign of things to come for the hunters, Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his son, Ralph.

Dover, his wife Grace and his two children, teenage Ralph and six-year-old Anna are visiting their neighbors for Thanksgiving dinner. Franklin and Nancy Birch (Terrence Howard and Viola Davis) have two children as well, teenage Eliza and six-year-old Joy. While taking their younger sisters on a walk, Ralph and Eliza spot an unfamiliar RV parked on a nearby street. The two stop their sisters from playing on it, and take them back. Soon after returning to the Birch residence, Anna and Joy ask to walk back over to the Dover household to look for a red whistle Anna was given by her father. It is lost, and so too become the little girls. When the two little girls go missing, the disappearance of the strange RV becomes the focus of the two panicking families.

Enter Alex Jones (Paul Dano). As the owner of the RV, Jones very quickly becomes the prime suspect in the kidnapping. It does not help his case that although tall and lanky, he is dressed like a 10-year old, has a far off look in his eyes and speaks in high-pitched, broken sentences. Despite being taken into custody, no evidence of any kind is found on Jones or his RV, and he is soon released to the care of his aunt and guardian, Holly (an almost unrecognizable Melissa Leo). Outraged by the police’s handling of the case, particularly a broken promise to keep the suspect in custody by Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), and vehemently certain that Jones is guilty and knows the whereabouts of the girls, Dover takes it upon himself to move the case forward and subsequently kidnaps the suspect.

Dover brings Jones to a boarded up and abandoned house in a presumably quiet part of town and begins to attempt to beat the whereabouts of the girls out of him. Jones says nothing, so Dover is forced to call upon both Franklin and Nancy for help.

Here, the film asks serious moral questions of its audience. Franklin is horrified by Dover’s actions. He knows it’s not right, yet at the same time there is the pull of the clock ticking on his chances of ever seeing his daughter again. How far are you willing to go to save a loved one? Should you be willing to go that far? Is it acceptable under these circumstances, or any for that matter?

“In the maze,” Jones tells Dover between scalding showers in a wooden cell. “That’s where you’ll find them.”

Dover has no idea what this means, of course, but “the maze” is a recurring symbol throughout the film and also effectively serves as a metaphor for each characters struggle; each is trapped in a seemingly inescapable maze. Franklin and Nancy are trapped between their guilt in allowing Dover to brutalize Jones and their desire to save their daughter; Jones is trapped in both the physical confines of Dover’s torture and his own mental confines, as there is very obviously something preventing him from telling what he knows; Anna and Joy are trapped in the hands on their abductor; Dover is trapped between the desperation to find his daughter and the growing likelihood that he will not be around to provide for her (should he find her) once the police discover what he is doing with Jones. Each character is a “prisoner” to his or her own maze.

Though the storyline asks compelling questions of its viewers, it is its haunting cinematography and score that lift it to its highest points. Academy Award nominated cinematographer Roger Deakins (“The Shawshank Redemption,” “No Country for Old Men”) instills a constant sense of dread and filth throughout the film with his often jarring, yet always visually compelling camera work. Jóhann Jóhannsson’s original score, meanwhile, shows deep range; from slowly building the suspense and dread involved in the mystery of it all to the emotional weight the events take on those involved, Jóhannsson covers it flawlessly.

Another driving force of the film is its intensity. Jackman’s performance comes to the forefront for sheer explosiveness and effective transparency; his eruptions are not of ultimate assurance, but rather a lack thereof he is compensating for. The performance of Gyllenhaal as Detective Loki, while not as forthcoming as Jackman’s, is nonetheless a major part of the foundation of the film’s sense of dread. He has a facial tick that grows more and more prominent as tension builds in the plot. He is implosive, appearing calm and collected throughout, his deterioration only noticeable through the slightest of details until he finally explodes in one of the more compelling set pieces of recent years.

Where this film loses steam, however, is in its latter half. While suspense built is constantly rewarded with real results throughout the first half of the film, it is repeatedly left empty as the film nears its conclusion, which turns out to be its weakest point. There is a very distinct difference between an effectively ambiguous ending and a non-ending. “Prisoners,” unfortunately, for all its ambition, features the latter.

Perhaps more so than any other film in recent years, "Prisoners" is a half film. Er, about three-quarters of a film to be more specific. It is almost as if Villeneuve got injured and sat out the fourth quarter, leaving a substitute to try to bring home the win. Though there is much to appreciate in "Prisoners," the fourth quarter is crunch-time and taking it off does not lead to victory. (Grade: C+)

“12 Years a Slave” is a Brutal Masterpiece

Michael Fassbender (left), Lupita Nyong'o (center) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (right) turn in performances as relentless as Steve McQueen's direction in "12 Years a Slave."

Acclaimed director Steve McQueen’s new film “12 Years a Slave” has been widely talked about as a front-runner for the Academy Award for Best Picture since its premier at the Telluride Film Festival and subsequent screenings at the Toronto International Film Festival. Some, like Kyle Buchanan of Vulture Magazine, have even gone as far as saying that it has already won the award.

Believe the hype.

            

McQueen is one of the most talented directors in the world at the moment. Unrelenting and brutal in his craft, his previous film, “Shame” (2011), an experimental character study about sex addiction, though critically acclaimed, was ignored by the academy largely due to its controversial subject matter. “12 Years a Slave” will not have the same problem.

The film, though brutal, features an incredible true story of significant historical importance. It dramatizes the autobiography of the same name by Solomon Northup, a free black man who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in 1941. Northup, brilliantly played by Chiwetel Ejiofor (“Children of Men”) in a breakout role of sorts, witnesses and endures the unspeakable cruelty of slavery. 

True to his honest style of filmmaking, McQueen seems set on exposing slavery in the antebellum South exactly as it was with no violent detail withheld. He remains at a distance, not judging any of his characters but rather letting their actions speak for them.

When first tricked and kidnapped, Northup is savagely whipped for insisting that he is a free man. Most contemporary directors would construct this scene with one quick cut into the action of the abuse and move on. McQueen lets the camera linger uncut for several minutes while Northup is whipped over and over again. The violence is not highly stylized like it would be in a Quentin Tarantino film; it is simply unequivocal. Needless to say, this film is not for the faint of heart.

During the initial whipping scene, Northup’s captor repeatedly calls for him to admit he is a slave. But Northup refuses to give in to his injustice, and though his persistence continually results in unfathomable cruelty on Louisiana plantations, he holds hope that he will one day see his wife and two kids again.

The fact that the story is true is combined with McQueen’s uncompromising direction makes the film an incredibly powerful experience. It’s acting, however, takes it to an entirely different level. Ejiofor’s depiction of Northup is the stuff of legends and should set him as an absolute lock for a best actor nomination. Mark him down as one to watch. Michael Fassbender (in his third collaboration with McQueen) is also a force as the most evil of Northup’s slave owners, Edwin Epps, and the supporting cast featuring the likes of Paul Dano (“Little Miss Sunshine”) and Sarah Paulson (“Mud”) all turn in compelling performances.

The biggest surprise of the film is undoubtedly the performance of Lupita Nyong’o in her American film debut. Nyong’o plays Patsey, a slave so badly abused that she becomes suicidal. Her ability to simply handle the sheer emotional weight of her role in a debut is amazing in itself, but she masters it. Like Ejiofor, she is one to look out for.

All of this is more than enough to make a great film. But “12 Years a Slave” packs yet another punch: the absolute centerpiece of the year. In the scene, Northup is forced by Epps to whip fellow slave Patsey, who he has grown close to. It is shot in one continuous take and lasts for over 5 minutes. The camera weaves in and out of the action, shifting with the ebbs and flows of the scene. Dialogue gives way to a heart-wrenching score by famed composer Hans Zimmer (“Rain Man,” “Gladiator”). Characters are broken; humanity questioned. One must simply see the shot in order to experience its power and horror.

The film's negatives really all boil down to taste. Those with weak stomachs will not like it. Those who prefer light and entertaining films will probably not like it either. Fans of intimately detailed dramas and historical epics will love it, however. Tonally the film is much like McQueen’s first feature, “Hunger,” a dramatization of the prison experience and hunger strike of Irish Republican Army protestor Bobby Sand’s (played by Fassbender) in 1981. A steady, controlled pace accentuates the shocking content displayed in each. Both films are based on true historical accounts and while “12 Years a Slave” may resonate with audiences as a tale of a more horrifying injustice, they are very similarly crafted.

Though the acts depicted are despicable and often hard to watch, it is hard not to be compelled by the film’s historical weight. “12 Years a Slave” is important because it strives to depict uncensored truth, and all of its intangibles make it perhaps the first great film of the decade. (Grade: A+)

Reel Rant: Greatest Injustices of the Past Several Years of Academy Awards

It's that time of year again: awards season. Each ceremony brings different opinions and lots of surprises, some good and some bad. The season's culminating ceremony, however, is also its most predictable. That the Academy Awards are traditionally previewed with articles that split "what should win" and "what will win" into separate categories is telling of what is usually to come: they're going to get it wrong. For fans of experimental, art house and even independent cinema, there is very little to enjoy in watching the highest profile middlebrow film of the year hailed as the "best picture." In fact, anyone who enjoys cinema of controversial nature of any kind will likely be disappointed by the Oscars. While it is going to be difficult for the panel to ignore what I, in my humble opinion, believe to be the best picture of the year so far in director Steve McQueen's masterful "12 Years a Slave" (although it is still very early in the race with many contenders still to come), I've learned to expect nothing. In honor of the upcoming awards season, here are the greatest injustices of the Academy Awards of the past several years:

2012: 

Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master" was largely
ignored by the Academy. (Photo by Jürgen Fauth)

The 85th Academy Awards Ceremony was undoubtedly one of the worst in recent memory; it would be easier to list what the panel actually got right. The biggest injustices came in the four major categories, however. Let me start with Best Picture. It was difficult to take this race seriously from the time the nominees were announced because the film I believe was and is the best of 2012, Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master," was left out. The film is experimental to say the least and certainly has its detractors, but there is no one world making more compelling cinema at the moment than Anderson, and explosive, powerfully acted scenes like a jail room confrontation between Joaquin Phoenix's Freddie Quell and Philip Seymour Hoffman's Lancaster Dodd lift "The Master" above anything else in 2012. For me, Michael Haneke's heart-wrenching "Amour" is a close second, and as it was nominated for the award, I naturally felt it deserved the win. Instead, the award was given to the suspenseful but ultimately safe "Argo" by Ben Affleck.

Best Actor was equally as disappointing. Many consider Daniel Day-Lewis to be the greatest actor in the world today, something I believe to be true. His portrayal of Abraham Lincoln is transformative, but 2012 should have been the year of the return of Joaquin Phoenix. Credit to the Academy for nominating him in spite of a high profile interview in which he called the ceremony "bullshit," but a completely unbiased panel would have rightfully given him the award. His performance in "The Master" is the stuff of legends; it is very reminiscent of a young Marlon Brando, both in range and commitment. Day-Lewis's Abraham Lincoln is flawlessly executed, but Phoenix's Freddie Quell is far more compelling and the psychological commitment far deeper. Day-Lewis's win was expected by most, but not rightfully so.

Jennifer Lawrence is one of the most talented young actresses in the world today and it is damn near impossible not to love her persona, but to be perfectly frank, I would have been satisfied with any of her competitors winning Best Actress, just not her. This was a close race to be sure. Jessica Chastain's Maya was a revelation and the driving force of "Zero Dark Thirty," Emmanuel Riva's Anne effectively broke hearts and records in "Amour" (the oldest ever nominee for the award), Quvenzhane Wallis's Hushpuppy was powerful enough to deserve a win without the feel-good story bias involved in her age and even though Naomi Watts's role as Maria Bennett in tsunami tear-jerker "The Impossible" was brief, she handled the considerable physicality of the role with grace. Lawrence was the middlebrow choice of the pack, so of course, the panel handed her the award. In truth, while nothing was wrong with her performance as Tiffany, there was nothing truly captivating about it; all four of her competitors were, in one way or another, thoroughly compelling.

I'm not sure where the Academy was going with their choice in nominees for Best Director. No Paul Thomas Anderson? No Kathryn Bigelow? The race was not legitimate from the start, and like Best Picture, the deserving nominee, Haneke, was not awarded.

Just a notably bad year in a collection of bad years for the Oscars.

2011:

Michael Shannon's career-best performance in "Take Shelter"
was snubbed by the Academy. (Photo by Flickr user Nicogenin)

Another year in which the four major categories just flat out stunk. I have an unconventional pick for best film of the year, and I fully understand that many may not share this point of view, but the best thing I saw in 2011 was Jeff Nichol's "Take Shelter." Yes, it is a lower budget independent feature, but the output is all that should matter, and there was nothing else in 2011 quite like the psychological punch of "Take Shelter." Not to give it Best Picture is one thing, but no nomination? Good old Academy. Likewise, no nomination for Michael Shannon in the film's lead role was an atrocity. While I don't like the absence of the movie in the Best Picture line up, I expected it. This was unexpected and wrong. One would be hard-pressed to find a greater level of intensity in a performance than Shannon's.

As for those actually nominated, Terrence Malick's beautiful and ambiguous "The Tree of Life" deserved the win, and in history will be considered the cinematic achievement of 2011. Then there's "The Artist," perhaps the most middlebrow nominee of the past decade. There is nothing special about it (in fact, I find it to be flat out boring and grossly overrated). Even if you didn't watch the ceremony, you could have guessed which one the Academy would chose. "The Artist" also won Best Director (Michel Hazanavicius) and Best Actor (Jean Dujardin); it did not deserve either. 

Best Actress was the only category not plagued by an "Artist" nominee, yet the panel found a way to stink it up anyway. Kirsten Dunst gave the best performance of the year (as well as her career) as Justine in Lars von Trier's "Melancholia" (which was also wrongly ignored for Best Picture and/or Director), but of course, she was not nominated. In what was otherwise a somewhat barren year for actress nominees, I felt that Michelle Williams did enough as Marilyn Monroe in "My Week with Marilyn" to deserve the award. But the great Meryl Streep was also nominated. She's an all-time great, but her turn as Margaret Thatcher in "The Iron Lady" is not one of her best performances. In this case, she won the award not based on merit, but because of her reputation. 

2010: 

This year wasn't as bad as 2011 or 2012, but still the major awards were safe as can be. I see "127 Hours" as the best film of 2010 based on a virtuoso performance from James Franco and the fact that there has seldom been a film so inspiring in history. This is likely to be viewed as another unconventional pick in the eyes of many, but since when has "conventionality" been a defining quality of great cinema? Anyway, 2010's Best Picture winner, "The King's Speech," is solid, but not the best film of the year. If not "127 Hours," I would have liked to see Darren Aronofsky's "Black Swan" take home Best Picture and Best Director. "The King's Speech" got both. It also got Best Actor (Colin Firth). Let's be real: watch Franco cut his own arm off and then watch Firth simply stutter away for two hours and you tell me whose performance was more compelling.

2007:

Both "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country for Old Men" were shot in
Marfa, Texas at the same time. (Photo by Flickr user Movie Stars and Rockets)

I'm skipping 2008 and 2009 because there was nothing I felt strongly enough about to consider an injustice those years. 2007, however, is the home of, in my eyes, the biggest Academy Award injustice of the past several decades.  Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood" is the best film of the past 10 years. That is probably the most steadfast opinion I hold in contemporary cinema. "There Will Be Blood" features the greatest performance in the career of the greatest actor of this generation (Day-Lewis), an incredibly interesting and creatively adapted screenplay by Anderson, one of the most effective minimalist scores I've ever heard by Radio Head's Jonny Greenwood and countless other flawlessly executed cinematic intangibles. It is the reason Anderson is my favorite contemporary director.

2007 was a landmark year in cinema; it's not common that two all-time great films are released in the same year, but that is exactly what happened with Joel and Ethan Coen's "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" (interestingly enough, the two were shot within miles of one another in Marfa, Texas at the same time and smoke from the set of "There Will Be Blood" interfered with a day of shooting for the Coens). Both are great, but "There Will Be Blood" is greater. As a result, it should have taken both Best Picture and Best Director. "No Country" took both, however, and in any other year it would have been well-deserved. But not 2007.

Rowan Film Professor and Author Dr. Sheri Chinen Biesen on Film vs. Digital and Streaming

Dr. Sheri Chinen Biesen's book, Black Out,
focuses on her specialty, film noir.
(Photo by Josh Hopkins University Press)

Dr. Sheri Chinen Biesen is a film professor at Rowan University and the author of Black Out: World War II and the Origins of Film Noir. She teaches classes like American film directors and film history, but her favorite is her specialty, film noir. As a film historian, Biesen has a trained eye. She can spot a bad print as soon as it graces a screen, and the overexposure that often comes with film restoration makes her cringe. To her, there's nothing like the look and feel of a pristine 35 millimeter print on the big screen. I spoke with her this week about the ongoing film vs. digital debate and although she is understandably critical of the use of digital projection, I found her surprisingly open to new methods of distribution like streaming. Listen to what she had to say here: