Letters: Apr. 10, 2006

Coming Soon to the World Near You

Every year we like to lift our eyes from the toil of the present and peer further ahead, at the trends on the horizon. Our exploration this time raised a lively debate on the merits of digital moviemaking, as well as keen observations that underscored the human element of our technology-driven world

TIME’s article on George Lucas and the new digital age in moviemaking [March 20] was especially poignant for me. My father worked as a technician at Technicolor for more than 30 years and helped with the production of several Disney animated movies. Now my daughter (an avid Star Wars fan) is helping digitally restore the Disney films her grandfather worked on. When I was growing up, I was so proud to see the Technicolor logo on the screen. And today when I see my daughter’s name in the credits, I am just as proud. I don’t understand Hollywood’s reluctance to go digital. Perhaps younger producers will embrace Lucas’ vision.

DIANA ROBERTSON Laguna Niguel, Calif.

Your headline asked, “Can This Man Save the Movies? (Again?),” and I would say no. Not that Lucas isn’t capable of doing almost anything with the art form, but very few people in a theater care about the process that was used to shoot the movie they’re watching. They just want a good story. It is important for the talented people behind the camera to come up with better techniques, but I would suggest that they start a major hunt for some good writers who have new ideas.

HARPER PAUL WILLIAMS Alpharetta, Ga.

TIME’s film critic Richard Corliss said Lucas’ Star Wars: Episode III–Revenge of the Sith was “the most popular live-action digital movie in history.” It didn’t win any Oscars, however, and that’s because it was horrible, not because of some conspiracy against digital technology on the part of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. All the technical achievement in the world can’t make up for a horrendously bad script.

GEORGIA MANRY Portland, Ore.

I understand Lucas’ enthusiasm for technological advances, but I think the look of film has more aesthetic value than digital’s supercrisp, ultra-clean images. I agree with writer-director M. Night Shyamalan, whom you quoted as saying, “You almost have to degrade the [digital] image to make it more real.” I hope Hollywood doesn’t have to choose between digital or film but can combine them to enhance the image on the screen. After all, shouldn’t technology be used to serve art? The financial returns will come later.

SEAN TAYLOR Silver Spring, Md.

Your story seemed to imply that Hollywood’s reluctance to accept high-definition video as the standard for image capture is due to nostalgia or a vague notion that film just feels more organic. No digital camera has yet achieved the dynamic range of today’s film stocks, but that will change. Digital imaging technology will surpass film quality, and that’s when moviemakers will start shooting their films digitally.

JOSH SILFEN New York City

Those who prefer film over digital images should awaken from their chemically induced haze! Digital is faster, cleaner, more versatile and fun to work with. In the hands of a true cinematographer, digital moviemaking exhibits all the soul, humanity and feeling of a production shot on film. None of those attributes are inherent in film alone but are rather created by the person whose eye is at the viewfinder. Would we believe for a minute that Ansel Adams was sad the day he was able to stop lugging around glass plates in favor of film?

WILLIAM C. SIMONE Lebanon, Pa.

Movies have evolved and will keep doing so as technology advances. I predict that Hollywood will eventually make feature-length movies by digitally re-creating long-gone movie legends. Using computer-generated imagery, animators will create fictional actors and maybe even render live movie stars a thing of the past. And on Oscar night, the red carpet will be rolled out for the computer geeks who created the stars.

PAUL DALE ROBERTS Elk Grove, Calif.

Lessons for the Boss

RE “Why Your Boss May Begin Sweating the Small Stuff” [March 20], on sensitivity training at the office: As an expert on the prevention of workplace violence, I know that managers and supervisors set the tone in the workplace. If they are arrogant, dismissive and intimidating, then one shouldn’t be surprised if the employees behave likewise with one another. The result is reduced morale, high turnover, low productivity and, sometimes, threatening or violent behavior. If only managers could lead by the Golden Rule, the workplace would be a much better and safer place to be.

RICHARD SEM, PRESIDENT SEM SECURITY MANAGEMENT Trevor, Wis.

Tethered by Technology

One of the participants in you Forum on trends of the future, “Around the Corner” [March 20], said the shower is the last bastion of contemplative solitude because it’s the only place he’s not hounded by electronic devices. But he has the power to turn off his BlackBerry, iPod, cell phone and any other electronic leash he wears. These so-called communication devices in many cases alienate users from the people around them. Electronic communication is not conversation. It lacks the characteristics of human interaction: the physical, mental and emotional sharing of thoughts.

TRACEY GILPIN Marlborough, Mass.

Clinton in 2008?

“Can Hillary Join the Club?” [March 20] stated that Senator Clinton is “known to misread a crowd sometimes” and claimed that at a Kennedy Center benefit for AIDS last fall, “she harangued an audience already deeply engaged with the epidemic with an awkward demand that they do even more.” As the event’s organizer, I can tell you that about half the audience of 500 was not in any way “engaged with the epidemic.” They were invited to the event in an effort to get them involved. Clinton eloquently called on the corporate and government leaders in the room to work harder, and her speech was punctuated by applause. With more than 25 million people dead from AIDS and 40 million currently infected with HIV, one can hardly argue with the fact that far more needs to be done.

TREVOR NEILSON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GLOBAL BUSINESS COALITION ON HIV/AIDS New York City

Even my well-to-do, liberal Democrat brother-in-law rejects the notion of Hillary as President and says he might vote for John McCain. Are you listening, decision-making Republicans? McCain can beat any Democrat.

MILLIE BURT Jersey Village, Texas

Is Hillary too polarizing to win the presidency? Hardly–especially when compared with George (“I’m a uniter, not a divider”) Bush. The Dems’ middle-of-the-road candidate didn’t make it last time. I say, Bring on Hillary!

ELLEN HAYES Colchester, Vt.