David Lynch and digital video

Slate Magazine recently did an article on David Lynch's Inland Empire, particularly examining his choice to use digital video rather than traditional film.

Well before Inland Empire even made it to the theaters (and what a non-traditional theatrical run it had!), I had heard of Lynch's choice to film Inland Empire in digital video. I think he even claimed to be so impressed with it that he was henceforth choosing to film all future projects in digital video rather than film. And when I made it up to the AFI one cold January night to see Inland Empire, I was kind of expecting something different than what I saw, at least with respect to the video quality. Given that we live in an era where even farts are rendered in high-definition, I was kind of expecting crystal clarity in the video presentation; in this case, I interpreted "digital" as synonymous with high-definition. Instead, what I noticed was a surprising grainy quality, less definition, much more reminiscent of a camcorder video.

I must admit, I was a little confused by this at first, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense: Lynch is an abstract filmmaker, therefore his video presentation would do well to be in an abstract, less clear form. And you know what? It worked perfectly! Seeing Inland Empire on the big screen in grainy, abstract quality truly heightened the experience, made the trip more macabre, and when I watched it again on DVD, I noticed that the digital video actually translated better to the small screen. On my 25-inch TV screen, it actually looked sharper and clearer than it did in the theaters, which I know is contradictory to the more abstract, grainy quality of the big screen, but someone it still made sense. Darks were darker, colors were more free-flowing and bleeding, shadows were more penetrating . . . and the experience more dazzling.

I really have to hand it to Lynch: he's bolder than many filmmakers I know, and truly uses the medium to achieve the most effective experience possible.