I'm just saying that a certain part of the industry would rather die a slow and painful death than giving him any recognition.
but yes, we shall see.
I hope I'm wrong.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/07/how_everything.php

http://youtu.be/dy7avoqzm8w

http://storernatasha.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/iu-movie-lifestyle-club-launch-w-keanu-reeves/

Uploaded with [URL=http://imageshack.us]ImageShack.us[/URL]

I zoomed the script and it says Side By Side. The extra paper says Side By Side Title Credit List.
No need to thank me :)

New Zealand Listener

NZ International Film Festival: A Journal of Side By Side Antipodal Tableaus

By David Larsen, Hugh Lilly | Published on July 26, 2012 | In Now Showing | Online Only | Tags: Film review, Review

Side By Side (David Larsen) The word “film”, used as a synonym for “movie” (or as an upmarket, art-rather-than-entertainment alternative) is more than halfway to being an etymological fossil. When I asked film festival director Bill Gosden why one of my favourite Auckland theatres isn’t a festival venue this year, he told me it’s because it doesn’t have a DCP digital projection system. That is, if you go into its projection room, you’ll see a rig designed for shining light through strips of treated celluloid, and not one for converting ones and zeroes into images. The one film – the one “film” – on this year’s programme which anyone with an interest in the future of the art form ought to see is Side By Side, a fascinating & highly entertaining documentary about the digital revolution.

Actually, that’s not quite true. It would be more accurate to say that this is the one film anyone who doesn’t already know much about the film-to-digital story should see. If you’re in the industry or you’re a serious technogeek, you’re probably not going to learn much you didn’t know already, but I guarantee you’ll still enjoy yourself. Wall-to-wall film legends, for one thing: Martin Scorsese, Danny Boyle, David Lynch, David Fincher, the great editor Walter Murch, and too many other notable names to list. They’re fascinating just as presences. Keanu Reeves does the interviewing, and he makes a surprisingly good fist of it, low key for the most part but quite capable of cutting his luminary subjects off with a penetrating question if they show signs of rambling. Scorsese I could watch all day; being enthused at by Boyle is like being trapped in a small room with a dozen over-excited three year olds; Fincher is caustic but highly intelligent, and more engaging than industry legend had led me to expect. And then there’s James Cameron, who has so much to teach us. (Expounding on the physical limits of celluloid, he casually proffers the detail that Titanic played so long in theatres that the film prints began to fall to bits, and his people had all they could do to provide enough replacements. Uneasy lies the head that wears the king of the world crown). And of course we get face time with George Lucas, whose innocent faith in technology is almost enough to turn a pro-digital person anti. (Robert Rodriguez refers to him as Obi-wan).

There are pro- and anti- camps on digital, yes. It’s a huge divide, and sometimes a bitter one. The documentary doesn’t give the anti people all that much screen time. Christopher Nolan is the most prominent anti we see, and he has some nice lines – “I’m not going to trade my oil paints for a set of crayons” – but not, on this evidence, much of a case. My sense is that he could have mounted a better argument if he’d been allowed to go deeper into the technical aspects of digital, which are not explained in much detail here.

But it also seems clear to me that the old “CD vs vinyl” style arguments for film’s inherent superiority over digital – film is “warmer”, film has “more texture”, film has this magic quality or that magic quality and digital is a plastic hamburger – are fundamentally mystical. I’ve seen a number of people, including some critics I admire (notably David Thomson), try to come up with language for the feel of film, the lustre of film, the thing film gives you on the screen that digital simply can’t match, and I don’t buy it: there is nothing film can do that digital won’t be able to do just as well, either within a few years or right now.

The more interesting arguments Side By Side raises are about archiving and editing. As one interviewee says, there have been 80 different video formats since video was invented, and most of them can no longer be played, because the machines you need to play them are no longer made; someone else remarks that hard drives are not stable devices over time, a simple statement which in this context gets more alarming the more you contemplate it. Photochemical film is a reliable storage medium as well as a recording medium. In 50 years, how many of today’s digital films will have been lost to format obsolesence or file corruption?

Trust George Lucas to have faith in the future: it’s a problem, he acknowledges, but if we want to solve it, we’ll solve it, and we’re going to want to solve it, so in essence it’s already solved. “Just like with video”, he doesn’t add, because the video experience shows we’re quite capable of shooting ourselves in the collective foot over this sort of thing. But the grim satisfaction with which some of the interviewees insist that this question is ultimately going to wipe a generation’s worth of film (sorry, “film”) from the historical record doesn’t seem warranted either.

The implications of digital for editing are the really interesting part of the story. We meet enough editors, both old and young, to get a good sense of the ways the new technology is transformative. In a nutshell, you can work much faster now, you can change things in the editing suite that were not previously alterable, and any changes you don’t like, you can easily change back. Which means, as some of the older editors point out, that a certain degree of imposed discipline has been removed from the process. You can still choose to work slowly and as if every move matters; and of course slow work doesn’t have to be good work. Great art has been made and will be made via digital editing, and it lets you do things that would otherwise be very difficult or impossible. But creativity doesn’t always thrive on a lack of restrictions. This point can be over-stressed, and inevitably some of the interviewees over-stress it; the chap who opines that more bad films are being made now than ever before is a tiresome example. (You get the sense that it would only take a little strategic needling to get him to go all the way and say, “In the good old days, we didn’t have golden age syndrome”). There’s still a question here worth considering.

The slam-dunk for digital comes from Lena Dunham (Tiny Furniture, Girls), who says quite straightforwardly that for someone with a writing background and no particular technical expertise, digital is an open door where film would be a barbed wire fence. If the ease and affordability of picking up a digicam and seeing what you can do means we get Dunham, then I’m happy losing whatever we lose in the process. And as a practical matter, Danny Boyle nails it when he says digital is the future. (Slumdog Millionaire, incidentally, was the first digital film to win the cinematography Oscar). “You’ve got to go with it. And if you can’t, that’s fine. It just means your time is finished”.

also, THIS sounds interesting, folks...
http://www.tribecafilm.com/festival/news/Side_By_Side_Documents_the_Debate_Over_the_Digital_Revolution_in_Filmmaking.html#.UBr3k6Aizic

the first video is here:
http://www.tribecafilm.com/videos/164750646.html

... does anyone know how to download it? :(

And I can get my ticket now! Awesome! I guess I'm not going home for our Independence Day, but that's fine, it's too hot over there anyway.

http://www.laemmle.com/viewmovie.php?mid=8141

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2012/08/keanu-reeves-quizzes-great-directors-in-side-by-side-/1#.UBzY_qAizic

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2012/08/side_by_side_trailer.html
Because there weren’t enough reasons already to love Keanu.

;)