I think its fair to say director Christopher Nolan is up there in the very high echelon of “great current directors.”

His first full film, Following, presented a story which was told in reverse order, something he would subsequently use for his breakthrough follow up, Memento.

Mr. Nolan would release several incredibly well reviewed films, including his Batman trilogy (though, to be fair, the final movie in the trilogy did have its detractors), The Prestige, and Inception.

I’ve read interviews with Mr. Nolan and clearly he’s a BIG movie lover.  He loves celluloid and, interestingly, seems to have similar tastes to mine with regard to films he admires.

One of them is Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, which happens to be one of my top three all time great films (for the record, my other two all time favorites are Metropolis and Orpheus, though there are many, many films that fall just outside this category… and in time may supplant a film or two there!).

Anyway, Mr. Nolan, while in Cannes, showed a unrestored (yes, you read that right) copy of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey and… I’m left scratching my head.  So too was Stephen Garrett over at Slate.com, who wrote about it here:

Does Christopher Nolan’s “Unrestored” 2001 do right by Kubrick?

Understand: As a film lover, I very much want to see films look as good as they can.  I know that film stock can degrade over time, some dangerously so.  Colors tend to fade and this is why restorations, IMHO, are vitally important.

Yes, restorations of films often involves turning them from film stock into digital media and I understand that, as mentioned in the article, digital media wasn’t always the greatest way to show all the sparkling colors film stock manages.

But…

Digital technology is always improving and, as the author of the article mentions, what digital media produced 20 or even 10 years ago is at a lower level than what can be produced today.  I suspect it won’t be long before digital images will capture anything/everything film stock can.

However, here’s the thing: UNrestored print?!?

Again and according to the article, the image was generally good but the author noted scratches in the print, wobbling sound here and there, and the cigarette burn looking edges of the print which, in the old days, indicated a reel change.

Look, I’m all in favor of seeing things as they were, but given the film’s age, the “unrestored” copy that Mr. Nolan is showing has to display such age related wear and tear.  And seeing these little glitches… does it really enhance one’s appreciation for the film?

I would think not.

But that’s just my opinion.  Who know, maybe there is something to replicating the original theater experience, warts and all.