ONE
Early last week a fellow cinematographer whom I have known since our student days at USC Cinema sent me a link to a short animated video. I watched it, intrigued by the confrontation of its two opponents—a cinematographer and a producer. The sparks from this verbal set-to are, in fact, both incendiary and hilarious. The video’s disjunction between a near manic trade-off of ad hominen insults and its sylvan, static setting with “Hello Kitty” figures in a stand-fast dialectic punch out, makes it even more bizarre. After several viewings, I found myself wondering what possible subtext could lie beneath the potty-mouthed, subversive rant of the cinematographer who had created it.
In the unlikely event you have not seen this gem-like dark ditty (or even if you have) here it is in its full two and a half minute screed. Click the “xtranormal.com” link below this photo, not the photo itself:
xtranormal.com—“If you can type, you can make movies.”
www.xtranormal.com—Cinematographer vs. Producer link
In the past few days I have seen this video go viral within the ranks of cinematographers (now well over 50,000 hits) . Clearly, it expresses with witty ripostes a level of frustration that many “below the line” filmmakers have been feeling for some time (it has also spawned an editor’s version with the same figures and background engaged in debate with a studio executive about Avid vs. Final Cut Pro). Cinematographer vs. Producer posits with almost surreal irony that the very embrace of cutting edge technology chosen by cinematographers as tools to expand their creativity, is being used to erode this creativity by the ill-informed and the directives of bottom line budgets. The “democratization” of filmmaking made possible by “user-friendly” video and DSLR cameras seems, as well, to have had the unintended consequence of making almost anyone that can push a start button, a self-anointed camera expert .
Last Spring’s CineGear exhibition at Paramount Studios could be an unexpected preview of the future of filmmaking. Many gear-head futurists and movie distributors have been lusting for the demise of traditional film prints for more than a decade. In early 2001, the New York Times Arts and Leisure section ran a photo of Disney and Miramax executives holding metal film cans out over a dumpster. Back then, as I was writing an article for that august paper discussing my first DV feature, The Anniversary Party, even the most digerati-bent of us could not have predicted that before the decade was over some mainstream filmmakers would actually be shooting films with a $1500 juiced-up stills camera. Here is the camera that all the fuss seems to be about.
The CineGear event presented an interesting study in techno-bifurcation. After leaving the Gower St. registration table, you entered an air-conditioned soundstage packed to the perms with cutting edge digital movie and still cameras. Supporting post-production software programs were all neatly presented for the one-stop convenience of the digital (can I still say it?) FILMmaker. I even spotted other DSLR cameras being promoted as movie cameras, one of them even mounted on a standard size gear head— an interesting inversion of the way these small cameras were meant to be used. Outside the stage, a brief walk toward the back-lot streets in the broiling sun, were installations for large support products such as camera cranes, HMI rigged night-lights, helium lighting balloons—and, oddly, booths for vendors of 35mm motion picture cameras. Was the inclusion of these traditional movie vendors and their “mature” products a kind of over the shoulder glance backwards from the future, a deliberate slight, or a nod that film cameras might possibly still be somewhat relevant? Perhaps it’s just that there’s nothing too sexy about a multi-generational old workhorse like a 35mm Panaflex or Arri film camera, compared to the “newest and brightest” piece of HD video equipment. I noticed, also, that there was no booth for Kodak anywhere, and the recent market aggressive Fuji-film banner was located sedately behind the ASC stall, almost begging not to be noticed.
Even after reflecting on why these booths were so configured, I’m not certain what it meant. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps there was just a desire to escape the outside heat—but it sure seemed to me as if most of the “buzz” emanated from the digital stage, not from the heat-radiating pavement where film vendors were installed. This segregation was no different than what I observed a few weeks later when I was guest of the ABC, the Brazilian Society of Cinematographers, at their weeklong get together at the Cinemateca in Sao Paolo. The Arri Alexa was introduced here with real interest (I sat near Felix Monti, a veteran film cinematographer, who had recently used the RED on the Oscar winning Argentinean film El Secreto de Sus Ojos.
But afterwards, the real clustering of young people and students was out in the auditorium lobby, centered not around last year’s hip HD-DV cameras, but around the DSLRs and prosumer 3-D cameras.
TWO
The history of cinema is one of ever-evolving technology and it appears to be each generation’s birthright to think that it alone is at the swirling center of a technology maelstrom. What seems to be different this time around is not just that new equipment is the generative factor as a new aesthetic platform—- but the business implications that surround, even dominate it. What exactly do I mean?
Some years ago I was on a panel at the Sundance Film Festival that addressed the then embryonic use of digital cameras for feature film production. For years, there had been sporadic attempts to use video cameras for large screen productions, but the results had been pretty unsatisfactory. On the Sundance panel a young “A” list actor/director sat next to me. He was brimming over with excitement and confidence about a low budget film, partly improvised by his actors. The cinematographer, an industry veteran in 35 mm film, was here using low-end DV cameras. The film’s principal location was a legendary downtown NYC hotel. The ambitious independent production company underwriting the film, InDigEnt, was in the first flush of a number of indie hits, all shot with small digital video cameras. They continued producing features until a few years ago when newer technology assumed their mantle and the founder became a mainstream feature film director.
At the time of the panel I had yet to photograph a digital feature, and I felt uneasy being seen as the poster child for traditional celluloid filmmaking, even a 21st century Luddite, possibly for no other reason than the number of studio film credits I had amassed. Within a matter of months, however, I had photographed my first DV feature in PAL format, The Anniversary Party (HD was not yet a viable option for most low-budget films). The young director sitting next to me was proclaiming the end of the studio system, of FILM itself, even of crews that wield all those superannuated cameras with their noisy movements and heavy magazines, the kind that had to be constantly re-loaded. It was a heady time then, and I couldn’t help but remember when my own generation of young filmmakers had trumpeted its own revolutionary refrain as the 70s began. A few years later, the coronation of the summer blockbuster put an end to that brief reign of anarchy.
Also echoing in my ears was the claim of a “B” list director who had given a press conference the previous day claiming that “digital cameras will free us from the tyranny of the cinematographer and the caterer.” “I guess we can debate the primacy of the cinematographer,” I said, “But I’ve never seen anyone make a feature film without a caterer.”
Roger Ebert had been sitting quietly a bit further down the table. He was then, and still is, a champion of celluloid filmmaking. “It’s true that digital cameras will make it possible for everyone to now make a film,” he began. There was a dramatic pause, “And, unfortunately, everyone probably will.” No more prescient words could have ever been spoken—and this was in a pre-YouTube, piano-playing cat, upload–your-own-movie, era.
THREE
Depending on your point of view, this democratization has begun a new era of filmmaking that will open portals of new vision and personal expression (just as Francis Coppola had foretold), or it will promote a headlong rush toward mediocrity. Or both.
Who could have predicted a decade ago that the Hollywood mainstream studios would embrace this ever-expanding technology of digital filmmaking to turn out ever more explicitly violence-oriented product in an attempt to stay up with the latest version of PlayStation or X-Box first person shooter games— a futile way to keep their noisome product viable in the ever shifting sands of the marketplace. No less a pro-business oriented organ than The Wall Street Journal has recently sounded off on this very topic. Writer Joe Queenan poses the rhetorical question—is this “The Worst Movie Year Ever?”
online.wsj.com—“The Worst Movie Year Ever?” article link
The studio marketing geniuses that now routinely decide which movies get made, seem to believe that audiences want nothing more than ever more outlandish stunts, explosions and car crashes (a minimum of dialogue preferred), topped off by a requisite amount of evisceration and decapitation. And, boy, can digital vfx deliver that.
Hold onto your CGI hat. I’m not suggesting that there is any correlation between mind-bending digital effects and the employment of more and varied digital production cameras. But as Sheenan points out, there does seem to be a correlation between the mindless facility with which video game style digital effects are rammed down our throats and the diminishing concern for credible narrative and character. In the beginning of the digital and CGI era there seemed to be an implied promise that this new technology would take us anywhere we could imagine. And so it has. Sadly, that direction has often been into a cesspool rather than an empyrean.
FOUR
But let’s return to that irreverent Cinematographer vs. Producer video. Is it just a full-frontal assault on the new digital cameras and their supporting technology? I don’t think so. No one, assuming that the Cinematographer vs. Producer filmmaker is in the movie industry, can sustain a decades long career in the film business by playing the role of a 19th century Luddite, despite novelist Thomas Pynchon’s encomium on King Ludd’s timeless reign.
www.themodernword.com—Thomas Pynchon article link
Early 19th century loom-breaking Luddites.
I have been trying without success to find “Nicolas DH” who posted this video on July 22. It would be fascinating to discover what motivated such a witty outburst, one that so caught the moment. It has flown through cyberspace and its YouTube posting has garnered both assent and abuse.
Here is a sample of YouTube comments:
It does not matter what one shoots with if the writing is poor. Most writing IS poor so why waste more money than necessary to ‘capture’ crap?
For me the bottom line is this: Filmmaking is not as much about the tools we use to carve with as it is the stories we are trying to carve.
If and when film stock ever goes away completely it will be a sad day for sure. But there will be angels rejoicing in heaven when stupid producers stop making stupid films (shot on film or otherwise).
Seems to me that this was made by someone fresh out of film school who doesn’t really know what they’re talking about when it comes to cinematographers or producers but felt they should vent because they heard this argument from two friends who are equal idiots with just as little experience in the field. Stop acting like you know what you’re talking about. Technical knowledge isn’t all you need to make a movie. And a producer wouldn’t act like that.
Most people don’t know or care if a painting is oil or acrylic but we still preserve the art they are. We DP’s want to maintain the strictest quality of our craft. Christopher Nolan has a good take on this. All DP’s know that most people can’t tell the difference- this is not the point. Film is a visual medium, not just about capturing narrative (i.e. Terrance Malik). Film is more like music. BTW, I have a DSLR too.
I suspect (or at least my reading of the video suspects) that NicholasDH, like many of us, is angrier about the erosion of the primacy of the cinematographer as a key creative partner in the filmmaking process, than he is about any new DV camera.
At the beginning of the digital intermediate era I recall sitting in Board meetings at the ASC, listening to fellow cinematographers discuss the potential of the DI process to “expand our toolkits.” Having a long time interest in film archiving and preservation, I expressed guarded concern about what we even then knew about digital degradation and format migration, and what it could mean for the future of filmmaking. Sadly, those concerns have become even more crucial as the decade comes to a close and as we move ever faster into DV at the point of production origination.
Even five years ago, cinematographers had to fight to have a DI. Today, they have to fight not to have a DI. And even as the DI process becomes mandatory to serve the studios’ post-production pipeline, more people want a hand in overseeing it. And predictably, just as with the production phase, some cinematographers are now finding themselves marginalized. I know this is true. These weekly essays have given me a window into cinematographers’ rising concerns that are way beyond what they choose to post as comments on this blog. Even Nicholas DH has not, so far as I know, revealed himself.
FIVE
Smaller cameras that are easier to use, more sensitive to low light levels, more “film-like,” and especially more affordable—are being bought in numbers unheard of for 35mm film cameras—by people who only a few years ago had never dreamed of being able to make films with their own camera. A camera operator colleague in Canada told me recently that despite his love for celluloid, he has invested in a venture to purchase dozens of RED cameras to fill his rental demands. The ballyhooed democratization of production has very quickly devolved, like much in our society, into a rush by those with enough disposable income or good credit, into a for profit bonanza. For the emerging and struggling filmmaker with modest means, the small HD cameras offer an affordable opportunity to make his or her cinematic vision come to life. Everyone would appear to be a winner. But what NicolasDH has taken note of is, that all this easy access to cameras also makes anyone seem competent to shoot a movie, or decide what equipment we should shoot it with. Herein lies the crucial subtext of Cinematographer vs. Producer.
I have enjoyed a hiatus between features part of this past spring, a welcome respite from filming, and have taken advantage of it to engage with film students—at UCLA as Kodak’s “Cinematographer in Residence” under the guidance and support of Bill McDonald; at the AFI with Stephen Lighthill and Mark Woods; and with the ABC and Lauro Escorel in Brazil. It has been a great opportunity for me to meet with cinematography students and to listen to their technical, aesthetic and career path concerns. What I have heard is great hope for the role of the cinematographer as we progress deeper into the digital video era— but I have also heard an abiding anxiety. Across the board, from eager students to grizzled industry veterans, at both ends of the career spectrum, I find uncertainty about how they will be able to express themselves as creative artists in a world where anyone can turn on a camera, get a viewable image—and argue that their perspective is as good as someone who has dedicated their career to exploring visual narrative.
Cinematographer vs. Producer is not a debate about technology. It’s a cri de coeur, a voice crying out into the digital void. The expressionless bottom line question that often comes bouncing back at you, the one that is the most heartless barb of all, is:
So, do you want the job or not?
This is the crude put-down that is often the final refuge of the money people, more to the point of today’s employment hungry society than that of our beleaguered national motto, E Pluribus Unum. It’s a sad observation by NicolasDH on the very nature of how he may perceive his (and our) diminishing creative choices in this brave new cinematic world. Nor is this a problem only for young and emerging filmmakers. We can hope it is just a passing aberration, much as these same money people once claimed that steadicams were going to eliminate the dolly grip, and the synthesizer was going to eliminate movie orchestras. Last time I turned around and looked behind the camera there stood off my shoulder a smiling dolly grip; and motion picture scores are as lush today as they were in the days of Max Steiner and Erich Korngold.
This, of course, is just my perspective. I hope it will spark those of you who read these essays (cinematographers, editors, colorists, composers, production designers, directors) to sound off here. We need to think together to bring real solutions,not just complaints, to our current dilemma, in contrast to the barbed-mouth yahoos who insist cinema is nothing more than an opening weekend “product”.
I come from more of a directing standpoint so keep that in mind. My job is to tell a story. If I have a story to tell of course I’d love to shoot it on 35mm film. But if the funds aren’t available I’ll shoot it on S16mm. Once again if the funds aren’t available and I just have to get this story out then I’ll shoot it on my T2i. I’m a storyteller by trade. It’s what I love to do. I love film but until I can afford it, I’ll be recording my stories on a DSLR.
I think you’ve nailed it, Mr. Bailey – the issue is not about emerging and changing technology, so much as craftspeople being ignored and abused in their chosen field.
Wonderful write up Mr. Bailey. You are one of my most favorite Cinematographers and I love reading your insights. From my perspective as a young and aspiring Cinematographer, I am worried about the film process being pushed aside for digital. I want so much to learn the art of film exposure and treatment and when and why to use certain film stocks over others, among other film related things. In going along with the fear you make mention of about the future role of the Cinematographer, it’s almost as if Cinematography has been reduced to “point and shoot” tactics in some of the independent films I have witnessed; all the while regarding the equipment capturing the frames as more important than the composition of the frames. Simply put, it’s the difference between “Can you operate this piece of equipment?”, and, “How can you use this tool?”. Having said that, I will of course always have the biased belief that there is a necessary role for the professional Cinematographer and his/her artistry.
P.S. – Thank you for shooting anamorphic and the work you have done over the years to support the format. Part of my love for the format is due in no small part to you.
ummmm, what´s the dilemma again??
As a indie film producer (mostly spoiled with 35mm, 16 but now applying same standards for work done with ever-changing new technology), I have hired and respected all my director/cameramen and DP’s. You choose your DP well, and then the collaboration between how the visuals best ehance and move story journey begins. Hopefully in the last 24 years and go forward, my DP’s never will refer to me as a “stupid” producer or I will gladly send them the bill for the whole shoot!!!
xoxo
I love this video. I think it shows the good and bad sides of both cinematographers and producers.
Long may humour be used to question what we do and how we do it.
This animation is just a retread of a similar video made a while back regarding the contempt potential employers have for photographers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iDJdyUwQ5k
I think there are many others for each job in the creative industries.
well…sure the post is really funny!
i didnt get the part about mr Mann and mr spinotti as i ve found “public enemies” to be a wonderful movie very well photographed…
again on the subject of digital vs film; just seen” incident at loch ness” love the film; love the look that mr Baily achieved was amazing its made me feel almost like i was with then on the loch….digital video has its things!
I am happy to say that almost every producer I know is mindful enough to let the directors and their collaborators, cinematographers especially, decide what medium to use for their storytelling purpose. On that note, my favorite indie cinematographer is one who not only has a deep passion for celluloid film, but also embraces the technological advances. These two important positions..the producer and cinematographer…can, and do, co-exist. But what makes the “Cinematographer Vs. Producer” video such a sensation is the fact that we, people in the film industry, all know THAT producer…that inexperienced, ignorant person who thinks they know everything there is to know about making movies. On the flip side, we also know THAT cinematographer…the elitist and sometimes pretentious person who dislikes change.
Filmmakers enjoy this little cartoon! I love it.
I recently had an actress-turned-producer ask me for advice on cameras. The conversation soon turned into a lecture by her to tell me “what’s what” about certain cameras. She was completely ignorant to everything about the two cameras she was comparing. I let her have her moment, but the point is, these people, like the two characters portrayed in the silly “C vs. P”, do exist.
Maybe that is why it caught on with so many filmmakers. We all know these people.
I just shot a major motion picture but unfortunately I dropped my iphone in the toilet. All that beautiful work down the drain. Literally.
I started shooting back in the 70s with a super8 camera. Over the years I have shot with both, Super8, 16 and S16mm, DV and now DSLR. I still have my film cameras as I do still love the look of film. I just stay on top of technology so if I need to shoot something other than film, I am prepared and not looking unprofessional. I attended the 2010 NAB and this year was all about 3D and DSLR. I love the way the DSLR can use old lenses that give my productions different looks as my old film cameras can. Film is a great medium and carries a look none other. DSLR has it’s own look and feel. Both are two different formats capturing one’s imagination.
Welcom to our ever changing world of creation and technology..
Photography has greatly changed in the past 10 years and it certainly isn’t over.
On the first level, there were claimes that digital images would never have the same feel, look or quality as film.
On the second level, there is a whole new generation of creators freely expressing themselves and beeing a whole lot more pertinent to a new public.
Unfortunately, with tecnology, some crafts might have just about dissapeared (I worked in a photo lab in an other life).
On a positive note, however, I suspect that there is always demand for real creators. In this respect, new technology is always welcome
I could not agree more with your third point. “Depending on your point of view, this democratization has begun a new era of filmmaking that will open portals of new vision and personal expression (just as Francis Coppola had foretold), or it will promote a headlong rush toward mediocrity. Or both.”
I could not agree with you more on point three. To that I would also add starting with Kodak, making picture taking easier, to bring Photography to the mass market. For years
All the leading still camera manufactures have spend millions of dollars promoting that taking pictures is a easy,
Video Camera Manufactures have gone even further in their efforts to promote how easy it is to make a video.
I personally love shooting video on a DSLR, but I also have the background in motion
Picture film, still photography and video production to hopefully bring out the best with
This evolving technology.
I can’t help but remember, showing some of my best Commercial and Fine Art Still Photography, many years ago to the untrained, only having them asked,
“What Camera did I use?”
For years the Video Camera makers have followed making it easier to shoot video, and the great democratization has lead to neophyte videographers thinking that they are somehow Cinematographers. For years competent Wedding Videographer’s have to fight, to get hired, when Uncle Harry has a camcorder and he’ll shoot the wedding for free. No, I don’t make wedding videos but I know people who do.
Another disturbing trend is the over reliance in fixing everything in post. This translates to not making any critical imaging decisions during the shoot. This is starting to create a class of Director/Producer/Editor who hedges their bets, play it safe and not commit to any shooting style that in camera produced. Minimizing the roll and need for the Cinematographer.
Even the common language is turning away from creative image making. “Recording the Image,” “Push the Record Button,” or “Capture, the Image,” is actually degrading the meaning of Cinematography.
There is nothing wrong with the new technology, but it is going to create grater challenges for the emerging Cinematographers. Who will be competing for work,
With the truly ungifted. You know that guy who just purchased the latest and greatest Camera.
Thank you again John for your sharp analysis of a situation, and looking beyond the obvious for the underlying point of view in the video.
I too saw this this week while on set, the 1st AC I usually work with asked if I’d seen it yet, remarking that it reminded her of me, sure enough I watch, and, shy of some of the more vulgar phrasings, I was hearing things I’ve found myself saying many times before. Now I have never had this conversation with a producer, don’t think I would, only in debates with fellow camera people.
Now, I’m sure a wiser man has once said that it doesn’t matter what you shoot with to tell a good story, but if that was honestly the truth, CInematographers wouldn’t have a job. It does matter what and how you shoot something, and anyone who says that has probably always gotten their way about it. If someone told a DP what they would be shooting with, they would either be happy, want to know why, or argue another route, the good ones though will always want to know why whether they agree or not. Choice of medium is a statement unto itself. It has an effect on the audience from a point where they don’t realize it’s affecting them, to a point in which it actually makes them stop and take notice.
To that point I wouldn’t say it’s necessary to use only the top end of gear to tell a good story, done well you can tell a good story on a cell phone….but not every story can be done well like this, and conversely there may be a time a cell phone could be the right choice….but the point being is that there should be A CHOICE.
This is the crux of the issue to me, Choice. In what I see happening, this digital democratization is eliminating choice across the board, for better and worse. I can completely understand someone on nearly no budget opting to shoot a project on a DSLR….what I honestly don’t understand is a production such as “House” choosing to shoot a season finale on a series of 5D’s when they already had at their disposal a fully equipped top end cameras. If anything, I get the sense that this is putting nearly no separation between student level productions and professional ones aside from the skill set of the people operating them, and how much money is spent on the things in front of the camera. Some might think this a great thing, I honestly can’t say I agree.
I do think affording more opportunities to aspiring filmmakers is great, but it gives me the sense that I’m being pigeon holed into using these cameras or not working….and past that…not having anything to work towards.
I have had the great fortune to shoot a 35mm anamorphic short film, but if anything it only made me more hungry to shoot more, and it’s still my dream to shoot a feature on Panavision anamorphics…and beyond that something on 65mm (possibly IMAX)…hopefully in B&W here in NYC….or better yet finding someway of pioneering an even larger format of motion picture film. These are the things I’ve been dreaming of in my education and build up towards becoming a cinematographer….and the reactions I see from people to what’s happened in the last 2 years….I feel like I won’t have a way to achieve those by the time I’m a competent enough cinematographer to do those things justice. I get nothing but a sense of defeat from people I know, whether they agree with my sentiments or not, they all feel like I’m fighting a lost battle, digital has won, why waste your breath? I of course want amazing stories to accompany these projects, but I’m not really a writer, so I’m left to dream in what I think are beautiful images.
It all isn’t honestly a FIlm vs Digital thing either, it’s a matter of control, philosophy, and style. This is why I think it should be a Choice for what people shoot with, because different projects call for different styles and looks, and different cinematographers have variances on all of these.
If I’m shooting film, I’m taking meter readings, I’ve tested the film, I know what to expect and trust in the medium to behave one way or another, and it’s only myself, the director, and maybe the gaffer who will truly know what exactly I’m up to in terms of what I’m doing. I’m choosing different stocks because they physically react differently to differing light, if I under or over expose my film to varying degrees and do certain things during processing, I’m ‘baking’ in a look to the film, keeping it in my control.
If I’m shooting digital, I’m sitting at a monitor staring at a frame, I’m looking at places that are behaving in ways that aren’t complimentary to the medium, and I’m doing this because I’m not trusting how the camera’s sensor will react to certain things, and wanting to make sure some setting hasn’t been set or some software glitch to cause everything to come out wrong…everyone who walks by a huge monitor can see exactly what I can, and can and will comment on it, democratization, and I’m trying to shoot in a way that I ‘bake’ in as little a look as possible so that I will have the most flexibility in post to alter the image to what I actually want it to look like and ‘bake’ it then, and the camera I’m using is designed for me to do exactly that.
I know this is an overly one-sided POV on this, but it’s my POV. I know there are other DP’s who could make a similarly one-sided argument for digital, and on some points I probably couldn’t do anything but agree with them, but nearly all on the point that that’s what works for them….not necessarily me.
On some of the digital sets I’ve been on I have felt the DP is more of a Photography Supervisor, not unlike a script supervisor, which in my feeling takes much of the craft and artistry out of the position. If my career is heading to a place where I’m shooting for middle of the road to see a director or studio go back and change my work, then I can honestly say it’s one I don’t want.
What if Gordon WIllis had shot “The Godfather” middle of the road, applied the look he wanted, and then when the studio hated it (as they actually did) they would have been able to go back and change it to what they wanted instead? …and suddenly we’re shy one all time great example of master cinematography.
I have been saying for I guess years now that digital would be something more interesting to me if there was any digital experience out there that could emulate my experience with film. If I could choose 1 camera, but then an array of sensors designed for different tasks, one better than another for highlights, another low light, etc etc. Vary the sensor materials and pixels…If I could still have a medium I could ‘bake’ a look into and have trust in how it (and it’s camera bodies) will behave. Even if perhaps I could send a bland ‘sanitary’ image to monitors, so again I can create without 20 sets of eyes looking over my should to second guess me, which would then make me second guess myself, which is exactly why I stopped shooting digital stills. I perform much better when I can maintain my concentration on what I’m doing and shooting, trusting in the process, and having everyone else trusting me as well and then having the pay off be worth it.
Now I can talk about all of this until I, and more likely all of you first, are blue in the face, and while some may dismiss this, and the splurge of 3D and whatever else Lord Cameron deems something we should be spending money on, I am fearful that at least the digital part of it may become a more permanent thing. Shooting on a 7D versus a Platinum has one key component difference from many of the other ‘revolutions’ that have come and gone prior…..money (in a huge way).
Between the timing of these cameras coming to where they are, and recession being what it is, and even the push to 3D (however long it lasts), are all things pushing productions to cut costs where ever possible. If this happens enough then use of film may drop enough that it will either become so marginalized it’s nearly un-shootable except by those with the huge budgets, or it’ll go away all together, in terms of motion picture at least. That plus how ‘in fashion’ it is to get apps etc. for phones that make cell phone images look like various analog formats.
I can speak to this as well because I also work for The Impossible Project who is making new films for Polaroid cameras, after all it took was one creep running a ponzi scheme to derail a product with hundreds of millions of potential customers. I don’t want to have to see a group of people get together to try and recreate motion picture films from scratch if something like this were to occur with Kodak and Fuji..once is enough…but even then there will be a cinematographer seeking the approval of a producer to buy and try to shoot with this new-old film.
In conclusion I just want to add that this is all controllable. If there wasn’t mass misinformation and dumbing down of materials, be it in message or medium, people will buy into the dumbest forms of it until they’re given a reason not to. Hoping people won’t notice is a terrible way to go about things, as is thinking that the possibility of not having an original to go back to in 10-20+ years isn’t a big deal….and at some point someone might show people what “The Dark Knight” looks like on a 70mm print a real IMAX screen against some of these other films that you’re calling ‘IMAX’ and putting them in ‘IMAX’ theaters with ‘IMAX’ digital projectors….and they’ll wonder why they were paying the same for these two very different IMAX’s, and wonder what these people who’ve been selling them on this consider to be the difference, since the people behind it don’t seem to want to clarify that there is any difference.
I do some what get the sense that a backlash is occurring, though unless there is something significant….I do think it will be too little too late for us who still want a CHOICE.
Thank you again John, do forgive my long-windedness, looking forward to your next post. -f
I don’t think the masters of film should get so distraught about the new tools in visuals.The changes are fast and drastic,where DSLR cameras are performing surprisingly well.The bottomline is and will always be…STAY ON TOP OF IT…or miss out on work because you are not comfortable in that zone.
We all love 35mm and the big sets,equipment and crews to paint with light.
Reality is that with the economical strain worldwide everybody needs to compromise.
And finally,our gorgeous planet doesn’t need the chemical strain of filmdevelopment!
I feel the need to respond to Amelia’s comment about the environmental damage caused by film development. As chemicals are used up in processing, they are replenished, not discarded. The silver is removed and sold. The wash water is heavily filtered. Therefore, the environmental impact is small.
35mm film cameras, printers and processors that have worked for 50 years can still be used today. By contrast, how many 3/4
U-matic tapes and VHS machines have ended up in a landfill?
Wonderful post.
I’ll give you my own student perspective on this, though it’s hard to grasp all of this change when I hardly know the film medium that’s being trampled on.
I agree with Frank that it’s very important to be aware of the choices you have. I suppose it’s inevitable that different mediums will compete, film versus digital, because everyone wants money, am I right? But why should that matter to us as creative, continuously experimental filmmakers? Why does everyone feel the need to choose a side, instead of finding the usefulness in both? I can tell who it is that really knows what they are talking about, when they admit they have tried BOTH mediums, and they admit they PREFER one over the other, not based off an overview based on it’s overall usefulness and context in cinematic filmmaking history, but because they think it’s what’s going to make their movie LOOK BETTER.
I am aghast at my school, which is eliminating film photography from its Intro to Photography course. Why? Perhaps the digital “onslaught”, with its cheapness. But why should an institution of education, looking to put people in a professional world, remove that option from students, that other choice? Coming into school, I could not see the film versus digital difference. Maybe I could, but I didn’t know which characteristics belonged to which. But after shooting film in cinema and the last intro photo course to use film, I SEE that difference and that different pleasing aesthetic, and I appreciate it beyond words.
I am of course very frightened as any fine arts students is about what job opportunities I will have after school, in a field where the practictioners see everything that the employers cannot. I agree that the ability for everyone to pick up a consumer camera and shoot HD footage has given them the idea that it also makes them an expert. My friend, he’s great, but now that he’s bought his first DSLR camera, feels that he knows worlds about it just after shooting for a couple of weeks. “I like aperture,” he says. It’s funny of course, but how do simultaneously help someone explore the medium you love, while also wanting to hammer them down to the point where they can respect it?
All I know is that there is so much more for me to explore and learn, which is what I love most about this, that there is always more to discover.
Just a brief follow up…
I agree with Mark, the claim of ‘the environment’ as a reason to cease film and go digital is a straw man argument. People will buy into this theory because anyone who’s shot film see’s it as an amount of physical media, packaging, and then the smell and impression of the chemicals at the lab. Also with stills, they see the film as consumable, purchase-use-process-reapeat, more packaging, more chemicals. If one takes into account that all that packaging is recyclable, and as Mark mentioned even some of the byproducts from the process are, and the gear to use this consumable is extremely efficient considering how long the cameras can last, and the lower level of power consumption. The consumable is also not wasted or trashed, it is preserved for future use.
Digital feels cleaner from this standpoint because the user sees either tapes or reusable media with migrating data. From a user’s standpoint, there’s less or no consumable media coming in, tapes shoot more for their volume compared to film, and cards and drives just get used and re-used. For stills, people just shoot, connect camera, upload to computer, clear card, and go shoot again, again, no sense of waste or adverse effects.
Now I clearly don’t have the resources to study this, nor have I looked at any official figures since as far as I’m aware none exist, so this is my educated-guess of a rebuttal, anyone with better information please come forward, but…
I think if you look at the fact that these cameras are themselves the ‘consumable’ product here, the idea that digital is better overall doesn’t seem as likely. If one thinks about how each and every year, it’s a new camera(s) we’re talking about, look at the sheer volume of these cameras that are made, used, and then replaced within a year or two. Don’t forget to factor in extra power consumption of the cameras, supporting electronics, DIT station/extra hrs on computer making image adjustments, and how much more is required to preserve the data over extended periods of time. Also some of these cameras have toxic materials in them, all of them require vast production facilities, materials, energy, and resources to produce in these numbers. How many HDV shoots has any one been on lately? 35mm Adapters? Or maybe 2/3″ chip cinema shoots?
Again referring to stills, since this post is in part about a still camera, I own 14 film cameras of various formats, not a single one of them did I purchase new from a store, this includes my 90+ year old Brownie which still works.
I’m not so sure about the odds that someone will be talking about the latest ‘optical box’ in 90 years to have someone come on and chime in about their 90 year old 7D they’ve just been out shooting. I’m honestly curious when you look at ‘body consumption’ vs media consumption how they match up on how ‘green’ they are.
Now if manufacturers were to have gone a different route with digital, not unlike the one that Aaton is now taking with the Penelope, or to some extent ,though limiting, medium format still cameras, where you have a traditional film-accepting body with shutter and lens mount, possibly mechanical or with some electronics, then add on a digital ‘mag’ or back to that so that you don’t have to replace an entire camera to upgrade through advancing digital imaging systems….then things might be more interesting. This would also allow for multiple backs with sensors of various strengths and weaknesses to be interchangeable, again not unlike the philosophy behind shooting different film stocks. To me this would improve efficiency of product and production, allowing sensors or backs to be upgraded and recycled by manufacturers, as well as be a better creative option for artists.
Instead the industries in motion picture and still have both hitched their wagons to an all-in-one philosophy, either because it’s probably easier to design one camera with a good chip than try and design a camera system with two or more swappable great chips….or in the case of stills probably because you know you can make more money if you make your customers keep buying several thousand dollar bodies every 2 years or so. In the still world, there has yet to be a digital camera of top-tier quality that isn’t also loaded with every bell and whistle that’s possible today. Where’s my manual-only high-end digital with high grade in-camera optics for manual focus?
To reiterate though, and to clarify, I’m not trying to say I’m against digital or its practical applications. I’m not ‘choosing a side’. I’m trying to make a statement about how, with the way digital is developing, in still and motion, their is a philosophical shift in strategy, which is to shoot for middle of the road, to collect a maximum of data for a maximum of flexibility in post. This removes both a large creative aspect to a Cinematographer’s/Photographer’s job, as well as removing a large aspect of control in my opinion. Now I’d say some photographers retain this more than cinematographers because they are typically more involved and have more say in the post process than cinematographers (this of course varies from assignment types), but removing that control from the camera then puts that control more in the hands of someone that isn’t you.
I am happy for any colleagues of mine who now have digital to give them a certain aesthetic that they’ve been waiting for that perhaps was very difficult to achieve with film, or costly, or perhaps the change in workflow has liberated them to some extent. This is why it puzzles me why this has to be a “Apple V. Orange” debate.
Why can’t those of us who like Apples have our Apple, and for people who want Oranges can get an Orange? Why are some of the Orange people trying to kill off all the Apples in the world? Nearly any Apple person will still know that if they’re asked to make something like Orange Juice, they’ll ask for an Orange because it’d be pretty hard to make some with an Apple…which is why I don’t understand why so many Orange people are trying to make Apple Juice with their Oranges, and convince others it’s a better way to go.
Why can’t we say this debate is dead (instead of film) and let people use the medium of their choosing, after having educated them without bias to all the benefits and pitfalls of both? Spreading misinformation and hype to people unfamiliar to the specifics isn’t fair to them or people who at present prefer the ‘dying medium’, something due in part to this misinformation and hype. Perhaps a day when there is a digital option that nearly perfectly emulates that of film in at least most ways if not all….then we can talk more on this.
OK, so maybe not so brief, and thank you again John for bringing up such pertinent topics for discussion, I always enjoy it. -f
….and I thought this would be topical, and for a good laugh regardless of your feelings to the 7D
http://vimeo.com/13992345
A lot of times in these film vs. digital discussions, I hear people talking about filmmaking only as an art form. Which it is, or it least can be, but it is different from most art forms (painting or literature, for instance) in that it usually requires hundreds of people and millions of dollars to create. Sure, there are rare exceptions when a film is made with no consideration given to recouping that investment, but most would-be artists do not have the means necessary to make films simply for the sake of their art. Therefore, while filmmaking can occasionally yield results with artistic value, it is and has always been, first and foremost, a business.
We begrudge big studios for churning out rehashed story lines, sequels, remakes, and pyrotechnics and CGI-laden cringe-inducing summer blockbusters with the least amount of effort and creativity possible, but why should they care? They are, after all, publicly traded companies, and they do quite well with this strategy, so their shareholders are happy. Can we blame them for trying to maximize profit and look out for the bottom line? It’s their jobs.
Indie producers have a much smaller chance of seeing any return on their investment than the studios do, but isn’t that even more of a reason to try to spend every penny of that investment as carefully as possible?
As a cinematographer, I always want to shoot on the best format possible for any given project. But unless I’m putting up the money for the project, it’s not really up to me. I have opinions, and I express them to the director and producers, but ultimately they have to make the final call on whether shooting a certain format is worth the cost.
I consider myself lucky to have had the opportunity to shoot a few indie films on film. I hope I have that opportunity again, but I don’t know if I will. I know the advantages that film has over digital well, and I know that some of the current digital cameras have some advantages over film (and that as technology improves, there will be more and more of these). To date, no digital camera I’ve worked with has come close to matching the on set experience of working with film, the ease and simplicity of shooting it, trusting it, not having to worry about every little hot spot, and yet some of the images I’ve created digitally have looked better to me in the end than some of those I’ve shot on film. (I’ve also never had digital footage come back scratched, or had to explain to anyone watching dailies that the overnight colorist at the lab just didn’t follow my instructions.)
But ultimately, regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of any format, unless I am willing to pay for the film, processing, and transfer myself, I can’t really expect producers to take my recommendation as the end-all-be-all. They’re the ones that are going to be losing their money if they don’t spend it wisely, not me.
Every cinematographer out there who sees film slipping away and laments the loss of an art form is perfectly capable of going out there and shooting all the film they want for their own projects. I don’t see most of them doing that, and that’s probably because they can’t afford to spend that kind of money. I know I can’t. Should producers have to spend the kind of money they don’t feel they can afford just to indulge us in our romance with film as an acquisition format?
I have a 7D and I’m thrilled with it. It’s not because I think it’s the ultimate filmmaking tool. I don’t. It’s because for the first time I have a camera (a camera I could afford to buy for myself) that I feel is capable of recording some very good-looking images. I can go out and shoot with it all I want, shoot my own projects, shoot projects with friends on the weekend, without spending any money, and I can do it while shooting footage that I am proud of. I can shoot no-budget projects that I would put on my reel. That has never been the case with any other camera I’ve known of up to this point.
I was at that Cinegear Expo a few months ago, and Kodak might not have had a booth, but they were there. They had a program there called “Stop By, Shoot Film,” which is pretty much just what it sounds like. You go around the expo with a small group of people and a 435, and you shoot film. I shot some generic looking footage of one of the group members standing in front of a row of sponsors’ booths at 150 fps. They even send you a DVD with the transfer of all the footage that was shot that day by your group. I skipped a fascinating-sounding presentation by Wally Pfister about “Inception” as well as Kodak’s demonstration of their new film stocks just to shoot those few feet of film. Why? Because it’s film. I just got that DVD in the mail and was excited to watch it.
If a producer hires me to shoot a project, I give my opinion on what format I think would be best. It might be film. If I am shooting my own project, just for fun or just for the sake of making art, it is highly unlikely that I will be shooting film. I will be shooting on the 7D.
Also, how come in these discussions of the art cinematography dying off along with film, no one ever talks about lighting? Isn’t that what cinematography is about? Personally, I’d rather shoot a film on an iPhone with a decent crew and grip and electric package than shoot on 35mm without them.
-Josh
P.S. Frank, you say you want “a medium I could ‘bake’ a look into” and to “send a bland ’sanitary’ image to monitors, so I can create without 20 sets of eyes looking over my shoulder to second guess me”. I know it will pain you to hear it, but I think the 7D might just be the camera for you. There’s no RAW video mode, and with the heavy h.264 compression that’s applied to the footage, you can believe you’re ‘baking a look’ into it. Trust me, I’ve done some color correction with it — if you shoot it like “The Godfather,” no producer is going to be able to take that away from you. And the sub-par HDMI monitor output means that any external monitor image will be ‘sanitary’ and bland at best. But even better, the fact that the camera’s LCD turns off if you plug in an external monitor, requiring all kinds of crazy workarounds to get a monitoring system actually up and running, gives you the perfect excuse to just do away with the monitor altogether and not have anyone second-guessing you. You could even get one of those LCD loupes to look through so that no one can look over your shoulder, literally. Of course, you can’t really trust the LCD when it comes to exposure, so your best bet is to probably do a lot of testing of the various ISO settings and the camera’s dynamic range, and then rely on your light meter to determine exposure. It sounds to me like the digital camera you’ve always dreamed of.
Not in the film industry but thought this animated vignette captured the issues that arise in many industries between the higher-ups who think they can cut and cut costs thinking technology will make up for it. And that this approach will not impact the quality of the output.
Hey John. I was wondering what the past has to tell us about this moment in time?
What was it like for you young guys and ladies coming up in the “American Golden Age” after the events of the French New Wave and all the other waves coming from Europe?
Were there many filmmakers imitating Godard, running around with the “triumphant” and “liberating” and “democratizing” Eclair Camflex?
Were you often asked to work for a much much much lower rate than your average office cubical jockey?
Were cameramen often being hired because they owned the camera and not because they had the right talents for the project.
Were you often being asked to do multiple jobs for that aforementioned low rate, and in effect, raising that and the next generations expectations of what is normal in the making of a film, and how much money it costs to make them?
From your and your colleagues shared past experiences, how do you think these times are different? What similarities do you see? What possible consequences do you predict looking back at what came about during and after your generations actions? What positives and negatives come to mind that may be in store for us young’inz?
Any words of advice?
Thanks for another great article.
Joe,
I very much enjoy reading the blog comments every day and am gratified when a dialogue develops about the week’s essay, as is happening this week, The comments box is for for all of you to express your own thoughts on the topic. But your questions to me are so direct I feel they call for a response. I don’t presume to speak for “my generation”, and certainly not for my peers, but I can speak of my own experience— for whatever it may be worth.
I was an assistant cameraman for almost eight years and a camera operator for four more. I didn’t fall into being a cinematographer, but learned greatly from my mentors. You have given me enough questions for an upcoming weekly piece about what is the same and what may be different about career paths, then and now. I just have to figure out how to make it worth reading. As soon as I get settled in Alaska on “Saving the Whales” I’ll do it.
This small dialogue encapsulated the frustrations that many feel.
We grew up in a collaborative medium which has been slowly overtaken by the egotists and narcissists.
If they want liberation maybe we should start with the growing
numbers of producers,executive,associate and otherwise that seem
so essential in todays film making.
Its the movies that are getting small not the people who craft them.
“How I Am Spending (and Spending and Spending) My Summer”
A response to “Cinematographer vs. Producer”
From “John’s Balliwick”, August 9, 2010
“The studio marketing geniuses that now routinely decide which movies get made, seem to believe that audiences want nothing more than ever more outlandish stunts, explosions and car crashes (a minimum of dialogue preferred), topped off by a requisite amount of evisceration and decapitation.”
It’s amazing that John Bailey is able to describe my summer work experience without having visited my workplace. Yes, I’m working on a summer blockbuster. It’s the third in a successful series produced perhaps because, as Joe Queenan’s article suggests, “Hollywood likes to play it safe” or as my experience on the set suggests, it’s more like the punchline of a number of dirty jokes I’ve heard: “they do it because they can.”
Part I’s budget was estimated at $151 million, Part II at $200 million and Part III, the current production, rumored to be as high as $300 million or more. [Hey. Parts I & II grossed $1.5 billion worldwide so far, I'm just saying, as they say] But $300 million? $300 million! I thought of asking the producer if there might be any other way to spend that kind money? Of course when she asked me what Bailey calls “the expressionless bottom line question that often comes bouncing back at you, the one that is the most heartless barb of all- ” “So do you want the job or not?” I didn’t ask the the Three Hundred Million Dollar Question at all. I think my query was more along the lines of “When can I start?”,
Here, though, in the privacy of an online blog – soon, if not already, viral – I will ask: “$300,000,000? WTF?
Of course I understand that many of the dollars from the budgeted hundreds of millions are paying me, other craftspeople, technicians, workers and vendors who have been hurting badly in the current jobless economy and that some of those dollars will trickle down and up and out to our creditors and others in our communities. But why should it cost twice as much to give us essentially the same cinema experience as PartI? Perhaps a future issue of “American Cinematographer” or “ICG” or “Forbes” will answer that question. I’m going to use this space to talk about some 300 mil might buy other than a blockbuster Hollywood movie.
Let’s look locally then globally. My summer blockbuster started shooting in Hollywood, rare enough for a Hollywood movie these days. A few months before they began principal photography CA Governor Schwartzenegger proposed cutting the yearly K-12 education budget by $1.9 billion. $300 million would buy back funding for childcare and development programs. The production soon moved on to a distant location, a state offering tax incentives to motion pictures. The state credits the producer 30% of payroll tax on local hires and gives similar breaks on state sales tax for local vendors. Meanwhile, this state can’t make its budget, has laid off thousands of people including public school maintenance workers, teachers and administrators. Programs in Art, Music and Special Needs have been dropped. Just two weeks before my summer blockbuster’s LA crew arrived, the state school board announced the $300 million budget cut that necessitated the layoffs.
In other news:
“The U.S. Energy Department will award nearly $300 million to a clean cities program to help communities buy alternative-fuel vehicles.”
“Thirty-five years after the end of the Vietnam War, a joint U.S.-Vietnamese panel endorsed a 10-year, 300-million-dollar “plan of action” to deal with the deadly health and environmental legacy of the U.S. military’s widespread use of “Agent Orange” during the conflict.”
“Mexico earthquake damage estimated at over $300 million”
“South American nations pledge $300 million aid to Haiti”
“The U.N. reports $99.5 million has been pledged, and donors have committed or contributed $47.8 million to the U.N. emergency response in Pakistan, but $300 million more is needed.”
And finally, a personal favorite:
“Africa owes $227 billion to western creditors. Every day Sub-Saharan Africa spends $30 million dollars repaying debts to the world’s rich countries and international institutions. Often they spend so much on debt payments that they have very little left over for health or education.”
So even my summer blockbuster’s massive budget would pay off only one day of debt for only 10 of the 45 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Am I arguing we shouldn’t make movies? Absolutely not. A-I like my work. And B-I like to watch movies.
But for $300,000,000?
Like the YouTube cartoon cinematographer says to the YouTube cartoon producer: “Are you out of your fucking mind?”
Thanks John, for the opportunity to discuss “production values.”
-Pete Kuttner
it’s ironic that the animation program used to make “Cinematographer vs. Producer” ends by saying “if you can type you can make a movie”
“Today a technological storm is raging, the result of which will be the ultimate democratization of the cinema. For the first time anyone can make movies. But the more accessible the media comes, the more important the avant-garde. It is no accident that the phrase ‘avant-garde’ has military connotations. Discipline is the answer … we must put our films into uniform, because the individual film will be decadent by definition!”
This an extract from the Dogme 95 manifesto, made by Thomas Vinterberg and Lars von Trier.
As a cinema student I must say that when I first read it, fours years ago, this utopic vision of democratization made me trembled with excitement. But as my professor made clear, along the history of cinema, for countless times as such claim been expressed with the same certainty. The Dogme 95 is a prove of that same conclusion, as the movement waves of revolution rapidly vanished by the dust of time.
Nowdays, with the so called Vídeo DSLR revolution, such claim is set again and in this global village, the waves have become themselves global, and I find hard to deny that it seem´s that this extract from the Dogme 95 manifest is more actual, more current then ever.
The truth is that along my four years of faculty (I´m currently one year away from concluding it) one of the most repeated and demotivating ideas that I and my close friends find ourselfs complaining about is that cinema, and it´s circuit, is one of the most elitist forms of art. It´s expensive. It´s certainly not the same as buying a pen, pencil or a paint brush and a canvas, to start expressing yourself.
Now I see this demotivation as, in a way, what made/makes cinema so special. It was/is expensive. Making a movie was/is expensive. 35mm are expensive. And, therefore, required/requires respect, discipline, concentration. The “body” of the movie was expensive and rare.
Cinema was once magic in it´s process, and specially in it´s visualization. Nowadays I find it hard to watch a movie in the theater. Everyone seems to think they are movie “critics”. Except, of course, for the classic movies, made before they were born and could see it for themselves in the movie theaters. Thankfully those are still looked upon as something worth watching. Those are the movies that still carry a “soul” inside there bodies”
These are for sure exciting times, for the people, who, like me, still have the dream of making cinema. It has never been cheaper. But one thing is for certain, there is no respect for cinema anymore.
It´s a soul problem, not a physical one, and it´s something that cannot be undone.
Unfortunatly it seems that the “soul” will only be regained if the “body”, itself, starts getting the same respect. The image as to evolve, and keep itself in a high pedestal. It has to become more elitist then ever. Something that will certainly not happen, and that will proclaim, for once the death of cinema. It will be/is the start of a new age of cinema.
Thanks for another great article.
Cheers.
I just finished shooting a short film on the 7D and while it’s an adequate camera for some situations I cannot imagine using it to shoot a feature. One of the main issues we had with the camera was it overheating and needing to rest periodically thus halting production until the camera had a chance to cool down. The whole shoot just felt like we were stuck in thick mud. We got some amazing footage but it was not exactly pain free. Now that we are in post we are noticing some pixalization and the rolling shutter is really an issue. Maybe fine for music videos etc. but we plan to put off the feature shoot for a few months in order to put together the funds to shoot on S16mm. Just my two-cents…
I’m a African, born an Apartheid child ’76 and grew up in a very diverse and moraly conflicting environment.
When I read how so many have had the privilege of having mentors and being able to learn, I feel robbed. I never had the opportunity.
The digital platform has changed everything. I now at least have the right tool in my hands, finally depth of field is not on the wish list. I’m glad that the African story can finally be told though film…be it digital.
What is sad about the film industry is that when I travel to America everything looks fimiliar. My eyes have seen and grown accustomed to American landscapes, court rooms, people groups etc. It’s like reminiscing… But if I travel to upper Africa it’s all fresh and new, and it’s my own continent. So “industry” is a good term for film in America, it seems that cinematographer is having to redefine his role in that industry.
But here, I would like to think that film is still new enough to still be “art”. I see the potential of the art of film being brought forward with fresh eyes, minds etc. And digital is a great tool…so hopefully in thirty years there will be mentors, artists and story tellers keeping the great oral tradition of Africa alive in film.
So my conclusion on the interruption of the “Digital tool” in an “Film stock” world would be:
May it be a Renaissance to the Industry,
a Revolution to the Art of film,
and a Revelation that story is most important.
@Pete Kuttner. There is always a need to invest money into greater causes, but money doesn’t change things…people do. If poeple invested their talents and skills into a hungry culture, both would benefit.
Similar to Nicolas, I’m hispanic, grew up poor, and never had the chance to go to film school.
That I can make movies, thanks to HD, feels like an odd blessing.
The true subtext of the video is one of paranoid elitism (the stock and trade of much of cinematographic culture). Dont worry, like Ebert says, a camera can’t teach you to light, compose, tell a story, or give you the taste and vision to do these artfully once all the technical aspects are learned.
35mm looks ten times better anyway. At least I can play in your sandbox now.
thank you for another thought provoking and educational blog.
shoot some pretty whale pictures – cant wait to see what you are seeing.
I was touched by the african story.
and I think the revolution is here finaly.
Dogme 95 was 15 years too soon.
we need a new DSLR Dogma 10
http://vimeo.com/15885115