Film isn't dead but video is killing me:
I wanted to say a bit more about the whole Digital, HD and Film battle that is not really even a battle as far as I am concerned.
First let me say I'm sorry about not updating the site more I have been very busy working, looking for work and starting a little production company. I will try to update the site more often in the future.
All right, a few days ago I went to see the new Star Wars Picture "Attack of the Clones." It just happens I was sitting next to a well know Director and I didn't even know it till later. He is a pretty big director and I guess you can say he is a part of the new breed of filmmakers out there, with quite a few big Movies under his belt. Now I don't want to say his name out of respect and I will tell you why. After the movie was over my friend and I asked him what he thought of the movie. He said, "No comment." When I thought back on it, I remember see him as well as my friend in my peripheral vision, shaking their heads far too often during the movie. Hell, I was doing that as well. Anyway, I didn't like it, my friend didn't like it, the big shot director didn't like it and his little kid didn't either. The kid didn't think it had an ending, which is quite astute of the child. I am sure we didn't all see the movie the same way. My friend is a writer, I work on set making films, a big shot director and a little kid, who from what I gather is the target audience and none of us liked it. As a matter of fact, I believe the director has worked with Lucas but I'm not sure of that. That is one of the reasons I think he said, "no comment," cause as you can see, he said it and here it is for all world to see. If I say any more, you might guess who it is, so I will stop there.
For the purposes of this article, I'll stick with the reasons I didn't like the movie. The look. I had wanted to see the movie digital projected, cause I had heard that Roger Ebert had seen it on film first and didn't like it. Then he saw it digitally projection and liked it better. Plus, it's only fair to see it the way the director meant it to be seen. After about ten min of watching movie, I realized that we were watching film projection and not digital projection. So we decided to change our tickets for a later showing that was being projected with a DPL digital projector. It was a nice deal cause I got to see a bit of the film version and now I was going to see the digital projection in all its glory (Yeah right). So it pops up and I see no problems at first, it was a bit shaper than the film version we just saw and looks somewhat cool and interesting. I'm really trying to be open-minded cause I am a film geek at heart. Anyway, then the scrolling letters that start all the Star Wars pictures appear, along with wonderful music by John Williams. That looked ok too, till the words started getting smaller and reached the top of the frame. You could clearly see you were not looking at a piece of film. It was digital pixels I was seeing Clearly. And in my peripheral vision, I see that I am not alone. Me, my friend, big shot direct and I am not sure but I wonder if his kid was doing the same thing but there was a lot of head shaking going on.
Some of the digital effects (CGI), were cool looking. Of course, they were made for the medium. However, they did have the computerized look that you would associate with your computer screen at home, as if it was something made for a web site It's screamed CGI. Usually when you have a CGI effect and it's transferred to film, it gives you this nice quality that makes you feel there might just have been a camera out there really filming this thing. There was none of that in the digital projected version, and this is where the ten min of film projection we saw looked a bit better. It had a more realistic quality, though the film projected version was blurrier do to the 'digital to film transfer' they had to do.
That leads me to the other problem I had with the look. That so very little of it was real and built. I remember seeing maybe a ship or two that was actually there on set with the actors and even a set or two that was physically real. The rest was all CGI, from ships, to scenery and yes, even Yoda. CGI was everywhere and with very little to connect it to the real world you and I live in, it seemed----- well------ fake. Maybe George Lucas lives in a world that looks like this but I sure as hell don't. However you slice it, my attention was drawn far too much to the CGI and that in a nutshell means Lucas did not do his job. After seeing "Attack of the Clones", I went back to look at the original Star Wars films, I should point out, the special edition ones where he added the CGI in some scenes. My opinion is those films worked a whole lot better. In those films, you had sets; backdrops, props and all the stuff that makes Movies look real. There was very little of that in "Clones" and that made me wonder, 'What is all the hoopla about HD, CGI and digital projection anyway.' If that is the best they can do, I can stop worrying about films future. It's going to be safe for quite a while. Yes, maybe some day video will be better than film. Maybe some day, video will be able to do something film can't. However, right now, it's the other way around. Film is better, looks better, can do more, more pixels, more flow, has been around for over 100 years, better colors, and damn it. Film is just freakin' cool to work with, period.
Come on, it's all a money thing, nothing more. Big electronics and computer companies stand to make a bundle if they can sell this dog to the public, Digital cinema, Digital projection adds up to digital nonsense. Hell, I don't think they really even care that big theater chains are going bankrupt, maybe they want that, so they can buy them up at a bargain.
The closest you can get to a film look on video these days is thing new camera system coming out called 'Viper'. They had to redesign everything to make this puppy work well and it's still only about half the resolution of 35mm film. Well at least the guys at Viper are really trying hard to make good quality images, where as Sony and Panasonic are using parts they already have in stock. The same stuff they use in broadcast video. Now I ask you, it this worth paying $10 to go see in a theater? I don't think so. I feel that the place digital has right now is good for people coming up. Something to practice on, make you first few films, and yes even for the big shots directors who want to experiment. Like "Timecode," even though I didn't like it. I thought 'at least Mike Figgis is using the medium for what it is good for and not as a replacement for film,' film being far superior. Not sure what Soderbergh has in mind for his video project coming up but I have a feeling he will be doing much the same thing, using video for what is distinctive about video. I would bet Soderberghs next movie will be shot on film.
I might look like I am knocking video and maybe in a way I am. I don't want to see the business that I love, settle for less. I'm really hoping someone will stand up, someone big with a lot of clout and say, "Film is the future of the movies business." I know that Spielberg said he would always shoot film as long as its available however he hasn't stuck up for it, helped it. We need more people on top to demand film, to demand the evolution of film. Like the idea of shooting and projecting film in 48 frames, which is said to look amazing, like your looking into a window. My biggest fear is that people will accept video; this lesser format and then I will just have to put up with it. I want to see film, I want to see something better than film, I want to be taken in, I want to feel like I am there, and video doesn't do that for me. Maybe it does for others, I don't know. I will try to stick up for film as long as I can. You show me video that looks better than film and I will come aboard, until then, Film now, film tomorrow, film forever.
Head Honcho
