Studio Movies and Love Of Film

I started a new movie recently at work. It’s with big names to which I can’t speak of now. But I started watching the way the large budget movies make them. I wonder what is beyond the frame. All the politics and crap that goes on with it. They have 40 days. I think about the journey this movie will take. That this footage will be looked at for at least 6 months over and over again. Poured through with every frame of its life. And then judged for its usefulness to the story.

I love the start of a new movie. Something feels…new again. I’m sure the writers are excited to see their work come alive. The director is excited to work on something new. The actors are excited to perform again. And well..the energy is so fresh. The first step to a very long process of ups and downs.

A little insight into studio movies, they tend to schedule the shoot they intend to use for the trailer first. Well, technically, it’s the star’s schedule first. But…the trailer material usually comes first in a large budgeted movies. They want to put out a teaser as quickly as possible. For a movie with the Coen brothers, they could care less. It’s the movie first. For something like James Bond, it’s the action sequences. To get the world pumped up. We’re scanning a trailer now with a movie that has a few stars in it. They can wait until principal photography ends to put out a teaser while editorial is putting the movie together. Another secret, editorial seems to speak bad about everything about the movie. I’m not sure where this comes from other than boredom and that editors are usually frustrated directors. But I would hate to be a fly on the wall while editors sliced my movie. Even on this one movie we did, the dailies assists were cracking wise about Robert Duvall (this was years ago). If you were ever insecure about your project from the beginning, this type of talk would make you suicidal. I’ve been in rooms where these peons would attack the story or the plot as if they were there during the writing process. They’re total jackasses, and it’s no mystery as to why they haven’t moved up. I’ve defended their process outside the frame many times. With comments such as “…that’s how he gets into character,” “he’s fishing for the right intonation,” “…this is the process.” To which they usually roll their eyes, thoroughly disgusted at being the wet blanket to their rudeness. My guess is that they feel by doing this, they may be taking a little bit of celebrity out of them. As if by criticizing they somehow have the advantage over this megawatt star.

The first day of this new movie’s dailies were on a soundstage. The set looks like a set. But, it’s suppose to. The best thing about shooting a movie on film on a set is that it does smooth over the fact that you are shooting on a set. Today I got the B-camera footage which is presumably the one that have for non-sync sound. It doesn’t mean it’s not in sync, but that they may’ve wanted to do speed changes. Slow motion (overcranked footage) requires you have a camera that pulls film faster the through the camera giving the illusion that the action slows down. Digital shooters may want to take note, the concept of slow-motion shooting may be foreign to you, if you dial in shooting incorrectly. I’m not completely plugged into the process with production as of lately, but your lights may flicker if you shoot at the incorrect speed. It may not sync up with your movie lights. With the change to L.E.D. bulb lighting, this may be a non-issue. But back in the day, if you were using daylight balanced lights with a ballast, you would have to sync up lights with camera movement. Obviously, not having a shutter (in most digital cameras) negates this completely. As I’m not completely sure if they have moving shutters in DSLRs. It sure does still give you the snap shot noise as if one moves with internal mechanics.

I just love the look of film. If you consider the format, it is a romanticized thing. I realize many people will tell you that they can add in “film looks” to your movie. To which, some have argued, that is still a replication of the film. If you were so inclined to have a film look, the additive is essentially admitting that digital doesn’t look up to your standards. I understand if this is a question of budget. But so many people are concluding that film costs more. When in reality, the transfer is not any more or less than the digital workflow. Recent movies of this year have chosen film to originate from to save this extended post. Post production is starting to get on my nerves. I thankfully have film to look at. I also am perplexed at the assertion of movies turning to digital so rapidly. Do you think “Jurassic World” would’ve benefitted from digital? “Star Wars: Force Awakens”? “”Spectre” (James Bond 25), “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation” or any of these other massive titles. My faith would be that when people look at their projects they’d want these success to push film for years to come. Make no mistake, the top money makers of 2015 will have been shot on film. I feel that with the sequel to “Star Wars” it would most likely light a fire under filmmakers to go back to shooting film. Even on a smaller scale and success like “Trainwreck” or even my project. The contention being that film still holds the crown over even the best digital. Whilst digital cameras are finding new ways to make it the new medium, shooting film still prevails in terms of storytelling. I guess I could sit here and keep writing about the virtues of film over digital. But many know my stance already. The hopeful romantics in us understand the limitations of the medium. And it’s not just a failing way to make movies. It’s a proven one. Yes, it’s got the romanticism to it. I shoot with the same camera they use on movies like “Fargo” or “Shawshank Redemption” or “Return of The Jedi.” I feel in some sense connected to the artisans that made those images. NOT that just having those cameras would yield the same result, but having the same tools certainly gives one more confidence that you do use the same tools. Would having Pete Rose’s bat make you hit like he did? Forget it. But having it in the batter’s box does psyche you up. Why else would sports figures endorse products then? To use that psychology. Yes, it more than likely is voodoo, but it doesn’t hurt.