Democracy Of Movie Making?

You know, there is a lot out there lately about the new democracy of digital moviemaking. Seems so many people feel it levels the playing field of big studio versus independent. The inside scoop is a few things. First, digital will never look like film. They try and try and try, and we’re deep into it now…it won’t and never will. Algorithms can’t simulate alchemy. That’s fine, it has its own thing, and most likely is taking over how the younger generation is watching things (unless you watch Network reruns wondering why your movie doesn’t look like something from the 60’s). There isn’t enough programming to mimic all the different eras that film has gone through. The development. Oh, so back to the big Lie. Everyone will spout off that digital movie making is cheaper. It is, if you are a one man band, and don’t care if your movie looks amateur. A “cheap” movie will always look cheap in the digital realm. I read recently David Fincher and cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth shot “Gone Girl” on the RED Epic Dragon camera. YOU won’t have the access to the same workflow Fincher has unless you have everything that came with it. Including his Digitial Imaging Tech, his Look-Up-Tables, his colorist and so forth. If Fincher had shot on film, in the film realm, you essentially could crack his code. It takes very little to achieve the same result with less people. The savings are passed onto your film transfer and raw stock and you essentially are back to square one. So…anyone who says digital saves you money, if you want a big studio look, it doesn’t save you anything. It does have immediacy. But I, again conclude, immediacy is a detriment. Too many people look at monitors or assess the dumbest things. Talent get self-conscious. Then it derails momentum. Time is money.

If film decides to call it quits, I am done with production. This isn’t just a stubborn stance on the “new technology.” It just doesn’t interest me anymore. The “craft” part of making movies was the reason to be making movies. A digital magazine that holds you data is constantly shot and wiped empty. Psychologically speaking, what we’re saying is none of this really matters. That whatever was on the drive can be replaced. And while that is the truth of our business, it is after all BUSINESS, it sours me to know craft is no longer respected. If you consider when you shoot film, it’s etched in forever. I understand economically speaking, people say they crunch numbers, but if they were really honest, it’s because they really don’t want to prepare. Fishing for shots in digital, obviously is much more economical. Cuckoo clocks were replaced by digital ones. Yet, some cuckoo clocks built a century ago, still work. Digital clocks are in a pile somewhere in a landfill. Slammed daily for that awful buzzing or beeping. I understand this metaphor puts me and others as the cuckoo (makers…really).

To young filmmakers, people are lying to you. Digital moviemaking is not cheaper than shooting on film, unless you are just satisfied with “good enough” for which it is. The real democracy of it, was the invention of YouTube. You could take a crappy camera and shoot something, post it and monetize. What are the odds there? Roughly the same as cracking the studio. The Big Digital Lie. We’re still telling tales of breaking in, because it’s inspiring. It validates often times the soul crushing persistence and rejection. It HAS to. So every year, digital camera manufacturers insidiously release the latest and the greatest hoping to fish in the next generation into the lie. Read any video/digital camera magazine and your eyes go cross wondering how one model is different from another. The minutiae is what they sell you.