Print It!

I know what you are gonna say “here comes crazy ol’ Thom with his crazy ‘good ol’ days’ stories.” Well, fuck you, because this is my ‘good ol’ days philosophy.”

In the old days of movie making, you shot film negative in a chambered roll called a “magazine.” After each take, notes would be taken by the assistant cameraman along with the script supervisor as to which “take” was the best. On the camera reports (and even to this day) there are things called “circled takes.” These are the ones the director instructed were to be printed as he liked everything about it, acting,  lighting, camera moves, what have you. On set, he’d be the one to shout “print that!” and everyone could take a long exhale to move on to the next set up as this indicated he was happy with it.

Printing is expensive. It meant the lab would shuttle through your footage and ONLY give you the specific takes you circled. This would then be strung together and this made up your dailies.

I don’t miss the nerve wracking system this use to be, but I DO miss the psychology in which having something physically made off the negative you just shot means the director is watching. I was at the very edge of when printing takes and telecine was invented.

The early days of telecine is a cumbersome process as well. You use to string up film, and run it through a system that went into a coloring bay. The negative would be turned into a positive and then transferred onto a tape (back then, hard drive now). This meant you got EVERYTHING. Good takes, bad takes, off takes. You saw it all.

I think this is detrimental to movie making. Because seeing everything means everyone has an opinion, and the director’s brain is clogged. Especially if you’re a newbie. What I mean is, a pipeline can handle only so much. In terms of watching takes, believing you go the right moment at the time of the shoot, to later see something else in a different take is…contradicting your instinct. And THAT IS DISASTROUS. I think that’s why our movies are so…odd these days. They’re sifting through a mound of footage hoping they saw what they saw somewhere. I think this undermines the creative mental stage that is created when you just…watch. Observe acting in front of you. As I’ve said in the past, whether you like him or not, Quentin Tarantino sits right under the camera. Not at some video monitor somewhere, right where he can see actors act. THAT is why stars love working with him. And THAT’S why his performances give talent Academy nominations and wins (and in some cases, revived careers).

The ability of knowing which to “print” now is dead and gone. The new generation is too busy-brained to focus. Shooting on film negative focuses you. IF you care. To me, we all fight to get to the shout of “print!” That is was good and we can move on. There are these gentle battles that are won as you move forth in the project. People are so excited and get engaged, far more than just letting a digital camera roll and fishing for a performance. That’s bush league. And that’s what’s clogging the path to a lot of serious filmmakers. Ideally, you could shoot digital in the same efficient way as digital, but as people who choose that medium tend to concern themselves with, has little to do with coverage. It’s quantity. I suggest treating digital like film, if not out of respect for the material and the actors who need someone to be watching.