There’s a massive push to make shooting on film relevant
again. A film lab is to be open at the end of this year in New York City.
Others are popping up again in the southwest to take on the influx of projects
throughout the U.S.
Though still over 70% of movies in the U.S. studio are
strictly forced to shoot on digital medium, there are the big budget ones that
are convinced shooting on film is optimal.
On a selfish side, yes…completely. If you’re in the trenches
trying to be taken seriously, film negative is the only way you should shoot.
The movies that shoot digital and attempt to make look like film, most have
discovered, is costing the same. What happened? Simple, the flagrant lies of
“shooting digital is cheaper” exist solely in…production. As I’ve mentioned in
past post, most overlook the end product. Which is a LOT of beauty work for
talent, post grain addition and many other implements to give a big budget
look. There is a phrase in Hollywood techies that says “pay me now, or pay me
later.”
The competitive nature of our industry relies that you act
as if you’re much more than you actually are. So, if someone shoots digital and
wants a film look, the post-houses are holding the cards. You already fucked
over a lot of post houses in America, they’re getting a little bit back by your
reliance now. Need makes studios empty their wallets fast. Desperate need makes
them listen. Rental houses are happily nickel & diming your production
because your mindset is “digital is cheaper.” Keep a close eye on your bottom
line, and you’ll discover how silly that is.
And I’m not suggesting all projects shoot on film. It’s a
poor business model for people who don’t understand the infrastructure. My boss
has told me numerous times, the surest way to get people’s mindset into their
project is to separate the creative part from the nuts and bolts. And too many
people are reliant on the nuts and bolts. Sort of. Since technology changes
constantly, unless you are there day-to-day what is new today is old tomorrow.
Literally overnight. Who can fucking keep up? Film is what it is. I can scan
any of your projects from the 1980’s and still get an image that could withstand
the market today. It’s near impossible to look at a digital movie from the
early 2000’s and it being acceptable. In relative sense, digital is taking WAY
too much time to get to where film is already.
Now, is it a psychology thing? Maybe. Can we convince ourselves
that a “soap opera” clean look is more natural? I’m not sure. I know every
talent hates looking at the unfinished raw of themselves in dailies. Not so in
film. There is a flicker in film dailies that sort of lulls image conscious
folks. This might be the saving grace of film. I’m not entirely sure why there
is this resurfaced interest in film, other than, quite simply, people just like
the craft of it. The decisions are much more impactful when shooting movies on
film. Could be that they can’t get the look of movies they admired as film fans
with digital. My theory, the commerce is catching up with the art again. A lot
of vendors are bending to the whims of creative types who don’t mind the extra
step. More awareness is being brought to those who didn’t know they had other
options. And finally, you only have to shoot with it once to understand why the
process is so magical. Instantly, you are shocked by what you did and what you
got. You feel something much more tangible than booting up a hard drive. Most
people feel accomplished. And though big studios could give a shit what
enriches you, eventually they may run out of people who prefer craft over the
bottom line.
Kudos for at least ONE American company that didn’t fleece
taxpayers for its survival. That’s something to support.
No comments:
Post a Comment