NYTimes.com: IN the beginning there was light that hit a strip of flexible film mechanically running through a camera. For most of movie history this is how moving pictures were created: light reflected off people and things would filter through a camera and physically transform emulsion. After processing, that light-kissed emulsion would reveal Humphrey Bogart chasing the Maltese Falcon in shimmering black and white.
14 comments:
I think cinema changing from film to digital is interesting, mostly because this change happened in my lifetime. I went from watching VHS movies as a child, to watching DVDs, to watching on the computer, to watching on my phone. It's hard to imagine what modern movies shot on digital would look like if they were shot on film. Would the quality of the color, size, and texture be better? Or does it even make a difference. Digital definitely is smaller, and easier to carry around. There aren't giant canisters, the data can be easily transfered, and it doesn't take up space like rolls of film can. I'm actually interested in going back and watching some of the old films to see the quality, and then comparing it to movies shot on digital cameras. The thing is, does it even matter to the average viewer?
Theater and film are ever changing industries, as seen by this article. As technology grows, it influences what the entertainment industry can do to improve and expand their craft. As Ms. Hartnett said, a lot of this change has occured during my generation's life time. And personally, I feel that in the dicussion of film verses digital, it comes bac to the art. What does an artist go from using water color to using acryllics? Simply put, it is because he wants a different look and feel to his art. I feel that the film/digital issue is very much the same principle. In today's movies, you would be hard pressed to find one film that was not digitally altered in some way, shape, or form. This process is significantly made easier when the pre-existing material is already digital. But even with all these new methods of movie making, nothing will be able to replace the film great of the past.
while a majority of the industry has moved from film to digital its interesting to find those that still like to use film. Kelly asked if the quality changes on film vs digital. many do believe that film can have a more genuine aesthetic depending on what the movie calls for. I am a fam of using 35 mm film when it comes to photography because of the challenge of getting it once and using the film to determine the asthetic of the shot. No the average viewer might not notice a movie being made on film vs digital but those who chose to make it on film do it for those who would notice the choice.
Of course there are innovations and technological advances in every aspect of our culture; human beings have been modernizing since we first walked the earth. But are we losing important knowledge and values due to this inevitable modernization? The steady decline of genuine film use is one that I mourn. True film is how the movie industry began - Brad Pitt, Stephen Spielberg, and Christopher Nolan would all be unheard of if it weren't for film. But now we're losing film as, just like always happens, it is being replaced by something "better." The feats that can be accomplished with digital movies are staggering, and the entire industry is changing as moviegoers begin to expect more and more from the cinema. It is exciting to see what can be accomplished, but it is sad to see such a true art form be forgotten.
Nothing is stopping directors from using film. The growing use of digital is just another medium to manipulate within film production. Using a handheld camcorder, versus a new camera adds a new aesthetic; a new layer to the story telling. The development of technology only creates more opportunities to alter the methods and portrayal of story telling.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of this article is in the following quote: "Given this shock-and-awe business plan, movies on film stock look wasteful." At what point does art become wasteful? When it cannot be churned out fast enough to make profit for those involved in its creation? Let's liken this to other fine arts for a moment. If a painting takes an artist seven years to reach a point of acceptance by its creator, could we call the perhaps three years' total time of not actually working on the painting "wasteful"?
Art isn't something that's supposed to happen overnight. Film seems to have begun to battle that in the early days, where movies could be shot in a week and given to the public for viewing shortly thereafter. But now, with digital media and a team of editors, retouching people, and CG artists, is the art in the film or the retouching? Why do we watch movies? These days, I'm hard pressed to say that box office hits are lauded for their brilliant scripts and talented actors. It's all about the formula that brings in revenue.
Kelly is right on track with asking does it even matter to the average viewer? The answer is no. The most potent line from this article is the quote at the very end. "Cinema doesn't have to be film, it has to be magic." The average movie goer is not going to watch the technology it was filmed with, they are going to see a story and hopefully be moved by it. There are specific cases like Avatar or The Life of Pi where technology is extremely present throughout and the audience knows that going into it.
I've heard very recently that viewers of The Hobbit at Comic Con were very upset about the technology used to film this last installment. Because all three Lord of the Rings were filmed at once, the technology was constant. The Hobbit, however, supposedly doesn't fit with the rest of them because it looks like extremely heightened reality, where as the first three are raw and real.
I am a fan of innovation. I think it drives a lot of things peripherally, and these 2nd and 3rd consequences often have amazing results. There is something nostalgic about a movie produced on film, with the classic aesthetic and imagery we are so used to. But as technology improves and digital becomes more desirable, I think we should embrace it instead of clamoring onto the old. It builds an evolution, and keeps an aesthetic tied to an era, which I think is really cool.
The debate between digital and film movies is a heated one. On one hand digital movie technology has allowed the general public to all become youtube stars and to document their lives. It has also allowed professional movie makers to do alot more impressive work with effects and editing. It also allows for the indefinite preservation of films. However shooting with film has a certain skill and labor that go along with it that really make the whole process more impressive. Shooting in film can also capture some details that are lost in digital footage. Not to mention there's nothing like holding a reel of film and hooking it up to a projector. So the industry can really take it either way.
I agree with S. Kael. Art is never wasteful, rather film has been a stepping stone to digital media. I prefer film over digital, however, because I can sense that a lot more hands-on work was put into film as opposed to the mouse-clicking, number-changing digital. I appreciate the graininess with Dargis. I also find that the acting quality has decreased as film became digital. People are now more focused on what can be created on a computer rather than what can be created by hand. That's scary. I find the old-time actors more charming and realistic. Take True Grit for example. The original John Wayne film shows graininess that adds to that cowboy, grit effect. The new film with Jeff Bridges is sharp, clean, and overly dark. Not to mention, the CGI rattlesnake looked absolutely awful. I truly hope that film survives, but with the new generation and age of technology, I would not be surprised if it dies out.
I think cinema has changed drastically and even become more complicated. It shows how industry changes. First film was canister and something that had to be transported. Now it is completely digital and colors, special effects, and sound can be easily altered. It also brings up the question if it is worth while to rerelease films on the newest technologies available from VHS to DVD to Bluray. I think this gives the viewer more ways to appreciate film and based on the tastes of the viewer they can go back to "film" to view movies.
We see these types of debates all the time, look at the ones in previous weeks about innovation in design and cell phones with the apple lawsuits or the article about the lost art of drawing in architecture and design and movement towards a strictly digital produced product.
Innovation is great, and society wouldn't be where it is today without it, where would we be with the invention of the wheel, car....so on and so forth. Yes it sucks that it seems like the true art of film-making is being left behind, but that is the nature of working in an industry that is constantly being expected to push the envelope. Things are going to change, and others will fall by the wayside, however there will always be a niche, even if it's for nostalgic purposes.
Technology changes art. It is really that simple. Our technology is changing rapidly and as a result our art is changing as well. Art need to either learn to adapt to the changing landscape or invent new ways of art. So does this mean film is dead? No, people can always do film and maybe older ways of filming will remain a way to create art and the new ways break off and turn into their own art form. If this happens or not that will not stop the ability for people to continue creating as they do. As a new generation it is up to us to find and create new ways to make art, not just replicate the old ways. We need to be as innovative as the engineers and scientists.
Post a Comment