THE FUTURE..
Further Q&A's on his topic on the
2001
Film
versus Digi page.
--PA
This is a very tough prediction to make, as you can see by reading
the many articles about “the future” and digital etc. However, the
good news is that if you learn to shoot with film, you won’t have any problems
shooting with video, as it is a “reduction” in skill requirements.
This is what I mean by this.
1. Whatever image making/recording technology you use, the skill of
selecting compositions and lighting them remains the same. The skill
of working with the Director and the Actors to determine the shots stays
the same.
2. The Lighting requirements for video are mostly a question of lowering
the contrast to the point where video can deal with it. The dymnamic range
of film is something like 10 times that of the best currently available
Digital Video format.
3. When you learn with film, you learn to “pre-visualise” the result
since it not available to you on the set. You do this by lighting
something, imagining how it will look, then when you see it the next day,
compare what you got with what you imagined. Slowly the two will
come closer together. Then if someone wants you to work on video, you can
light the scene by eye, then look at the monitor to confirm what you are
doing, as opposed to “lighting by monitor“.
4. When a Lighting Director from TV wants to go into shooting films
it is a very traumatic process as they are suddenly cast into a world where
the result is not available. This tends to make them very nervous!
When the reverse happens, a DP finds it a breeze to shoot with a monitor
available as when, for instance, you can see no detail outside a “hot”
window, you just reduce the lighting outside until you can, or put some
ND on the window.
Real Film is a passion: once you shoot on it, you’ll never want to let it go.
2004
I read in your essay briefly about the future of DPs. What does it
look
like for them in the future? Will they be obselete? I am thinking
of
becoming a DP and going to film school for it. What are some jobs
(i.e.
editor, producer, etc.) that will stay or will make a new place?
--C.F.
This question is very topical right now. What is certain is that
we will continue to make stories: the question is ? will they be made using
film as the medium?
For me, the present profession of Director of Photography only applies
when film is used. This is a controversial statement ? some would
argue that the position is “the same” even if the medium changes ie shoot
digital. I would argue that there are too many other “tweaks” to
the image when digital is involved to make the work unique to the Cinematographer.
Even if the Cinematographer isn’t aware of it, the very public nature of
making the image will inevitably change the way the internal lighting process
happens. Lighting is the one thing that is rarely discussed on a
film set: the reason is that no-one except the Cinematographer knows how
it is going to look. And even the Cinematographer is making a leap
of faith. The nature of a Film Camera is Secretive, the nature of
a Video Camera is Public. This essential difference is misunderstood
by those who maintain that the “gathering medium” has no influence on the
result. There are many pressures on a film set, one of the many is
that Actors love to look at themselves on the bad-quality replay monitor.
Criticism of the “lighting” can be easily deflected with the “it doesn’t
look like that” statement. Once the monitor reflects the true look
of the result, the image is open to public debate, which will inevitable
result in images becoming even more cosmetic than they are already.
The other problem is that the job itself will not attract the kind of person
who is presently attracted to Cinematography.
Most of the other jobs will remain more or less similar: the “growth”
area is clearly visual effects, the “shrinking” area is large location
sets and putting up large crews on location. Many years from now
I expect there will be Arthouse cinemas will a sign outside which says
“Real Film Here”.
As I have said before, if you go to Film school and learn to shoot
film you won’t have a problem making a transition to shooting video.
The other way round is much harder.
2007
Is "pure cinema" the ideal for movie making? By "pure cinema" I mean the story being told visually, so that the viewer may understand what is happening if the sound were to be turned off, as Hitchcock believed. Or is it now a more visual/ audio experience using both to maximum advantage?
Angus
Whatever "pure cinema" was it is clearly in the past! However, I was thrilled to see Almodovar's magnificent film Volver the other day and to be reminded of what constitutes great film making: but I certainly would not have understood the film without the sound as the plot was fiendish?
I have to go back a bit to think about what I thought was the ideal kind of movie making. My heroes were Kurosawa, Goddard, Truffaut and Rivette. Later on I came to appreciate John Ford and some of the American Greats but for different reasons. Nowadays I am just confused as cinema is so commercial and the ideals of "great cinema" seem to have taken a back seat to thrills and spills. If "thrills and spills" were what you mean by visual/audio experience then yes I would say that both are being used to maximum advantage all the time, but not to very good effect. The fact is that the louder you shout the less people hear. Humans shy away from noisy things because they are threatening: the reason for the cinema of the senses ("action films") is that it an opportunity to put oneself in the firing line without getting hurt and this can be fun for awhile. However, it has nothing to do with "pure cinema" or indeed the cinema of ideas. It's a fairground ride and that is a legitimate part of the movies, but it is not the only part as Hollywood wants us to believe.
I think films will start to divide into "real films" and "computer films": it's almost like that already. I'm not against computer films - I just hope that real films continue to attract sufficient audiences to make it possible to continue making them. The heads of the major studios are more and more marketing men (and women), and they want to pour money into sure-fire sequels and blockbuster hits. The money available for "pure cinema" is likely to continue to shrink, unfortunately.