Could Digital Kill Film?

[Samuel Berger]

Gregg, I have given thee an old school green arrow. Cheers!

[Gregg MacPherson]

Thanks, though I might not have really earned it..

[Carl Looper]

 

This analogy is somewhat... broken?

 

You're comparing a guy dedicating his life to replicating what the human eye sees with brushes and paint to another guy pressing a button and letting light hit a piece of celluloid.

 

If someone can paint with photo-realism but with bland blocking or boring lighting, the entire room will still applaud.

 

Keep it in the realm of button pressing please.

 

The point of the analogy is that while it's certainly possible to make two materially different images indistinguishable, there is an assumption that such should be pursued. If I mention Chuck Close it is merely as an example of where this is not the case. In the work of Chuck Close there is both an aspect of the work which is quasi-independent of the materials involved, and which passes from one material to another, from photographic materials (be they analog or digital) to paint, and back again (eg. in a catalogue or a website). And there is another aspect of the work which is not independent of the materials and is very much situated within it.

 

And as a witness to such work one can see (ie. with one's eyes) both of these aspects at work. They play off each other.

 

Now it doesn't matter whether one likes the work of Close or not. We can still appreciate the absurdity of any suggestion that Chuck Close should give up his paintbrushes, and take up photography instead.

 

C

[Carl Looper]

When looking at Tri-X film stock sitting in my fridge, and a 16mm Bolex camera sitting on the shelf, the question I ask myself is not which technology (film or digital) I should work with, but what kind of work would suit the said film stock and camera. I ask myself what sort of story, or what kind of experience, might I create with the said technology.

 

C

[Carl Looper]

Carl, you're back. Things have turned to poop in your absence..

I offer this simple idea in response to yours.....Not all human nervous systems have the same threshold of..."indistinguishability"....so what is indistinguishability, is it actually meaninfull...To whose nervous system and sensory organs is it referenced....I don't think that using the average human physiology as a reference or marker for the "indistinguishability" is meaningful.....no.

 

Hi Gregg,

 

I withdrew from all social media for about six months due to the nature of a particular project on which I've been working. The projects winding down now and I've got back some time to get back into film again.

 

C

[Robin R Probyn]

Pass my beret.. and my Gauloises .. wheres my Che Guevara scarf.. Im off to see the obscure Japanese 60,s film festival.. you have probably never heard of them.. they are BW and on film.. and they are Japanese man.. so they are of course beautiful .. and of a gritty nature.. afterwards I will go to my fav Sushi restaurant,drink alot of Sake and weep at the loss of film capture and the introduction of color .. and dream Im in a small back ally bar in Tokyo in the 60,s..

[Jon O'Brien]

Well, funny image, yes, but that's a joke that sort of comes back to bite the teller. Make fun of art and artists, which is a common past time, but what does that make you?

 

What is considered industry standard? Turn on the spotty, fill that sucker with light, press the red play button and go for it. We'll fix the rest in post. Head down to the pub and think about golf next Saturday ....

 

What's an artist, really, once you get past all the b.s. and gauloises and berets? Someone who cares enough to comment about it, to think about it ... someone who cares, really. That's about it. Oh, and someone who produces something that's pretty good.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

People today cringe at the idea of art. Everyone wants to be seen as a "professional", a member of an "industry". But it's all just words. Ideas. "Art" is just a simple three letter, one syllable word that means creative production. An artist is seen as a failure today, someone who never left the garret and who can't cope. It's actually garbage. Real artists who support themselves are not like that. Big difference to earlier times, not so long ago: the artist as hero. Anyway, so some filmmakers don't like what they do called "art." Okay. But to think that you can just turn on a button and all is hunky-dory is naive in itself. There's more to creative production than convenience and ease. Creative people have to talk about quality, and sometimes fight for it.

[Dom Jaeger]

People today cringe at the idea of art. Everyone wants to be seen as a "professional", a member of an "industry".

That's a somewhat ridiculous assertion. I think what Robyn is gently mocking is the idea that only a particular medium can create art, or beauty, rather than the intent. Which I agree is a rather cliched mental attitude, like artists wearing berets and smoking Gauloises.

 

I think someone like Deakins is an artist, but also a craftsman, who needs to adapt his vision and talent to match the intent of the director and whoever else helps shape a particular film. It's a collaborative art form, you can't forget that. And there is always a commercial pressure at that level of filmmaking that makes purely "artistic" endeavours difficult to produce. But it doesn't lessen the creative efforts often involved.

 

There are pure artists like Tacita Dean who use film as their medium. Others, like Christian Marclay, take existing films and edit them to create new meanings, but are happy for the final product to be digitally projected on a gallery wall. By far the most common visual artists who use motion pictures these days are "video" artists, like Bill Viola for instance who can create utterly sublime imagery using digital tools.

 

I think it's fine to have a preference for celluloid, to value the look of it, or the process, or even ascribe it a metaphysical dimension, but it's still just a tool to help us communicate things. If people value film, my advice is to go out and shoot it rather than spend their creative energy waxing lyrical about it on an internet forum. :)

[Stuart Brereton]

I don't have a problem with the term 'Art', I just don't use it to describe my own work. That is for others to decide. I'd rather take after my grandfather, who was a cabinet maker and master craftsman. Maybe people thought of his work as 'Art', but I doubt he did.

 

I think Robin's comments are firstly tongue in cheek, and secondly aimed at those who take themselves and their work far too seriously.

[Jon O'Brien]

Not a ridiculous assertion Dom, at all. You just feel like having a go. Fair enough. Yes, I will be filming soon. If I'm writing too much on the internet, just tell me (which I think you are doing). Yes, your point is taken, I'm just stuck at the moment and can't do much (not of my own choosing) but I will be soon. Thanks for the advice you give me.

[Robin R Probyn]

Yes totally tongue in cheek..well sort of.. Im just saying it re enforces my point.. its a a romantic notion held, it seems largely by amateurs or those not actually doing the job day to day to earn their living.. who would consider themselves as a professional ..working to create an image for the director.. more than a great artist out to produce "art" for every shot.. often they are pretty mundane shots you have to do and often they are meant to look that way too.. to SERVE the story .. not to make every frame a Rembrandt . .. even you have the skill and lights/time to do so.. people are seeing what they want to see from a romantic or nostalgic point of view.. and without actually being in the position of having shot a feature film..sure fine .. but when asked why, there is nothing solid backing up, just random nebulous statements, their assertion that film is intrinsically more pleasing than digital and that even shooting in digital will ruin a film and drag down the skills for otherwise highly competent DP,s.. even when shown clear evidence to the contrary .. its a film school argument after too much cheap wine.. with the scarf wearers taking them selves a bit too seriously .. I went through it too ... but you grow out of it when you actually start working in the industry and realize there is alot more important things to worry about.. and that taking one frame from a film and saying how beautiful it looks is very low on the list to keep you working..

Edited November 2, 2017 by Robin R Probyn

[Jon O'Brien]

I don't have a problem with the term 'Art', I just don't use it to describe my own work. That is for others to decide. I'd rather take after my grandfather, who was a cabinet maker and master craftsman. Maybe people thought of his work as 'Art', but I doubt he did.

 

I think Robin's comments are firstly tongue in cheek, and secondly aimed at those who take themselves and their work far too seriously.

 

I wasn't worried what Robin wrote. I think it's all funny really, and worth having a dig. He's right in a lot of ways. I just enjoy writing about film, and watching it, and soon to be filming with it. But, for me, I've said too much on this. Enough!

[Dom Jaeger]

Not a ridiculous assertion Dom, at all. You just feel like having a go. Fair enough. Yes, I will be filming soon. If I'm writing too much on the internet, just tell me (which I think you are doing). Yes, your point is taken, I'm just stuck at the moment and can't do much (not of my own choosing) but I will be soon. Thanks for the advice you give me.

Maybe ridiculous was too strong a word, but it's a very broad claim that "people" cringe at art today.

 

"Art" is a loaded term at the best of times, but millions will line up for hours to watch a Van Gogh exhibition. A film like The Love Witch that David Mullen shot is definitely more of an artistic statement than a commercial one, but received plenty of positive attention. If you're talking about pure experimental art, well that has always been at the fringes. What I think people cringe at generally is when art is accompanied by pretension or wooly thinking.

 

Feel free to keep chatting here, I didn't mean to muzzle you. I was just trying to encourage action over words, because that's what will keep film going.

[Justin Hayward]

People today cringe at the idea of art.

I met a filmmaker who bragged that he'd been fired from every "normal" job he'd ever had like they were beneath him. As if to say being a filmmaker "artist" makes you better than a grocery store clerk or whatever. So I think people tend to distance themselves from the term "artist" so they don't sound pretentious... as Robin joked... and now I see Dom just said above.

 

And also because Justin Bieber screamed at the grammy crowd that he's an artist and deserves respect. B)

[Max Field]

You can't say "filmmaker" in general anymore lol

[Justin Hayward]

I think someone like Deakins is an artist, but also a craftsman,

A guy once told me that Tony Scott wasn't an artist, but rather a master craftsman. I remember thinking, then I'm fine not being called an artist, because Tony Scott movies are awesome.

 

You can't say "filmmaker" in general anymore lol

 

Right, I forgot, thanks. "Person who shoots stuff..."

[Samuel Berger]

A guy once told me that Tony Scott wasn't an artist, but rather a master craftsman. I remember thinking, then I'm fine not being called an artist, because Tony Scott movies are awesome.

 

He shouldn't have said that, now look what he's done. Tony Scott jumped off a bridge to his death.

[Jon O'Brien]

"Action over words" - you are so right, Dom. I've been in this situation before, when I wanted to get going with a project, but for various reasons couldn't, and compensated for that by writing about the subject. Thankfully, I did eventually get moving in that field. Anyway, this has been a pretty cool topic, thanks Macks for a chance to pound the keys on this topic. I will be back, on more practical matters, on other threads ...

[Robin R Probyn]

A true film maker will only shoot short ends, stolen from a studio in Berlin.. hand cranked cameras.. always loses their keys.. drinks only whisky from a dirty glass.. and has a Japanese girlfriend who does "installations ".. and gets a remittence check from their mother..

[Tyler Purcell]

A true film maker will only shoot short ends, stolen from a studio in Berlin.. hand cranked cameras.. always loses their keys.. drinks only whisky from a dirty glass.. and has a Japanese girlfriend who does "installations ".. and gets a remittence check from their mother..

Sounds like my movies! LOL :)

[Robin R Probyn]

Sounds like my movies! LOL :)

 

 

haha ! nice one.. I wasn't aiming my bitter and twisted humor at you sir.. just generally taking the piss.. (not literally.. this is a Brit term :)

[Robin R Probyn]

PS I recommend the Japanese girlfriend..

[Carl Looper]

There's a big difference between art work and arty work. The latter is wannabe art work, or work pretending to be art work. Such work can be born of a disregard for art. However art requires some level of disregard for art otherwise it would become stagnant.

 

C

Edited November 2, 2017 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

Given the contemporary need to vomit when the word "art" is mentioned, perhaps the "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" should be renamed something else, such as "Academy of Motion Picture Makings and Sciences". Myself, I have no problem with the word "art". Of those filmmakers I call artists I mean by such that I hold them in high regard.

 

C

Edited November 2, 2017 by Carl Looper