Jump to content

The term "filmmaking"


Guest Glen Alexander

Recommended Posts

Guest Glen Alexander
I can see where you Glen are coming from with your point, but I wonder what the troubling issue for you is - should the term filmmaker be restricted to cine-film users? I believe that this is what you put jockingly forward.

 

Let's explore this for two minutes:

 

The English language's beauty is that it is in constant flux and adaptation and develops with input from all over the world, transforming hitherto specific terms for usage in wider meanings: British English is particularly rich due to the input from the Commonwealth/Empire exchange. German and French are languages officially regulated by committees and struggle alot with new developments.

 

The OED defines filmmaker very broadly, and rightly so, as this refers to the actual use in mainstream public rather then what the philologist would like it to denote. If s/he would get their mind, alot more people would be 'gay' than now.

 

And after all, 'film' refers historically not to "cine-film" per se but to the emulsions' chemical components and spreaded application over a base, which in the end constitute cine-film. You will also find that the term "moviemaker" was more widely used in the US in the first half of the 20th century and later. "Filmmaker" is a transfer from the rising European (intellectual a.k.a. high-brow a.k.a. aspirational for many) independent production system where people held multiple roles or made the movie project at hand mostly by themselves. The term "film" instead of 'movies' is in use in several European languages. It's unfortunate that "movie" is no regarded as a consequence of this as a bit derisory and less glamourous, less "arty". Most people will probably perfer to say that they are "a filmmaker" rather than saying "they are in the movies".

 

(Of course, you could argue that movies is slang for "motion picture" or "moving pictures" and that technically, digital media are not entirely recording moving pictures in the direct sense of "photographic picture field exposures per second" - we can even start a lengthy debate about the semiotic and hermeneutic consequences of 'interlacing' - but my life is too short for that. ;) )

 

I mean, if we are semantially correct, and also regard film in an etymological way, then 'filmmaker' could also mean - as pointed out - someone who makes films.

That is complicated by the usage of 'film' as a terminus technicus in both English, French and German to denote protective layers or base layers which can also by found on video tape of optical media. So if you were a hardcore linguist filmmaker, you could legitimately use the word "filmmaker" even if you shoot on HDCam or on DVD-R, as the actual "film" is essentially the same technical application for cine-film, video tape and digital media.

 

When I use sticky tape in Germany, I use "Tesa-film", which is composed of the company name "TESA" that made sticky tape popular in Germany after WWII, and 'film' as denoting the sticky tape (both the adhesive layer and the base layer, plus the resulting combination).

Now, to push this, when I edit my project's cine-film on the Steenbeck, I use Tesa-film for the work print cutting. So I am in sorts a double film-user and filmmaker, am I not? ;)

 

So, after meandering through your issue, Glen, with quite some hurry (for which I ask for apology), I am still not sure where the point of contention or not, would lie?

Those being Director of Photography aren't really doing only still photographs on set either (a professional term that confuses more "civilians" than any other!). And the term 'Cinematographer' is more easily understood in respect to 'cinema' as in "motion picture theatre" than to cine-film itself. Likewise, everyone can freely decide to use the term "Videographer" as is occassionally used for German film/video/movie/motion picture productions. A 1980s Duran-Duran haircut goes well with a business card saying "videographer", BTW.

 

Cheers, -Michael

 

Hello Michael,

 

Thanks for the really thoughtful and well stated post. Really good stuff. We should head to the Ratskeller fuer "Eine, zwei, gsuffa..." ha ha

 

I would content that the English language fluctuates dramatically, like taking hoch Deutsche and turning it into really bad Dutch, take SMS speak or"language", i use that term very loosely.

 

wat eva. c u b4 da skool start at mcd. mem 2 bring bling. bcus i po.

 

Originally I was pondering the blizzard of credits associated with a 'movie', TV show, etc. and looking for a little bit of honesty and clarity in terms and meanings. Does the masseuse really need a credit in the Matrix? or the seemingly end credits in Titanic? I think I read they almost had to put on another reel.

 

In German if you don't know what something is called you can always string together a bunch of words that describe it, for example das Dingamachinenmachenlichtelektronen.

 

So, if eventually cinemas go the way of the drive-in and content is delivered direct to people's residence because most have 80" panels with 8.1 surround sound, can pause and start the content as they wish....? Is it still filmmaking or content creator?

 

Have big budget "blockbusters" of entertainment and lawyers so corrupted the industry for money, that everyone tries to be associate what they do for economic gain instead of reality?

 

What if you wore a Rammstein t-shirt, dark black sunglass, with black Swiss Raichle's, and said you were a filmmaker?

 

cheers

glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think a lot of this stems from the Renaissance men like Robert Rodriguez who do most of the work on their own films. If you write the script + Direct it + DP it + operate the camera + record the sound + edit the thing then I think you have earned the right to be called the "filmmaker." I don't do that much in my films, but I usually at least write the script, direct it, and edit it. I occasionally operate the camera and DP it. I feel justified in calling myself the filmmaker.

 

 

Do whatever makes you feel better, but those in who really matter in the business are aware that it takes more than one "auteur" to make a movie/film. Terms like "filmmaker," "Producer," "Director of Photography," and "Cinematographer" tend to be overused and mis-applied by those seeking a certain amount of pretentious prestige that they hope will garner some kind of tangible recognition. Hats off to them if it works! :) Lord knows that the higher-ups aren't always the best and brightest.

 

While titles do matter to some extent, the reality in most cases is that real work with tangible benefits comes from personal relationships with others who are in the professional motion-picture and television industries. The people with power likely have been around the block a few times and have rolled their eyes more than they'd ever admit to every aspiring "I'm a filmmaker" person who has crossed their path.

 

Point is, any of us can call ourselves anything we want on our business cards, but the only thing that really matters is what you actually have done. For instance, I primarily shoot HDCAM right now and call myself a "Videographer" because it's mostly interviews and b-roll. On occasion I'll shoot a larger project with host standups and other more complicated shots (such as operating Steadicam). Sometimes I am in charge of multiple cameras and a crew so I'll take that "DP" title/credit for that project. Titles and credits are a fluid thing for some people in the business as it can take versatility to create a viable long-lasting career.

 

If someone has truly done absolutely every job that is required to make a movie, then that is justification for claiming the title "THE filmmaker." Otherwise, at last count, it takes a small army in collaboration to complete even a modest sized project and excluding everyone else who helped diminishes their efforts and contribution to the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
...but those in who really matter in the business are aware that it takes more than one "auteur" to make a movie/film.

 

Well then, I guess Tarentino, Rodriguez, Spielberg, Spike Lee, and a great many others "don't really matter" because they tend to call their films "A film by..." or on the case of Spike Lee "A Spike Lee joint." Even John Carpenter referred to his films this way if I'm not mistaken. You can insult all you want but have you even attained the level of success of John Carpenter? You, not I, am the one being condescending talking about "who matters" in the business as though you matter anymore than anyone else. Fact is: If I fund a film, I can call myself whatever I want. Same goes for anyone. Ask Richard Boddington if he thinks he's not worthy of "the filmmaker" title when he funded, directed, DPed, and marketed his latest feature by himself. Brian, you have incredible credentials and have worked on some serious projects but that doesn't entitle you to go around policing how people choose to represent themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Glen Alexander
... Ask Richard Boddington if he thinks he's not worthy of "the filmmaker" title when he funded, directed, DPed, and marketed his latest feature by himself.

 

I haven't seen his movie, like his mom, I'll wait for the DVD ha ha. Boddington's got Godzilla sized balls to pull that off, when many of the early posts I read, where people not supporting his idea of shooting film, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Ilford? Polaroid? Efke? Fomapan?

 

Polaroid doesnt make film anymore.

 

MINNETONKA (February 18, 2008) ? The magic of instant photos is going digital. Polaroid, the company that pioneered instant photography 60 years ago, is launching a new line of digital instant photo products. Using a revolutionary, inkless printing process, the Polaroid Digital Instant Photo Printer unlocks photos trapped on cell phones and digital cameras. For fans of the original Polaroid instant camera, the digital instant printer provides a whole new dimension in the magic of instant printed pictures.

 

Earlier this month, company officials announced that the increased popularity of digital photography led Polaroid to plan for the exit of traditional Instant film in all formats and sizes.

Although the company will halt production this year, Instant film is expected to be available into 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that the only true "filmmakers" are the people who work at Kodak and Fuji manufacturing film stock.

Sorry, I have to trot this one out again.

 

"What is the toughest thing about making a film? Putting in the little holes. The sprocket holes are the hardest thing to make. Everything else is easy, but all night you have to sit with that little puncher and make the holes on the side of the film. You could faint from that work. The rest is easy: the script is easy, the acting is easy, the directing is a breeze...but the sprockets will tear your heart out." --- Mel Brooks, comedian, writer, film director.

 

If you go to a SMPTE conference, you will find that if there is a session on "film" it has almost no reference to that emulsiony stuff. It's more likely to be about technology used for anything intended for the big screen OR straight-through DVD release (i.e. film is defined as "not television").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then, I guess Tarentino, Rodriguez, Spielberg, Spike Lee, and a great many others "don't really matter" because they tend to call their films "A film by..." or on the case of Spike Lee "A Spike Lee joint." Even John Carpenter referred to his films this way if I'm not mistaken. You can insult all you want but have you even attained the level of success of John Carpenter? You, not I, am the one being condescending talking about "who matters" in the business as though you matter anymore than anyone else. Fact is: If I fund a film, I can call myself whatever I want. Same goes for anyone. Ask Richard Boddington if he thinks he's not worthy of "the filmmaker" title when he funded, directed, DPed, and marketed his latest feature by himself. Brian, you have incredible credentials and have worked on some serious projects but that doesn't entitle you to go around policing how people choose to represent themselves.

 

 

I'm pretty sure I said that. ;) Everyone is entitled to title/call themselves anything they choose. :) The point is, though, I can call myself God Emperor but it doesn't mean it's true.

 

"A Film By" title is of course partially there to serve one ego or another, but in the case of very successful individuals, it's also a kind of brand name that, marketers hope, will help sell more tickets. Names like Disney, Spielberg, Lucas, Carpenter, Scorcese, and Bruckheimer (just to name a few) transcend the person who holds the name. Those monikers come with a track record that the public tends to trust when they decide to spend their hard-earned money to be entertained. While indeed I don't currently make films for a living (though at some point I hope to change that), I do know that when I do, dropping "A Film by Brian Dzyak" isn't likely to get anyone into the theater beyond my family and close friends. Everyone else on the planet will ignore it or say "who?" Gullible studio execs may fall for the marketing and believe in the idea that I did it all by my brilliant self, but those who really know how movies get made will likely see the titling for what it really is.

 

My purpose isn't to insult anyone, but merely to explain the realities of the business to forum lurkers and students who may be inclined to read discussions by working professionals. :) As coined earlier in the history of our industry, it takes an army to make a movie. The only place "A Film By" title truly belongs is right before the long list of names of people who have contributed their time, skill, and passion to help bring a story to the screen. Anything else is just marketing and/or ego. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. We should all be proud of what we accomplish, but it's also important to see things for what they are while not undermining the contributions of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
As coined earlier in the history of our industry, it takes an army to make a movie.

 

I will definitely agree with this. My short that I'm about to shoot only has a budget of about $1,200 and I'm shooting it in one location, yet I still have a 13 person cast/crew including myself. I agree that others contribution is very important. Maybe I could make this short with just cast and myself but I sure wouldn't get the shoot done in a day. I made my first short a few years back as Director/DP, grip, all of that (thankfully I didn't have to slate since it was digital single sound system) but that 9 hour day wore me out. I wouldn't recommend it.

 

My only point in mentioning "the film by" is not to devalue the crew or cast. Mainly I think it serves the point of showing whose vision the film was. Honestly (and I'm sure you'll attest to this Brian) sometimes crew doesn't like to take responsibility for a failed shoot anyway. Interesting enough is when a film is great, the crew and cast want to be like "Yeah, it was all us...the Director couldn't have done anything without us" but when the film is a failure then it's like "I couldn't have done anything with that bad script" or "the Director had no vision." It seems funny that when something is good, it's a team effort but when it's a failure, the Director stands alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Glen Alexander
It seems funny that when something is good, it's a team effort but when it's a failure, the Director stands alone.

 

Everyone on my film is and will be handpicked. Everyone has input on who comes on board and we're only talking 5 person crew. But in the Mojave, I won't have time for egos or whingers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a problem with videomakers who mock film but then call themselves "filmmakers."

 

I mean, if it's video, why do they insist on calling themselves something that it is not? It's not semantics, it's a lack of precision in the language. It's also euphemistic.

 

Another pet-peeve: "electronic cinematography," or worse, videomaking as "cinematography." I mean, for chrisakes, it's TV, not cinema. Nothing wrong with that, but videomakers are blatantly trying to appropriate the cache and longtime prestige of "film" for something that is, well-- not film.

 

Lucas does this all the time. He mocks conventional filmaking and celluloid, but he rips off the language because it sounds better than what he's really doing. It's essentially a lie.

 

This never used to happen. Video was video. It should be still. Why are videomakers afraid of telling it like it is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't agree with you at all on this, but I've already explained why "film" is commonly synonymous with the term "movies" and movies can be shot either with celluloid or digitally.

 

There is also some debate whether "video" is an outdated term to describe some modern digital data cameras that don't record in any particular videotape format.

 

The reason why the distinctions are going out the window is the same reason why you can't separate SAG and AFTRA actors anymore by saying that SAG actors are shot on film and AFTRA actors are shot on video. Because the tools are used interchangeably by the same people shooting the same actors. For every digital convert like Lucas there are a hundred people who shoot both digital and film for a living and don't really care to change their job titles simply because of the particular camera they are using for the shot.

 

Everyone draws the line in whatever manner suits their personal belief system. You feel that it is imprecise to use the word "film" for anything other than a production shooting on a photochemical emulsion... but "film" itself is practically a slang term just like "movies". It's not a particularly precise word. "Film" also describes what's left on a dirty plate before you've washed it...

 

...and to be more precise, you'd have to say that a "filmmaker" was the person who made the film emulsion.

 

Because if by "filmmaker" you didn't mean "maker of film emulsion" but really meant "maker of motion pictures" then you'd have to say that a "filmmaker" could use either digital or photochemical technologies -- because "film" in this sense refers to motion pictures, not emulsion.

 

Which brings up another point, that film emulsion is only one part of the puzzle and most movies go through a digital step or are released digitally, so why make such a big distinction around what is loaded into the camera when that's such a small part of the moviemaking process?

 

Language evolves over time. The meaning of a word in the 21st Century may be radically different from how it was used in the 15th Century -- does that mean that the 15th Century was "right" and the 21st Century is "wrong"? Or does it just mean that the word means something different today than it did in the past? The terms "film" and "filmmakers" will probably outlive photochemical technology. In fact, they may outlive the term "video"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go to a SMPTE conference, you will find that if there is a session on "film" it has almost no reference to that emulsiony stuff. It's more likely to be about technology used for anything intended for the big screen OR straight-through DVD release (i.e. film is defined as "not television").

 

Now THAT is a good definition of film, i.e. not television. Talk about purists. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the cache and longtime prestige of "film"

 

Therein lies the perpetuated fallacy, that it is the medium of image acquisition that contains the perceived level of respect.

 

Video has long been looked down upon for two reasons. 1) because the earliest versions of the technology were indeed poor and 2) because of the types of productions that used video (ie. news gathering, non-narrative).

 

HD has taken care of issue 1, but film-elitists still equate "video" as poor because it is also used for non-narrative topics, like news-gathering. It's a silly argument and point of view because all image acquisition for everything was accomplished with film prior to the 1950s. Are we to consider early news shooters "filmmakers" because they shot with 16mm and not video cameras?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think the idea that "real filmmakers" look down on video is actually a victimisation reflex from many "prosumer-gear video users" and does not hold true for certainly most friends or colleagues of mine that shoot on cine-film.

 

Why? Exactly because many remember very well that film was an acquisition medium across all sorts of application fields, and hence to devalue video because it's ENG is short-sighted. VNF film stock of 1960/70s news-gathering fame was terrible (as was Betacam in the 1980s and DigiBeta is in the aesthetic propagated now in, say, "Torchwood"), and this still hangs badly to Normal and even Super 16. Many still associate this paintball-grainish colour-blur with the format. Quite a pity, actually... :)

 

So I fear this "don't look down on me" is exactly a sort of reflex many people cultivate who would love to shoot on film because it is still regarded as ultimate medium in the industry - with the associated panache and style and quality - , yet is -frankly- not affordable for a fair share of wannabe-/newcoming filmmakers who have to work on a prosumer-gear budget. This is also why RED is so successful in its "Exodus-to-the-Holy-Land"-style marketing campaigns, as it promises 35mm or even 65mm quality for DVcam prices.

 

Personally, I think I have encountered more people shooting on digital video that look down on cine-film than the other way round. But that might just be my distorted matrix I live in ;) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. The problem is not film users who look down on video or digital or whatever, it's video makers who make fun of chemical film-- but then have no problem co-opting the value-laden language because it sounds more prestigious than saying "I use video" or "I make television programs."

 

To me, the precision in language is what is important. Film is film and electronic cinematography is not. That's OK, but practitioners of the one shouldn't call it the other. They are not film makers. Movie makers, maybe, I guess, but digital video is much closer to TV than it is to cinema, no matter the size of the screen

 

These distinctions used to be important. You never, ever heard video television programs referred to as movies or "films" (until the very late 60s, and then to much criticism that is still valid.) But because traditional film has such a greater prestige value and cache than video, they now insist on stealing the language.

 

It's not an adaptation, it's an appropriation that mistates the medium, at best. Where else does this happen but the phony world of entertainment? You don't hear computer users refer to them as 'electronic typewriters.' They don't say "I'm writing a paper" when they are writing a web page.

 

So why not the same with digital video? I think the answer is obvious. It's euphemistic, an attempt to give a phony stature to their medium that may not be deserved, and they're doing this deliberately by using terminology that is more favorable and supercharged with connotations that I don't think are meaningful. George Lucas is a prime offender here. It's really audacious what he tries to get away with, by mocking film but then using what he can of it to promote his vision of the digital future.

 

Hopefully it will pass, and this kind of celluloid terminology will go the way of running boards on old cars, used during the slow transition from the horse and wagon era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HD has taken care of issue 1, but film-elitists still equate "video" as poor because it is also used for non-narrative topics, like news-gathering. It's a silly argument and point of view because all image acquisition for everything was accomplished with film prior to the 1950s. Are we to consider early news shooters "filmmakers" because they shot with 16mm and not video cameras?

 

yes, because they were. And if video is so high quality now and so valid and desirable, than why do its practitioners want to avoid the term and call themselves something else?

They're the ones doing it, not me. And it's not an accurate description of what they do. They don't use film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
They're the ones doing it, not me. And it's not an accurate description of what they do. They don't use film.

 

You're being obtuse now - they don't use film emulsion, but they make "films", i.e. movies. That's why they are filmmakers, i.e. moviemakers. A film = a movie. Moviemaker = filmmaker. A film by = a movie by.

 

Look here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/filmmaker

 

filmmaker

 

Main Entry: film·mak·er

Pronunciation: \ˈfilm-ˌmā-kər\

Function: noun

Date: 1908

: one who makes motion pictures

 

So when the majority of people agree that a filmmaker is someone who makes movies, and movies are made with different sorts of technologies, and the dictionary officially recognizes that definition of the word, then what's the point of this senseless campaign to see the term restricted to people who use photochemical emulsion? One would question your motivation - clearly you must feel that the term is cheapened or sullied by people using digital technology to shoot their movie on. Why this need to divide people up into camps rather than let the term be inclusive, welcoming of diversity? Instead the "purity" of filmmaking must be preserved by excluding those who use technologies other than photochemical? Everyone is going to be subject to a litmus test now, have their status of filmmaker stripped from them by committees who check to make sure they only use photochemical technology to capture the image on? What's the friggin point?? It's just elitism, snobbery, being a reactionary. It's a pointless war for no reason.

 

Most of us use both technologies, back and forth, side by side, and we're still cinematographers, filmmakers, editors, whatever. If I shoot a movie that mixes the technologies, my credit has to say "cinematography & some videography by" and the director's credit has to say "a film by and a some video by"?

 

This class warfare going on by some people who want to separate people into neat categories that don't exist anymore is a pet peeve of mine. We should be inclusive, not exclusive. We should accept that language evolves over time, meanings change to suit the times, etc. Someone who has been a filmmaker all their professional life who recently switched from shooting on film emulsion to shooting digitally is still the same filmmaker. He doesn't relabel himself if he used Fuji instead of Kodak or Cooke instead of Zeiss or an AVID instead of FCP, but for some reason he has to come up with an entirely new job title if he uses a digital camera instead of a film camera??? It's a meaningless distinction that only people who have some sort of bug up their ass about digital like to bring up. Everyone else recognizes that both technologies are being used in filmmaking nowadays and accepts it.

 

I'll also point out the definition of cinematography from Merriam-Webster:

 

cinematography

 

Main Entry: cin·e·ma·tog·ra·phy

Pronunciation: \ˌsi-nə-mə-ˈtä-grə-fē\

Function: noun

Date: 1897

: the art or science of motion-picture photography

 

There's nothing about the term not covering digital photography of a motion picture.

 

And I'll repeat the definition of a motion picture:

 

motion picture

 

Main Entry: motion picture

Function: noun

Date: 1896

1 : a series of pictures projected on a screen in rapid succession with objects shown in successive positions slightly changed so as to produce the optical effect of a continuous picture in which the objects move

2 : a representation (as of a story) by means of motion pictures : movie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

David, I'm sure you've been around long enough to realize the old adage "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." You do add a level headed approach to things but sometimes people choose to be at extremes on these sorts of things.

 

As much as I love film, I don't think filmmaker, as most common folk would define it, matters if you're talking about digital acquisition or film acquisition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading through this again and a few other forums, it seems that the greatest protests come from aspiring moviemakers who use film and are reacting primarily against other aspiring moviemakers who use pro-sumer video. It's a way for them to set themselves apart from the legions of other aspiring moviemakers who can't or don't use actual filmstock to acquire images for their own movies.

 

An interesting (and a bit of a silly way to distinguish a project from others) and unfortunately, high quality professional High Definition is caught up in the fray, if only to keep some kind of consistency to the argument no matter how erroneous it is on just about every level.

 

As David has repeatedly pointed out, most of humanity now equates the word "filmmaking" with the word "moviemaking." "Filmmaking" has transcended the actual technology that is used to acquire images. And as far as other terminology that is used (ie, in the can, speed, etc.), there is an established working protocol that professionals have developed over the past 100 years that everyone is familiar with and helps the day move along without the crew wondering what someone is talking about. It isn't a devious attempt to highjack some ridiculous perception of "prestige" that film purists are trying to protect, but merely an efficiency of language in order to get the work done.

 

Too many conspiracy theorists out there if only to make themselves seem more "prestigious" than the legions of other aspiring moviemakers out there who only want to do the same thing for a living. What do we call movies that are shot with both film and HD (ie, STATE OF PLAY coming soon to a theater near you) or something like ROGER RABBIT which combined film and animation (which we learned earlier in the thread is not filmmaking)?

 

What's lost in all of this is what the audiences care about. Those who merely go to the theater to be entertained don't really give two sh**s about film or video. It's the story that matters. If it makes them laugh or cry or think is what they'll talk about, not wonder why the guy credited with "A Film By" credit shot it on video. The only people who seem to care are those who want to think that they are better than everyone else just because their movie is shot using "prestigious" film and not electronically. Really, nobody else cares. And they shouldn't and neither should we. Film, video, computers, drawings.... all just tools to tell stories and moviemakers choose which method of creation and acquisition best suits the story/project at hand. At the end of the day, if someone wants to be a CAMERAMAN, he/she will use whatever tool is appropriate for the story and the budget and do his/her very best with what he/she has. The same is expected of everyone else on the crew because ultimately, they are all just making a MOVIE. Filmstock is just one way to accomplish that, but it isn't the only tool in town anymore. Film purists will eventually get over it and accept reality or live a life of frustration. Everyone else will (hopefully) just be happy that they are able to make a living telling stories. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
At the end of the day, if someone wants to be a CAMERAMAN, he/she will use whatever tool is appropriate for the story and the budget and do his/her very best with what he/she has.

 

CAMERAMAN... now this is a word I havn't heard in quite a while!

 

"Mum, dad, I want to be a cameraman!"

 

[technological development & marketing folks transfering investment-evoking terminology]:

 

"Folks, I want to become a digital image-acquisition device operator and workflow manager."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most parents would probably understand that better than if you said you wanted to be a cinematographer...

 

 

That won't work because of the purists who stake a claim in "cinema" as being ONLY film and not video. :blink:

 

People outside of the business who know me typically just refer to me as a "cameraman." They don't know the differences and don't care. Even if I do explain it, all they really want to know is 1) "what have you worked on that I've seen?" and 2) "have you met any movie stars?"

 

Filmmakers, Cinematographers, Videographers, DPs...etc.... nobody cares. They really truly don't.

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
That won't work because of the purists who stake a claim in "cinema" as being ONLY film and not video. :blink:

 

Brian, are you ever gonna stop hatin on the purists? Honestly, being a purist can refer to digital shooters who use only digital through the whole process and refuse to do a film out. Guess everyone forgets this point.

 

Filmmakers, Cinematographers, Videographers, DPs...etc.... nobody cares. They really truly don't.

 

This is true. When I told my mom that I was hiring a Cinematographer for my up coming short she's like "why do you need him? If he uses the camera, what are you gonna do...just stand there?" :lol: I couldn't stop laughing long enough to explain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Bryan: Wow, that actually sounds really sad. Ever thought about hanging out with other people?

 

(not meant in a bad way - it really saddens me that people around you have so little interest in cultivating curiosity and caring about what you do. I guess I must be lucky then that people not only care what I do with film/movie/video/whateva, but that I also recently got free location tips [good tips], offers for helping out on a shot that lacked one assistant, and a question about what is actually the current machinery that projects images at the local cinema [Hampstead Everyman] - So from my experience: NO, people truly do care, and they dont give a toss about what goes on in the cinema, and yes, they see a difference when an "old film" and "new video" gets screened, as aesthetics are apparently differentiable; I even know people outside this forum that actually know where they want to be seated for a good view in cinema, and yes, they are under 30.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...