The term "filmmaking"

[Ira Ratner]

Glen, what the heck is France's problem with people using words in the manner that they want to use them? For Christ's sake, the country even has a governmental agency trying to "protect" French from foreign language influences.

 

As a democracy, don't you see how retarded this is? Who CARES!? Do the French actually think that the French language is so important and fragile as to require governmental intervention? We're dealing with this same stuff in the U.S., from people afraid of Spanish.

 

Three pages of posts for THIS nonsense?

[Sean McHenry]

I haven't read all the reply so this may have been said but, we have gone round and round on this one at the local film club, part of a somewhat growing international "film" club where probably 90+% of the folks have never touched film. Nothing inherently wrong with that except the attitude that video is king, the way the world is moving and all that prevails to the intentional exclusion of film itself. I disagree.

 

I think filmmakers that use video are generally more interested in the entertainment business and not in making the best photography (another term that is dying by the way, and related to this topic) they can fro the scene in front of them. Why would someone limit their depth of field (or negate the effect I should say) or give up half or better of their latitude, etc? Not sure. Various reasons I am sure but, I propose we call the folks by what the end result is.

 

Moviemaker - makes movies for Hollywood type mass consumption and box office cash rewards.

Filmmaker - people that love working with bona fide film as a medium for entertainment or artistic reasons.

Experimental filmmaker - people that use the medium of film but not necessarily in it's intended usage or form specifically for experimental (outside the norm) art.

 

Etc. Is it a dying word? Sounds like it. Should we let it morph into a useless word? Not me. I still maintain that someone that has worked only in video is missing a huge chunk of the process and the history of film.

 

In a short argument I had with one of the club folks, if I only shoot videos on my cell phone and put them on YouTube, am I a filmmaker? He thinks yes, I think no. I have heard all the arguments by now but will stick to the idea that the terms moviemaker and filmmaker represent different aspects of motion pictures. Just me being stubborn I suppose.

 

Sean

 

For George Carlin...

 

Filmmaking used to be a term associated with moving pictures, on which the media they were made. You know FILM!! That combination of chemicals, dyes, and filters once developed has a latitude untouched by any digital process. Now anyone who can grab a digital camera can be called a "filmmaker". WTF is that about? Did I miss something? Since when did an 10-bit sensor with 6-bit latitude, and 0-bit depth of field be considered "filmmaking"?

[Sean McHenry]

PS, I didn't mean to imply that everyone using video is out to make a fast buck and not interested in good work. I know some very dedicated Videographers who do excellent stuff and really know an F-900 or Varicam forward and backward. Sorry, just wanted to make sure I don't unintentionally insult folks. I do that sometimes.

 

S.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

You can pile up as much bullshit as you want, that doesn't make you a 'filmmaker'. A politician or lawyer... maybe.

 

 

 

A million zeros are still zero.

 

 

 

So I wouldn't. Hacks, junk pedlers, corporate prostitutes, maybe.

 

 

 

Disagree. You don't "give it", you earn it from the audience.

 

I say make all the insignficant noise and junk you want, I'm all for it, it will make my work stand out even more.

 

Funny enough is that you are saying two different things here. On one hand, you talk as though someone is a hack because YOU think so but in another place you don't earn the title of filmmaker unless the audience respects your work...which is it?

 

If you think that there is any one filmmaker who is liked by everyone, then you are mistaken. So exactly how do you determine the overall quality of a movie? Is it by box office revenue? If so, then Leo's Titanic was the best movie ever made. Do you rank it by film critics? If so then Citizen Kane is the best movie ever made. What criteria do you use to determine a successful or "quality" flick over one of no quality?

[Justin Hayward]

part of a somewhat growing international "film" club where probably 90+% of the folks have never touched film. Nothing wrong with that except the attitude that video is king, I disagree.

 

It's the opposite. The biggest opposers to people shooting HD and using the term "filmmaker" are the ones who hardly shot any film and, of course, zero HD or video (cause it's beneath them). They probably shoot some super 8 or 16mm, but they're generally not the professionals that make a living off shooting 35mm.

 

It seems the more professional the filmmaker, the more open they are to format and "terms".

[Matthew W. Phillips]

It's the opposite. The biggest opposers to people shooting HD and using the term "filmmaker" are the ones who hardly shot any film...They probably shoot some super 8 or 16mm, but they're generally not the professionals that make a living off shooting 35mm.

So what you're saying, in essence, is that Super 8 and 16mm are not film?

[David Rakoczy]

It's the opposite. The biggest opposers to people shooting HD and using the term "filmmaker" are the ones who hardly shot any film and, of course, zero HD or video (cause it's beneath them). They probably shoot some super 8 or 16mm, but they're generally not the professionals that make a living off shooting 35mm.

 

It seems the more professional the filmmaker, the more open they are to format and "terms".

 

 

mmmm... let's see... Film is ALL I shoot... though I have plenty of F900 and Varicam experience.. as well as plain old ' SD video'. Owning my own SR2 Package, I do shoot a ton of S16 (because I refuse at this point to go with 1s and 0s) ... and have shot tons of 35mm and Super 35mm including Features etc.... and consider myself a Professional, and yet, still have a problem with the bastardization of the term 'Filmmaker'.

 

I guess I am an anomaly.

 

 

A Show shot Digital is a 'Digi-Feature'... or 'Movie'... yes.. but a 'Film'.. no not really... not unless there is 'Film' involved. But hey.. that is just my opinion. See Custard's Last Stand!

Edited July 23, 2008 by David Rakoczy

[Justin Hayward]

So what you're saying, in essence, is that Super 8 and 16mm are not film?

 

No, it just seems that in general the most outspoken, when it comes to the "proper" terminology, are the film dabblers. Although, David Rakoczy has certainly proven different.

[David Rakoczy]

No, it just seems that in general the most outspoken, when it comes to the "proper" terminology, are the film dabblers. Although, David Rakoczy has certainly proven different.

 

No offense taken Justin :) . We can only offer our opinions.. and respect each other's right to disagree... I see both sides of the argument and you do make a point. I just feel the term has been bastardized... oh well.. much worse things are happening as we speak... I do know this, if Film was trying to emulate Tape, and I was shooting Film (8,16 or 35) I would NOT be saying "I am going to Tape a Commercial this weekend"... or "Hey.. while Taping this weekend we... etc... you get the point...

Edited July 23, 2008 by David Rakoczy

[Brian Dzyak]

I would NOT be saying "I am going to Tape a Commercial this weekend"... or "Hey.. while Taping this weekend we... etc... you get the point...

 

I don't know anyone who says it that way anyway ("I'm going to film a commercial this weekend."). The standard phrase is "I'm going to SHOOT a commercial (or whatever) this weekend." Or "work on" or "I'm busy this weekend working." ;)

 

"Film" is usually reserved for these situations:

 

"Do you have enough film in the mags?"

"That was a great film!" (in reference to a "European" film with a message rammed down your throat)

"We're going to film you" (in reference to any kind of camera being pointed at someone, film or tape or electronic)

"I'm a filmmaker" (uttered by someone trying to prove their superiority in order to stand out from the crowd in order to be seen as "serious" no matter the actual quality of the subject matter.)

[David Rakoczy]

I don't know anyone who says it that way anyway ("I'm going to film a commercial this weekend."). The standard phrase is "I'm going to SHOOT a commercial (or whatever) this weekend." Or "work on" or "I'm busy this weekend working." ;)

 

 

 

I hear it all the time. Especially when approaching new Clients. "Oh.. we just 'Filmed' a Commercial".... "We are 'Filming' next week"... Filming? I say... On Film? Oh Yes... Video taping don't you mean.... oh.. well ya.. Videoing.. yes. In general, the term has been bastardized... remember Brian, there are more who use the term 'outside' the industry than 'inside'... way more. All your examples were from 'insiders'.. there is a big big world out there beyond just 'us'.

Edited July 23, 2008 by David Rakoczy

[David Rakoczy]

I see you have 'Videographer' under your signature... why not 'Cinematographer'? (that was a redundant question... no need to answer).

 

Obviously, terms have meaning.

 

Forgive me for leaving this never ending debate.. I have to Film today...

Edited July 23, 2008 by David Rakoczy

[Will Earl]

I help make films.

 

Or should I say movies?

 

But I've just finished working on a show.

 

When the show was shot and presented using film?

 

Which was processed using chemicals (and much more digitals) inbetween the shooting and presenting?

 

But no one working on the filmmovieshow was shot or given a present?

[David Rakoczy]

Will,

 

It took me a bit of work to decipher your points... after a while... it read like poetry. Sincerely.

 

I specifically liked line #5 "Which was processed using chemicals (and much more digitals) inbetween the shooting and presenting?"... Man that is brilliant! So true!

 

The 'marriage' of Film & Digitals is always better that the 'separation' of Film & Digitals.

 

Hell.. I could not survive without 1s and 0s... but I don't want Film given up either... esp when it comes to Acquisition. I'll take Dye Clouds over 1s and 0s any day... until the 1s and 0s surpass the Dye Clouds in a [Filmic, Cinematic] way.

[Will Earl]

Okay, silly poetic statements aside.

 

I reckon the term 'filmmaker' is more of a catch-all that can be used by anyone who makes films - whether it's by themselves or as part of a team.

 

And a film can be a 'film' even if it hasnt been near a strip of film. In much the same way that a music video is called a 'music video' even if it hasn't been near a video tape.

 

And I'd still probably call someone a Steadicam Operator even if they used another brand of camera stablisation (although I'm sure that's a delicate point for Steadicam Operators - "Actioncam?! Glidecam?! These are not Steadicams!".

[Brian Dzyak]

I hear it all the time. Especially when approaching new Clients. "Oh.. we just 'Filmed' a Commercial".... "We are 'Filming' next week"... Filming? I say... On Film? Oh Yes... Video taping don't you mean.... oh.. well ya.. Videoing.. yes. In general, the term has been bastardized... remember Brian, there are more who use the term 'outside' the industry than 'inside'... way more. All your examples were from 'insiders'.. there is a big big world out there beyond just 'us'.

 

Um, yeah. :unsure: Not sure what point you're trying to make here. I was speaking about the "insiders" though I see that I wasn't clear about that. :) Discussing the "outside" world isn't very relevant because those people really don't care about the distinctions the way some inside the industry do. And most inside the business don't care either. It seems to be only a select few who are circling the wagons around this term "filmmaking" in order to prove some kind of point. I imagine that figuring out the "why?" to that is what this thread is all about. Most seem to agree that "filmmaking" is one of those loose terms that applies to film and video at this point in history. What possible motives could the traditionalists have that make them want to protect a mere word so vehemently? Are they afraid of something? :unsure:

 

I see you have 'Videographer' under your signature... why not 'Cinematographer'? (that was a redundant question... no need to answer).

 

I'll answer anyway. ;) I don't use "Cinematographer" for various reasons of my own. The first, for me, is that the word "cinematographer" comes off as somewhat pretentious whenever I hear it applied to someone and I don't wish to be viewed that way. I also tend to apply that term to Cameramen who shoot narratives, which is something I generally don't do. But those are my connotations being applied to that word and I'm sure that others don't see it the way I do. And that's ok! :) Everybody is free to put whatever they want on their own business card.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

I claim the right to call myself a filmmaker

 

conceived film

wrote script

wrote lyrics

VV camera operator

DP

grip

film loader

producer ....

 

currently editing on VV flatbed

 

will musically score the film when print is done.

 

working out a system to project my film in Vistavision WITH sound in a theater for the premiere. this has NEVER been done for a complete film EVER.

 

you don't need an army to make a film.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Glen Alexander

[Brian Dzyak]

I claim the right to call myself a filmmaker

 

conceived film

wrote script

wrote lyrics

VV camera operator

DP

grip

film loader

producer ....

 

currently editing on VV flatbed

 

will musically score the film when print is done.

 

working out a system to project my film in Vistavision WITH sound in a theater for the premiere. this has NEVER been done for a complete film EVER.

 

you don't need an army to make a film.

 

Ok. Just a couple of questions. Who financed it? Who was in front of the lens? Who developed the film? How many theaters will this be released in?

 

 

:) Not to be a pain (Really!), but to make a successful COMMERCIAL movie that earns back its investment AND a profit, generally requires a fair amount of manpower and collaboration with specialists in a wide variety of specialties. Of course one "man" can do EVERYTHING on his own if he has the time, desire, and skill to pull it off, but generally speaking, to be a financially successful "filmmaker" means that a major financing entity has a stake in the financial and artistic success of the project and a great many specialists will be employed to help get to that end.

 

Kudos to anyone who bucks the system, but the system exists primarily because that is traditionally what brings creative and financial success. There are exceptions, of course, and those usually help push the industry past its established boundaries. But staking a career on that slim chance is only reserved for those who feel they have nothing to lose.

 

Good luck!

[Simon Wyss]

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. :)

Really, nobody else cares.

What ?! Have you ever heard of laboratory people ? Have you ever had conversation with projectionists or read in their talks ? Fellow, you are seriously underexposed (dare not say underdeveloped). I am a film man and master for instance synchronisation, you know, that picture and sound come together, also known as lip-sync. To say the least about frustration is videoists to the overwhelming major number do not even care about sync. They are lost in front of a synchronizer, you know, the thing with at least two toothed wheels on a shaft because they've never learnt to use their senses in order to see the sound and hear the image, so to say. Maybe it's not the sensorium than rather our proper brain memo function.

Filmstock is just one way to accomplish that . . . Correct, but filmmaking is the past, the tradition, the fundament for all of us. Do you think pixels and algorithms will ever serve saving Limelight or, what shall I take, The General ? No. Films are only films as films. Most of them are produced for projection, you know, 514 visitors together in a cinema and three or four employees at work, ushers, projectionist, cashier. Is the difference so unimportant that future generations should perceive Limelight from pixel screens with the light coming from behind the screen ? Video is video. I call it video, be it quadruple Ampex two-inch analogue, be it latest 8 K numeric 16 Bit whatever digital. Chronophotography, cinematography and computerography are clearly distinguishable things relative to . . .

 

. . . us. We, humans, you know, the animal that laughs, we who don't flee fire. I am a humanist, I admit, the term is not so en vogue now, especially on the U. S. republican side. What a time, 2008, what decadence ! Go, throw away the lightmeter, let it be 11000100010100001001001001000100010001111110010001010. Filmmaker !

[Luke Haywood]

I claim the right to call myself a filmmaker

 

conceived film

wrote script

wrote lyrics

VV camera operator

DP

grip

film loader

producer ....

 

currently editing on VV flatbed

 

will musically score the film when print is done.

 

working out a system to project my film in Vistavision WITH sound in a theater for the premiere. this has NEVER been done for a complete film EVER.

 

you don't need an army to make a film.

So, dare we ask, what sort of film is it?

Don't get me wrong; I have nothing but respect for people who actually manage to stop dreaming and actually get out there and shoot something, even if it's only on a Handycam and edited on their home computer. Even with the most basic equipment, you can still acquire a lot of valuable skills like framing, editing and script discipline, for no cost, something that simply wasn't available to earlier generations. But nooooo, your average dreamer couldn't possibly do anything like that. It's got to be all or nothing, and it's usually the latter.

Well anyway, congratulations on your entry into the rarified ranks of people-who-have-actually-done-something :lol:

 

So what did you do?

Will we get to see it?

[Brian Dzyak]

Really, nobody else cares.

What ?! Have you ever heard of laboratory people ? Have you ever had conversation with projectionists or read in their talks ? Fellow, you are seriously underexposed (dare not say underdeveloped). I am a film man and master for instance synchronisation, you know, that picture and sound come together, also known as lip-sync. To say the least about frustration is videoists to the overwhelming major number do not even care about sync. They are lost in front of a synchronizer, you know, the thing with at least two toothed wheels on a shaft because they've never learnt to use their senses in order to see the sound and hear the image, so to say. Maybe it's not the sensorium than rather our proper brain memo function.

Filmstock is just one way to accomplish that . . . Correct, but filmmaking is the past, the tradition, the fundament for all of us. Do you think pixels and algorithms will ever serve saving Limelight or, what shall I take, The General ? No. Films are only films as films. Most of them are produced for projection, you know, 514 visitors together in a cinema and three or four employees at work, ushers, projectionist, cashier. Is the difference so unimportant that future generations should perceive Limelight from pixel screens with the light coming from behind the screen ? Video is video. I call it video, be it quadruple Ampex two-inch analogue, be it latest 8 K numeric 16 Bit whatever digital. Chronophotography, cinematography and computerography are clearly distinguishable things relative to . . .

 

. . . us. We, humans, you know, the animal that laughs, we who don't flee fire. I am a humanist, I admit, the term is not so en vogue now, especially on the U. S. republican side. What a time, 2008, what decadence ! Go, throw away the lightmeter, let it be 11000100010100001001001001000100010001111110010001010. Filmmaker !

 

Well, to start, when I said that "nobody else cares" I was referring to the audience. They pay their eight dollars and just want to be entertained and/or informed. They really don't care whether they're watching a "video" or a "film." They really don't. We try to use the medium and the lighting, lenses, etc. that can best deliver the intended "message," but ultimately, the general audience doesn't care.

 

As for the rest of your reply... what?! :unsure:

[Simon Wyss]

Yeah, the public don't care, pity enough, I know. Maybe only when pellicle cinema has become one museum corner some people might feel an embarrassment with it. Until then the embarrassment is mine.

[dan brockett]

Wow, judging by the length of this thread and the robustness of the replies, work must be slowing down ;-(

 

Whenever I finish a shoot now, the proper terms is, "we got that one on the card" since I am mostly shooting P2 and XDCAM EX these days. I used to shoot a lot of S16 and I miss it but I have to say, I like shooting digitally more because experimentation is free (from a filmstock, lab and telecine POV). That freedom is intoxicating.

 

Dan

Edited October 18, 2008 by dan brockett

[Max Jacoby]

"That was a great film!" (in reference to a "European" film with a message rammed down your throat)

Yes that's why I LOVE Hollywood films, they never ram a message down your throat...

[Simon Wyss]

Yes that's why I LOVE Hollywood films, they never ram a message down your throat...

Hollywood is much worse. You cannot escape their message from the first frame on.