Calling your video project "a film".

[Tim Tyler]

Please elaborate if possible.

[Jonathan Spear]

It's like reffering to your motorcycle as your 'bike'.

 

Think sex, for example. :D

 

How many terms and labels have we humans given to the act of reproduction?

 

A video project is a film, just like making love is reproducing.

 

Apples and oranges...apples and oranges.

[David Mullen ASC]

It sort of depends too on if you are making a narrative project, which is why I clicked "maybe". I mean, if I direct and shoot an episode of "While You Were Out" or "Junkyard Wars" on video, it would be weird to have a title that said "a film by..." wouldn't it?

 

But if someone makes a narrative piece in video, I see no problem calling it "a film" because "film" and "movie" are used interchangeably. Everyone knows what you mean. Calling it "a video" can be more distracting because THEN you are more pointedly noting the format of the piece, which many viewers don't give a darn about -- whereas few people when they see "a film by" think about whether it was shot on film or not, because they think "film" means "movie" in that case.

[Guest lonedog]

It depends on many things. going to the flicks, the movies, the pictures, the cinema to see a film, all have different historical background meanings based on the time they were relative. Think of not that long ago, going to get a video is being replaced with going to get a dvd, and who knows what the future holds. Look at still photography. The word "film" among younger and many not so young picture takers is being rapidly replaced with flash cards, smart cards, ram ,rom bing bang skip ta maloo my darling. And what do you call something that is shot on film but screened off a digital projector. Or something shot on video or digital that is transfered to film and projected traditionally. The word film has literal meanings which are not that varied, video is not one of them. It's a shame really, because since the introduction of digital video, film purists have held onto the word with self righteous zeal. I think anyone who makes pictures that move have created, well, pictures that move. I think in time we will forget all the elitest nonsense and come up with a more compatible and appropriate term, until then, call it what you want. On a side note, the term. A Film BY is a very contentious subject, mostly directors want the moniker but what about the writer and the producer and the dop and the art director and the editor and the composer and the..................

[Alex Opdam]

I do feel like a film snob saying this, but I confess that I feel a little mislead when I discover that a person's "film" (in their words) turns out to be shot on video. Admittedly this is more a reference to XL1 (or similar) projects, and hypocritically I think I'd let the faux pas slide if the project was shot on high end video like HD :)

 

I do agree with Phil's logic in that use of the word "film", regardless of the photographic medium, can help convey the project's format.

 

Nonetheless, I believe there are a lot of circumstances where the word "film" is thrown around in an attempt to generate unwarranted credibility for what is creatively (and technically) of a low caliber.

 

I guess that I'd prefer that people (talking about their video production) referred to it as a "movie" or "short" or some term that doesn't intrinsically insinuate a certain medium. However, the term "film" has become so overused I think it would be impossible and fruitless to attempt to enforce its proper usage.

 

I can't believe I just wrote all that.

Edited November 26, 2004 by Alex Opdam

[Rob Belics]

I agree with David but don't agree with the cause. Saying film is just an error and I find that error created by amateurs and the public in general. It has ony been a relatively short time since video projects have come into the mainstream of production. We've always called them "film" until now and that usage is in the common language.

 

However, I believe Alex is correct that some, especially amateurs, do try to elevate their status by calling it a 'film'. Just like some use the phrase, "I have just made a feature....", meaning feature length and little else.

 

You've seen the bumper sticker: "My other car is a BMW". <_<

Edited November 26, 2004 by Rob Belics

[David Mullen ASC]

Many people will say "what films were released this week?" "what film did you see?" etc. and they aren't talking about the medium of the original photography. Nobody will probably refer to "Fahrenheit 9/11" as one of the best "videos" released this year unless they are talking about the home video version.

 

Besides, to be really picky, videotape is just as much a "film" (magnetic oxide stuck on a plastic tape base) as film is (silver emulsion stuck on an acetate or plastic base.) "Film" is also a slang word afterall. So is the word "movie".

 

Too often these discussions are used to beat-up on people who shoot with video and make them feel like second-class citizens for not using film.

 

I'm always amazed at how emotional people can get over a word. Like the silliness of saying homosexuals can have civil unions, with all the same legal benefits as marriage, as long as they don't call it a "marriage". Cuz dat's our word -- you can't have it!

[Tim Tyler]

Many people will say "what films were released this week?" "what film did you see?" etc. and they aren't talking about the medium of the original photography.  Nobody will probably refer to "Fahrenheit 9/11" as one of the best "videos"

 

I think if a video project makes it to film for distribution then it's acceptable to call it a film, because it is film.

 

Besides, to be really picky, videotape is just as much a "film" (magnetic oxide stuck on a plastic tape base) as film is (silver emulsion stuck on an acetate or plastic base.)  "Film" is also a slang word afterall. So is the word "movie".

 

Interesting! I've never really thought of tape as 'magnetic motion picture film'. I'm actually surprised now that I've never seen tape marketed that way. Of course, video tape started as audio tape (didn't it?). So does that mean my bathtub is a 'filmmaker': soap residue stuck on a ceramic base ;)

 

I think 'movie' is probably slang for moving picture or moving-picture-show. (Movie star. Movie theater.) 'Movie' seems more colloquial than 'film' which, for the purpose of this discussion, is just an abbreviation of 'motion picture film'.

 

Too often these discussions are used to beat-up on people who shoot with video and make them feel like second-class citizens for not using film.

 

Personally I see no reason to criticize anyone for choosing or shooting video instead of film. I would hope that this discussion does not go that route.

 

I've been shooting a video documentary for four months now and whenever the director would describe the project to somebody he'd call it 'a film' and it bugged me. We argued it a little and he started referring to the project as 'a video', but probably just to make me happy. That's what prompted me to start this poll.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

What Mr. M. said. I tend to use phrasology like "The production...." to avoid this stuff.

 

Phil

[Alvin Pingol]

What Mr. M. said. I tend to use phrasology like "The production...." to avoid this stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Likewise. Moreover, during a production of which the medium is video, I feel it is ackward to say "Sorry, I can't meet you for lunch because I'll be out filming." Much rather, "Sorry, I can't meet you for lunch because I'll be out shooting." ;)

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Just like some use the phrase, "I have just made a feature....", meaning feature length and little else. 

 

You've seen the bumper sticker:  "My other car is a BMW". <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I try to always say 'DV' or 'digital' feature in that case. But I have no problem with calling a project shot on video a film in general terms because, like David pointed out, it's common for people to say that instead of 'movie.' Maybe we should just call them 'joints'?

[Dan Salzmann]

For me if it's narrative I feel pretty much OK calling it a film.

What's strange as well are what are called "music videos" or just "videos" in the US even when they originate on film.

This is not a problem in the UK where they are generally referred to as promos or pop promos.

[Justin Hayward]

Calling it "a video" can be more distracting because THEN you are more pointedly noting the format of the piece, which many viewers don't give a darn about --

 

This is my problem with not calling your video a film. I once saw a DoP credited as the ?Director of Digital Photography?. Not only was this distracting, but an oxymoron as well.

 

How about calling a narritave video peice a "Picture"?

[Justin Hayward]

Personally, I couldn?t care less what somebody call their...er...project. I figure, anybody that puts that much work into anything can call it whatever they want. If a mechanic rebuilds my engine and wants to call it his film. I don?t care, just as long as it runs. Now whether you film, video, movie, picture, sucks or not is a whole other matter. :D

[Guest lonedog]

Exactly! And.... "Sucks". Another word with a wide array of interpretations.

[zrszach]

I think video should be called video and film be called film.

It just makes sense to call it what it is. Film is obviously different in a lot of ways from video. So to say you have shot a film when you have shot on video just isn?t right. ;)

Film is an experience all its own and to say that you made a ?film? that you shot on video does not mean you have the ability to shoot real film.

 

It?s just a label but there is a reason that they say short film instead of short video.

 

It just sounds more professional whether you are a professional or not.

Anyone can make a video but not everyone can make a film.

 

 

That?s just my thoughts but then again I am a film kind of guy. :)

[David Mullen ASC]

Why can anyone make a video but not everyone can make a film? Thousands of amateurs for decades used to shoot their vacations, weddings, birthdays, etc. on 16mm, 8mm, and Super-8 film; some even cut them together into short films.

 

Anyone can make a crappy video or a crappy film... and it takes skill to make a good video and a good film.

 

A narrative video can be called a film because "film" is another word for "movie" in our language, not just a reference to the shooting format used. This is not an issue of right or wrong, but of common usage for the purpose of communication. If enough people agree that "film" and "movie" are used interchangeably, then they are. And we've already reached that point. You can walk against the wind or tide as much as you want to, but in the end, "film" and "movie" will STILL be used interchangeably. There is no trend the other way. I doubt the next Star Wars film will be talked about as the "latest video from George Lucas" even if that's technically accurate (hey, I just called it the next Star Wars "film" without even thinking about it, see?)

[Brad Grimmett]

I have to agree with David on this one. There have been many times when someone tells me they shot a short film, and one of the first questions I ask is, "What format did you shoot on?" I certainly don't assume that because they said "film" that it was actually shot on film. Someone saying that they had shot a "short video" would sound a lot stranger to me. I'd be wondering if they did half a music video for a band or something....

When someone says "short film" you know exactly what they mean.

Edited November 28, 2004 by grimmett

[David Mullen ASC]

It's funny how we use the term "music video" to describe something usually shot on film...

[Guest lonedog]

A quote from Roger Corman, one of the great independant film makers, in regards to the naming of his production-distribution company.

This was around 1970/ 71.

"I was going to go with New World Films, but i had the feeling that film might someday be a transitory phenomenon, replaced by lasers or tape or something else. So i went with New World Pictures, figuring whatever they use to make movies, the result will always be pictures".

And the beat goes on...

[Rob Belics]

There has to be some differentiation because there is confusion. I've started reading articles where I thought I was learning something new about film only to find I wasted my time when I found it only related to video. They aren't the same thing technically.

 

When working on a computer most people say "I've got to look it up on the computer" and you won't question whether it's a Mac or a PC but it makes a big difference if you drive to a location only to find you can't use your software on that machine.

 

If you're a game player and someone invites you over for a computer game and you find out his "computer" is an old Atari box, you'd feel cheated. No one would call an Atari a computer.

 

There are names for all these things and video is video. Film has always been known as "motion picture film". It is video that has encroached upon the name and wrongly so.

 

So what do we call video transferred to film? I think it should be "movie" with an asterisk. You need to let me know what I'm getting in for when I plunk down my dollars. You tell me a movie was shot on dv and transferred to film then I (everyone?) questions how good that movie will be and wait for the reviews.

 

Why should video hide behind the mask of film?

Edited November 28, 2004 by Rob Belics

[David Mullen ASC]

Because movies cheat you in so many other ways. If you think the fact that it was shot digitally should be indicated clearly because it is a barometer of quality, then why not the budget of the movie, which is an even BIGGER factor in production value? "Hey, they cheated me... I thought it was a 20 million dollar movie but they did it for only five..."

 

If you don't decide what films to go see by their budget, but instead by artistic merit, then why should the technical format be the deciding factor (unless you are a DP studying movies)? "Honey, there's a great picture shot all on 100 ASA Kodak stock playing uptown? Do you want to see it or the push-processed 500 ASA film down the street? You know, the one that used the #1/4 ProMist? What, you want to see that Super-16 blow-up at the Ritz? Are you joking?"

 

If a respectible critic says it is a great work of art, are you not going to see it because it was shot digitally?

[Rob Belics]

That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is just that I get the feeling "videos" hide behind this mask and don't stand on their own merits.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

If you're a game player and someone invites you over for a computer game and you find out his "computer" is an old Atari box, you'd feel cheated.  No one would call an Atari a computer.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldn't feel cheated. In fact I would love someone to invite me to play Atari! Do you have 'Pitfall'?

 

(sorry Rob, I couldn't resist. I know what you are getting at.)

[Tim Tyler]

One of dictionary.com's definition of "steak" is:

"A patty of ground meat broiled or fried. "

 

Now, if McDonalds started marketing their hamburgers as "steak sandwiches" some people would feel cheated and some people would accept it.

 

If McDonalds kept at it for years, then "hamburger" and "steak sandwich" would probably become one in the same as far as most consumers were concerned.

 

That doesn't mean that a piece of crap McDonalds hamburger should be called "steak" though.

 

There are plenty of fabulous restaurants that proudly specialize in hamburgers. They may someday decide to continue to call their sandwiches 'hamburgers' or change to 'steak sandwiches' if that becomes an accepted norm due to some (hypothetical) marketing campaign. So in the future you could buy 'steak' and fries from McDonalds or from the best organic burger joint in town. Two entirely different products and experiences.

 

In my opinion, that's why some choose to call thier video movie 'a film'. It's acceptable. But it's not accurate.

 

I think now that video can finally hold its own against film as a motion picture production and distribution medium, there's no reason to call it 'a film'. It's not, and it will only confuse and complicate things down the road.

 

So, stand proud, movie makers! Today the movement begins! "I'm making a VIDEO!" :rolleyes: