Jump to content

Many directors still prefer to shoot on film.


Recommended Posts

Film traditionalists can breathe a sigh of relief. In an increasingly digital age, many directors still prefer to shoot on celluloid film.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/studios-up-kodak-deals-keep-celluloid-film-alive-1274709

The five major studios — Disney, NBCUniversal, Paramount, Sony and Warner Bros. — have inked new deals with Kodak, the film manufacturer said Wednesday, committing to buying undisclosed amounts of motion picture celluloid and thus guaranteeing its continued use for the foreseeable future.

The first such pacts between Kodak and the studios were struck in early 2015, roughly 18 months after the film manufacturer emerged from bankruptcy protection. At the time, its film sales had plummeted as the use of digital imaging technology rose, and the agreements were designed to keep Kodak’s film manufacturing business going.

<><><><>

Don't know if 'many' is true. Do you think many directors do prefer film?

 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I meet a lot of young people who are very keen to shoot on film, there is definitely a new wave of film enthusiasm. I have the suspicion that a lot of directors would like to shoot on film in theory but won't necessarily put up a fight. It all depends on the project.

My personal projects are all shot on film and I am hoping to do many more. I admit to being a bit of a gear head. I was lucky to buy these three Arri cameras for a song not that long ago.

arri_uli.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there are several "high profile" films this year where you read on every single one (one was Honey Boy) "we wanted to shoot on film, were told no", "we wanted to shoot on film, it wasn't possible". It's a classic really. Many of the masters are shooting on film these days and some promising others too: Spielberg, Scorsese (if digital hadn't been absolutely necessary for the deaging, they would have shot The Irishman completely on film), Tarantino, O.Russell, JJ Abrams, Cianfrance (he had to shoot The Light Between The Oceans digitally because of location, his upcoming HBO show with Mark Ruffalo (I Know This Much Is True) is shot on 35mm), Snyder, PTA, Nolan, Ponsoldt, Scott Cooper, Chazelle, Safdie brothers, Baumbach, Gray, Jenkins, McKay,  Kore-eda, Lowery, Krasinski, McQuarrie, Trevorrow, Jonah Hill shot Mid90s on 16mm and hopes never to shoot digitally, and so on and so on.

Tarantino also gave an impassioned speech about film, and film projection a few days ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

I meet a lot of young people who are very keen to shoot on film, there is definitely a new wave of film enthusiasm. I have the suspicion that a lot of directors would like to shoot on film in theory but won't necessarily put up a fight. It all depends on the project.

I think young directors have different motives for wanting to shoot film. For some, it's a 'new' technology, and they are keen to try it out. Some believe it's the magic ingredient that will somehow elevate their film above the competition. Others have fallen victim to the film snobs who tell them that they aren't 'real' filmmakers unless they are shooting film. I think most people find out fairly quickly that it's not a panacea for poor filmmaking, and that as a technology it comes with its own unique set of issues.

I remember being told years ago that when budgeting, the total costs of film origination should be no more than 5% of budget. That's obviously not a problem when you have a large budget to work with, as do all the names that Manu lists above. I'm glad that these directors are choosing to use film, so that it remains a viable technology for years to come. It's when film costs start take over the budget that I find the whole argument ridiculous. When you hear of directors demanding to shoot film and having to slash the budgets of every other department, you start to wonder if they care more about calling themselves a "Filmmaker" than they do about actually making a film.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manu Delpech said:

Well, there are several "high profile" films this year where you read on every single one (one was Honey Boy) "we wanted to shoot on film, were told no", "we wanted to shoot on film, it wasn't possible".  

Honey Boy was a Tier One union movie. Whatever you might have heard, Tier One movies do not have a lot of money to throw around. Choosing film origination on their budget, particularly with a shooting style that I believe was fairly unstructured and improvisational, would have been difficult to afford. Everyone quotes the directors saying that they wanted to shoot film but weren't allowed to, as if Film was the only thing that director was asking for. Every director tries to stretch the budget in every department. They want technocranes and cable rigs, they want huge locations or elaborate sets and hundreds of extras. Ultimately, they have to make a decision what's important to them, and some of them decide that shooting film is not priority one. It's not some vast conspiracy to prevent people using film, it's just the reality of working within a budget.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
9 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

I think young directors have different motives for wanting to shoot film. For some, it's a 'new' technology, and they are keen to try it out. Some believe it's the magic ingredient that will somehow elevate their film above the competition. Others have fallen victim to the film snobs who tell them that they aren't 'real' filmmakers unless they are shooting film. I think most people find out fairly quickly that it's not a panacea for poor filmmaking, and that as a technology it comes with its own unique set of issues.

The ones I have come across are mostly keen to try out something different and acknowledge the specific look. Luckily I haven't come across those film snobs that you mention. Anyone who thinks that any medium of choice will make a better film should maybe not be a director. A painting isn't good because of the set of brushes that were used. Using film demands a different discipline which is exciting for some, but it doesn't guarantee a better film, of course. That Kodak slogan "Shoot film and stand out" is a little off, maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

 A painting isn't good because of the set of brushes that were used. Using film demands a different discipline which is exciting for some, but it doesn't guarantee a better film, of course. That Kodak slogan "Shoot film and stand out" is a little off, maybe.

I agree. No one looks at the Mona Lisa and says "you know what, that would have been better in watercolor".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digital won't kill film. Alexa Minis dropping to $3,000 each by the 2030's will kill film.

I've only been enthusiastic about shooting film from a period piece perspective. A "young filmmaker" gung-ho about celluloid wouldn't admit it, but are just trying to impress most of the people on forums like this. Printing film for projection is another story, I love the coloration it creates while not affecting on set workflow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Honey Boy was a Tier One union movie. Whatever you might have heard, Tier One movies do not have a lot of money to throw around. Choosing film origination on their budget, particularly with a shooting style that I believe was fairly unstructured and improvisational, would have been difficult to afford. Everyone quotes the directors saying that wanted to shoot film but weren't allowed to, as if Film was the only thing that director was asking for. Every director tries to stretch the budget in every department. They want technocranes and cable rigs, they want huge locations and hundreds of extras. Ultimately, they have to make a decision what's important to them, and some of them decide that shooting film is not priority one. It's not some vast conspiracy to prevent people using film, it's just the reality of working within a budget.

Alma Har'el told me when I asked that they wanted film, asked for favors, went nowhere. But yeah, considering the way she shot the film, that might not have been conducive. I understand what you're saying, but many directors will say that producers sometimes don't even want to hear about it and won't make an effort. 16mm and 2 perf is super cost effective especially. 

James Ponsoldt shot The Spectacular Now on anamorphic 35mm on a $3.5 million budget, he insisted on it:

 

"We shot on anamorphic 35mm, and film was one thing I couldn’t let go, not on this movie. So I really stood by it. But, 25 days was a sprint. That’s the short answer."

Jess Hall who shot the film had this to say:

"“The story is an emotional study of these two teenagers and James wanted those faces to be photographed in a way that was extremely expressive,” says Hall. “We felt the digital palate just didn’t offer that. Emotionally there’s a quantitative difference of how you can capture a close-up of an actor’s face, what you read on that face and the audience’s reaction to that. Seeing it on film and seeing it on digital is quite different.”

James was a fan of Son Of Rambow, a film I’d done that was really low budget and shot in anamorphic, so I was certainly of the opinion that the scale of the film didn’t rule out that format. I think a lot of people turn away from it because they think you can’t do a low-budget anamorphic feature. And it is a challenge, but my position is always trying to make a director’s wishes come to fruition.”

 

So yeah, I'm sure that sometimes (and I'm currently in the whole "how high should the budget be" debate on a film of mine, but I'll pay for film stock, film equipment, processing myself so nobody can say no) you have to choose something or whether it matters to you. But if it's really an imperative, I believe you make it work. So not all the directors I mentioned have a huge budget. Coogler shot Fruitvale Station on 16mm on a $900,000 budget. 

 

@Max Field  That's super cynical. I guarantee you, and I'm a young filmmaker, that many don't just want to shoot on film just to impress a handful of strangers on forums LOL, it's important, it looks better, it feels better, it stands out, it transforms it. And NO, I'm not saying shooting on film guarantees a good film, anyone thinking that is delusional.

Not to go into another debate, but I can say with absolute certainty that all my favorite films, that are all shot on film, wouldn't feel the same in another format and I wouldn't have quite the same emotional attachment without film. Digital also puts a barrier between me and the film, as subconscious as it can be (that and constantly thinking "wish this was shot on film) whereas film, I'm just there immediately, I don't have to buy in. 

Edited by Manu Delpech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Manu Delpech said:

James Ponsoldt shot The Spectacular Now on anamorphic 35mm on a $3.5 million budget, he insisted on it:

Of course it's possible, but what other things did he have to sacrifice in order to do so? 

39 minutes ago, Manu Delpech said:

if it's really an imperative, I believe you make it work.

Shooting on film is a choice, not an imperative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Manu Delpech said:

it's important, it looks better, it feels better, it stands out, it transforms it.

Little things here and there are definitely cool with the characteristics of shooting film but it's just not worth the cost. Like the number one thing industry veterans preach is great production design and great story, the canvas capturing it (with the exception of really cheap stuff) means nothing to me as a filmmaker. I don't really want an Arri camera all that much, but I have to have one to turn the heads of others.

I live for strongly saturated hair lights, whip-pans, stabilized handheld tracking, flashy bokeh, gigantically soft key-lighting, and backgrounds flushed with advertising. Film accomplishes literally none of those things. The more you consider your own style, the less you consider what captures it.

Edited by Max Field
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
9 minutes ago, Max Field said:

The more you consider your own style, the less you consider what captures it.

While the tools don't make a film, they are part of one's style. If you dismiss that, you are limiting yourself. The cost of film might not be worth it for you but it is for others. By the by, I am currently working on a big budget film where a lot of money is spent on a whole post production department to make the digital footage look more "film".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

While the tools don't make a film, they are part of one's style. If you dismiss that, you are limiting yourself. The cost of film might not be worth it for you but it is for others. By the by, I am currently working on a big budget film where a lot of money is spent on a whole post production department to make the digital footage look more "film".

And then once technology advances to automatically capture and apply those characteristics of making digital look more filmic, film will be gone for good? Because it's coming soon to a Davinci Resolve near you.

Remember when people thought the talkies were a trashy gimmick in the 1930's? Man would hate to be those guys (because they're dead, not because I'm making a great analogy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 minutes ago, Max Field said:

Remember when people thought the talkies were a trashy gimmick in the 1930's? Man would hate to be those guys (because they're dead, not because I'm making a great analogy).

Except that I’m not saying digital capture is a trashy gimmick. That would be silly. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

... 'new' technology ... magic ingredient that will somehow elevate their film above the competition ... film snobs who tell them that they aren't 'real' filmmakers unless they are shooting film ... not a panacea for poor filmmaking ... you start to wonder if they care more about calling themselves a "Filmmaker" than they do about actually making a film.

These are usually the lesser-talented people. There are filmmakers who like the look and process of celluloid filmmaking. They can be none of those things above. They're just gonna shoot film, and that's their story. There's watercolour, there's oil paints .... big deal. Stand back and let them do their thing. If they're good then wow, another good filmmaker out there making films. The argument goes the other way, because a person of poor talent with an Alexa isn't going to be better for shooting digital. Doesn't matter whether it's digital or what.

I think the new Kodak slogan is good. It's a little bit pushy. Which is probably what's needed. Film was mercilessly hounded by the digital push-outers so it needs to push back. All's going to be fine for film, because, well ... it's a natural talent.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Of course, to an artist, tools matter, technique matters, if merely from a problem-solving standpoint, and a lot of filmmaking involves problem-solving.  But I am reminded of a comment in an essay by photographer Robert Adams that "...style is never, in an important art, important by itself."  

So it is with our tools, our craft, our style that we express creative ideas, but we shouldn't elevate our tools too highly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Of course, to an artist, tools matter, technique matters, if merely from a problem-solving standpoint, and a lot of filmmaking involves problem-solving.  But I am reminded of a comment in an essay by photographer Robert Adams that "...style is never, in an important art, important by itself."  

So it is with our tools, our craft, our style that we express creative ideas, but we shouldn't elevate our tools too highly.

do you have a favorite format big D? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
12 hours ago, Max Field said:

Digital won't kill film. Alexa Minis dropping to $3,000 each by the 2030's will kill film

Na, it won't even have a dent. As digital tech gets better, it will push more and more people into film as the look differentiates itself more and more from the ultra-crisp digital look that has already started with the Red Helium and other 8k cameras. I feel the backlash when those are the only digital cameras available, will help film tremendously.

The death of film will happen when Kodak makes a horrible financial move and they finally go out of business. 

Until then, I'll be shooting film and buying/selling used film cameras as a way to help others get their hands on decent cameras. I hope the end doesn't come soon... but I will probably keep my cameras no matter what. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 1/31/2020 at 5:58 PM, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

Do you think many directors do prefer film?

Yes, but I feel there are too many roadblocks for most directors. If there were more high-end labs, new cameras that also captured 4k digital cinema at the same time as film and a modern user base, I think film would take off again. People WANT to use it, but the cost and risk factors generally shy them away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, David Dominguez said:

you know what would be neat? If Arri started making 16mm cameras again. It's seems like it's becoming more difficult by the year to get a solid camera. 

There are SO MANY great super 16 cameras out there, PLENTY to go around. Remember, the 416 was grossly expensive. Very few people will send that kind of money on film, even if someone DID come out with a new spanky camera. Arri, Aaton and Panavision will never make an all-new camera ever again. They are the last 3 brands still in business and they are all done with film. The only way a new camera would be made is if those three brands were willing to license their technology for someone else to make a knock-off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The only way a new camera would be made is if those three brands were willing to license their technology for someone else to make a knock-off. 

I read somewhere that Logmar in Denmark were contemplating to make a new Super 16 camera at some point but decided to make a brand-new 65mm camera instead. (image is from the American Cinematographer website)

 

logmar_magellan_65mm_camera_header.jpg

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
×
×
  • Create New...