Some years ago I participated in a filmmaker training program at the New York Film Academy in Los Angeles California. The most exciting part of that program was getting the opportunity to shoot one of our student projects inside Universal Studios back lot. Another fun aspect was shooting our short movies on Super 16mm celluloid film. This further enhanced my own personal excitement as I was under the impression that since we were shooting in a traditional format, we would be editing the film in an old-fashioned way. As in looking at every individual frame, choosing the right spot to cut on the guillotine, splicing in the next frame with scotch tape, then making a brand new print form our own assembly. However, upon retrieving our footage, I was disappointed to discover that after the film had been developed, it had already been digitized and would be given to us in the form of a QuickTime video, which we would then have to edit on the computer. This was not a big concern to me as I had already familiarized myself with video editing software. I just found myself bummed that we weren't given the opportunity to try our hands at real editing. Furthermore, I was confused as to the choice of capture format. If our celluloid film was going to be digitized anyway, what was the point in shooting on it? It was from this experience I learned that shooting on digital cameras was not only inevitable, but it was also significantly more practical. Especially in the modern age of digital technology. Even so, using that classic Super 16mm film did give me an appreciation for the format which I still maintain to this day. Despite how much I don't ever want to use it again.
The fact of the matter is that celluloid film, despite its rich history, is very cumbersome. A fact stated by even some of the most classic and well-versed filmmakers. One director, in particular, spent the last few years of his career, and indeed his life, advocating the artistic merit of digital video. The late Sydney Lumet, director of such classics as 12 Angry Men, Network, and Murder on the Orient Express (all of which were shot on celluloid), spend his last few years making movies on early HD video cameras. Not only did he fall head over heels in love with the technology, he even had a perfectly logical reason for preferring HD video over film. Aside from the expected cumbersomeness of dealing with celluloid, Sydney Lumet also argued that there was a scientific reason as to why digital was better for everyone. He pointed out how there are three forms of energy: Thermal (heat), chemical, and electromagnetic (light). When shooting on film, you begin with light (electromagnetic), and you process that through a chemical base, a different energy form, and because of this, there is always a loss between what you saw with your eyes, and what was captured on the celluloid. Whereas in HD video, you begin with light, and you end with light. It stays within a single energy form, thus remaining exactly how you saw it.
Given this reasonable and defendable scientific observation, it stands to reason that digital video is much more practical for making cinema. Even so, what can be said in defense of celluloid film? Well, the most famous argument is the aesthetics. Many filmmakers who have been shooting on celluloid for most of their careers, such as Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino, have argued that, compared to digital video, celluloid is superior and more aesthetically pleasing. But why? How does celluloid film achieve this appealing property? Well, I have a theory: It's actually physical. Digital cameras capture images using a flat sensor that reads light. As such, although the pictures these sensors create are still visually beautiful, they can come across as flat and be lacking in texture. Whereas compared to celluloid film, a format you can actually touch and hold in your hands, contains many layers of texture and is more three dimensional. This creates a sense of realism that digital video has still yet to master, thus proving celluloid film has one significant advantage over digital video.
All of these arguments are valid in their own ways. Even so, I can't help but feel that everyone on either side is missing the point. That point is that it really, really, really doesn't matter. Why? Because there's really no reason to argue that one format is more acceptable than the other aside from aesthetic preferences. Throughout the long and rich history of cinema, there have been multiple formats that everyone and their mother had an opinion about, and they all proved themselves to be worthy of high-quality storytelling. No one believed that Super 16mm could be anything other than a documentary format until the film Texas Chainsaw Massacre came out. No one thought that digital video could be a viable format for cinema until the Dogma 95 movement. No one believed that DSLRs could work as cinematic cameras until films like Act of Valor and 127 Hours used them. Etc, etc.
In the world of storytelling and creative visions, there has never really been one real way to bring your ideas to life. The only barriers to acceptability are the ones put up by arrogant and ignorant people who are afraid of new and unfamiliar territory. Being an artist is not only about having the talent and skill necessary to create meaningful and beautiful works, but it is also about learning to adapt to the changes in technology. It happened with painting, it happened with photography, it has happened in cinema. Somewhere down the line, another art form will go through its own evolution. It will either come out the other end stronger with both its traditional ways and embracement of the new, or it may cower in the shadows denying the change of the times, fading away into obscurity.
Speaking personally, I will continue to shoot still photos on both film and digital, but my cinematic projects will be, for the most part, digital only. Unless I happen to stumble on a project that actually benefits from being shot on film. In which case, I'll know just what to do, and I hope that others will as well.
Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment