Back in October of last year, I saw and reviewed the action sci-fi drama Gemini Man starring Will Smith and Mary Elizabeth Winstead. For the most part, I genuinely enjoyed the movie. I thought it was an incredibly well-crafted film, and the special effects in creating a twenty-four-year-old clone of Will Smith was absolutely astonishing (mostly). However, the real main attraction of the film, arguably, was that it was the second feature film by Ang Lee (more on him in a moment) to be shot in a semi emerging format for cinema known as High Frame Rate or HFR. This is turning into an incredibly fascinating debate in the world of cinema for many different reasons. I am neither for it nor against it, but rather intrigued by the many facets of modern film technology that seem to have lead to its current state of debate in the world of filmmaking. So, if you have a moment, and I'm pretty sure you do since I imagine you're still reading, I would like to discuss my own take on HFR and where I think it fits best in the modern world of film.
First, a little history:
Kinetoscope
In the early days of cinema, there was some debate as to the appropriate frame rate, or Frames-Per-Second (fps), for the best possible presentation. Some argued for 18fps, others for up to 48fps. Thomas Eddison, the inventor of the motion picture camera, argued in favor of faster frame rates. However, because of the expensive and cumbersome nature of celluloid film, it was decided early on to determine the exact amount of frames necessary to create the illusion of movement without using too much physical film. Eventually, right around the time that synchronized sound came into play, it was decided that 24fps was the best frame rate. Since then, every single movie, both feature-length and short, that ever graced the silver screen, was captured at 24fps.
Many filmmakers and movie buffs alike have come to adore 24fps for many different reasons. Chief among them being its unique aesthetic quality. 24fps grants the medium of film the ability to transcend reality to create a compelling story. Some have described 24fps as having a kind of "dream-like" quality to it, thereby providing an essential ingredient to the magic of cinema. In fact, one could argue that the most significant contributor to making digital video an acceptable format for cinematic capture was the addition of 24fps. It is arguably the main thing which makes cinema...well...cinematic.
This brings me to the discussion of High Frame Rate. Because in recent years, the term "cinematic" has undergone quite a lot of scrutiny, and in my opinion, rightfully so. Not to say that it is a dirty or offensive term, but it is something that has been thrown around by many people (particularly younger filmmakers) as if it was an absolute rule with certain expectations that must be met to the letter at all times. However, like many aspects of the arts, there is never just one meaning to anything.
In the broadest of definitions, "cinematic" refers to images that emulate the aesthetic qualities that are generally associated with Hollywood movies. The most popular, especially in the early days of digital cinematic capture, is a shallow depth-of-field, or an image where the subject is in focus while the background is blurry. However, just like any other aesthetic preference that can be deemed "cinematic," it is not really absolute. When you take into account some of the films that were captured using "deep focus" (as in photography with no blurry backgrounds at all), it quickly becomes apparent that "cinematic" is not a hard and fast rule, but rather a guideline. So long as there is individual artistic taste, there will always be various interpretations of what cinematic actually means.
For a more in-depth look at the nature of cinematic, check out this article from Red Shark magazine.
Anyway, back to the reason we're here.
As mentioned before, movies are traditionally captured at 24fps. However, while that is now widely available in pretty much all digital video cameras, that was not always the case. Before 24fps became an option, video cameras captured footage at 30fps or 60fps. There was also an earlier framerate known as 60i, but that's a different discussion entirely. Most early television programs would broadcast at faster frame rates. Most notably, daytime Soap Operas, most of which were captured at 60fps. This gave most television programs an incredibly distinctive look that would never be considered cinematic, at least not in the traditional sense. Even so, there is something rather alluring about higher frame rates. I should know because I find myself somewhat attracted to it as well.
In my early days of being a filmmaker, I used to shoot my projects exclusively at 30fps. Partially because my editing software at the time was unable to support 24fps, but mostly because I liked the smoother images it would produce while still retaining some of the aesthetic qualities associated with 24fps. Even when attending film school, I shot my projects at 30fps despite all of my instructors encouraging me to do otherwise. In the years since then, I have grown to appreciate 24fps and currently shoot my projects in that framerate. Even so, I still find the idea of making movies in faster frame rates to be a fascinating concept, despite how uncertain I am of its future.
Martin Freeman & director Peter Jackson on set for The Hobbit, which was shot in 48fps.
One of the earlier examples of experimenting with HFR in the cinema was The Hobbit. Director Peter Jackson, who previously had great success with his Lord of the Rings trilogy, took it upon himself to tackle J.R.R. Tolkien's smaller work. At this time, Jackson had transitioned from shooting his movies on celluloid film to high-end digital video. Jackson also decided to shoot the film in native 3D, which is apparently what prompted him to experiment with HFR. This, incidentally, seems to be what kickstarted the HFR debate in the first place. Because of the nature of shooting native 3D, the images as produced in traditional 24fps can appear to be too difficult to observe, causing unintended strobing effects in the picture, especially with fast motion within the scene. Personally, I think that's really because of the 3D itself rather than the frame rate, but I digress. However, by increasing the frame rate for the 3D presentation, the image is smoother and less likely to cause eye strain. At least, that is the working theory.
I had the opportunity to see all three Hobbit films in their native 3D HFR presentation, and honestly, I was not impressed. Aside from not enjoying the 3D (as I have never liked the damn format), the higher frame rate made every singe image on screen look too fake. In HFR, you can see the thickness of the actors make-up, the foam structure of the sets that were meant to be rocks, and every single pixel of CGI (Computer Generated Imaging) used to create nearly every single shot. In an attempt to make the film feel more real and more comfortable to look at, they instead made the film look too real, thereby removing the veil of movie magic.
While there were many other aspects of The Hobbit films I did not enjoy or appreciate for various reasons, seeing it in HFR made me realize something essential about traditional 24fps that I had overlooked. Aside from its general aesthetic qualities, 24fps can better conceal various aspects of film production. It provides us with just enough visual information to make out the subject without allowing our brains to fully comprehend its true nature. A perfect example, at least to me, is Billy Crystal's make-up job from The Princess Bride. While there is no doubt that the make-up itself is top-notch, especially for the time, a big part of why it appears so convincing is the fact that because of the 24fps frame rate, out brains do not adequately absorb enough information to recognize it as make-up. Of course, a lot of that also has to do with the incredible writing, witty performances, and elegant lighting design. Still, if you were to take all of that and apply it to 60fps, I guarantee that you would not believe for one second that Miricle Max felt real in that scene.
Billy Crystal as Miricle Max
Now, at this point, you're likely wondering what any of this has to do with Gemini Man. Well, aside from my personal feelings that it is a criminally underrated film, it has also officially renewed my interest in HFR for cinema. At least, for particular situations. Gemini Man was captured in HFR at 120fps. Probably the fastest frame rate ever attempted for cinema. You may be surprised to hear that this is not the first time that director Ang Lee has utilized this frame rate. A few years prior, he shot Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, a military drama about PTSD, at 120fps. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to see either of these films in their native 120fps presentation, so I cannot comment on the aesthetics of it at this time. However, I recently had the opportunity to watch Gemini Man on home video in a special 60fps presentation. Which now brings me to my awaited REDUX of that film.
When I started watching Gemini Man at 60fps, having already experienced the film in a traditional 24fps presentation, the first thing I noticed was, surprisingly, how little the 60fps experience was affecting my enjoyment of the film. I had read countless other reviews regarding Gemini Man and its HFR presentation saying it looked too fake, the acting was rendered unconvincing, and the general aesthetics were too uber-realistic to be taken seriously as cinema. I was fully aware of all of that, and yet, when watching the 60fps version of the film, I honestly didn't feel any different. I still loved the movie as much as I did the first time I saw it in theaters. Now, one could argue that 60fps wasn't the exact same experience as 120fps (which is fair), and having experienced the 24fps version of the film prior, my experience with the 60fps version may have been hindered by my own personal enjoyment of the film. Even so, what little differences I could glean from the two different versions of the same film, my overall experience and impressions were largely unaltered. If anything, I actually found myself enjoying the 60fps version a little more.
Will Smith and Mary Elizabeth Winstead from Gemini Man
This puzzled me exponentially for so long that I actually started asking myself questions I would later realize I already knew the answers. Such as "Am I just not well versed enough in the world of cinema to see the real difference?" Or "Is there something about this whole debate that I am simply missing?" The answer, as it turns out, was a definitive "no" for the first question and a resounding "yes" for the second. In regards to the first question, I think I have learned a lot about cinema (and continue to do so) at the present time so as to know what I find to be genuinely good storytelling. At least, enough to know what I personally prefer. As for the second, there is another aspect to this whole discussion which I had completely overlooked: The inherent aesthetic beauty of digital video itself.
Ang Lee and Will Smith on the set of Gemini Man.
Not too long ago, I stumbled upon an article about Gemini Man from The New Atlas. This article features a quote from Ang Lee regarding his personal artistic taste and ideas for the future of cinema. Ang Lee is quoted as saying:
"I'll continue to chase the aesthetic quality of digital cinema. It has an aesthetic that's worth grasping. We've been imitating film and that's just not right. You can use it as a reference, but it's a different medium".
This quote was the exact answer I was looking for because it reminded me of my own personal artistic taste as well. Not to mention, it reminded me why I preferred shooting my projects in 30fps in my early days (aside from the limitations of my editing software at the time). Digital video is its own medium and has its own individual, artistic, and even cinematic aesthetic that is truly beautiful. The real problem is not that digital doesn't look enough like film, but rather that popular conjecture insists that because it is not film, it is not acceptable as a cinematic medium. I think the real reason some filmmakers are pushing for higher framerates in movies is not so much for the smoother and cleaner images (although there is no arguing that is at least part of it), but rather it is part of an effort to remind people that cinema is not determined by what format you make it on, but by how you artistically and competently tell your story.
Furthermore, I think that as cool as HFR looks, it is still not really suited for all kinds of stories. If we've learned anything from Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, it is that stories which require as many special effects and artificial reality as The Hobbit, benefit more from slower frame rates in order to better sell the artificial as tangential. While stories that require fewer or no special effects might actually gain some advantage from faster frame rates. In the case of Gemini Man, while some of the effects were still less-than-perfect, the best use of special-effects was in creating the twenty-four-year-old version of Will Smith, which looks almost entirely convincing in both 24fps and 60fps. The real strength of the film lies within the writing and the performances, especially from the films MVP, Mary Elizabeth Winstead.
Regardless of your personal feelings about HFR and its proper place in modern cinema, Gemini Man is still an entertaining and mindful film that deserves so much more than it has received. "Criminally underrated" is officially an understatement. If you have the chance to see this film, in 24fps or in 60fps, I highly encourage you to do so.
As for the future of HFR in Cinema, I personally believe that it certainly has a place in some circles but not all. When utilized for the right reasons and by the right storytellers, it can yield compelling and fascinating results. As for me personally, I will likely continue to create my own work in 24fps, but I will no longer be embarrassed or ashamed to suggest a faster frame rate should the project call for it. After all, I am still shooting on digital video, which is a different medium entirely. Isn't it?
Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.
