Striking The Iron - The WGA and SAG Strike

 

    For those of you who have yet to keep up in the world of entertainment news, The WGA (Writers Guild of America) has been on Strike since this past May, joined by SAG-AFTRA (Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television & Radio Artists), earlier this month (July). This marks the first time both unions have been on Strike simultaneously since the 1960s and raises some awareness of what's happening in modern Hollywood. Despite what some folks would like us to believe, Tinsel Town lost its shine long ago, hasn't tried to polish or fix the problem causing it, and is now paying the price for its negligence. Let me explain what I mean. 

Why go on Strike?

    Many companies have had workers go on Strike for unfair wages, toxic work environments, etc. Always to gain a better quality of life from their work. In the case of why two of the most prominent artistic unions have chosen to Strike, it's not all that different. In both cases, writers & actors suffer from the greedy actions of studio executives and the apathetic approach toward the entertainment industry's myriad changes. Not to mention the rise of brand new technology that, while potentially helpful within the arts under proper circumstances, threatens a hostile takeover of the human condition metaphorically and literally, but we'll get to that later. 

    The most important thing to note is that most writers and actors within their respective unions are not famous celebrity millionaires; they just happen to work for them. 

Loss of Residuals

    Residuals are royalty payments regularly made out to creators for the continued use of their content. For example, if you wrote or starred in a hit T.V. show, you would receive a residual payment whenever that episode was used. Before streaming services came along, television shows were often sold to other networks after their initial run from their home network, often appearing on the channels in reruns and the like. There are also residual payments from selling physical copies of your creation. For the most part, this was a decent, guaranteed way to continue making money from your art. 

    However, with the rise of streaming services, not to mention the near lack of sales with physical media, residuals are significantly more challenging. Streaming services don't need to pay that much for the use of classic television shows. As such, many writers who received regular residual payments for their past work saw a noticeable payment dip. One writer reportedly went from receiving $12,000 a year in residuals to $26 a year. For an average writer trying to make a decent living in the entertainment industry, that's a big problem. 

The Rise of A.I. 

    Artificial intelligence (A.I.) is the issue that threatens writers and actors alike. While we may not yet be concerned with the potential robot apocalypse, á La The Terminator, we should be concerned with the potential removal of humanity in the arts, á La S1m0ne. Even though A.I. isn't really all that intelligent (yet), as it's nothing more than crappy digital guesswork based on tons of external information, it still poses a significant threat to the human condition. 

    For one, Studios are incredibly attracted to the idea of feeding basic storytelling principles into a computer, allowing the A.I. to draft a script based on the intel, and only paying a human writer for quick & basic editing, despite how likely it is that the script in question will have no creative human voice or, for want of a better word, soul. 

    Actors face a similar threat. With A.I., studios can scan an actor's likeness for regular reuse in multiple projects without the actor's consent nor with any form of compensation outside of the upfront payment for the time spent getting scanned into the computer. 

    This is all nothing more than a massive example of what I call Filmmaking by Corporate Accountants: removing as much humanity from the artistic business as possible for no reason other than making as much money as possible for the executives and shareholders. Speaking of which...

Apathy from the Higher-Ups

    Not too long ago, the CEO of Disney, Bob Iger, commented on the Strike. He claims that because studios are regularly losing money with massive flops at the box office, not to mention how expensive it is to make movies these days (apparently), the demands for better situations for the writers and actors are "impractical and unaffordable." Says the man who delivered this statement from a luxury resort reserved for multi-millionaires requiring a private jet for arrival after making millions of dollars for doing nothing! 

    Furthermore, the only response from most of the other higher-ups at the studios is to starve them out. Wait for when they get evicted from their homes and can't afford food & water anymore before allowing anyone back to the negotiating table. No doubt likely inspired by the piece of vile crap masquerading as business literature titled "The Art of the Deal." 

What is the Solution?

    While many things can be done to assist and resolve the problems that caused the Strike, the one solution is also the most obvious: spend less money on your movies! 

    Consider the massive flop released last month, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. While I have yet to see it (and likely won't), I am still waiting to hear something that would make it sound worthy of my time. Even so, I cannot comment on the movie itself, but I can talk about it as an example of the failing Hollywood system. 

    Setting aside the usual issue of being a product of desperate brand recognition, its most significant issue is its three-hundred million dollar budget. For a summer blockbuster, that seems excessive (and it is) but also justifiable (at least perceivably) when considering the cost of the special effects & the high-profile talent involved. 

    However, despite that, most of the movie's budget went into marketing: posters, trailers, T.V. ads, toy deals, etc. This may be essential when producing a movie as you want to ensure people know about it and are excited to see it. However, spending more money to advertise the movie than it must have cost to make it in the first place is unnecessary. 

The Creator

    Later this September, director Gareth Edwards, previously known for Monsters and Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, will release his science fiction epic, The Creator. This movie features high-profile talent, tons of CGI special effects, and a classic story of a man helping a child. All were produced on a budget of eighty-six million dollars, with a seemingly minor budget spent on marketing. 

    However this movie will turn out (I'm hoping it's good), it is at least proof of the value of wise spending when producing a movie. From the trailers alone, the film looks incredible and promises a profound parable. If nothing else, it renders the remarks of Bob Iger and his would-be possie of studio executives incredibly moot. 

Conclusion

    The WGA and SAG-AFTRA are well within their rights to demand better from their bosses and prevent the loss of humanity from the arts. Hollywood has found itself trapped in this corner for many reasons, all pointing back to its negligence and refusal to reevaluate its relevance. Significant changes must be made if Hollywood expects to survive in the modern world! And if the powers-that-be continue to ignore the folly of their present and apathetic actions, power to the Strike until they wake up! Otherwise, their demise is much closer than they want to believe. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Power to the People! 

Stretched Out - A Brief History of Anamorphic Lenses

 

    Since the dawn of cinema, creatives have been developing new and unique ways to create fascinating images, from adding color to mind-blowing special effects, along with many other experiments that came and went along the way. One such experiment was born out of desperation to get audiences back into the theaters when at-home distractions were becoming too convenient and commonplace. No, it wasn't mobile phones, computers, or the internet, but it still involved a little box with a screen and a light inside. 

    This is a brief history of Anamorphic Lenses and their place in modern-day cinema. 

    Between the 1920s and 1940s, movies were shot on celluloid film with a fixed aspect ratio (image area space) of 4:3, a square-shaped image that was the standard for most (if not all) photographic equipment. Even so, filmmakers can frame their images with their choice of aspect ratios by adding a matte to the edited image. A practice that is still used today regardless of the capture format. 

    However, in the 1950s, a small invention started invading people's homes providing free fantastic images beamed directly into their living rooms. A fancy box with a glass face and a giant light bulb inside that could deliver visual otherworldly entertainment without losing the comforts of home. It was called...The Television!

    Suddenly, spending money to go to the movies seemed unnecessary. Since the box in the living room provided the exact same image space as the theater screen and didn't charge the consumer for the entertainment (at least not at the time), not to mention the quality of storytelling was more or less on par with that you'd find at the movies, going to the theaters didn't feel as remarkable as it once did. 

    Movie studios were terrified of television. They realized they had to step up their game to remain relevant in the new world of convenient at-home entertainment. But how could they compete against free entertainment on a little screen? 

    The solution, make the screen BIGGER!

    

    So, exactly how do they increase the screen size when celluloid film can only capture a square-shaped image? By manipulating the image with special lenses! French astronomer and inventor Henri Chrétien is the guy who developed the first anamorphic lens in 1927. However, it wasn't given much attention until Twenth Century Fox bought the rights to the design in the 1950s, dubbing it their new "CinemaScope" process. The concept is to capture an image with a specially designed lens to squeeze more content into the more petite frame. This image is then corrected with another unique lens attached to the projector, resulting in an image that is wider in scope while retaining naturalistic proportions (mostly). 

    Anamorphic lenses popularized the wider & rectangular 2:35 aspect ratio used in most movies today. Even if a movie doesn't use anamorphic lenses, some filmmakers frame their images with this ratio in mind. 

    Today, anamorphic lenses are still available as an option for cinematographers. Although no "practical" need exists for them today, they produce beautiful aesthetics many filmmakers admire and appreciate, such as unique bokeh effects, softer edges around the frame, and unusual lens flairs. 

    These aesthetics may have originated from anamorphic lenses, but they are not exclusive to them. These days, many of the visual qualities attributed to anamorphic lenses can be easily replicated by other means. Digital effects in most editing software, lens filters, and special lens adapters can easily replicate anamorphic beauty on any budget. 

    There you have it. One of the many bits of fun proof that what is old can be new again. While I haven't dabbled much in anamorphic lenses (preferring to stick with traditional spherical glass), you may soon see something of mine in this unique format. We will see as the year goes on. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

The "Home-Movie" Look - The Cinematic Possibilities of Video Aesthetics.

 

    Some of my beautiful readers may recall me mentioning the Dogme 95 movement on this blog more than a few times, a filmmaking revolution that, among other things, served as the jumping-off point for using digital video for cinema. For those needing a quick refresher, the Dogme 95 movement was a set of rules laid down by Danish filmmakers Lars Von Trier & Thomas Vinterberg intended to challenge filmmakers and, by extension, the perception of cinema as presented by the Hollywood system. The goal was to encourage filmmakers, especially up-and-coming ones, to get closer to what cinema is all about; profound stories with compelling characters that explore the wonders of the human condition. 

In case you're curious, the rules are as follows: 

1. Filming must be done on location. Props and sets must be kept from being brought in. If a particular prop is needed for the story, a location must be chosen where it may be found. 

2. The sound must always be produced in the images and vice versa. Music must only be used if it occurs within the filmed scene, i.e., diegetic. 

3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. 

4. The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable. If there is too little light for exposure, the scene must be cut, or a single lamp be attached to the camera.  

5. Optical work and filters are not permitted. 

6. The film must not contain superficial action (murders, weapons, etc., are prohibited.) 

7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden (that is to say, the film must take place here and now.) 

8. Genre movies are not acceptable. 

9. The final picture must be transferred to Academy 35mm film with an aspect ratio of 4:3. Originally, the requirement was that the film was to be filmed on Academy 35mm film, but the rule was relaxed to allow low-budget productions. 

10. The director must not be credited. 

    These rules gave way to using consumer-level digital camcorders, allowing them to remain within the established guidelines and function on lower budgets. Most Dogme 95 films were captured on Sony DV camcorders, like the DCR-PC3 and the DCR-VX1000. 

    The images produced by these cameras would look incredibly amateur by today's standards (and when the films were released). Still, they were the perfect match for the purposes and the kind of stories encouraged by the Dogme 95 rules. Because most films produced under the Dogme 95 banner were simple human dramas, the images' video aesthetics enhanced their stories, creating a sense of immediacy and intimacy to the narratives. Not to mention the use of smaller & lighter cameras allowed some filmmakers, like cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle who photographed the Dogme film, The Celebration, to create unusually creative shots that further enhanced the story. 

    For a few examples, check out this short video essay on YouTube, A Brief History of Dogme 95.

    Digital video has come a long way in terms of aesthetics and quality. Nearly every movie made now is shot and edited on a digital platform, with the Arri Alexa raining as the supreme digital cinema camera, having been used for nearly every major and independent movie produced in recent memory. Digital video has become nearly indistinguishable from classic celluloid film in terms of image aesthetics and quality. Maybe too much so. 

    Don't get me wrong, I love the incredible images many of these remarkable modern-day cameras can produce. Even so, are we still allowing ourselves to fall down the rabbit hole of trying to find "the perfect image?" 

    

    Digital video has come a long way from being scoffed off as an unacceptable means of image capture to the most utilized option. But let's remember how hard digital had to fool viewers. 

    Digital spent most of its early days struggling to emulate celluloid film. Any image captured on a digital platform had to be adjusted, manipulated, and dressed up to look as non-digital as possible. This often entails pushing the color style, adding extra texture (typically in film grain emulation), and building larger image sensors that could create the coveted shallow depth-of-field (blurry backgrounds). All of which succeed in creating a specific aesthetic that is commonly recognized as "cinematic." 

    I have defended and advocated using digital video for cinema many times here on this blog, but I have yet to suggest that it's still okay to make a movie that looks like video. 

    Aside from found-footage horror movies (or the occasional Jean-Luc Godard film), video aesthetics are often ignored or disregarded. Even today, movies shot digitally are expected to replicate the aesthetics of classical celluloid, be it in color style, other blemishes like grain, or a shallow depth of field. In other cases, such as with Marvel movies, the images are expected to be clean, sleek, and vibrantly colored with little to no unsightly blemishes in sight. Even when some filmmakers want to utilize imperfections in their images, such as cinematographer Rachel Morrison wanting to get what she called "digital grain" when shooting Black Panther, such ideas are often shot down by producers or, in this case, the special effects teams. Not to say that their input or needs for the project aren't valid, of course. 

Avengers (2012) Filmed on the Arri Alexa and heavily color graded

Monsters (2010) Filmed on the Sony EX3 with special lens adapters. 

    Please understand I do not mean to imply that these images look bad or are invalid as cinema. That would be ludicrous! These are just a few examples of the possibilities of digital video. Replicating the look and feel of any given classic image style is now easier than ever with digital video, but what about the pure, unaltered look of video itself? 

    Part of what draws me to the video aesthetic is the immediacy, intimacy, and reality it can bring to nearly any genre. Because video tends to occupy specific areas in our recollection (home movies, documentaries, etc.), it can trigger our brains in profound and nuanced ways when applied to narrative filmmaking. 

    Consider the 2004 drama Land of Plenty, directed by Wim Wenders, the feature film debut of five-time Acadamy Award nominee Michelle Williams, and filmed on the Panasonic DVX100, the first consumer-level camcorder to offer 24p recording. 

    While the story and characters of this film are indeed profound and some of the most insightful responses to one of America's greatest tragedies (albeit not entirely perfect), it is also one of the best examples of utilizing video aesthetics to enhance the story. Director Wim Wenders wanted to make the film feel intimate and personal, treating the camera like a character who happened to stumble upon the protagonists. In essence, he wanted to make the film feel like a documentary without actually making a documentary. One of the ways he and cinematographer Franz Lustig accomplished this goal was by filming in digital video with little to no changes in the image. 

    At that time, digital acquisition was still in its early acceptance phase. The Dogme 95 Movement was reaching the end of its run with well over thirty films under its belt, George Lucas had released Attack of the Clones (the first feature film shot and distributed in high definition) just a few years prior, and Michael Mann released his HD shot movie, Collateral, the same year. All contributed to the acceptance and widespread use of digital acquisition for cinema.

    Even to this day (in some circles), what had yet to catch on was the idea of theatrically released movies that looked like video. While most of the films listed above were well-regarded and recognized (Land of Plenty and Collateral receiving awards & nominations for Best Cinematography), many still criticized them for "looking too much like video." To which I reply, why is that a problem for you? 

    

    Personal aesthetic preferences aside, despite what the Hollywood system or any given camera & celluloid film company (especially Kodak) wants you to believe, video is cinema! While we can manipulate the look of the images however we want for the purposes of the narrative, the "video look" is a valid option, plain and simple. 

    

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.