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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment