Why All The Fuss?
The reason for this apprehension
is understandable. For filmmakers, myself included, digital technology seems
to be shaking the very foundation of our learning and experience. Suddenly,
emulsion, grain and printing lights don't seem so important. People are
talking CCDs, sampling rates and compression. Like the anxiety one feels after
an earthquake, it seems the floor can fall out at any time.
As bleak as this may seem to some
filmmakers, the digital revolution is not about competing technologies or
quashing film. Rather, it's about a new set of tools. In truth, there are not
two or three camps of moviemakers, but only one. Our goal is to tell stories
and we can do this using film, video and digital media, depending upon
artistic and budgetary needs.
Let's take a hard look how this
exciting, sometimes disconcerting revolution came upon us and where we are
going with it. First let me say that "I Love Film!" I learned moviemaking
using film and most of my experience is in film. Despite my passion, the
technology is being displaced. In the 1980s, when the digital revolution was
in its infancy, filmmakers said that film would be around for another 100
years, then they said 50, then 25, and now it’s down to 10 years. You know
what? It's a lot less than that.
Film Post-Production: The First Casualty
I was at the SMPTE convention when
Avid introduced the very first digital editing system. Old school editors were
doubtful. They said that you need to physically touch film (i.e., the shots)
to edit. I never cared for this argument. Whether you cut on a flatbed or a
computer, the principles of editing are identical. Montage, match-cut, cause
and effect-- this is editing, not the machine that you use. The machine is
only a tool.
Others agreed, and the shift from
Steenbecks to Avids happened in less than fifteen years. Today, the majority
of professional movies are cut digitally, on computer. Now the old school says
it's okay to edit digitally, but there's nothing better than the "look of
film" for acquisition.
Acquisition
The primary argument against
digital acquisition has been that film has a superior look. Though this is
true in a strict sense, imaging technology is advancing exponentially. Today,
digital special effects are cut seamlessly into live action film (e.g.,
Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Star Wars Episode 1). If this is possible, then
digital live action can certainly stand on its own. Lucasfilm Producer Rick
McCallum sees it this way:
"The world is changing and it's going to happen quickly.
I promise you that in five years, in 2004, when I'm coming out with Star
Wars: Episode 3, you and I will laugh at this conversation … I think
people will hold their ground no matter how open-minded they are until
they understand the limitations they have in shooting film … It's no
longer a photographic medium; it's a painterly one, and that's the hardest
thing for most cameramen to understand." 1
If the "film look" argument
against digital media sounds suspiciously like the "touch film" argument, it
is indeed the same, just a different part of the moviemaking chain. The final
analysis is the same, too. Whether you shoot on film or digital media, the
principles of cinematography are identical; the tools are just a bit
different. The same is true for location sound recording. Professional sound
people, in their typically quiet wisdom, made the shift from analog to digital
audio tape (DAT) very early on.
Currently, digital cameras record
on video tape. Recently, Sony introduced the first camera to record on digital
video disc (DVD) rather than tape. DVD provides up to 25 times the capacity of
CDs, which is ideal for high-quality video, surround-sound and interactive
multimedia. Now you can pop a DVD right into a computer for editing, rather
than download from tape. Incidentally, this particular camera also has
built-in nonlinear editing. The cost: $2200.
Exhibition
If digital acquisition is feasible
now, why are the majors still shooting on film? This is a complex question,
but the argument boils down to three issues: projection, economics and
artistic vision.
The weakest link in the digital
chain has always been projection. Texas Instruments and Hughes-JVC have
introduced groundbreaking digital projectors to solve this. A front page
article in The New York Times reports on the new equipment:
"I went into one demonstration where the only way I
could tell the difference between the film and electronic version was that
the film one had jittery movement and the electronic one didn't," said
Martin Cohen, the head of post-production at Dreamworks SKG. "They are
down to the nitty-gritty. They're finally in the ball park on the
quality." 2
Digital projectors mean that
theatrical movies can be distributed via satellite or (DVD). This will do away
with expensive release prints, saving distributors millions of dollars.
Exhibitors, however, are reluctant to install these projectors because of the
hefty cost of $100,000 each. The impasse will continue until distributors and
exhibitors come up with an equitable solution to share the cost of
conversion.
Festivals were sticklers about
entries being shot and exhibited on film. To avoid missing out on some of the
best new work, they have reconsidered this position. George Wing writes:
"Digital video is not the wave of the future. It's
already here, and festivals are scrambling to catch up with it. Some
festivals have chosen to usher in the digital age with symposiums and
fanfare, while others are quietly screening a portion of their lineup
digitally to see if the audience will notice. In many cases they don't."4
The final hurdle is that a
respected moviemaker must take the first step and shoot an entire theatrical
movie on digital media. When this happens, the walls will start to tumble for
film acquisition. After that, I think the shift to full electronic production
will be as swift as the shift to "talkies." Spike Lee is currently in
production on an all digital feature, "Bamboozled," financed by New Line
Cinema. This may turn out to be the pivotal movie.
Distribution: The Final Frontier
Traditionally, if you weren't part
of the "inner circle," it was difficult to get a movie made. What many
aspiring moviemakers fail to realize is that the same circle controls
distribution, so it’s just as difficult to get your movie seen. After a
hundred years of this control, things are changing in a big way. Soon every
moviemaker will have the ability to bring their movies to a paying audience,
right from the comfort of their own homes, with no middlemen!
This is not pie-in-the-sky, long
range technology. It's called "streaming media" and it's here now. Streaming
media is real time "broadcasting" over the Internet. It's part of a secondary
revolution in the digital world involving the convergence of the Internet, TV
and telecommunications. Soon, these technologies will be intrinsically linked.
Robert Johnston and Sally O'Steen report:
"What's immediately ahead for moviemakers? Two recent
clues: In April, at the National Association of Broadcasters convention in
Las Vegas, the theme was "convergence." Tens of thousands swarmed the
exhibits and packed into conferences to talk about media-merge. At the
Cannes Film Festival in May, representatives of Internet companies were
besieged by bidders seeking licenses to distribute movies via the Net.
"What we thought would be happening in 2002 is happening right away," said
one entrepreneur." 4
Streaming media is part of this
evolution, and will allow moviemakers to promote and distribute their own
movies on the Internet, which is a burgeoning economy. If 500,000 people
log-on to see your movie at $3 each, that's $1,500,000 directly to you, the
moviemaker. If the movie is exceptional, it will transcend the pack on its own
merits, possibly attracting theatrical distribution. The producers of "Blair
Witch Project" used a brilliant Internet marketing campaign to achieve just
that. The feature cost under $35,000 to make and has grossed over $140,000,000
world-wide as of this writing. A recent New York Today article affirms the
changing dynamics of the industry:
"The whole economics of the business are basically
turned upside down by digital technology," said Bruce Apar, editor in
chief of Video Business, a magazine published by variety. "It will change
the movie industry absolutely."5
Rick McCallum:
"I guarantee you that by this time next year, there will
be an 80 or 90 minute film that's released on the Internet by some kid …
[The future] It's going to be amazing." 6
Final Thoughts
Film is a grand medium that has
proven its resiliency over the years. The digital revolution is not about
quashing film, but rather, about bringing new tools to the process of
moviemaking. Engineers have given us a new technology, but it takes the great
tradition of film to turn it into a storytelling medium. The exciting thing is
that we, the moviemakers, get to do it!
In so doing, we must be careful to
carry forth the aesthetics and rules of application that have been
painstakingly developed in film over the past hundred years. Though equipment
changes, these principles rarely do. This is the essence of moviemaking, not
the media used. To do otherwise would be to take a huge step backwards (recall
what happened to moviemaking immediately after sound was introduced).
In addition to providing a new set
of tools, digital technology is democratizing the process of moviemaking
because of its accessibility. The technology is affordable and easy to grasp.
Yes, it can be confusing at times, but it's like that for everyone, since
things are changing so rapidly. If you feel that you've been missing out, fear
not. Most of these changes have occurred in the last few years, so jump on the
bandwagon!
The film vs. digital argument is
groundless. As an educator, my job is not to politicize students on this
issue. Rather, it's to teach them how to use all of the tools and then let
them, the artists, decide what's right for a their projects.
Despite the changing climate and
the anxiety that it may bring, this is a very exciting time to be a
moviemaker. I'm glad to be a part of this great camp.
In the early days
of electronic media, there were two camps: video and film. Videomakers
gravitated towards documentaries and broadcast, while filmmakers made
narratives. Each group lived happily in their own realm, unless they were
forced to interact with each other-- then they would square off like kids at
the local sandlot! When digital media arrived, the old grudges didn't seem to
matter anymore. Now, the focus is on becoming friends or enemies with the new
kid on the block.
