Will Digital Liberate Us From 35mm Tyranny?
The rhetoric of revolution is almost always an exaggeration of what is actually happening on the ground. For those of us who make narrative movies, the reality is that independent cinema is still a costly and risky endeavor. The bankruptcy of Kodak really has little to do with the day-to-day problems of a filmmaker. Firelotusfilm gives us a little perspective on filmmaking’s so-called “digital-revolution.”
~ü
If one were to believe the articles online, the advent of digital film-making will lead to a liberation of the movie industry from the tyranny of the high cost and exclusive nature of 35mm film-making, and allow cinema to finally become the province of the proletariat.
Many of us are familiar with Francis Ford Coppola’s statement that as technology advances, the next great film may well be by some kid with a home camera. That statement was made in the 1990s, and with the digital advances, we should see such a movie.
We should see it, but it doesn’t exist. Why?
Digital technology has certainly been a boon for genre movies, the B-Movies which date back to the Studio days. Bloody crime dramas, horror films, sci-fi, et al, are all films that found distribution easily when they were shot on film, and still find distribution today. Many were shot on 35mm film, many others on 16mm to save money, but throw in a generic formula, and an Eric Estrada or Bruce Campbell or Lance Hendrickson (oh, and don’t forget a busty chic or two), and you had yourself a sale.
For these movies, digital is indeed a boon. The advances in post combined with digital technology probably means most of these movies can be done every better than in the film days, as money can be more wisely spent. Their intended market is the home market, whether it be digital, online, or some other delivery, and not intended for the big screen. This is all perfect for digital.
What about cinema, though? What about movies made for the big screen, even if they are independent? Are those independent films easier to make? More importantly, once made, are those movies getting wide, theatrical distribution?
Again, this is why I speak of cinema culture, the experience of sitting in a darkened theater watching a well-made film on a big screen. Alas, I know we are more than ever looking at digital projection, and Roger Ebert has some good articles on the flaws in both digital and film projection in theater, notably the classic The Dying of the Light.
Good independent filmmaking still requires certain things; a good script, talented actors, good production value (from cinematography to art direction) and a director with a vision. Only the latter can be discounted, assuming the director is also the producer and willing to take his money on the back-end. All of the others cost at least some money, as much if not more than they did in the past. Locations are rarely free, and, last I looked, gas stations, toll booths and other facts of movie life don’t give indie discounts.
The fact is, films were made on budgets similar to those now being done digitally in the 35mm era. Let me take one real-life example.
Few would deny that The Artist is one of the best films this year, maybe one of the best films of the new century. We can debate the latter some other time; it’s a well-made movie that was well-received.
There is no way the look of that film, which had significant financing, could have been done digitally, not today, not as the technology currently exists.
Here is where I can draw from personal experience. Man of the Century was released in 1999. The Artist was shot on color stock and printed to black-and-white to achieve that look; Man of the Century used a similar technique, and for a similar reason, to evoke a different era. Man of the Century is a comedy with music about a contemporary reporter who lives as though it is the 1920s; as such, his world is represented in black-and-white. The film, co-written by director Adam Abraham and lead actor Gibson Frazier, featuared 1920s music and a cast of talented New York-based actors like Cara Buono, Rent’s Anthony Rapp, veterans Anne Jackson and David Marguiles and the music of pianist Bobby Short (who played himself) among others.
The film was shot for less than last year’s indie hit Martha Marcie May Marlene, which boasted coming in at $625K or so. I can’t give the exact figure for proprietary reasons, but as line producer of the film, I can tell you it was impressive. The film was completely financed by friends and family.
The film, by a first-time feature director right out of film school, won the Audience Award at Slamdance, among others, and was distributed by Fine Line. I highly recommend it if you want a film that is good, light fun, and very clever. I re-watched it recently, and it still makes me laugh.
If this liberation digital was supposed to bring us were true, every major festival from Sundance to Cannes would be filled with movies made for, $20-30K, since that would be the type of number you would have to approach before you can talk about a cinema distribution accessible to everyone.
Oh, people are making movies on a shoe-string, and, indeed, that was happening even when movies were shot on film. It is even possible that many more movies are being made with the ease of point-and-shoot digital technology.
However, until these films Occupy Theaters, I will continue to suggest that the revolution has not come, and that proletariat kid with his digital camera, while he or she might enjoy seeing their efforts on YouTube, is still far from the theater gates.
Email
Twitter
Facebook
Vimeo
Flickr
LinkedIn
Subscribe via RSS
Follow on Tumblr
Mobile version
Random post