|
Author
|
Topic: The Romance Is Missing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Hourigan
Master Film Handler
Posts: 301
From: Colorado U.S.A.
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted May 22, 2016 01:12 PM
Agree with Ken -- digital has to be projected on a big screen in a darkened home cinema with a full-blown sound system for the impact. That's absolutely where the "romance" you refer to comes into play. Otherwise watching digital media on an ordinary TV is, well, just that -- watching TV.
Believe me, the "feeling of things being special" is absolutely there when digital is projected in a home cinema -- and this is coming from a decades-long and current film collector. Once I saw that the "thou shalt remain wedded to only film even if other technologies happen along" argument as laughably futile and overwrought, I quickly came to realize that there has never been a better time to be in the collecting/screening hobby. I waited decades to build a proper home theatre because I didn't want to limit the options for my screenings to only the relatively small number of shorts, digests and features that were made available on Super 8 and now have been in circulation for up to 50 years. (Just as one example, we collectors have been talking about the very same [and now faded] digests for 40 to 50 years. I don't know about you, but I'm not getting any younger, and I want access to much broader options for screening all sorts of movies.)
I've never looked back, and I respectfully suggest that others do the same so as to not waste one's remaining days by constantly looking in the rear-view mirror and pining for the past.
[ May 22, 2016, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: John Hourigan ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raleigh M. Christopher
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 130
From: New York, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2016
|
posted May 22, 2016 05:04 PM
quote:
I think my original point is misunderstood. I was referring to the creative desire and the creative process. The technology has turned virtually everyone into 'filmmakers' simply because they can. There's a TV commercial for the iPhone that shows a girl who videos someone cutting up an onion. The video gains instant popularity to the point where it wins a major award (presumably an Oscar). The point of the commercial is that anyone could be an award winning filmmaker with an iPhone. I see it more as lowering our standards of quality and giving recognition where it isn't necessarily due. Kind of like handing out awards to kids on a sports team just for showing up.
YES, exactly. And I said this in the other thread.
quote:
But, except for the technology, how is that any different than us shooting Super 8 films when we were kids/teenagers? Is "the creative desire and the creative process" as well as filmmaking only supposed to be for an elite few??
No, it's actually totally different. Today with the instant praise of "likes" on social media, mediocrity is rewarded as talent. Just look at Instagram and digital still photography. Even with Super 8, the filmmaking took more real talent. And there was no "instant" praise a click away to boost your ego. And if you were really good, and serious, you most likely graduated to 16mm. With both Super 8 and 16mm, you needed real drive, and determination. And it cost money. It took more labor, and it was a greater investment in time. So you had to think more carefully about what you were doing; what you wanted to accomplish and how to get there.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raleigh M. Christopher
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 130
From: New York, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2016
|
posted May 22, 2016 06:38 PM
Oh but it did. It did take more talent to succeed - a point you keep ignoring. And not *everyone* working in the business for "40 years" is a talent either. I think that goes without saying. Hollywood is full of hacks, both greater and lesser, and yes, even some talent. Digital technology isn't in and of itself bad, it's the way it's being used, in my opinion - as a substitute for real skills and knowledge of craft, from which - when mixed with creativity - can spring real artistry. Here is something I wrote in relation to digital still photography. If you cannot comprehend that digital video/photography is a crutch for people with no experience in film, both still and motion, I don't know what would convince you. If that is the case, stay in your circle...you know the one....
I don't pretend to be a talented photographer, or a photographic artist. I just snap photos with my iPhone, and that's it. You, and so many others like you, because of digital cameras (and the instant praise of social media), think that suddenly you are the new Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange. Lighting steel wool on fire and spinning it around in the air to make pretty little sparkles and lines during a long "exposure", or playing with smoke and fire, does not an artist or talent make. You and everyone like you are posers. What the hell is so cool about those smoke bomb photos you take? NOTHING. The one with the guy burning the playing card? So what! You neither necessarily have a great eye nor artistry. You (and the others like you) rely on gimmicks. You want to really be considered talented? Put down your enabling digital camera, and pick up a REAL 35mm film camera. Buy film. Pay for developing (or better yet, process the film in a darkroom, YOURSELF). You won't be able to rely on unlimited attempts and the easiness of being able to "delete". Your resources will be more limited and you will have to THINK about what you're actually doing, because the film and processing (and chemicals and light sensitive paper) cost money, and you won't have instant access to see what you have just done, and do over. You'll have to really plan, and know light, and exposure times, and film types, and lenses. You will have to know how to be creative in the darkroom instead of relying on digital processors to do the work for you. Then, and only then, might you and all the rest like you, perhaps be revealed to have real talent. The digital camera age has made it so that anyone and their dog can run out and claim to be a photographer, filmmaker, or talent with artificial ease.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Spielman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 339
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2016
|
posted May 22, 2016 09:06 PM
Raleigh referenced this in the other thread: Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction"
http://ada.evergreen.edu/~arunc/texts/frankfurt/benjamin/benjamin.pdf
It's not an easy read (delves into Marx, capitalism, fascism, etc) but there are some interesting points. Like a lot of things you can take it more than one way. I can see it being used to frame digital as just another step in the evolution of mechanical reproduction, and also as another disruptive technology that is taking the art of creating images in a new direction.
One of the things mentioned was that there was a time when there was a debate over whether or not photography should be considered art. It was just a mechanical reproduction of what was already there after all. Where was the creativity? Of course we know that there can be tremendous amounts of artistry in photography, or none at all, depending on the photograph. One important thing though is that photography allowed people who couldn't paint be creative in another way.
Digital does the same thing. Yes, a lot more images and a lot more movies get created without much effort and without much artistry because it's so easy and so cheap. Maybe some people end up with a false sense of their own level of talent but if so, it won't last long. Most people understand that getting "likes" is not the same as getting paid.
Digital provides some avenues for success to people that wouldn't have had the resources to succeed in film. Talented people. Just like Super 8 introduced movie making to kids like Steven Spielberg who may not have gotten into it had Kodak not saw fit to make movie making available to the masses. This is good thing. Yes, a lot more crap gets produced too. No one is forcing anybody to watch it.
The artistry behind making a great film may not be the same as the artistry behind making a great video. There are different skills between the two (and some overlap).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted June 01, 2016 12:27 PM
I certainly agree John with you're point about more creative freedom with digital. Much more cost affective. As many takes as you want with actors and you can edit it very easily on you're own home PC (with a proper editing program). Heck, you can even add a layer of "film grain" for a certain desired effect when necessary ...
but I'm an old curmungeon, and theere's nothing I like more than watching "Big Business" or "Double Whoopee' (both 1929) on an old standard 8mm projector, and I'm instantly taken back to an audience in 1929. I think it's the "analogue" connection with those "days gone by years" ... viewing and holding something organic, which is impossible with digital ...
... on the other hand, i must confess that if I had the money to blow, I'd shoot my features on some high end 16MM scope, no matter what the cost!
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
