With the rise of Twenty first century technology, including the spontaneous arrival of new platforms that influence the creation of new mediums, there has been a notable shift in the film industry away from industry standards. For decades, Hollywood has remained faithful to the implication of film, even against the rise of video in the 80s, as the mainstream medium format for wide released entertainment; that standard is no longer the norm. Almost every modern wide release "film" is shot with a digital camera, and distributed through digital means. Naturally there has been abhorrent outcry from a very small minority of cinema goers but the average movie fan remains blissfully unaware. What are the faults of digital "film," if any at all? Are there any noticeable advantages to the new format, and why has it become the new norm of mainstream film. The following are my thoughts.
There is a clear and evident reason digital "film" has become the standard for Hollywood cinema, it's the same reason why the same studios make movies in the first place, money. Film (actual film) is expensive, every shot is another imprint on a limited role, every reel another investment and that doesn't even consider distribution. Natural film gives credibility to the saying "time is money," the same just can't be said for digital. Digital film does not require the patience of its predecessor, each take becomes a megabits rather than an permeant imprint in silver halide, allowing the director the freedom to shoot as many takes as he or she needs. Digital film is a breeze to edit compared to traditional film, trading out hours of cutting and sticking for an editors software. When you added it all up it's a no brainer why digital film has become the new standard of cinema, from production to post to distribution every facet of the digital format is cheeper compared to analog. I can't really blame Hollywood for it's incorporation, it is a business after all, but today there are more films being released then ever before and much of that is directly tied to wild accessibility of digital cinema.
Of course, as the case with all new media, digital film hasn't been incorporated by everybody with open arms. Many filmmakers to this day refuse to work outside of analog format, trading in long hours and additional expenses for the "purity" of analog film. But is there a noticeable difference between the formats? James Cameron, one of digital cinema's earliest advocates would disagree. In a blind study with one of his friends, Cameron displayed two identical clips asking which one he thought was "better," his friend chose the second clip. When asked why he chose it he told Cameron the imperfect quality of the print reflected the materiality of the medium, indicating it was film and clearly superior; Cameron responded that both the clips were shot digitally. Even traditional film's strongest advocators have a hard time telling the two formats apart, digital has advanced so far that the line between itself and its predecessor is blurred.
This however isn't enough to detour some of today's strongest film makers away from the medium. Christopher Nolan, J.J. Abrams, Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson have all remained resilient to change, preferring to stick to the traditional formats of cinema whenever they can rather than its cheeper ones. In my opinion, why should they? Each of the directors listed above are exceptional filmmakers, they should be free to design their film in any way they see fit. Even major studios are embracing the outcry for traditional, most noticeably Disney who has committed filming its new Star Wars trilogy to adhere to fan desires.
In the end its not the format that makes the movie but the movie itself. There are clear advantages to digital film, including cost and higher frame rates, with minimal lost in quality, however if a filmmaker or studio chooses to stick to traditional film that should be their choice to make. There is no reason for the massive backlash to digital film, without it cinema wouldn't be booming like it is today.
No comments:
Post a Comment