Review: Side by Side

Standard

“Is film dead?” That’s the central question of Chris Kenneally’s Side by Side, co-produced and narrated by Keanu Reeves. He speaks to many of the top directors of the day, plus several cinematographers, editors, and performers to judge whether the digital revolution in cinema is a good thing, a bad thing, or just another choice.

Photochemical film, also called celluloid, was the way to shoot films for over the first century of the art form. Videotape, once it became feasible for home use, was the choice of television, documentaries, and pornography, and never used by any self-respecting filmmaker. But once digital cameras were introduced, which did not use film but instead a microchip to process and store images, the film world slowly started to change.

At first it was a matter of economics. Dogma 95, a Danish film collective, used it to startling effect, most notably in the film Celebration and then the work of Lars Van Triers. But it was still a niche way of making films, not taken seriously by big time cinematographers.

Over the course of discussion with directors and cinematographers, it seems that there has always been a bit of a struggle between the two. Cinematographers, it was said, were the only one who knew how to shoot film, and many became involved in the business for the “voodoo” of it, and because it was they who could make magic. They would shoot a scene, and a director had no idea what he or she had until the next day’s dailies. Digital cameras made it possible to see what they had immediately, and in takes much longer than the ten-minutes one load of film could give them. It made filmmaking faster and much cheaper.

It was George Lucas, who in the film comes across like Van Helsing trying to put the stake in film, who upped the ante. Stars Wars I was the first major feature to be projected digitally. At the time, there were four digital projectors. In a few years there will be 100,000. Then, Star Wars II was shot using high-definition digital cameras, which eliminated much of the grainy resolution problems that the old digital had. Hollywood was in an uproar. But the revolution has continued. In 2009, Anthony Dod Mantle, who shot Celebration, won an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire, the first cinematographer to win using that format.

Reeves covers the gamut of the filmmaking process in his interviews, conducting casually (with his tonsorial style changing from scene to scene). There is two sides to every argument–some actors like it, especially those trained in the theater, like John Malkovich, or started with indie films, like Greta Gerwig. There are others who don’t. A story is told about Robert Downey Jr., who hates that he can’t disappear to his trailer between takes.

I learned a lot I didn’t know. I mean, I knew basically how a camera works, but if you don’t, you get that here. I’ve always tried to ignore the technical aspect of cinema–I once took a course at NYU and when the teacher started talking about emulsion I knew I was in over my head. But digital filmmaking eliminates the need for a lot of this knowledge. It means that a lot of different people can make films, which Reeves asks, “Isn’t that a good thing?” But some say no, because the more films that are made, the more junk is made. Digital cameras means cinema is more democratic, but not necessarily better.

Reeves and Kenneally make sure to get all opinions. Christopher Nolan and his DP, Wally Pfister, are film-to-the-end guys. Lucas, of course, is “death to film.” David Fincher was pleased that a digital camera weighing only five pounds was developed for him for The Social Network. Others, like Martin Scorsese, see it as a choice, like black and white versus color, although Scorsese seems wistful for the old days, citing that shooting virtually takes a lot of reality out of it. James Cameron scoffs at this. “What about film was ever real?” he says, citing the artificiality of a film set. David Lynch is interviewed, and I would have liked to hear more from him.

The changing ways people view films are also discussed. “Film was the church of the twentieth century,” is said in the film, when “going to the movies” was a communal experience. Now, young people don’t view “going to the movies” the same way, watching it in any number of ways, whether on a TV or an iPhone. Barry Levinson remembers watching a film in theaters that had parting red curtains, a way of life that has disappeared.

The answer to the question, “Film is dead,” is complicated. For one thing, no more film cameras are being manufactured by the companies who made them. One expert says that in five years, film will be the exception rather than the rule. But it should be noted that film is still being used; two of the biggest hits of this year, The Hunger Games and The Dark Knight Rises, were shot on film.

What’s important to remember is that what is most important about a film is not what camera is used, but how good the story is. A good story, even if it’s shot on a cell phone, is a good story.

About Jackrabbit Slim

Location: Vegas, Baby! I’m much older than the other whippersnappers here, a baby boomer. I tend to be more snobbish about film, disdaining a lot of the multiplex fare for “cinema.” My favorite films: Woody Allen’s oeuvre (up until about 1990), The Godfather, The Graduate, A Hard Day’s Night, Pulp Fiction. Politics: Well, George McGovern was my political hero. I’m also a prickly atheist. Occupation: Poised to be an English teacher in Las Vegas. For many years I was an editor at Penthouse Magazine. My role on this blog seems to be writing lots of reviews and being the resident Oscar maven.

13 responses »

  1. What’s important to remember is that what is most important about a film is not what camera is used, but how good the story is. A good story, even if it’s shot on a cell phone, is a good story.

    Well … I think I know what you mean, but I don’t think I really agree with this as written.

    “Story” only gets a movie so far; cinema is more than just a narrative. We’ve all seen movies with “good stories” that left a lot to be desired because of deficiencies in other areas. I don’t think a movie can be considered a masterpiece if all it has to offer is style, but at the same time, style counts, too.

    A good story shot on a cell phone is a good story shot on a cell phone, you know what I mean? Maybe a filmmaker could make that work, but it’s really hard to imagine it being the ideal choice for any material. I can’t tolerate YouTube videos shot on cell phone cameras, because they’re not watchable in any real sense.

    (I understand, by the way, that cell phone camera technology is constantly improving, and that a cell phone camera may plausibly someday soon offer cinema-quality video. Maybe cell phones like that already exist. But for the sake of argument, I’m assuming that Jackrabbit Slim is talking about the crude, low-resolution cell phone cameras that were ubiquitous until recently.)

  2. David Fincher was pleased that a digital camera weighing only five pounds was developed for him for The Social Network

    I’m sorry, but this strikes me as incredibly pretentious and being pretentious just to be pretentious. If Cameron said he needed a 5 pound digital camera, I get it. I understand it. But why in all that makes the earth spin does David Fincher need a 5 pound camera to shoot The Social Network?! I really don’t understand it.

  3. I would have enjoyed Another Earth a lot more if it hadn’t looked like it was actually shot on a cellphone. Absolute garbage. And took me right out of the movie.

  4. I remember parting red curtains. Is there any of us on here who don’t remember that? They still did that at the Loews Times Square, the one that recently closed-down, when I watched the Return of the King.

  5. The Music Box has red curtains that raise and lower, but not part. The Siskel has curtains that part, but they’re black.

    I would have enjoyed Another Earth a lot more if it hadn’t looked like it was actually shot on a cellphone. Absolute garbage. And took me right out of the movie.

    I disagree with you about the movie, as you know, but this kind of reaction is exactly what I was talking about. For example, I remember Source Code being a movie that had an interesting (albeit goofy) story but ugly photography that took something away from it.

    (By the way, according to the IMDb, Another Earth was filmed using this camera.)

    But why in all that makes the earth spin does David Fincher need a 5 pound camera to shoot The Social Network?!

    Good question, actually. But then again, Fincher’s always more concerned with the how than the what, it seems.

  6. But why in all that makes the earth spin does David Fincher need a 5 pound camera to shoot The Social Network?! I really don’t understand it.

    He needed a light camera for the Winkelvoss rowing scenes, because a heavier camera would tip the boats. He was especially happy that the manufacturer (I think it was Red) was able to come up with one in two days.

  7. I agree with you on Source Code. While it wasn’t distracting, it was somewhat ugly. Maybe, since it was in his head, that’s what they meant it to be? I don’t know, just a stab.

    And that’s still remarkably pretentious. It wasn’t a shot or set-up that hasn’t been seen in hundreds of other movies. Good crews can do these things in their sleep. Shoot that scene any number of a hundred ways it’s been done before. He didn’t do anything special to facilitate needing RED (ugh) to deliver a 5 pound camera in two days.

    And if they made the EX3 look that bad…that remarkably bad, well. We’ll leave that there. I’ve seen things at festivals shot on an EX1 that look at least as good as broadcast television.

  8. I love when you talk shop, Filmman. I don’t understand most of it–I have no idea what an EX3 is–but I love it. But I don’t get what puts the bug up your ass about Fincher. If you want to find an easier way to do something, and the technology is available, why do it the harder way? (and a check of IMDB reveals that he did use a Red One for TSN–after seeing this movie I’m going to have to pay attention to what cameras are used).

  9. Yeah, it just doesn’t seem any easier and I just think he did it more to say ‘I got a camera company to deliver a camera in two days’ than any other reason. No biggie.
    I love his movies. I think he’s a remarkable talent, (no matter how Dragon Tattoo misfires) and I think the first 30 minutes of Zodiac is one of the best, most harrowing 30 minutes in all of moviemaking.
    I just think it was unnecessary.

  10. I saw a movie at SXSW this year called KING KELLY that was shot almost entirely on iPhones. It was fairly divisive audience-wise, but I actually enjoyed it quite a bit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s