Skip to main content

I’m not going to trade my oil paints for crayons.


Side By Side
(2012)

Christopher Kenneally’s documentary sees the (some not so) great and good of the cinema world holding forth on the pros and cons of the inexorable rise of digital film. Does it spell the death of celluloid? Is it a superior or inferior medium? Keanu Reeves puts a face to the questions in consistently interesting but rarely groundbreaking piece.


By necessity of rendering a fairly technical subject accessible, Kenneally ensures we’re primed on the science behind the different mediums and the key roles in the process. It’s an effective layman’s guide and primer. Combined with Keanu inimitably unintellectual interview style (I don’t mean to suggest Reeves is dumb, as many seem to, but he has a guileless charm and self-effacement). This creates a balance to the sometimes involved discussions. Reeves is possessed of an ever-changing hair length, indicating the span of time it took to make this, and we see him on the set of the troubled 47 Ronin (the link between Kenneally and Reeves is that the former worked on the latter’s Henry’s Crime). The inimitable David Lynch may not have anything particularly earthshattering to say, but he has a delightful way of pronouncing Keanu.


Among those pressed on the subject are directors, cinematographers, editors, colourists and visual effects designers. The history of digital is traced, from its lo-fi roots (barely better than video) and embrace by the Dogma movement to George Lucas’ decision to shoot Attack of the Clones entirely in that format (the first such exploration for a big budget Hollywood movie). And on, to James Cameron and the push of 3D. Many of the points raised will be familiar, as early criticisms of quality give way under the influence of ever-improving specs.  The conversation of “Anyone can now be a director” and the cheapness of the medium in comparison to photochemical film has been much rehearsed, so there isn’t a whole lot new in that regard. But we hear from a few dissenting voices suggesting that there’s a cost in quality that comes with the glut in quantity.


I’ll admit that I expected the anti- voice to be better represented here than it is. We’re mainly looking at Christopher Nolan and his DP Wally Pfister. Everyone else, to a greater or lesser extent, seems to see the positive side of the new medium. They all do seem to have one thing in common, though; nursing a cup of Joe is a prerequisite.


Entertainingly disdainful of many of the shortcomings of digital (particularly on the subject of lousy cameras and lack of dynamic range) is Geoff Boyle. I hadn’t heard of him before, but he was the DP on The Mutant Chronicles, amongst other less than salubrious titles. It’s not a little amusing to hear someone who’s worked on mostly crap eviscerating the tools of the trade.

The most interesting part is probably the trials and tribulations and potted history of digital; when it comes to speculating about the future, there’s little insightful. And, while I can see why they included a section on digital effects, since digital makes all so much easier, it comes across as an area that should have been mentioned in passing rather than getting a whole section.


In contrast, the colour timing discussion is fascinating, and you can quite understand why digital represents an enormous boon to a traditionally variable part of the filmmaking process. O Brother, Where Art Thou? is cited as the game changer in terms of digitally altering the look of the image (Roger Deakins was unable to achieve the results he wanted through traditional methods). Lucas, the prophet of digital, eulogises that the consequence was “I can do anything to fix this movie” (expect make a decent one, obviously George) and the perceived reluctance of some cinematographers to “giving away their power” to the colourists is entirely understandable. (Lucas also recounts how, when he announced his move to digital, he had meetings where he was told he was the devil incarnate and he would kill the industry; of course, the only people now calling him the devil incarnate are those who watched the prequel trilogy.) It’s certainly an area, more than any other, which I feel has been the bane of digital processing; the all-encompassing colour wash. Just bathe Harry Potter in a remorseless blue sheen, artistry be damned.


When it comes to the projection, the ever enthusiastic and insightful Martin Scorsese (who embraced digital for Hugo) observed that in the past “The real auteur is the projectionist” due to the fact that the picture would look different in every theatre where it was screened (not that this digital has erased projection issues; just look at the complaints that arise over badly screened 3D movies).


Most interesting to listen to is probably David Fincher, who is always erudite and incisive on his commentaries. He first made the trip to digital for Zodiac and is the touchstone on matters from dailies (he doesn’t miss the not knowing, and embraces the instantaneousness of digital; the wait-and-see voodoo could result in awe – Seven – but just as easily provoke distress) to the actor’s method (Robert Downey Jr. found the approach of just carrying on shooting upsetting; he needed the natural breaks that come from having to reload the camera after every 10 minutes of film was shot). In contrast John Malkovich finds the constant interruptions impede his momentum and digital is more like theatre (predictably, Nolan comes down on the “need a break” side of the fence). Then there’s Fincher’s incredulity at an early Panavision camera (“I can’t play the HD back because it’s the negative?!”) to his eulogy over the Red makers going that extra mile for different requirements (providing a camera with a carbon fibre body so he could shoot the boat races in The Social Network).

Steven Soderbergh fails to fascinate, maybe because I’ve heard him waxing on a bit too often lately. While Michael Mann isn’t interviewed (neither is Spielberg) his embrace of digital with Collateral attracts some discussion, in particular for the specifics of shooting at night (Nolan remarks, not of that film in particular, that night shooting “still retains the flavour of video”).


Anthony Dod Mantle makes a particularly good subject for charting the changes; his work on the Dogme picture Festen attracted Danny Boyle’s attention. They made 28 Days Later together, and Boyle developed a “taste for it”. The culmination was Mantle’s Oscar win for Slumdog Millionaire, the first time a movie shot (mostly) on digital had won the cinematography Oscar (a pretty good result when one considers that it was so maligned at first).

Discussion of editing gives rise to a few reservations; while the move to the Avid would ultimately be seen as a means to make the editor’s life easier, the problem of cheap “film” now means that they have “masses and masses and masses” of footage to look through. The view is expressed that sometimes young editors don’t sit back and think about what they are doing.


Reeves and Keannelly rarely put anyone on the spot. It’s suggested to Cameron that it ends up that nothing in the virtual filmmaking world (of Avatar) is real, to which he responds “What was ever real?” It’s a fair reply on one level, but there is general acknowledgment that with the advent of 3D it is becoming harder and harder to impress an audience. Scorsese wonders whether, with the rampant use of CGI, audience actually believe in anything they are seeing any more.


Danny Boyle doesn’t have much time for those who don’t embrace the evolving medium; if you can’t get on board with it, your time is probably gone. Yet Boyle hasn’t made two billion dollar grossing movies like Christopher Nolan, so maybe he shouldn’t be so certain. The potential ephemerality of the digital medium is broached, in a closing section that borders on the philosophical, but also takes in the issues with storage and reading of different digital recordings. But, if all the digital movies are wiped out, we’ll likely have bigger things to worry about; we’ll also lose the underpinnings of how society now functions.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.