The takeaway in the documentary is given by Lorenzo Di Bonaventura when he says "everyone will eventually be making films but there will no longer be a taste-maker in the process." Sadly guests like Greta Gerwig ("Like, oh my God..."), or Lena Dunham ("I was afraid you'd have to be a dude who operates machines to do this job") are not taste-makers. If gender balance was an issue, it is regrettable that someone like Kathryn Bigelow was not interviewed instead. Testicles are not required to give expert insights into cinematography, but unbeknownst to Miss Dunham, operating machines and having taste, talent, and knowledge - craft as it was once known - were always the qualities that made film so special, and one can question the point of consulting philistines on a subject such as this one; after all, we already know what those who can't be bothered with technique prefer, and we already know why NYU film students shoot low-tech...
Similarly, Greta Gerwig coyly offers "We process digital like film, as if film is inherently better which is, like...arbitrary." Well Arbitrary to your eyes, perhaps, sweetheart On this pressing issue, it is paramount to hear what James Cameron, David Fincher, or Christopher Nolan and all their cinematographers have to say because they use cinematography deliberately and with savvy, on the other hand, the lesser able and technically challenged have already won the race to the bottom by making film emulsion irrelevant by default and I am not sure that their "I can't be bothered to operate equipment" view of the world matters anymore at this point.
The trouble with giving the same platform to a non-discerning wannabe as to a seasoned chemist/artist - those who manipulate emulsion, and capture light on a highly sophisticated level, and treat it like a character in the film - is that the discussion quickly gets dragged down to the bottom of the pond by the least able and talented among the bunch— the schoolgirls and schoolboys who caught their break on a whim, so to speak— and are now using cameras to create the filmmaking equivalent of Hip-hop or finger painting (democracy for all, etc. -- the same story has already plagued art and music throughout the 20th century: a descent into the lowest common denominators becomes the norm ) This documentary is interesting, but quickly meanders into debates over whether or not a technician on a ladder is distracting to an actor, yet only lightly touches on a key technical point which is that the disappearance of emulsion photography is a vastly different problem from the fact that digital processes have undeniably improved delivery and visual effects, as well as distribution to many formats. They're significantly different issues and must not all be confused. The joyful experience felt in seeing the Blu-Ray copy of Michael Powell's The Red Shoes, or Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, for instance, indicate that older films, indeed, have never looked better thanks to digital remastering – all the digital processes involved in post production seem mostly like a blessing in this and many other instances, but only to the degree that the wondrous Technicolor/Ektacolor/Fujicolor/KodakVision film emulsions were so tangibly flexible, unpredictably alive, and beautiful – the digital process has simply served to reveal that original beauty and flexibility But it had to be there in the first place. Those who are not able to "see it" didn't use to weigh-in when cinematography was seen as "voodoo," and that was probably for the best.
Cinematography itself is the stage at which artistry is either captured organically or condemned forever to pixel-uncertainty.
Finally, this documentary assumes that the world is divided into two camps: expensive Hollywood VFX pictures and low-balling "Dogma 95" street films – somehow, the discussion only appears to navigate those ridiculous extremes. Somehow, Christopher Kenneally and Keanu Reeves seem to forget to focus the conversation on "capturing the light, the tones, the hues in all their definition and organic life" for the many adult-age films that embrace a balance of well crafted stories and intimate humanity, and require to be shot using subtlety and delicate mix of artful, painterly light – that only organic emulsion seems to have been able to capture all this time -- with no visual effects in mind, and no special DI grading tricks in post production – just beautiful cinematography, thank you very much!
There's much more to be said in another film on the subject, no doubt, and the discussion must be even more technical and specialized - because bastardizing every topic in film for the comfort of rubberneckers is exactly what has gotten us into this predicament in the first place.
Similarly, Greta Gerwig coyly offers "We process digital like film, as if film is inherently better which is, like...arbitrary." Well Arbitrary to your eyes, perhaps, sweetheart On this pressing issue, it is paramount to hear what James Cameron, David Fincher, or Christopher Nolan and all their cinematographers have to say because they use cinematography deliberately and with savvy, on the other hand, the lesser able and technically challenged have already won the race to the bottom by making film emulsion irrelevant by default and I am not sure that their "I can't be bothered to operate equipment" view of the world matters anymore at this point.
The trouble with giving the same platform to a non-discerning wannabe as to a seasoned chemist/artist - those who manipulate emulsion, and capture light on a highly sophisticated level, and treat it like a character in the film - is that the discussion quickly gets dragged down to the bottom of the pond by the least able and talented among the bunch— the schoolgirls and schoolboys who caught their break on a whim, so to speak— and are now using cameras to create the filmmaking equivalent of Hip-hop or finger painting (democracy for all, etc. -- the same story has already plagued art and music throughout the 20th century: a descent into the lowest common denominators becomes the norm ) This documentary is interesting, but quickly meanders into debates over whether or not a technician on a ladder is distracting to an actor, yet only lightly touches on a key technical point which is that the disappearance of emulsion photography is a vastly different problem from the fact that digital processes have undeniably improved delivery and visual effects, as well as distribution to many formats. They're significantly different issues and must not all be confused. The joyful experience felt in seeing the Blu-Ray copy of Michael Powell's The Red Shoes, or Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, for instance, indicate that older films, indeed, have never looked better thanks to digital remastering – all the digital processes involved in post production seem mostly like a blessing in this and many other instances, but only to the degree that the wondrous Technicolor/Ektacolor/Fujicolor/KodakVision film emulsions were so tangibly flexible, unpredictably alive, and beautiful – the digital process has simply served to reveal that original beauty and flexibility But it had to be there in the first place. Those who are not able to "see it" didn't use to weigh-in when cinematography was seen as "voodoo," and that was probably for the best.
Cinematography itself is the stage at which artistry is either captured organically or condemned forever to pixel-uncertainty.
Finally, this documentary assumes that the world is divided into two camps: expensive Hollywood VFX pictures and low-balling "Dogma 95" street films – somehow, the discussion only appears to navigate those ridiculous extremes. Somehow, Christopher Kenneally and Keanu Reeves seem to forget to focus the conversation on "capturing the light, the tones, the hues in all their definition and organic life" for the many adult-age films that embrace a balance of well crafted stories and intimate humanity, and require to be shot using subtlety and delicate mix of artful, painterly light – that only organic emulsion seems to have been able to capture all this time -- with no visual effects in mind, and no special DI grading tricks in post production – just beautiful cinematography, thank you very much!
There's much more to be said in another film on the subject, no doubt, and the discussion must be even more technical and specialized - because bastardizing every topic in film for the comfort of rubberneckers is exactly what has gotten us into this predicament in the first place.