A Camera Does Not a Filmmaker Make
72 Comments Published by Kendal Miller April 18th, 2011 in Featured Content, News, ProductionI’m sick and tired. After a week of nonstop talking at NAB I have realized that there are some incredibly talented independent filmmakers out there, and they are by far in the minority. There are those people out there finding legitimate uses for the tools at hand and really using them to tell some incredible stories. However, there are far more posers than anything else. I’m fed up with Vimeo, shallow DOF, slider driven. montage sequences with credits on them masquerading as films. I’m sick of lazy, careless, pre-production, masquerading as cinema verite or so called art films. I’m completely over the pretentious arrogance put out by some co-called “filmmakers” in our industry. Now before you hang me from a tree as a warning to all who dare trespass this sacred ground, hear me out. I’m not saying these pieces don’t have warrant. I’m saying they aren’t films, get over yourself. Don’t even get me started on music videos.
So I’m not David Mullen, Rodney Charters, Roger Deakins, Robert Primes, or any of the other cinematographers whom I admire and who have an incredible body of work to stand behind. It is always a dangerous position to decry something, while aspiring to achieve something yourself. I am on a journey, a journey to learn, and absorb everything I possibly can about cinematography, and filmmaking. I want to be the best I possibly can, and often find my own ineptitude to by my weakest link. I recognize that I have not arrived, nor do I really ever hope to. Personally, I feel that the minute you quite studying your craft and learning that you should just quit. One of the things I admire most about the aforementioned cinematographers, some of whom I have had the great honor of talking with personally, is that they all espouse the same sentiment at one level or another. There is a realization that their job is ever changing, and they themselves are always building new techniques, and skills to accommodate for it. So if you will allow me I’d like to take off the facade and be brutally honest with you about myself and others I see in the field of independent filmmaking.
…ASC Manual that states that cinematography is the art and craft of the authorship of visual images for the cinema. Any processes that may affect these images are the direct responsibility of the cinematographer. It goes beyond just photography; we are responsible for the overall photographic quality of the image and how it’s used to tell the story. We work with the director and the other department heads to achieve that quality. From a production standpoint, we have three departments under our control: Camera, Electric, and Grip. Technically, “cinematography” means motion picture photography. I’m not one of those people who thinks that if you shoot digitally, it is not cinematography, it’s videography. We use the word “film” to describe movies in general regardless of their origination medium.
-DAVID MULLEN
There is a sense that anyone with a DSLR or camera of any type is either a filmmaker, director, or director of photography. Now I don’t take to task the cameras or technology for this. No, in fact each camera could in its own right be used very usefully, and to a proper end. It is the following formula that I take to task: Camera Gear+Pretty Images=Filmmaker. It is the idea of removing the thought, and creative process from the filmmaking experience and stripping it down to a rote exercise. Lets face it, a lot of the camera systems today do not necessarily require a high level of technical competence to crank out pretty images. I react to the thoughtlessness with which such so called “art” is produced. While technology is important it is not the camera that makes the film, it is the filmmaker. The democratization of camera gear into the hands of the consumer has allowed anyone and everyone to wear the title of filmmaker. But what is it that truly makes a filmmaker? Is it simply the ability to create disparate compelling images? Is it being lauded by a crowd and having a following? Perhaps the answer is more multifaceted than we allow.
I have no doubt that Roger Deakins could light and produce a much more compelling project utilizing an HVX200, than I possibly could achieve with the new Arri Alexa. Why? He understands the true art of cinematography and the visual language of the screen. He understands the art of a specific lens choice made to compress or expand a space, subtly changing or enhancing the juxtaposition of characters in a frame. He understands how to utilize camera blocking to specifically underscore and support an emotional element of the script, or story. Lighting becomes yet another decision informed by the character, and tone of the scene, and in the hands of a master such as Deakins it speaks as loud as the dialog. All of these decisions require a deep and masterfully grasp of both story and visual language. Both of these are elements I find sadly lacking in most of the work showcased by a lot of the independent film world. I will also insert here that I personally find my grasp of these elements to be rudimentary at best, and am seeking to incorporate a much deeper understanding of this into my work. Filmmaking often becomes reduced down to making default decisions on the fly that will often result in pretty images that montage well together. While on some level this works as a study of composition and lighting, I propose that it does not make a filmmaker.
I believe the devil is in the details, as they say. A film has to start out with a strong story and it has to be supported by good acting. But if you have those elements, then how you direct it, shoot it, art direct it, cut it, compose the music, can enhance that story or tell it better. You know, “Hamlet” is a great story, but that doesn’t mean a two-year-old can direct “Hamlet” just because it’s a good story. You have to have the skill of a storyteller to make a good production of “Hamlet.” So I think cinematography is one element of the storytelling process that will enhance the experience for the audience. And the audience doesn’t necessarily have to be aware of this stuff. An average person doesn’t know how to build a house and doesn’t know anything about architecture… but certainly he wants to live in a house that is well-built. He hires experts to deal with that stuff. I think the audience expects the filmmakers to be the experts in filmmaking, that the filmmakers are the ones that know about film stocks and lenses and formats so they don’t have to. They just have to enjoy the movie.
-DAVID MULLEN
While visually compelling to look at, especially from the viewpoint of another “filmmaker”, these montage pieces are often devoid of real heart, soul, and emotion. May I propose that real cinematography as an art form comes from making specific, and informed choices. These decisions can only be found as you develop a deep sense of visual language, that guides your style and direction. A strong technical proficiency then allows you to execute those decisions. Both pieces of the puzzle are needed. Know why you make every choice and begin to learn to defend your decisions. Why did you shoot a composition at a given focal length or stop? Why did you center punch or weight the subject to one side of the frame or the other? Its not that one choice is inherently right and one is wrong, but you should know why you made the decision.
Can you decide not to use the visual components in your production? No; If you ignore visual components they won’t go away. Color can be eliminated by shooting in black and white, but it’s impossible to eliminate any other visual component because they exist in everything on the screen. Even a blank screen contains the visual components of space, line, shape, tone, and movement. So the screen is never empty. Even a still photograph uses the components of rhythm and movement. Since the visual components are always on screen understanding, controlling, and using them are critical to great picture making.
-BRUCE BLOCK, A Visual Story
As you begin to question yourself and your work you will begin to develop an internal sense of style as well. Informed specific decisions should be made from lighting, camera blocking, lens selection, color, and tone all the way through. It is the only way to begin to bring cohesive style to a piece. These are things that separate out the truly great cinematographers, they have a commanding grasp of the elements, and wield them like a true artist.
Really, a cinematographer’s work is only as good as the director, really. That’s why I love working with the Coens and with Norman Jewison. They really push you to do something and you feel like you can work from a position of strength and take chances and risks. It’s hard when you’re on a film if a director doesn’t have the experience to understand the visual language involved, and there is a whole language involved. And if the director doesn’t understand that or isn’t confident enough with himself to let you, the cameraman, to take what the script requires and create the visuals it can be frustrating.
-ROGER DEAKINS
It is when I see true artist like Deakins, and Charters put such an insane level of thought and process into a shot that just comes to life on screen and breathes emotion, that I personally feel unworthy to wear the label filmmaker. I have no issue with people learning, and studying, stumbling, and fumbling along the way. I’m in the same boat, we are all learning together here. The issue I have is the level or pretentiousness and arrogance that seeks to assert this level of work as some presumed mastery of “high art”. It is at this point that I cry ,”Foul!” To do so is to completely undermine the level of true art poured out by the masters. We reduce filmmaking back to an academic shooting exercise. Come on, we are better than that. Surround yourselves with people who are better than that. We all want to aspire to be truly great, to create art, and inspire others. Can’t we let go of our egos for a moment and recognize with brutal honesty where we are in the journey? Push yourself to study your craft, dissect your decisions and choices, allow brutal feedback from those you trust, not just those will laud your incompetence as art. Learn from your mistakes, and push forward to make better informed decisions next time. Might I suggest the following exercises to improve your craft:
1. Get out and shoot a short scripted project with actors on a tight schedule. Repeat this process until you get it right. Trust me the first several times will produce nothing but crap. Doing it without a schedule doesn’t count either.
2. Do a script breakdown by visual elements and learn to plan camera coverage. Your producers will thank you.
3. Have you ever even done an overhead or lighting plot? If not do one, now. Again, be ready to defend your choices.
4. Get people you trust to absolutely rip your project apart, rip it apart yourself. A couple guys that I work with and I do a complete postmortem on almost every project we shoot. What worked, what didn’t work? Where do things need to be improved? If you don’t have those people around you drop everything and go find them right now!
5. Cut the crap. Chances are you are less than half as good as you think you are. All of us are, and that is the brutal truth. The sooner you can be honest about your weakness the sooner you can throw yourself into honestly learning to be better.
6. Learn some humility, we could all use a dose from time to time. This is especially true at when people tend to pump up and overemphasize our achievements or lack there of.
What about instinct, is there ever a place for simply doing something because it feels like the right approach? Absolutely. I have heard many great DPs say they attempted a particular shot simply because it felt like the correct approach. There is a lot to be said about that. However, I think it should flow as the exception and not the norm. The following quote by Bruce Block reiterates this:
Something new pops into your head that solves a problem. That is when instincts are great. Use them. You may never understand why your instincts were correct, but when you see the final product you know you made the right decision. But don’t let instincts fool you. Sometimes instincts are incomplete, unreliable, or wrong. Instinctual choices may only be old habits or underdeveloped ideas that sound good but are ultimately disappointing. “if you had been there, it seemed to work,” is a lame excuse for poor instinctual choice.
-BRUCE BLOCK, The Visual Story
So where does the technology come in then? Filmmaking is after all a blend of technology, collaboration, and art is it not? Let’s take a look at this quote by Deakins:
And, frankly, it’s not the technology that makes the great movies. I mean, if you went back to see Citizen Kane and you looked at it on a big screen and you looked at the quality of the image, I mean, frankly, some of it is not very…well, good’s not the right word, because technically it’s not as sharp. Some of it is very grainy. The lens quality is not as good as modern lenses. But…[Laughs] it’s still a better film than ninety-nine percent of what are made today. So, you know, it’s not just about technique and equipment.
-ROGER DEAKINS
Now don’t get me wrong, DSLRs and these other compact, single sensor cameras, offer some wonderful advantages to filmmakers. I’m a tech guy and I’m personally very excited about some of the features these tools are bringing to the table. Higher dynamic range, cleaner ISO, and higher native sensitivity, are all going to benefit our images in the long run. But we can’t allow that to be enough, we can’t stop there. We can’t allow ourselves to become lazy and make thoughtless default decisions, just because the technology allows it. Deakin’s quote above speaks so strongly to that, to me its saying craft, and content will always win the day. Know the technical advantages that the current cameras offer, combine that with a strong sense of craft and you have a recipe for success. Just please don’t get a big head about being a “filmmaker”, lose the attitude, really we are all sick of it. There are alot of people out there much more deserving who have earned it rightfully, and paid their dues. When you read a quote like the one above by Deakins, and realize he is arguably lumping his own work into that statement, it can’t help but really humble you. I mean if anyone had a right to assert here it would be him. You won’t hear much from these guys lauding their art or their work, they don’t need to talk much. They are too busy working in their field to take part in petty forum wars, or egotistical twitter arguments, they quietly hone their craft and develop their skills. Their art and stories say all that needs saying, it whispers, “I’m a filmmaker.”
About FreshDV
Sponsors
Recent Comments
Support FreshDV
Brilliant. Perfectly stated top to bottom.
Incredibly well said. It’s far too easy to get distracted by all the crap that doesn’t matter. Books like Outliers and The Talent Code outline this clearly, that by focusing a little more on what matters, we can exponentially grow our own talent and ability, and let the chips fall where they may.
While a scripted video/film is what most Vimeans would like to do, it’s not always what’s possible. People simply do the best they can with the time and resources they have. I don’t think this deters them from being called “filmmakers” rather than “videographers”. Of course, there are some of them who are simply videographers, but there are others who are true filmmakers, with or without a script. Telling a story doesn’t always have to be the end all. Creating a feeling to a viewer does not have to be tied to a story. It usually is, but it doesn’t always have to be this way. It can simply be tied to the visuals. The visuals, with some music, or some narration, can create feelings too. How is this not “film making”?
I take a bit of offense excluding music video directors from filmmaking, because I’m sorry to say, MOST of the innovation regarding editing, effects, camera angles etc, are all happening on music videos because there are no traditional business/artistic constraints in that medium.
Case in point is Jamie Harley’s videos on Vimeo, which are featured on Pitchfork all the time. He doesn’t even shoot the pictures, he’s using public domain videos and then he edits them in a very particular way! Watching this video for example does create emotions when coupled with the music. In fact, this kind of hipster music can only be “understood” by the masses with the accompanied pictures. Otherwise, for many people that music is too alien. And another example. These videos are impressionistic art. They create a feeling of “what it felt to be there”, rather than telling a traditional story with characters. Finally, there’s the kind that sits right in the middle, which is a music video shot by the director/editor, it has a story, but it also has impressionistic features. Like this one.
Basically, all I’m saying is that don’t think of filmmakers in a narrow point of view. Scripted stories is only one part of the whole filmmaking art.
Way way too far over to only one side of the truth.
PLEASE can we separate gear and creativity when we are putting the emphasis on one or the other. Whenever the emphasis goes too far to one or the other some dick head has to pipe up and say “but what about the other!!”. As a result it seems we cannot have an in-depth conversation about gear or tech any more without something mentioning a completely unrelated argument about scriptwriting, and equally we can’t go in depth about creativity without someone asking what fucking camera it was shot on. We must separate the two and give equal focus to both with some intelligent cross-over in-between where it’s relevant.
My second point is IT IS INSULTING to slag off a genre of cinematography, be it music videos, timelapses or shallow DOF Vimeo work. These are the ropes people learn before they become filmmakers and it is not polite to hack at the ropes before someone has had the chance to execute on his talent. Frankly I am as sick as the snobbery as I am the bad music videos and mood pieces.
And thirdly whilst gear does not give you an artistic voice or make you a filmmaker it can give you an aesthetic and it does matter. I have chased all over Europe for a LOMO anamorphic and it was worth the effort. It will give me a fantastic aesthetic to shoot with. If you are so sick of gear reviews I suggest you are in the wrong job! Remember why people read FreshDV in the first place.
(Tips Hat)
Well done sir. A great extension to our conversation at the Kessler party. Onward and upward. No more camera names in Vimeo titles.
Cheers.
Without a mic … there is nothing to hear.
Without a light … there nothing to see.
Without a subject … there is nothing to film.
Without a camera … there is nothing to film with.
Sincerely,
‘J-dog
…. And without a person in the seat, there is nobody to watch it.
Holy cow. What a brutally honest article. Thank you for writing it Kendal. Something that’s always motivated me is that I’ll never stop learning, progressing, growing. There are a lot of people out there that know a lot more than I do. However, that’s not motivation to give up. It’s motivation to grow and listen to those who are further along in their journey.
Kendal is entitled to his thoughts. I personally agree with most and applaud the effort to lay out a path to help folks experiment and grow.
Folks are gonna make what they want when they want and history will judge where it falls.
Spot on sir! Kudos!
Great read. Thanks for the post.
“There is a sense that anyone with a DSLR or camera of any type is either a filmmaker, director, or director of photography.”
Uhm…This is so absurdly obvious I’m having a hard time understanding why it’s been published. Oh that’s right – Ad revs.
Point 1: So What. So What if there are lousy filmmakers, or hobbyists, or amateurs, etc. How is that different from pretty much any endeavor, everywhere. Yagotta start somewhere, some will do interesting things, most won’t. Been that way forever across a thousand disciplines, always will be. Who Cares. Whatever. Not-an-insight-worth-sharing. If you found the article scintillating, I’m sorry, but the point is just boringly obvious already. Oh and it’s been said already. A thousand times in a thousand ways.
Point 2: Be Happy. Be very happy. Without a mountain of garbage to contrast with, good and great would have even less value than it does already.
Point 3: SHOCKER: Some people are smarter and more talented than others. Most people won’t do anything amazing.
Point 4: The entire “gear doesn’t matter, talent does” is a snotty load of drek. Gear doesn’t matter EXCEPT WHEN IT DOES. Relax, you need gear, and you need talent. OMG – Brilliant insight alert. I’m sure you’ve just been fully blown away by _that concept.
While I agree that you never what kind of inspiration and creativity comes from people playing with camera, even beginners, I understand and support what are talking about. I’m a HDSLR fan but it’s merely a better tool for micro-budget filmmakers.
I was recently sent a “amazing short”, festival winner that was on Vimeo with the password GH1rules. And yes, it was nicely shot GH1 footage. But a bad short that completely ripped off (and I mean lifted part and parcel) a sequence from a Phillip Kaufman film – poor story, shallow understanding of people, weak acting, bad music.
Too many people see pretty DSLR (or Red or Alexa or whatever) footage and laud the “professional look” of a film, no matter how crappy the filmmaking.
Deakins and the others are great, but great cinematography has been around for 100 years – but so few people today, despite the wealth of riches via DVD, blu-ray and streaming, bother to watch the real masterpieces – Toland, Nykvist etc. If you really want to be humbled, rent “Man with a Movie Camera” and see every technique in shooting and editing has already been done by poor Russian silent filmmakers in 1929.
Thanks for taking the time to share this. Very informative from top to bottom! “While technology is important it is not the camera that makes the film, it is the filmmaker.” Pushing one button doesn’t make you a professional.
This is great extension to our conversation at the Kessler party..
Why not just say it. Philip Bloom and Vincent Laforet suck! These hacks are salesmen and shills posing as filmmakers. Philip Bloom should read this, he calls his moving photo montages films all the time. 5 mins of 40 shots of a tree branch is not a film! The guy doesnt have a clue of what it takes to make a real film.
Great article. I’ll let you borrow the Crossbow Hand Held Slider rig for your next vimeo project.
:)
Jared
Some folks are oblivious to what is boringly obvious to others.
The article makes an excellent point about filmmaking being a learning process throughout our careers. Many “filmmakers” don’t bother to learn and continue wondering why they are not progressing in their endeavors. This article is for those of us who forget that we’re not there yet. (Wherever “there” is.)
@Josh Woll – Unless that button is on a RED. It has 5K. It is the best thing.
I hate amateur hour like the next guy but man this article needs to chill. You are missing something big here. The internet encourages short stuff and bite sized mood pieces, it’s a new branch of cinematography, one of many. Yes a lot of it is badly done, so what? You also have to balance that with the fact that some people are learning the ropes. Only 1% of them are special, maybe less, but that’s a 1% chunk of a bigger talent pool than ever before.
Each person’s work should by taken in context (is it a test, is it practicing, is it an artistic project?) and on its own merits not by whether it has a camera name in the title on Vimeo or whether it is a timelapse or done with a slider. Moving photo montages and timelapse are just another form of cinematography and when they’re done well they’re as valid as anything else. One of my favourite films of all time Koyannisquatsi is almost ALL timelapse set to music!!
I am trying to run a business EOSHD.com to back up my filmmaking endeavours and it’s irritating when there are articles like this so clearly taking aim at guys like me and Philip simply for providing a service to aspiring filmmakers. I do camera tests and tech stuff – so what? I am still an artist that doesn’t invalidate me as a filmmaker, it’s the day job.
With camera tests if you are going down that route you may as well talk to DPReview.com and tell them to stop recommending cameras or putting camera names next to the full resolution samples. There is a place for gear advice and reviews and it’s a valid business. Some of it is consumer advice, since not everyone is a working professional – but they still have the right to good gear.
People know full well that their test doesn’t constitute a work of art. It’s obvious. Why argue with the obvious? Live and let live.
Also guys… Your readers, some of who aren’t pros, come here to get advice from you. To give them the image that you were all standing around at the Kessler party in this privy little club slagging them off isn’t good business sense and it isn’t good for FreshDV.
Making money and being pro does not make you a good filmmaker either!
There’s nothing new under the sun. the same was said when DV cameras first appeared. ” So, now ANYONE can make a movie”. The BBC trained editors and camaramen were outraged.
humm, yeah. And then YouTube came about and ANYONE could distribute their mini epics.
So now with DSLRs ANYONE can have the Cine Look. So what? Let the kids play with their toys.
If anyone needs a kick in the butt is the Hollywood system of making the most insipid and predictable scripts for maximum profit in order to please the average viewer of low IQ.
As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. I’d rather eat a tasty, lovingly prepared meal in a cheap canteen than a tasteless cuisine served with fine China and silver spoon.
Hey Kendal,
thank you for this necessary article. Something like this has been posted on this website before and it can’t be said enough.
I came back from NAB last week and I must say I felt empty and uninspired. All I wanted to do was to spend a lot of money because I felt inferior because I thought I didn’t have the right equipment.
Thank God I recovered from it and reminded myself that real creative work comes from the inside and not from the latest piece of equipment.
Making movies – even the shortest short – requires creativity on many levels:
Understanding of the human condition, story structure, audience psychology, knowledge of visual language including symbols, art history, cinematic conventions and spacial understanding.
Everything in the frame counts. It’s crucial to know what you show and what you don’t.
I feeling for rhythm is critical for the editing process.
And you are so right when you say we have to be brutally honest with ourselves. Only if your ego gets shattered you will be able to grow and become more insightful. I’m talking from experience.
I also get very annoyed by all these pieces of video that look really pretty and have nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY. They only serve the ego of the so called ‘filmmaker’.
I video without story is nothing. I prefer the cheesiest commercial with a story over an artsy piece of nothingness. I want to be touched.
Filmmaking is still an art and no tool can change that. From screenwriting software, to cameras to editing software. Art is a mirror of life and you have to understand it to create this mirror. And understanding and learning your craft will give you the tools to build it.
Story comes first. Always.
I noticed that I use not having the right gear as an excuse for not being creative. That’s ridiculous.
But being creative is not easy. You have to step out of your comfort zone, open yourself up to the unexpected and take a risk. All of that could cause pain in one way or another – that’s why people (including me) often enough don’t enjoy doing it.
But in the end it’s always the same conclusion for me: It was worth doing it – even when I failed. It brought me further in my journey.
I have to defend Vimeo though. It’s a great platform to experiment. You can publish your unbaked, helpless but inspired experiments and share them with others.
One more thing: A really positive thing came out of this NAB frustration: I decided that I needed to be way more creative and stated writing another screenplay! Hopefully this one will be filmable. Haha.
A big salute to creativity and to all who dare to step out of their comfort zone!
Jan
Great conversations guys!!! Really good stuff. A few points of clarification. The tone of this article is really about addressing an attitude. Gear obviously has its place I say that pretty clearly I love gear and tech. One thing should be clear all of these forms have their place. I clearly said that. I have made my fair share myself. My point is lets be honest about what they are, and not get all arrogant about our art. The main thing I want to address is the music video part. I never meant that music videos weren’t valid, only to say that for every botched short I have seen, there are 10x botched music videos. All of these forms have a valid place, especially early on to learn and develop style, I acknowledge and take no issue with that. I take issue with the removal of a thought process from filmmaking, and the attitude of producing something and prancing around like God’s gift to cinema. That is it. Lets lose the attitude, continue to learn and grow together, make informed, educated decisions in our work and progress.
Jan,
“I also get very annoyed by all these pieces of video that look really pretty and have nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY. They only serve the ego of the so called ‘filmmaker’.”
That sums up the point of the entire article. Perhaps you should have written it LOL.
DITTO!!! totally agree about vimeo for experimentation. If the goal is honest feedback, then its great. I just don’t like it as a platform for self-exposition. You are so right when you say being creative isn’t easy, its not easy to be honest, or be vulnerable. That is part of why I react so strongly, to people who turn out quasi-solid work and pat themselves on the back about it. There are so many great talented people out there doing so much better. For instance I just watched SSthefilm. It was shot on t2i it was amazingly well composed, and the visual language of the film underscored every beat, sure there were a few cliches along the way. All in all it was a phenomenally well done piece of story telling, because he understood story and the language of cinema.
yup! thumbs up! agreed!
love the vimeo kids with their t2i’s and their 50mm lenses with no sticks/support shooting at f/1.8 … seen it way too many times!
Great article, Kendall. I have thought the same thing many times. I have no problem with someone doing a camera test or putting together a montage piece to feature an event or location, but there is a lot more to a narrative film than that. (Bloom does admirable work, by the way, and his feature pieces he has done for the BBC are good narrative pieces, so I don’t think we are talking about him here.) It is a shame that some have lambasted you here rather than taking your advice to heart, because it was stated about as well as it could be stated. Know that at least a few of us are on the journey and aspiring to be great storytellers, camera ops, photographers, artists, electricians, managers, decision-makers, motivators, counselors, financial planners, and the dozen other jobs that are wrapped up in the title “film-maker.” I plan to repost this article on my blog as my own!
Am I the only one to find the contrast between this article and the video covering the f3 s-log footage extremely hilarious?
One post with a montage of two models walking and posing, with shallow depth of field, complete with slider shots and ariel helicopter work, hosted on vimeo, all shot with enough gear to buy my house 3 times over.
The other bemoaning montage, shallow depth of field, slider shorts hosted on vimeo, shot on a shoe string.
Young filmmakers see the test footage of the latest and greatest cameras, shot by professionals. They see that it gets 10 times the views, and all the buzz, propelling said professionals into the spotlight gaining them fans, celebrity, and lots of paying work. Then the very professionals shooting these camera porn pieces wonder why filmmakers try to emulate them and criticize their work?
Lets all take a step back and laugh at ourselves, please. This is some funny shit.
I think there is good evidence that the thrill of instant gratification that online video provides is part of the problem. I have a couple of short films on my website that took months to put together. I also have a test I shot in one day when the Panasonic GH1 first came out. The GH1 video has infinitely more views than all of my other narrative or corporate work – and to this day continues to be watched daily more than all my other films.
People have seen the way this works in the online video space and they know that you can pop out for the day, shoot some nice images, come home cut it together with some unlicensed music and by the evening start amassing a lot of interest.
As a side note this for me is why ‘camera test’ films have become such vital commodities and at the same time, are partly responsible for stunting greater artistry. For the raft of bloggers/tech reviewers out there, the greatest coup is being first out of the gate with a new camera or bit of kit. And I know this, because my little GH1 test film was one of the first out there and as result generated a lot of interest.
Why is this a commodity? You only have to look at some of the better known bloggers/reviewers to realise that the mass amount of interest generated by these test films leads to a huge boost in profile – and that ultimately leads to good paying gigs. And why not – fair play to them. But you could argue that as a result, there is a less incentive to show the camera’s weak points. Less incentive to expose any flaws. People are going to be viewing your ‘first official X camera’ film all over the world. Why would you make it look bad?
Ultimately though, I think it’s the fact that a days shooting can bring you tens of thousands of views that encourages people to do it. And nothing like the same amount of fuss is made over great narrative.
Finally a note about Baraka and Koyaanisqatsi as examples/justifications of this form. Both those films really have something to say. And not just something small, they explore huge themes. Koyaanisqatsi means life out of balance and the whole film is about mirroring nature and the world that humans have created. It’s about highlighting the imbalance between man and his environment. Every single aspect of the cinematography in that film contributes to that theme, that argument. Surely something that everyone can strive for – no matter what form they work in.
Mr. Miller,
A well said, thoughtful article that, for me, will require introspection and a re-read when I worthy of it.
Criticism can sometimes be hard to digest, but without it we are drunk on the “koolaid of complacency”. One’s work must be presented with purpose, not just thrown over the wall of some self contrived style. We all aspire to see the unseen, to talk without talking, to fill a space without filling it, to speak through the craft of film making with a subtle purpose to the point of transparency. Knowing the difference between when to use a hammer and when to use haiku is so often lost these days.
Tools are just tools, knowing how to use them is what we call “craftsmanship”. I was reminded of this early in my career where upon struggling to light a scene, I kept staring into a monitor trying to see what was wrong. The Director came over and asked what I was looking for. I said that I was checking the lighting. He then switched off the monitor and said “Son, you’ll never find you lights there.”
Evey so often, I’m asked by school kids how they can do what I do. I tell them it all about learning how to “see”.
I am still learning.
I think it’s simple what feature length film has a person made. If you have not made a feature then you are an aspiring filmmaker. This new tech just makes somethings cheaper, it still must be in the right hands and the hands must use it correctly.
What films have been shot by you Kendal? Your post here is fairly abrasive.
You took the words right out of my mouth. This has been my point for the last year or so. I am a cameraman and editor. I don’t claim to be a cinematographer. Sure I can get the super shallow DOF shots but who really cares. No one pays for “Art Montages” set to weirdo music. I say just do good work and don’t claim to be something you’re not. It lowers the bar for the rest of us trying to earn a decent living. I did that stuff in college and that was enough.
I too am sick of vimeo and youtube. I was ranting about this at my MCA-I meeting last night. I’m sure this fad of “cinematographers” will fade soon. I guess those of us who are true professionals “get it.” There will always be those who don’t.
Hey I do gear reviews sometimes at http://steveoakley.net however they aren’t the typical reviews most people do. I’m not afraid of saying when a piece of gear could do better.
To that end, gear can matter. It matters when if fails on a shoot, it matters when you can’t get the shots you want, it matters when your sound is bad, ect. However gear is just there to capture whats going on in front of it. Skilled and thoughtful operation counts, and I don’t see that very much. Even with expensive hollywood features I’ve been disapointed sometimes with what they are shooting and I’ve seen better work done on the top tier TV series sometimes like mad men, fringe, ect.
However, I do have to say not much has changed over the years. The indie film biz has always been with posers, even back in the 80′s :) but back then it was managing to raise $10K-$20K to just buy film stock and process it. today that budget would by you a decent camera setup, and enough pizza :( to feed the crew for a couple weekend shoots. not much has changed.
yes shooting scripted shorts is a great way to build skills, and you;ll learn other ones you didn’t expect like how to deal with politics on a set. thats as important a skill as knowing which way to point a lens !
I’ve been shooting since I was a kid, and I make a good living know how to point a lens, set iris, and place lights. at NAB last week some one came up to me most unexpectly when they saw something I shot for a well know company in the video biz and said ” I knew you shot that, it had your look”. wow, I’ve got a visual style now people recognize… I guess that means I need to switch it up a bit on my next shoot :)
I’ll also say when it comes to people who know how to 1. turn on a camera, 2. load the tape or card, 3. know how to hit record, they are a DP. Its been like that since the first 24P cameras came along opening up the floodgates. Prior to that, those guys didn’t get so far. For example I had a director come to me with really messed up footage he wanted me to try and save – his “DP” had loaded the film backwards ( emulsion side facing in ) on the mags resulting in very underexposed red images. beyond salvage…. so there isn’t so much new out there.
>One thing should be clear all of these forms have their place.
Kendal, I agree with you that “tests” and “DoF tests” and whatever else random videos out there, are not filmmaking art. I’ve voiced that displeasure a few years ago too, when Vimeo was full of Canon HV20 “tests”. Very annoying period of my life (I had to sort through them, since I was an admin of the 3 most popular Vimeo HV20/30/40 channels), and now it’s happening all over again with dSLRs. Agreed with you there!
What I think your article needed though was a bit more sensitivity on other kinds of filmmaking, like the ones I linked above, that *are* art, even if they don’t always have a storyline. My disagreement to your article is only on that part. Story-driven videos are great, but they’re ultimately only one side/kind. For example, when I see this, it creates all sorts of emotions for me. It’s not just “pretty” or “well-shot” with nothing to say. It speaks to me somehow.
some monoku on these themes:
This art technologically dependent must find soul
Fears are had same as here mounds of books and authors
Nothing are we all recorders of light and story
Welcome to the democracy.This happened to audio in the 80′s when companies such as Tascam,Aleisis,Fostex, came out with affordable 4-tracks and today it’s “Garage band” and all the other DAW’s.Suddenly everyone had a “CD”.Maybe not worth listening too but a “CD” none the less.Kodak did it to photography back at the turn of the 20th century with it’s preloaded box cameras.Suddenly there were hundreds of thousands people taking pictures.In each case it took a little time for the dust to settle before people began to see(or hear) that it wasn’t all worth looking at.A few more artists are uncovered but in the long run there is still a need (desire?) for professionals.
With all due respect to all the real filmmakers/storytellers out there, we haven’t been seeing much original storytelling from Hollywood films in the last 10 years or so. This article mentions that you are sick of the DOF, slider driven videos on Vimeo, well, if it weren’t for those Vimeo videos, DSLRs and the sales of them wouldn’t have taken off. I’m always sick and tired of you arrogant Hollywood filmmakers that think by using a $100,000 Sony F23 that that would qualify you as a great storyteller. All of these sequels/Remakes being done doesn’t really do the industry much justice and doesn’t warrant the respect that you are after.
Vimeo is a great website for people that either didn’t go to Film School, can’t afford this ridiculous huge budget/crew, or simply don’t want to go to Film School. This website allows them to experiment and try new things that are not being seeing from Hollywood studios, giving them more latitude and respect. At least they are creating new and innovative images. Granted, someone testing out their new Kessler slider doesn’t make them a filmmaker, but, you can’t be as arrogant to say that everything on Vimeo is bad and amateur. When I start seeing more original storylines and less sequels/remakes, I’ll agree on what you are saying here.
Cheers!
Actually in reflection this article is right about a lot of things.
Maybe I was too harsh.
A few things come across wrong but the general thrust of it is pretty much spot on.
There’s far too much empty cliched eye candy around.
But to blame it on DSLRs or Vimeo isn’t accurate…
I think what we are seeing is actually more a business community than a filmmaker’s community, and that is why so much of it is so safe and afraid of saying something. NAB is a good example… Coming away from a gear / business networking trade show and expecting to be creatively inspired, well it isn’t going to happen!!
What we need is less NAB & biz and more creativity.
hey dslr’s have totally become an insane arena of toys to buy. there is no doubt that it seems every month there is a new co or two with some rails / matte box / FF / gizmo for dslr’s hoping to strike it rich, or at least well to do. Some of them are founded by well thinking people, others I think not so. some of these companies spend a lot of time marketing, and their prices are reflected in those prices. I don’t say some of them make great gear, but others it seems are simply selling the same stuff some dudes in india are selling for minus the markup.
thats why I don’t own any canon glass – I’m now a heretic for that :) but canon glass is seriously over priced compared to 3rd party stuff and all the good to great vintage glass thats out there. what the cheap dslr body did do is free up the cash to get all the extra gizmo’s because they are a requirement to have a shootable setup. there are a lot of under-geared people out there trying to get by shooting stuff and wondering why they get bad sound and less then stellar images. so there is certainly a point of having the right gear, and just buying tons of stuff because you can, or were told you need to. I don’t have any gear that doesn’t regularly work.
if you want to compare dslr’s to real cameras, they are frustrating for all the dinky plastic connectors and small controls. those big cameras handle outside in the cold with gloves on way better then dslr’s, trust me I’ve done both !
I do sometimes find NAB to be inspiring for creative incluence once I learned to ignore most of the hype and ask if something can really get me better results, more consistent results, more reliable results, or open up new opportunities to make more money, or to do so faster. if not, I’m probably not interested. even if I am, I’ve done this show enough times to know better and not get caught up in gear lust.
Kendal,
this personal blog of yours can surely be written in another perspective even though I agree with you. this is a form of an attack on individual whether you see it or not.
If you all begin to transform your site into some sort personal rant, you’ll lose that professionalism that has been developed here.
cheers!
If seen this rant before; maybe not as well written, but it’s familiar. Substitute “filmmaker” with “photographer” and I’ve read it more than a dozen times before.
Many, many great points had here; I learned stuff, a lot of stuff. Thank you – Now I have to look up what a “lighting plot” is.
What I think would be worth giving up is your annoyance with those who love gear, or think they’re great cinematographers because they use selective focus and shallow depth of field or simply montage pretty pictures. In other words: Don’t be a hater. So, do you feel as though your “do diligence”, study of a craft and years of hard work aren’t appreciated? Join the club, but I appreciate you even if I felt a little punished for reading your rant.
Everyone is a photographer. I’m a 30 yr. professional photographer and I had to come to grips with that notion years ago when stock photography and Flickr or Flickr-ish online sources ravaged my industry. Now it’s your turn: everyone is a filmmaker, get used to it. Relax. Enjoy. Learn. Use it to improve your story telling by seeing what isn’t working.
As for music videos. Mostly they suck, yet some are fun pieces of eye candy while very few have a clever take on a song’s story.
So, I ask then: Kendal, given the assignment to shoot a music video for Springstein’s “Born to Run” – what would you do? Talk about opportunity.
@Casey Ryan Stone
In regards to the Sony S-Log test footage being a conflict with this post, you should note a couple things. Firstly, this isn’t obvious because of how things are credited, but FreshDV’s involvement in that S-Log test was the narrative…we shot all the interviews that provided most of the narrative backbone for the BTS segment. I don’t see how that conflicts with what Kendal has written about here. Secondly, the creatives who worked on this test aren’t calling it a film. It’s a camera test. That is a VERY important distinction, and I think it supports one of Kendal’s points here, namely; a camera test is not a film, so don’t call it one.
@Jeremy Richardson
Ad Hominem attacks are not an effective way to debate. You’ll notice that Kendal has avoided that by not calling anyone out, and he speaks with criticism to his own skillset in the article above. Normally I’d ignore your personal attack, but I feel the need to defend someone I have the utmost respect for. While I don’t recall that Kendal has worked on films longer than 30-minutes or so in length, I can assure you that his approach is 100% from the perspective of story and using visual language to support the plot. Kendal Miller is one of the hardest working creatives I know, he puts endless hours into pre-production on every project. Please don’t try to disparage the reputation of someone that you know literally nothing about. Thanks.
@Trey T
While I agree that regular rants are not a constructive way to build a website, I think that our reputation here at FreshDV is one of reliable information and instruction. The occasional rant is necessary in my opinion when something has been overlooked for too long. And Kendal’s comments here are something I’ve heard many many many professionals state in private over the past few months. It’s something that needed to be said.
Thanks,
-Matt Jeppsen
(comment removed)
I’d appreciate if everyone would avoid personal attacks and simply debate things with decorum. Heated discussions are fine, personal attacks are not. Thanks.
-MJ
I just find it all very judgemental. If people are labelling their tests as films then history will be the judge, I don’t think it’s constructive to go about attacking them. I am as annoyed as Kendal is about the amount of empty posing and posturing going on at the moment and this ‘digital filmmaking’ space seems particularly prone to it more so than any other space I have ever witnessed. But again history will judge and fashions fade. If a filmmaker has nothing to offer beyond pretty pictures it soon becomes apparent and people lose interest.
It is unfair to paint everyone with the same brush just because they happen to make a music video or timelapse. What matters is the quality of the work and their judgement on what is cinematic, on what is moving and emotionally effecting, on what is original and creative.
I have seen music videos (Johnny Cash’s Hurt) and timelapses (Koyannisquatsi) that are both of these and more, so it is unfair to box genres into a corner.
I get the sense that pros are annoyed at amateurs… why? Surely they are not in the same league or even the same competition. There’s no need to get upset about amateur hour. Yes it is sad that so much work is rubbish… but it shows how incredible the skillset needed for true filmmaking is… and if you are lucky enough to have those skills why attack those who don’t?
Everytime I see a pointless timelapse or non-narrative shallow DOF and comment on how boring, lazy and cliché it is, I get the most violent, self-indulgent, defensive response. The word “art” is thrown at me by the “director” as an excuse for the crap he’s made.
It’s even happened on this site after my “negative” comment on the awful “Soccer Girl” short.
Emulating Bloom may do it for some, if they like his work, but I try to remember what the difference is between “eye candy” and “film” (as in “story”) when I watch a video. The problem seems to be that some of these aspiring “directors” try to pass beauty shots as story.
Anyway, I love your site. Loved the great NAB coverage and love thought provoking articles, even when they are a bit flawed.
Keep it up !
In my opinion, what we are seeing is a result of what has been sold out there for the last of couple of years, when someone realized the money making machine a film school and film programs can be. just to put an example in the first pages of a famous book, that i guess all of us have in our book shelves, it encourages us to go out there, make yourself a business card that says that you are a filmmaker, and by the way im not attacking the author, as matter of fact i own the book and all his films, but that attitude entitles a lot of people out there to do what we are seeing in this sites. same thing with film schools you come out of them, not really knowing how to be a filmmaker, I attended one and when i worked for the first time on a real set i was blown away by the amount of stuff we didnt learn, and it was a humble experience, anyways thats just my two cents on the whole conversation, like someone mentioned the good stuff will surface, while the crap will stay in the bottom, but lets not pass judgment and call names, instead lets work ward to get where we want to go and realize that even the pros were novices once, full of immaturity, energy and desire to be known and acknowledge.
cheers!
It has always been my experience that the most talented, experienced and accomplished artists – musicians, painters, photographers, filmmakers – are always, with very few exceptions, the most gracious and generous with their time, knowledge and tolerance.
So. What’s happening here?
And this kind of arrogant, snobbish, self worshiping article is what i am sick of.
I don’t just love making movies, I love watching them too. I watch and enjoy just about everything at some level or another.
Making movies takes grit, serious grit. It’s hard work on every level.
Critics are merciless, distributors are sharks and you have more chance winning the lotto than hitting a home run with your project.
I have immense respect for anyone who has the guts to face the storm and climb this mountain – be it via short form or long form.
This article shows the tantrum boss wannabe mindset of an era dominated by fools who think they have the monopoly on creative interpretation.
Leave the kids alone, let them shoot, let them learn, let them force the rest of us to work harder on our story telling.
The only way to learn is to fail. Just who the hell do you (lot) think you are to tell aspiring film makers that they do not have the right to proudly pursue their dreams?
I have made two full length features (not under this name) – They both sucked but guess what, I made them – they are films, Thus I am a film maker. But guess what, I was a film maker before I even picked up a pencil to write a synopsis. I was a film maker the day I walked out of Conan the Destroyer (fist movie I ever watched). I may only have made my first movie 20 years later, but in my heart and mind I was always a film maker.
None of us need your permission and we sure as hell do not need this kind of discouragement for the new wave of film makers from a website like this.
/rant over.
“I’m fed up with Vimeo, shallow DOF, slider driven. montage sequences with credits on them masquerading as films. I’m sick of lazy, careless, pre-production, masquerading as cinema verite or so called art films.”
You just described every project ever posted by Philip Bloom.
Actually your blog brings up something really important.
All the people who spend large quantities of time promoting themselves online as a “cinematographer”, “DP” or “filmmaker” are not really those things either.
There are plenty of people who tout their bull$h!t awards like the Tellys and AVA. These are not real competitions and are PAID for by the person submitting the application for judgement.
It’s the next step from buying a camera and calling yourself a pro, or buying FCP and calling yourself an editor. They are buying the “award” which makes them a AWARD-WINNING-anything.
Kendall you are describing, amatuers and wannabes. Real professionals are usually too busy working to even be on-line, this fact seems to have escaped most people who follow posers who post in low level forums and read about what kind of crappy plastic thing that Red Rock Micro came out with this week.
Andrew Reid is right. The internet has a place for everyone, it’s the arrogant posturing of fools you have a problem with, well the best thing you can do is stop promoting these people and the companies that service them. But then where would all the websites and forums get the money to stay in business?
@Matthew Jeppsen
Don’t get me wrong, I have complete respect for the work you guys do on here and frankly I consider you guys to go to for info on NAB. I honestly only really come to your website during NAB, not meant ad a knock but as a compliment you guys really do great work with that regards.
However, you are some what wrong on the end of me knowing Kendall well enough to make comment. To add to this, Kendall is hiding behind big named people which he talks about in his post and references and highly doubt any of them would want to be associated with this post. When you make and optioned post you really shouldn’t bring in other people unless its up lifting. This is a scared post and standing the shoulders of giants to make it, and miss represent their statements to put down other people.
Btw mad respect Matthew of all the reviews I have seen been given and how products get handled you handle it by far the best of anyone I have seen online lifting peoples products up and keeping a positive outlook.
To reference Kendall from this year he frankly many times showed facial expression of dislike or confusion as if he is judging the person and product while talking to them. It mostly came off negative.
Matthew you should be doing more of if not all the reviews and interviews at NAB you do a far better job and I believe are a stronger repsestivtaive of what “Freshdv” and its sponsors stand for.
Thats my thoughts I could be wrong, either way keep up the NAB coverage it’s good stuff.
-Richie
Nice Job, Well Stated. I totally agree 100%
Kendal, I enjoyed reading your post; many of your points seem lifted straight from my mind. The irony hasn’t escaped me that the most prominent/vocal posters/bloggers tend to have among the thinnest reels in the community. I do have to wonder why you, an ostensibly working DP (going by your website), would seem to imply that you, unlike Roger Deakins, don’t understand the true art of cinematography and the visual language of the screen, nor the art of a specific lens choice, nor how to utilize camera blocking to support the story. Is that really what separates you from someone at the level of Roger Deakins? If true, that’s a shocking admission, and I hope it doesn’t hurt your employability. It seems you’re too in awe of the famous DPs you admire and too dismissive of most everybody else. I’m sure you know that even the elite DPs have many stinkers in their filmography, and it almost always correlates with the caliber of director they worked with; it’s no coincidence that nearly all the top DP’s best-regarded works are films helmed by top directors with a keen visual sense. Moreover, I think your post has this elitism about it that implies that unless you’re one of the dozen most famous cinematographers, you’re not really a true filmmaker and should just shut up and take what’s given to you. The fact is Roger Deakins wouldn’t have discovered the advantages of frame mode on the GL1, Janusz Kami?ski wouldn’t have leaned on Panasonic to come out with the 24p DVX100, and John Toll wouldn’t have taken advantage of Nikon D90′s video mode and posted his findings on Vimeo. Remember, it’s the online community of independent filmmakers of every stripe who have rallied, lobbied for and “discovered” nearly every technological and aesthetic advancement we all enjoy today, and not so much the elite DP’s who usually can’t be bothered with the riffraff, and who frequently have a very complacent attitude towards advancements in camera technology.
Lastly, while the incessant camera tests more often demonstrate the strengths and weakness of the camera operator(s) than the camera itself, they also exist simply as art; visual eye candy that the community can appreciate on both a practical and an aesthetic level. Just as a single well-taken still photograph can tell a complete and compelling story, so too needn’t there be a three act arc in order for a video have legitimate artistic merit.
Very nicely put. Im a stumbler and most certainly a fumbler, amateur. I just bought my first DSLR and know that the journey hasnt even begun. But in research for what will work as an amateur you see these people who have done some pro work fight about minor lens specifications and argue true hd picture from either this or that. Technicians fighting has always seemed sad to me. Numbers can tell you something but not everything and the superiority complex needs to stop. I may not add anything to the art I wish to be so deeply part of but I like many people are deferred by the insane things some of these so called “professionals” spout about the technical side and statistical side of this art/business/reason for breathing. Refraining from calling yourself filmmaker is usually a safe bet these days. Saying it almost automatically warrants someone to ask “Can I see any of your stuff on youtube?” which wouldnt be so bad until you find out what they watch on youtube and what they feel is good work.
What I would argue is that every generation has a pulp sector. As you are sick of the “vidiots” that pollute the idea of this craft, there have been many that have felt the same before you. I mean you could literally go into an old video store (if one exists near you) and find aisles upon aisles of what literally be considered “crap”, the same exists today on the internet.
Although I do agree with much of what has been stated in this article, especially the part about placing much too high of importance on what camera a project was shot with. However, before the current state of technology only a narrow demographic of individuals could enjoy mass exposure of their work. Today, folks like myself who prefer the three stage approach, (pre, principle, and post), have access to vast markets of viewers. Unfortunately there are those that believe just cause mom, and dad got junior a hdslr for christmas. now he’s going out to make a movie is complete ludicrous!
Cinematography is about manipulating the range of highlights to darks enough to allow whatever format or camera being used to see all of the details between these two factors. Judging one’s abilities as a cinematographer starts there!
well then you would be surprised at how technically illiterate some DP’s are. As shocking as that might sound, they rely on an operator to shoot, 1st / 2nd AC’s to handle the camera, DIT to adjust camera and display images, ect.. They are far more the visual director then hands on “gimme the camera I’m shooting this” types. Then again, there are directors who will operate, and I’m glad I’ve only worked on a shoot like that ONCE and never again.
I’m not saying thats bad, but it never ceases to amaze me that on some large productions, the crew knows way more then the people in charge who are supposed to of worked their way up the ranks from the same positions. the problem is getting type cast into positions happens. I know career AC’s. Unless the operator doesn’t show up to a shoot one day, they’ll always AC. sure they shoot their own small projects, but on the big ones, thats their job.
what separates the pros is that no matter how hard, difficult, messed up the day is going, they still come back with great shots. its about reliability and repeatability under pressure that says you’re a pro or not.
anyone can shoot and shoot and shoot messing around on the weekends and get something, but a pro knows they may only get ONE chance at one shot, and the make it happen.
This article while while a bit long in the tooth, speaks to the heart of the matter. As a designer and art director, I remember the same type discussion about a year after the Mac Plus was introduced back in 1986-87. Typesetters became instant graphic designers, and so on. Folks in the biz with hard earned art degrees became threatened.
Things soon died down as will be the case here… content will always rule the day.
How it got done won’t and shouldn’t be relevant.
A good discussion thread.
Now get back to work!
Elevate.
Kendal, this is an outstanding read and I wholeheartedly agree. I have ranted on the same topic, but you have presented a much more eloquent and pun-filled assessment of the dslr amature hour. I think the last point you didn’t quite reach is that some of these slider montage posers have made profits selling dvds and courses only to train a whole new generation how to produce the same, if not more mediocre products—all calling themselves filmmakers. They are neither shooting on film nor makers of anything. They are copying this preset slider montage shallow DOF style over and over again.
We all need this wakeup call. Thank you.
Amen. I’m a young aspiring filmmaker who feel there is so much good looking vimeo nonsense flooding our brain everyday. There’s a time and place for that too but at the moment everyone is so obsessed making slick looking stuff, that no one even tries to tell a compelling story. I hope we’re moving away from that.
This article makes me want push myself even harder for the next film I’m planning.
I hope everyone should be a bit more critical to themselves before they hit the \upload\ button.
Thank you for this read.
Wow…someone needs a hug.
What’s wrong with beautiful montages put together with music and titles? Many of these Vimeo folks don’t claim to be film makers.
Is it so wrong for people with a creative instinct to use the new digital tools at their disposal; tools that were out of their budget range just 5 years ago? They’re playing. They’re having fun. They’re doing more than setting up the screen with their super 8 projector and boring us with jittery, silent, fading images of their Hawaii vacation like our grandparents did.
The new video tools allow people to stretch themselves and do things they didn’t have the opportunity to do previously. It’s the new scrap-booking. The new home movies.
There will always be a niche for \film makers\ to breakdown shots, brain trust with gaffers and lighting and consult on scripts. But that doesn’t have to be a bar that everyone has to reach for in order to meet your (or the ASC manuals) definition of film making.
Relax and get over yourself.
Are you sure about all this? Philip Bloom and Vincent Laforet told me that if I reduced the contrast all the way down to zero and bought the junk they sell on their respective websites I could be considered a filmmaker.
Sincerely:
Mr. Suckerborn Everyminute
What’s up everyone’s butt regarding Bloom? Lens envy?
You’ve taken the thoughts out of my head and the words out of my mouth.
I should add that, ten years ago, as a freshman at Columbia College Chicago studying cinematography, I was wide eyed and ready to get my hands on all the great film making gear I’d lusted over (and couldn’t afford) for years in the back of DV and Videomaker magazines. Imagine my surprise (and disappointment) when the first two classes I took had nothing to do with this, but instead, focused entirely on the parts of telling a story! “What a rip off!!”, I thought to myself. “I want to be out learning about HMI’s or loading a Bolex or something!”
My interests started to steer me toward lighting design, so I transferred over to the theater department to finish off my studies. Even there, though, I had professors telling me that flash-and-trash concert lighting was mindless and the real art and skill was to be found with simplistic approaches that served to further the narrative and story FIRST. “Arrrgh! These guys don’t know the real deal!”, I thought.
It took me just under ten years to realize something quite profound: All those professors I doubted were right. The camera gear didn’t matter. That flash-and-trash concert lighting gets played out. Your sliding dolly gizmos are pointless at the end of the day without a story to tell, and your new HD DSLR can’t write that story for you.
Still, I’m glad I signed up for this lifelong journey.
It seems that your worried that some 15year old from god knows where will make something amazing!!! The status quo is dead, a bunch of elite white males making movies for the crappy oscars will be over soon. Soon we will see the real world’s story. People all over the world will build their self-esteem because they will see positive and glamourous images and stories about themselves not just Americas superstars . I’m excited you should be too!!!
I just thru up @ that one. I’ve hear that line of vomit so many times…. I just keep wanting to see ONE project that approaches even 1/2 the dream being sold here. just one.
thats the dream they sell to sell YOU to buy their wares. Just keeping buying it, I mean their stuff hook line and sinker.
I agree, a dslr does not make a film maker. I feel sorry for the tens of thousands of film students that crank out of the private and state schools each year because of the misconception that you can pick up a camera and be J.J. Abrams. Worse these youngins prostitute the marketplace with free projects. I have thus coined the term \cinematic masturbation\, self gratifying oneself by making senseless, unwarranted work and calling it film or video.
Thomas Piper’s post reminds me of Francis Coppola’s quote: “To me the great hope is that now these little 8mm video recorders and stuff have come out, some people who normally wouldn’t make movies are going to be making them, and suddenly, one day, some little fat girl in Ohio is going to be the new Mozart and make a beautiful film with her little father’s camera…corder — and for once the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed. Forever. And it will really become an art form.”
You’ll find that the most talented filmmakers tend to be the least concerned with technology; their interest lies more in story content. You’ll also find that the most talented DPs tend to be the most humble and encouraging. I myself am put off by the tone of elitism many have expressed here without much to back it up, but that’s just me. If you string at least two images together, you’ve made a film, therefore you’re a filmmaker, and no one can take that from you. Whether you’re a respected one or a famous one is quite another story. On photography blogs, are newcomers and hobbyists blasted for having the audacity to post their photos on Flickr and Tumblr? If someone’s enjoying what they’re doing, who the hell cares if it’s repetitive, derivative and imitative? Cribbing the masters is a starting point for almost every established artist in any discipline.
As long as this thread continues the level of geekdom that would make a WoW or DnD enthusiast blush, I’ll add that one of the worst-looking films of last year was “The Company Men”. It looked like it was DP’d by a student using a 1/3″ chip HD camera shooting 60i. But it was shot on film. By Roger Deakins. Just goes to show that even the mighty DPs are helpless at the hands of a hapless director.
1. It’s true. The would-be “prosumers” are a lucrative market for expensive gear that won’t make them better filmmakers/storytellers. The gear sites should come with a disclaimer about that.
2. You have to distinguish the primarily commercial filmmakers shooting ads, corporate events etc. from those aspiring to make “films”, because in the above thread the two groups (albeit overlapping groups) are talking at cross-purposes. For example, using a slider might work when selling something that just sits there. But if you are telling a story, what POV are you trying to portray with 6-inch DOF and slide-cam: a slow-moving and very myopic skateboarder whose glasses just fell off? It’s a look that usually doesn’t correspond to anything in the story being told. It already looks dated. And it’s heavy-handed because the viewer is forced to look at the one thing on screen in focus — as if an intelligent viewer, helped by thoughtful staging, couldn’t intuit where to look on the screen. And intuiting where to look might be part of the viewer’s pleasure.
3. I see lots of sites talking about gear, but WHERE are the websites that talk about cinematography? I mean, discussions of what lighting/lenses/shots/staging were brilliant or a failure in new films coming out. Any recommendations? I’d love to find such a site, but it might not be possible: working directors probably save their ideas for their films, and who would be left opinionating!
4. An interesting observation from critic David Bordwell: “Today, perhaps the most radical thing you can do in Hollywood is put your camera on a tripod, set it a fair distance from the action, and let the whole scene play out.” (He was emphasizing the staging of the action and composition of the whole field of view –and the advantages of a deep DOF.)
Mark Arellano writes :
“On photography blogs, are newcomers and hobbyists blasted for having the audacity to post their photos on Flickr and Tumblr?”
No – but these people aren’t generally claiming to be something they’re not. That’s the point of this article.
Terry, your response prompts a two part question: 1) Who’s claiming to be what?, and perhaps more to the point, 2) Who’s claiming to be what they’re not?
If you take photos, you’re a photographer. If you make music, you’re a musician. If you make films, you’re a filmmaker. It’s very straightforward, there’s really no room for nuance here. Whether or not you’re professional, proficient or prolific doesn’t change that fact that you are what you do, and no one can take that away from you, so why the rigidity?
Where is this shadowy governing body that decides who does and who doesn’t get to call themselves a filmmaker? Who runs it, who appoints the leadership, and what’s their qualification criteria? Does politics play a role? Unless I’ve been missing something all along, I don’t see a gold seal of approval on anyone’s website demarcating them as officially recognized filmmakers. Maybe I’ll start such an organization, and I’ll appoint myself judge, jury and executioner.
Mark,
You state “There’s no room for nuance” only to follow up in the next sentence with “Why the rigidity?”. You can’t have it both ways.
I can thrown some ingredients into a pan and whack on the gas. I do not call myself a chef, or even a cook. No one else would either (especially if you taste it!).
The point is about taking on labels which have a common and general perception among the public of meaning a certain thing, and not abusing that perception or taking advantage of it. That’s just bad marketing. And bad marketing erodes trust. (I know, I work in marketing).
Now, I must leave, don my $200 Nike’s and make a dash for that bus. Did I tell you I’m an athlete too?
Well jeepers, I was hoping this wouldn’t get dragged down into semantics, but here we are. Using what seems to be the prevailing logic in this thread, if my mother isn’t a good mother (she is), does that make her any less my mother? Of course not. I may choose to call her by her first name instead, but she is still my mother.
Maybe what’s really being called for in this discussion is a redefinition of filmmaker, currently defined by Miriam Webster very simply as “one who makes motion pictures”. On other words, one who sets consecutive still frames into motion. I think many of us wish this were a profession where your title coveys your training, education, experience or seniority. Like Realtor®, maybe the word filmmaker should be a title (Filmmaker®) owned by an organization that can selectively filter out the riffraff and hoi poloi–hence my motive to build such a beast.
How many of us are still shooting on film, anyway? In the strictest sense, almost none of us can be called filmmakers. I have a dusty 8mm Bolex in my shed, so I’m in the clear.
I have a suggestion of what to call makers of films whose work you neither respect nor admire: crappy filmmaker.
Well said! Need more articles like this one! Thank you for keeping me focus and reminding me to always remain a student no matter how much you knowledge you have.