The Future of the Feature: Response

It would be hard to work in the field of digital filmmaking without pondering the possibilities of shooting on film and/or on some sort of digital media. Anytime a new tool is invented for any medium, it not only changes what can be done with that medium but also changes the possibilities of working with that medium. In the early days of cinema, there were a few successful directors who built movie theaters in their homes. Their thinking was to invite friends over to watch movies in a more intimate setting. They envisioned everyone having a small theater in their home for just those purposes. Only now, with the relatively inexpensive home theater systems, very cheap media like VHS tapes and DVDs, piping in of cable and satellite TV, and on-demand systems like Netflix, is it feasible to do just that. There were many changes that happened between the two. Some of those are still in use today, some of them ultimately became bridges between technologies. The digital realm of filmmaking is getting ever closer to surpassing film in its ability to capture a lifelike image. While the current standard is 1080i or 1080p, ( representing 1080 pixels per line, interlaced or progressive ) the Red One camera has the capability of shooting on a chip that captures 64,000 pixels per line. That’s 59.25 times as much information. Of course, film doesn’t use lines so how do you compare. Simply put the digital realm is just a new tool. It is not only changing what can be done with the medium of capturing a still or moving image, but it is also opening these mediums to an abundance of new possibilities.
Jean-Luc Godard dreaming of a camera small enough to carry around in a glove compartment is the exact thing any camera operator thinks of after carrying around large, heavy camera equipment for more than a couple of hours. And who wouldn’t want the technology of an HVX, DVCPRO, Vericam, or other professional digital video cameras in a package small enough to put in your pocket. With still cameras like the Canon 7D that can shoot both still images and moving images at 1080i, that kind of technology is just around the corner. The great thing about the Canon 7D is that you have an immense amount of lenses to choose from to shoot a digital video.

The discussions of DV filmmaking in conjunction with 35mm film or 16mm film, are presented as great breakthroughs, and spectacular innovation. Artists often experiment by incorporating mediums they don’t usually use to help push their work into a new direction, or expand the scope of the ideas are already working with. It makes sense to allow yourself all the possibilities even if ultimately you only choose a few. As can be seen with the filmmakers who incorporate low grade Mini DV images, surveillance video, and HD video with their 16mm 35mm films to come up with new looks, new ideas, new ways of seeing and telling a story. These are exciting and constructive ways to work, building off of things known and combining them into new ideas.

The idea of the dogma 95 manifesto seems to have started out with that kind of an idea, but then completely falls apart. The vow of chastity, the 10 rules they were to abide by in order to make a new type of filmmaking. To get away from the Cinema of Hollywood,de- individualized art making and dismantle traditional cinematic and artistic models of authorship and control. The 10 rules are:

Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be used.

Sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa.

The camera must be handheld.

The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable.

Optical work and filters are forbidden.

The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. Must not occur.)

Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)

The genre movies are not acceptable.

The film format must be Academy 35mm.

The director must not be credited.

The very first film made in the dogma 95 manifesto format breaks rule number nine. Instead of shooting on Academy 35mm film, it shot on Mini DV. So if the dogma 95 group is going to start off by breaking their own rules, why make rules in the first place. The film was transferred to 35mm film for release, but rule number nine doesn’t say the release format must be an Academy 35mm format. This causes one to question the dogma 95 manifesto from the beginning.

This is not to say that some exciting and very well-made films came about because of the dogma 95 manifesto, but those they came up with the 10 rules seems to be quite passionate about the rules and their intent. While one applaud that sort of passion toward any work of art, it’s hard not to wonder what the thinking might have been behind breaking a rule on the first film made using the dogma 95 rules. Rule number 10, the director must not be credited, is also a rule with great intent but certainly not very practical. It is true that if no one knows who made a film it would be impossible to say the filmmaker was making it for his own glory. It would be easier for the director to say it was strictly a work of art. Of course, then he would also be saying that he made the film. In articles such as this one “the future of the future” lists the director or directors along with the films that they made. It seems that the only way to not credit the director with the film is to not have a director for a film. It would take some doing, but one would have to watch all the films made in this format to see if any of the films leave the director uncredited.

Rules number one through number four, and rules six and seven are quite attainable and easy to achieve. Rule number five has some technical variances, since optical work would have to include the lens. Rule number eight can never be achieved, because no matter what kind of film they made it would fit into a genre even if that genre with something like experimental.

Is it necessary to be limiting in order to make a work that is not like Hollywood, to create a new way of filmmaking? Why not come up with a method that is unlike Hollywood, or any other entity disliked, but leave all your possibilities available in order to achieve that goal.

Some believe there is a great difference between capturing an image on film and capturing an image on digital media. Especially in the way that it happens. In the article “the future of the future” this is stated:

Digital documentaries race issues regarding DVs essential difference from film. Whereas film stock registers an indexical connection to the world through the impact of light striking, and altering, emotion, thereby forming a physical and ontological connection to the world. DVDs transformation of light into digital information severs that Connection.

Both of these cameras are capturing an image given off by reflected light. Is there really a connection to the world because the light is changing the emulsion on film? If so, why isn’t there a connection to a CCD chip? The light is changing the impulses given off by the chip. Both of these tools do the same thing in different ways and it’s ridiculous to think that these are anything more than different tools for achieving the same goal. Granted these end goals look different, but there are a lot of variables in film and in video that allow different looks in the same medium. Different types of film stock, different methods of development, different sizes of film, will generate different looks within the same medium. HD video looks different than Mini DV and both of those look different than VHS. The difference is not what tool you decide to use, the difference is what will you do with that tool. What kind of vision do you have for your project? What falls within the means of your budget? Almost everyone has their preference of which one they like better. But the fact remains either of these tools can be used to achieve one’s goal. The dogma 95 manifesto group realize this when making their first film. It’s why they chose to shoot on a Mini DV and later transferred to 35mm film.

While most of the article “the future of the future” seems to be a long list of movies and descriptions of why they fit the idea of the article, they are used in a very compelling manner, and seem to support the ideas talked about very well. However, there is at least one movie that is presented as a first-time attempt at its form of production. That movie is Tape (2001), it was a movie that was shot in one room and was tempted to be shot in one take.However in 1991 a movie called La Tarea, a film from Mexico, did just that. La Tarea means the homework. In this film, a woman preparing her term project for cinema school hides a video camera under a table and attempts to seduce a former boyfriend and she’s invited around for the evening. The cameras hidden under a table so for a lot of the beginning of the film we only see the actor’s feet. Much is revealed by their body language along with what they say to each other. Halfway through the film the camera is discovered, from that point in the film which we are seeing through the camera hidden for this woman’s cinema school project takes on a whole new realm. It becomes harder and harder to tell the difference between her term project and what’s really happening.

One other thing in the article seems ridiculous. Since film maker peer Greenway talks about the four tyrannies. These are text, the actor, the camera and the frame. Without actually meeting Greenway and interviewing him, it’s hard to understand exactly what he was thinking. However, from the limitations of the article it sounds like these things are limiting what he wants to do with film. They get in his way, so label them and give them excuses. Now everything was fine because there’s a reason why. It sounds more like a way to get around working with these things directly. Although the article states ways that he avoids these tyrannies, he is still using these tyrannies which means he is not actually avoiding them.

Overall this article was quite intriguing, and brought many ideas and contradictions. It’s exciting to think of what kinds of tools await us in the near future that will change what we do now and open up multitudes of possibilities for future work.