Written and Directed by Christopher Kenneally.
SYNOPSIS:
A documentary exploring the history, process and workflow of photochemical filmmaking and the digital revolution.
Side by Side is a must for anyone with an interest in the history of movies and the process of making them regardless of your background knowledge of the subject. I have a good understanding of the history of cinema and the (literal) film making process and the rise of digital camera within the Hollywood mainstream, and there was still plenty for me to take away from this. It is highly recommended.
The documentary could, and probably will, be used in film schools thanks to the educational sections on how a film camera works, how film is developed and the progress of digital from its early SD days through to today’s 4K camera and the revolutionary RED cameras. Combined with this element are interviews with host/narrator Keanu Reeves and a who’s who of cinema, ranging from James Cameron and George Lucas to recent film school graduates.
The documentary doesn’t take sides on film verses digital because ultimately it’s either fact or opinion. Examples: Fact - digital does not have the dynamic range (being the range between dark and light) that films does. Opinion - film looks ‘better’ than digital. However, what really struck me was the reasoning behind some filmmakers' preference of digital over film camera.
Take David Fincher, a film maker I admire greatly. He obsesses over the ability a digital camera gives to playback footage instantly, without the need to wait 24 hours to review film dailies (the footage filmed the day before which has now been developed). If the scene isn’t right or something is wrong, then you know there and then and correct it. Yet I ask this question; he never had that privilege in 1995 when he made his greatest film to date, the modern masterpiece Se7en, so was it such a problem before the technology was around? Moreover, why are his experience on digital some of his weakest films?
James Cameron gushes over the ‘virtual lenses’ he used for the majority of Avatar, a film which has, for better or worse (well, worse), changed the landscape of film making forever and the ways in which studios want their blockbusters to look. So why is Avatar infinitely inferior to the movies he shot on film, even with all the CGI and state of the art technology they encompassed, like Terminator 2 and Aliens? Furthermore, Cameron delivers a comment which, when played over footage of Avatar, was a truly laugh-out-loud moment:
“We never shot in a real jungle, we had to create a jungle.”
Really, James? Next you’ll be telling us those blue aliens weren’t actually real.
It amazes me when I hear some of the filmmakers like Steven Soderbergh saying that loading a flash card into a camera in 15 seconds rather than lugging film reels around made Che a “better movie”. Better how, he never says. Moreover, his love of digital film making has seen him churn out second rate crap like Haywire and The Girlfriend Experience which I doubt he’d ever have made on film. And where is David Lynch’s evidence for never wanting to go back to film? It’s certainly not in the short films he makes for his website. Will he ever touch the brilliance of Blue Velvet or Wild at Heart again on digital?
My opinion from watching Side by Side is that these great filmmakers are now manufacturing their movies within an inch of the film’s life, as is shown in the section where we see the advancements in colour timing. So much attention is put on post-production fixing that the visuals are now unrecognisable to what was actually filmed. It begs the question why even film a real tree any more if the tree’s real leaves aren’t the right colour. That’s not to say colour correction is a new thing (of course it’s not), but the shift in focus from what was captured to what will be shown is getting greater all the time. These pro-digital directors only seem to praise the ease in the beginning to end process, but not the actual quality of the product it produces.
The quality of a movie still remains in the talent of the filmmaker, regardless of the format. A movie can be shot on film and be total garbage like A Good Day to Die Hard or a film can be shot digitally and look exemplary like Skyfall. The reasons why these two recent big-budget films are poles apart isn’t to do with the camera they used, but in the quality of writing, directing, and storytelling.
There is no substitute for talent either on celluloid or on digital.
Flickering Myth Rating - Film: ★ ★ ★ ★ / Movie: N/A
Rohan Morbey - follow me on Twitter.
Rohan Morbey you come across like a smug idiot in this - not in your assessment of side by side, but your judgement in what filmmakers' films are "superior" vs "inferior." Truly -- this is the worst kind of critical assessment in which hoist your opinion up above the filmmakers' films.
ReplyDeleteFirst off - these guys aren't making movies for the likes of you; they make movies like Haywire or Benjamin Button or hell - even Machete because it's a movie they want to see. All of these guys like to be working on-set, are very comfortable working on set and digital allows them to run their sets the way they want to and tell the stories they want to tell.
Second, not sure how much you know about filmmaking if you knew the complexity of Benjamin Button you'd realize that story - despite the giant budget it had - would've cost a good 20% more were it shot on film. From a filmmaking standpoint, you really couldn't have shot that movie on film and justified it getting made, something many talented filmmakers realized over the decades of that movie's development.
Lastly, what bugs me most about this article is my perception that YOUR tastes are superior their skills as filmmakers and storytellers. It is fucking hard to make a good movie and tell a story well. Any director will tell you that. Moreover, these guys like to WORK. I don't think for a second any filmmaker worth their salt would tell you they are an expert at filmmaking - I think they'd tell you they are qualified, but anyone familiar with the various trenches of filmmaking knows you are constantly negotiating at every single level and phase. They make their movies and tell their stories knowing every time at bat isn't a home run. But then there's people like you who take these filmmakers and their films and crap over them as if your shit smells better than their story --- even your blog, the way you stamp REVIEW over the face of every film you so graciously bless with your critical prose -- it's incredibly arrogant.
I read enough from your site to only have one question for you -- do you really love movies? Or do love to hate them??? I don't care either way. I do occasionally read flickeringmyth though because they have interesting takes on filmgoing. I only hope that they chose better writers who offer more informed criticisms and opinions. The editors would be well served by disposing of this wanna-be Anton Ego.
I completely agree with you Rob.
ReplyDeleteEven costing 20% less being done digitally, Benjamin Button was soulless technical exercise. And i think what i got out of this piece is that no matter how much more convenient digital filmmaking is, it has done little to improve the quality of the work being put out there. And of course, no one should expect every film to be perfect. There are hits and misses But i have to agree with the assertion that the convenience of digital filmmaking hasn't led to better movies. Convenience rarely produces genius. Genius comes from pressure... from friction. From having to find creative solutions to problems you just can't throw money at. That's why most filmmakers make their most inspired work early in their career when they have limited options. They have to use their brain and their talent to create something unique because they dont yet have access to a basement full of computer imaging specialists and a blank check to write. What's great about Side by Side is that we see so many creators who started on film and have transitioned to digital. In fifty years, there will barely be a director sitting behind the monitor that ever shot a single frame of film.
ReplyDeleteAnd Rob, the comment 'they don't make films for you' is rubbish. I understand they are making films 'they want to see', but a filmmaker who doesnt consider an audience is rarely a filmmaker of any relevance. Though, to your point, i could see that logic being applied to Benjamin Button, because holy shit did that movie stink to high heaven. Maybe Fincher wanted to see that movie, but i sure as hell didn't.
Fincher's Benjamin Button was a visual treat at points. He couldn't have achieved that with film, and even if he had tried it would have failed. And Zodiac was digital and that is, in my opinion, a better film that Seven.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I checked out your "reviews" Rohan and one thing immediately sprang to mind after reading this piece and others - you loved the tripe that was Oblivion which was so digital in its make-up it seemed completely artificial. What you argued here goes against your beloved opinion of that shite Cruise-trash. So the point that cinema "isn’t to do with the camera they used, but in the quality of writing, directing, and storytelling" is BS in relation to Oblivion in that its only element of quality was the digital imagery and none of the writing and storytelling (direction mediocre at best).
Spot on, Rob. I found this review one of the most self-involved pieces of criticism I've ever read.
ReplyDeleteI would also implore the editor to think twice about Rohan's position on the site as from reading his other stuff all he's able to do is provoke (and never for the right reasons). I'm sure it's good for site visits and debate but his words don't reflect well on an-otherwise spot-on set of reviews for the site.
I actually had a bit to say about the film but considering this is a long enough comment as it is I'll leave it here and reiterate my reluctance to read any more of Rohan's posts in the future.